Keir Starmer is facing serious questions about his political judgement after he was forced to sack his US ambassador, Peter Mandelson, over newly revealed emails to Jeffrey Epstein. The prime minister withdrew support for Lord Mandelson after emails from 2008 emerged in which Mandelson suggested Epstein's sentence for soliciting a child for prostitution should be challenged.
The scandal comes at a disastrous time for Starmer, just before Donald Trump's state visit to the UK next week, and after his deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, was forced to resign last week over her tax affairs. While No 10 hoped the sacking would show decisive action, Starmer quickly became the focus of criticism for appointing Mandelson despite warnings about his past and for defending him until Wednesday.
Labour MPs are furious, with some blaming the influence of Starmer's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who is politically close to Mandelson. One MP described a 'boys' club sticking up for their own'. A No 10 insider said McSweeney had formed the view Mandelson should go by Wednesday lunchtime, but Starmer and other aides did not make the final call until Thursday morning.
Downing Street described the emails as 'reprehensible' and insisted it was not responsible for vetting Mandelson. Announcing the sacking, a Foreign Office spokesperson said the new information showed 'the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment'. Mandelson had suggested Epstein's conviction was wrongful.
Opposition leaders called for a full release of documents and a review of vetting procedures. Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, demanded Starmer come to parliament to explain himself. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said Starmer 'dithered when he needed to be decisive', while the SNP's Westminster leader said his 'judgment, his reputation and his authority are now on the line'.
