On Wednesday Keir Starmer was once again confronted with difficult questions about his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, despite his ties to the notorious paedophile
Even war in the Middle East can’t silence the drumbeat of anger around Jeffrey Epstein and his web of influence.
On Wednesday Keir Starmer was once again confronted with difficult questions about his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, despite his ties to the notorious paedophile.
This fateful mistake has cast a cloud over the Prime Minister, whose leadership was left teetering on the very brink last month. The first batch of Mandelson files contains no dramatic revelations – bar the extraordinary demands by Lord Mandelson for a £500,000 payout from the taxpayer.
Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.
READ MORE: Peter Mandelson files eight revelations – from astonishing request to Farage riskREAD MORE: Keir Starmer blasts Kemi Badenoch for ‘mother of all U-turns’ over Middle East conflict
But it offers no exoneration for Mr Starmer either. The 147-page dossier lays out in black and white how the Prime Minister was warned about Lord Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein. A due diligence report by the Cabinet Office explicitly mentions claims that Lord Mandelson remained friends with Epstein after his conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. It also notes reports that Lord Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse while he was in jail.
There is private frustration in Downing Street that Scotland Yard has blocked the release of a crucial exchange between Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s then-chief of staff, and Lord Mandelson. No10 insiders believe the questions posed by Mr McSweeney will demonstrate that Lord Mandelson lied outright. The peer is said to believe he answered accurately.
All involved believe the police probe must be allowed to proceed, but there is some frustration that this exchange has been held back. Yesterday’s document dump is only the tip of the iceberg of the vast tranche of documents, WhatsApps and emails relating to the appointment the Government has been compelled to publish by Parliament.
What comes next could be more explosive, including Lord Mandelson’s communications with top ministers and officials. Diplomats are concerned about the risk of stray comments offending Donald Trump or other world leaders, even after the files have passed through vetting by Parliament’s intelligence watchdog.
But the central questions remain – what did Mr Starmer know and when? It may be true that he didn’t know the full extent of their friendship, and Lord Mandelson may have lied to him.
But even if Mr Starmer never read newspaper reports about Mandelson and Epstein, officials spelled out to him that there were serious risks and he appointed him anyway. Perhaps he weighed these risks against the benefits of Mandelson’s undoubted political skills, which were deployed successfully with Mr Trump.
Perhaps he was badly advised by Mr McSweeney, who quit last month over the row. Time will tell whether these files clear the PM or not. But the buck will stop with him in the end.