Mandelson exit leaves Starmer in jeopardy

Furious Labour MPs have condemned Starmer’s political judgement after the sacking of Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the US plunged his leadership into crisis

Starmer was forced to sack the Labour peer just seven months after he took up his post in Washington over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

It has prompted some to question whether the Prime Minister has the political acumen to last a full term in office.

The high-profile resignation of Angela Rayner last week and the sacking of Mandelson – both considered avoidable scandals – have completely overshadowed the Prime Minister’s reset as Parliament returned after the summer recess.

Only days ago he was trying to push the narrative that Labour was entering the second ‘delivery’ phase of its government.

MPs and senior members of the Labour movement were blaming Starmer and what they see as a Blairite faction inside No10 for ignoring repeated warnings over Mandelson’s links to Epstein and the potential political damage it could cause.

Particular anger was directed at Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s all-powerful chief of staff, who is believed to have been instrumental in appointing Mandelson to run the Washington DC embassy.

In a startling shot across the bows, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham’s new Mainstream movement said the Mandelson controversy showed the Prime Minister was running a “narrow and brittle political project”.

“Peter Mandelson’s inevitable sacking is what happens when you put your party factions’ interest before your party and before the country,” Luke Hurst, Mainstream’s national coordinator, said.

A Labour MP agreed, adding: “I think it means he needs better advisors and he needs to then listen to that advice.”

A series of missteps

The Mandelson debacle comes after a series of missteps for Starmer, who repeatedly backed his deputy Angela Rayner only for her to resign over her tax affairs, prompting an emergency Cabinet reshuffle.

It has prompted loyalist MPs from the new 2024 intake to raise doubts over the Prime Minister’s future, with one MP telling The i Paper: “Even some of the sensible ’24-ers are saying it’s curtains for Keir.”

Another senior Labour MP said the mood among the backbenches was “as low as I’ve ever seen it” in the wake of the Mandelson sacking.

“It’s another example of his political judgment being shown wanting. It’s just incredibly frustrating. Every day it’s another thing,” the MP added.

Questions over Starmer’s judgement were first raised in October 2024 when his high-profile chief of staff Sue Gray quit, followed a month later by then Transport Secretary Lousie Haigh after a historic fraud conviction came to light.

A senior party insider added: “This outcome was inevitable and foreseeable. The fact that Keir Starmer didn’t know this when he appointed Lord Mandelson is troubling.

“It isn’t just that he took longer than he should have to sack Mandelson but, more importantly, why did he appoint him in the first place when everyone knew it would end like this.

“That’s the question that will cause Keir Starmer the biggest problem.”

Sacked business minister Justin Madders said Mandelson’s removal was “the best sacking of the week by some distance”.

Questions over what Starmer knew and when

The Prime Minister is also now facing questions as to what he knew about the former UK ambassador when he publicly backed him less than 24 hours before he removed from post.

Starmer and his Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper took the decision to fire the Labour peer after fresh emails emerged that showed Mandelson had urged Epstein to “fight for early release” shortly before he was sentenced to 18 months in prison, adding: “I think the world of you”.

The emails were dated the day before he began his sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor in June 2008.

Starmer is understood to have reviewed the correspondence on Wednesday evening, called a meeting with Cooper at 10am on Thursday, and the decision was announced less than 40 minutes later.

Downing Street said the emails 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”.

Diplomatic headache

No 10 would not say whether Lord Mandelson had misled the vetting process for his appointment as US ambassador, but it is understood that the Labour peer did not divulge the information contained in the emails that emerged this week.

The timing of his sacking causes a diplomatic headache ahead of Donald Trump’s state visit next week, with the US president facing questions over his own ties with Epstein.

James Roscoe – the late Queen’s former press secretary – will be the interim ambassador to the US and has taken over with immediate effect.

The i Paper understands the Foreign Office repeatedly refused requests from the Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Emily Thornberry, to conduct a pre-appointment hearing with Mandelson, raising another potential failing in his vetting.

Thornberry, who dropped out of the race to be Labour’s deputy leader on Thursday, is expected to push for his successor to face a grilling before taking up the role.

In a letter to embassy staff Mandelson expressed regret about his association with Epstein.

“The circumstances surrounding the announcement today are ones which I deeply regret,” he wrote. “I continue to feel utterly awful about my association with Epstein twenty years ago and the plight of his victims.

“I have no alternative to accepting the Prime Minister’s decision and will leave a position in which I have been so incredibly honoured to serve.

“The relationship between Britain and the United States of America is a unique one. I know that you will continue to serve and deepen that relationship from DC right across our brilliant network.”