What just happened at Westminster? Does anyone else think Keir Starmer played MPs and the media like a violin this week?
On Monday, I thought at least one MP would ask the simple and obvious question. “Why did the PM appoint Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to Washington nine days after receiving a briefing that informed him that: ‘Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s house while he was in jail in 2009.’”
Surely that explosive sentence should have been enough, if not to block the appointment, at least to postpone it pending investigation.
The sentence, from a report by JP Morgan, speaks volumes. It indicates that Mandelson not only knew Epstein, but knew him well enough to stay in his house. It shows that Mandelson stayed there when the owner was in prison for soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18 – and when he was the UK Business Secretary. That suggests a close and unethical relationship. It also suggests Mandelson remained willing to take huge risks, not learning from his two previous dismissals from Cabinet.
The briefing, titled Advice to the Prime Minister, is dated 11 December 2024 and is available among the documents released by the government.
It repeated JP Morgan’s comment that Epstein had a “particularly close relationship” with Mandelson. And it contained a copy of an email from Mandelson to Tony Blair’s office in 2002 where he calls Epstein his friend and says he is “young and vibrant” … and “safe”.
Red flags waving. Alarm bells ringing. Massive issue. All ignored.
So how did Starmer dodge that smoking gun this week? First, he brushed over it. Second he found a smokescreen.
In his statement, he covered the briefing thus: “A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Mandelson’s suitability, including questions put to him by my staff in No. 10. Peter Mandelson answered those questions on 10 December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process on 11 December. I made the decision to appoint him on 18 December. The appointment was announced on 20 December.”
Hang on … So Mandelson answered questions the day before Starmer received the brief? So what did he say? The briefing is silent.
Starmer didn’t dwell on this on Monday, but back in February he said Mandelson had lied: “Before he was appointed ambassador, Mandelson was asked directly about his relationship with Epstein. He was asked whether he had stayed with Epstein after his conviction. … The information now available makes clear that the answers he gave were lies. He had portrayed Epstein as someone he barely knew.”
So the line is – yes, there were reports that Epstein and Mandelson were thick as thieves – but Mandelson denied them. So that was ok then?
Why did Starmer and Co believe Mandelson’s denials? The JP Morgan report had been covered by UK newspapers back in 2023 – including an email in which Epstein said Mandelson would be staying at his house. Mandelson did not dispute this.
Yet on Monday, did any MP mention JP Morgan? Or point out that Mandelson’s New York visit was public knowledge? No.
MPs and media fell into No 10’s trap and focused on the vetting by the Security Services. This Houdini-like ploy enabled Starmer to say that he’d been kept in the dark and sack the head of the Foreign Office, Olly Robbins. With one bound he was free.
The Guardian “broke” that story – but where did it come from? If it didn’t come from the heart of government, deliberately placed to create a smokescreen, perhaps the Guardian could confirm that, without revealing the actual source?
The vetting story didn’t even stand up on own, because while Robbins correctly refused to reveal what had spooked the spooks, he did say that it wasn’t about Epstein.
The vetting was a conjuror’s trick, a tactic of misdirection, waving things around with one hand around to conceal what the other is doing.
Starmer has attempted to deal with this by accepting that his judgement in appointing Mandelson was wrong. What tips this over into resignation territory is the scale of the misjudgement, the failure to probe allegations that if true – as they proved to be – would have stopped the appointment, and most of all, the Mandelson-like spin operation to distract attention from that colossal judgement fail. That is why Ed Davey is right to call for an investigation by the Privileges Committee to determine whether Starmer committed contempt of Parliament.
* David Vigar was Paddy Ashdown’s Press Secretary in the 1990s and is an activist in the Melksham and Devizes constituency.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Damian Collins at Hereford Military History Festival in September
The Joy of Six 1529
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Jason Connor
Mick Taylor
Chloe
theakes
Kira Collins
9 Comments
David makes some very good points. Perhaps I’m being too suspicious of devious motives here, but maybe Labour MPs aren’t quite ready yet to plunge in the dagger (there isn’t a clear successor) and for different reasons the official opposition wants Starmer still in place to drag down Labour’s prospects in the May elections. Or maybe none of them spotted the opportunity David outlines here.
I’m still not sure why the key issue isn’t that throwing someone under the bus in such a blatantly obvious way shows Starmer’s character to be unacceptable, and at the same demonstrates that he must think we are all stupid enough not to notice what he is doing. Some vox pops have already shown that the second of those is not going down well with voters.
There has been a lot of briefing about how many in the party are unity our leader. Yet on this issue he has been relentless in saying that Starmer must go by direct reference to all the material now available. He’s spot on.
The sad fact is that an apparently decent man has reached what Disraeli called ‘the top of the greasy pole’ and he’s just not up to the job. Government ought to be about making choices and standing by them, not evading responsibility and blaming someone else.
As someone on blue sky said ‘we have Starmer when we need a Prime Minister’.
All the signs are that Labour and the Tories will be the slaughtered in 2 weeks, whilst we are going to be blocked by the Greens and suffer net LOSSES ourselves.
What are the odds on Starmer, Badendoch and Sir Ed all leaving their office by mid May.
theakes claims that “All The Signs” are that We will suffer Net Losses in 2 Weeks.
All which signs ?
Mark Pack has helpfully put together the 6 Predictions made so far of The Local Election results – one of the them does indeed predict net losses, the other 5 predict Net Gains.
The General Consensus is that there is no General Consensus, lets just wait & see, its only 13 days.
@ Paul Barker “All which signs ?”
The signs in the local government by-elections this week, Paul.
Am I the only person bored of the whole Mandelson thing? I mean, it was a bad move appointing him (probably only done to keep Trump appeased). But I wish Starmer or someone would just say ‘yeah, it was stupid, sorry’. And then everyone move on to things that really matter to everyone in their daily lives.
The endless minutiae of who said what/knew what all are a big yawn outside the Westminster bubble.
@ Cassie,
You’re underestimating the significance of the Starmer, Mandelson, McSweeney triumvirate. Te scandal goes much deeper than one simple mistake, and which wasn’t at all about keeping onside with the Trump administration. They lobbied to keep our previous ambassador: Karen Pierce.
For the complete account of how these three subverted British democracy I would suggest you read Paul Holden’s excellent book “The Fraud”
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fraud-Starmer-Together-British-Democracy/dp/1682195988
Peter Martin, having looked at the synopsis of the book you recommend, it seems to devote some time to the concept that concerns over anti-semitism in the Left of Labour under Corbyn were a confected ‘moral panic’ designed to oust Corbyn, and lays this at the feet of the ‘triumvirate’ you reference.
I think its entirely possible to feel queasy about the centralised, distrustful, highhanded (Starmer) or cynical (Mandelson) approach to democracy and decision making of the Labour leadership(s) (and Corbyn wasn’t terribly inclusive of those outside his clique, was he?) whilst feeling just as (if not more so) queasy about the ‘we are the masters now’ score-settling of Corbyn’s attack dogs in Labour during his reign, and the eliding of anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, anti-Globalism and anti-Semitism in those cultures.
The Labour Right revolted against the anti-semitism not just because they saw an excuse to rid themselves of Corbyn, but because it was disgusting and repugnant.
I don’t see how Lib Dems circulating these intra-Labour smear attacks and counterattacks helps develop a coherent view of how to work with what is good in the current Labour government, and challenge what is bad and unhelpful in both the leadership and the party, whilst presenting an alternative that is democractic and has a genuine broad-based mandate, not just a wishlist and an ideology (like all the other factions in these days)
@ Matt,
We’ve had a discussion on these pages on the question of the conflation of anti-semitism with anti-Zionism. I can provide you with a link if you need one. It was this that very much confused the issue when anti-Semitism was being discussed in the Labour Party as well as a more general discussion outside of it.
Jewish people were being accused of anti-Semitism when they of course were Semites too! Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, for example, is a prominent Jewish, left-wing activist who has been repeatedly suspended and ultimately expelled from the Labour Party over allegations of anti-Semitism.
On the question of Corbyn and inclusivity, there is a strong argument that he was too accommodating. Starmer was invited into his cabinet and accepted. Most, however, such as Rachel Reeves, Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, and Shaband Mahmood resigned as soon as JC was elected leader and made it publicly clear they would not serve. Others made it privately clear.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/here-are-the-labour-mps-refusing-to-serve-in-jeremy-corbyns