Green Party leader Zack Polanski has launched a scathing critique of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's decision to appoint Lord Peter Mandelson as the United Kingdom's ambassador to the United States, despite awareness of Mandelson's association with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Polanski asserted that this appointment reveals a profound failure in judgement at the highest levels of government.
Polanski Condemns 'Catastrophic' Decision-Making
Zack Polanski did not mince words when discussing the controversial appointment, stating that it demonstrates "a real lack of judgement" on the part of the Prime Minister. He emphasised that this decision raises "serious questions" about Starmer's leadership and decision-making processes, particularly in light of the sensitive nature of the Epstein case.
"There has been catastrophic decision after catastrophic decision," Mr Polanski added, suggesting a pattern of questionable judgements within the current administration. His comments highlight growing concerns about transparency and accountability in political appointments, especially when they involve individuals connected to high-profile criminal cases.
Starmer's Apology to Epstein Victims
On Thursday, 5th February 2026, Sir Keir Starmer issued a public apology to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, specifically acknowledging that he had "believed Peter Mandelson's lies" regarding the nature of his relationship with the disgraced financier. This apology came amidst mounting pressure and scrutiny over the ambassador appointment, indicating the political sensitivity surrounding the Epstein connections.
Lord Mandelson has consistently maintained his innocence regarding his relationship with Epstein, and it is important to note that inclusion in the Epstein files does not necessarily imply any wrongdoing on his part. However, the political ramifications of these associations continue to generate significant debate and concern across party lines.
Political Fallout and Questions of Judgement
The controversy surrounding Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador has sparked broader discussions about vetting processes for diplomatic positions and the ethical considerations involved in political appointments. Polanski's criticism reflects concerns that go beyond partisan politics, touching on fundamental questions about integrity and due diligence in government.
As the Green Party leader pointed out, the decision to appoint someone with known connections to a convicted sex offender—even if those connections don't imply criminal culpability—raises legitimate questions about the Prime Minister's judgement and the standards being applied to high-profile diplomatic roles. This incident may have lasting implications for how future appointments are scrutinised and approved within the UK political system.
