The first year of Keir Starmer’s Premiership may well be the last.
Ever since last December, even before Labour peer Lord Peter Mandelson was confirmed as the British Ambassador to the US, we have been reporting here on TGP of the apparent absurdity of the appointment.
We had by then learned – on the documents of the US Virgin Island’s suit against JPMorgan – the deep relationship between ‘Petey’ and the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
Add to that the fact that former Barclay’s CEO Jes Staley received a lifetime ban on working in the British banking system for his Epstein ties, and the choice of Mandelson makes absolutely no sense.
But failing Prime Minister Keir Starmer insisted, and rolled the dice.
Now, after the Mandelson scandal hit big, Starmer is insisting that he will not quit, and is blaming his team for ‘failing to brief him’ on Mandelson’s emails with Epstein.
The Telegraph reported:
“On Monday, the Prime Minister admitted that he had known about emails between Lord Mandelson and the convicted pedophile when he defended the former ambassador to the US in the Commons last week.
However, he claimed he only knew that a Foreign Office investigation was taking place and did not know – nor ask – about the contents of the messages, in which it later emerged that Lord Mandelson urged Epstein to fight for early release from jail.”
‘It was only on Wednesday early evening that I knew the contents of the Bloomberg emails’.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer explains why he defended Lord Mandelson at Prime Minister’s Questions last week, before sacking him the next day. pic.twitter.com/khzLSC8snS
— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) September 15, 2025
There are now questions over Starmer’s authority, and if Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff – knew about the emails.
“Speaking on Channel 4 on Monday night, Sir Keir appeared to blame his staff for failing to alert him to the messages before he defended Lord Mandelson at Prime Minister’s Questions.
He said: ‘In retrospect it would have been better if I had been shown the details of the material before PMQs. If you’re asking me now, days on, would it be better if more of this material had been brought expressly to my attention? Then yes, it would have been. But I’m satisfied the team were doing what they could to get the answers out of Peter Mandelson that they needed’.”
‘Had I known at the time, there’s no way I would have appointed him’.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer explained why he hired Lord Peter Mandelson in the first place, despite his links with Jeffrey Epstein and past reputation. pic.twitter.com/LYmJOOnX0B
— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) September 15, 2025
“The Prime Minister suggested he was cross with Lord Mandelson, adding: ‘I am angry. I don’t particularly think anger helps here, but I feel let down. I feel that the process was gone through and now information has come to light which had I known it at the time, I wouldn’t have appointed him. Had I known the nature and extent of the relationship, the fact that he was questioning and challenging the conviction. I’ve worked on violence against women for years, for girls, for many years. I know exactly how all this affects victims’.”
Read more:
