Keir Starmer is facing mounting questions over his political judgment after he was forced to sack Peter Mandelson just hours after defending him.
The Prime Minister finally acted to remove the disgraced peer as ambassador to the United States amid a growing Labour revolt over his links to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
The move came less than 24 hours after Sir Keir backed Lord Mandelson to the hilt – and just ten months after he brushed aside warnings that the appointment would end in disaster.
Labour MPs branded Sir Keir’s handling of the episode a ‘shambles’. And Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused the PM of ‘dithering’ over the decision for days and said there were now ‘serious questions over what Starmer knew and when’.
Lord Mandelson’s departure, following hard on the heels of Angela Rayner‘s resignation last week, caps a disastrous start to ‘Phase Two’ of the Labour government, which the PM said would be focused on ‘delivery, delivery, delivery’ after the party’s difficult first year.
And it comes just days before Donald Trump is due in the UK for a state visit.
No10 angrily denied reports that Sir Keir overruled advice from the security services warning against appointing Lord Mandelson to such a high-profile and sensitive role.
But Whitehall sources told the Mail that senior figures in the Foreign Office ‘advised against the appointment’ before it was announced in December last year.
Lord Mandelson – who once infamously declared himself ‘intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich’ – in a fluffy white dressing gown enjoying a chat with Jeffrey Epstein
Mandelson’s message in the ‘birthday book’ compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell said Epstein was ‘my best pal!’
Sir Keir Starmer pictured with Britain’s ambassador to the US Lord Mandelson in February
Downing Street has faced cross-party calls for an inquiry into the episode, including the publication of all documents surrounding Lord Mandelson’s vetting.
Fingers were also being pointed at Sir Keir’s all-powerful chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, who is said to have championed the appointment.
A Labour insider said: ‘Morgan insisted on appointing him – he’s his political hero and mentor. No one else in Cabinet wanted Mandelson – the PM doesn’t even like him – but Morgan was very insistent. This week he’s been pushing to defend him, even though everyone could see it was over.’
The Mail revealed earlier today that Mr McSweeney was personally warned against the appointment because Lord Mandelson’s links to Epstein would cause embarrassment in the United States.
One Labour MP branded the handling of the episode a ‘shambles’, adding: ‘Everyone could see Mandelson was going to have to go – you can’t have an ambassador who says he’s “best pals” with a paedophile. No one could believe the PM backed him so hard.
‘It just looks like amateur hour every day. It was the same with Angie [Rayner] last week – he backed her when he knew there was a problem and then had to get rid of her. Someone needs to get a grip – and fast.’
Another said the fiasco had ‘underlined all the questions about Keir’s judgment that were already there’.
Former Tory foreign secretary Sir James Cleverly said officials would inevitably have warned ministers they would be ‘importing significant reputational risk if they appointed Mandelson’, who had been forced to quit the Cabinet twice and was known to have continued his friendship with Epstein after the paedophile was jailed.
Lord Mandelson with Jeffrey Epstein on December 12, 2005, where he is seen trying on a belt during a visit to a boutique in the Caribbean
Mandelson and a friend enjoy a boat ride together as guests of Epstein
Sir James said: ‘Now we have no ambassador to the USA, a new foreign secretary, an imminent state visit, a damaged relationship with the White House, and humiliation for British diplomacy.’
He said there were unanswered questions about what Sir Keir and former foreign secretary David Lammy knew and when they knew it.
Sir Keir’s decision to stand by Lord Mandelson on Wednesday triggered a Labour mutiny, with even ministers refusing to defend the appointment.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting said he was ‘completely disgusted’ and pointedly said Lord Mandelson’s future was ‘a matter for the Prime Minister’.
The revolt triggered crisis talks in No 10 this morning at which Sir Keir and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper decided Lord Mandelson had to go.
It meant Mr Trump, who had forged a good relationship with Lord Mandelson, did not learn of his removal until after it happened. The decision risks aggravating the President, who is battling claims about his own links with Epstein.
Lord Mandelson, who was packing up his possessions in the ambassador’s palatial residence in Washington yesterday, said the job had been ‘the privilege of my life’.
In a letter to staff, he said: ‘The circumstances surrounding the announcement today are ones which I deeply regret. I continue to feel utterly awful about my association with Epstein 20 years ago and the plight of his victims.’
Lord Mandelson, who was appointed by Sir Keir Starmer as Britain’s Ambassador to the US, is pictured here with Donald Trump in the Oval Office in May 2025
Downing Street acknowledged that Sir Keir knew Lord Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after he was jailed in 2008 for soliciting prostitution involving a child. The Labour peer even stayed at Epstein’s home while he was in prison.
But No 10 claimed the emergence of emails on Wednesday showing Lord Mandelson was defending Epstein at the time showed the friendship in a ‘materially different’ light.
Lord Mandelson told Epstein to ‘fight for early release’. On the day before Epstein reported to jail in June 2008, Lord Mandelson said: ‘Your friends stay with you and love you’.
The PM’s spokesman yesterday called the emails ‘reprehensible’. Government sources said the new messages, uncovered in a Bloomberg investigation, had been sent from a long disused email account and had not been available to Lord Mandelson or the vetting authorities.
The Tories demanded a full inquiry. Frontbencher Alex Burghart said: ‘Keir Starmer, Morgan McSweeney and the Government have serious questions to answer.’
