Mandelson files pose huge questions for Starmer
What was Keir Starmer thinking? That’s not a rhetorical question; I really do want to know (because I cannot imagine) what the Prime Minister was thinking when he signed off the decision to send Peter Mandelson to Washington.
It was the first week of February when, during an excruciating performance in the Commons, Starmer admitted he had been aware that Mandelson had carried on his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein after the child prostitution conviction, but had been unaware as to the extent of that relationship.
Yesterday, the government released the first tranche of files relating to the ambassadorial appointment; 150 pages of notes, memos and emails that raise serious questions for the PM.
In February, Starmer hid behind the defence that all “due process” was followed. Does due process include ignoring the advice of the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, who (we now know) felt the appointment process was “unusual [and] weirdly rushed” and who raised concerns about Mandelson? Does it include disregarding the view of the top civil servant at the Foreign Office, who also expressed reservations?
Starmer was warned about Mandelson
The files released yesterday also make it clear that Starmer was explicitly warned of the “general reputational risk” surrounding Mandelson because of his known association with Epstein. A due diligence file noted how “after Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011” and that “Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s House while he was in jail in June 2009”.
Starmer would have read this file before going on to tell MPs that he was unaware of the extent of the relationship between the two men. Was it a total lack of curiosity? An inability or unwillingness to join the dots? Perhaps he wasn’t across the details and farmed the grunt work out to his staff, or perhaps he felt that, despite all the warnings, only Peter Mandelson could do the job.
As I said, I cannot imagine which of these explanations fits the bill – but there isn’t a good one.
CityAM polling last month found that just under 60 per cent of voters felt that Starmer should have resigned over his handling of the Mandelson appointment, and I have to say I find myself in complete agreement with them.