British Prime Minister Keir Starmer probably wishes he had never heard the name Peter Mandelson.
Starmer is again facing questions over his future. And again, it’s do with his misguided decision to appoint a self-professed “best pal” of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to the plummiest of plum jobs in U.K. diplomacy — that of ambassador to the United States.
Two months ago when he was last imperiled over the appointment in late 2024, it was his judgment that was in question. Enough for some in his Labour Party, including its leader in Scotland, to urge him to stand down.
Now, he’s facing accusations that he misled Parliament over how Mandelson cleared the official hurdles to get the job in the first place.
If he’s found to have done so, he will be on very thin ice, not least because Starmer put integrity at the heart of his pitch to the British electorate at the July 2024 election to replace the scandal-plagued Conservatives.
“Starmer set himself up as the guy who always followed the rules, in stark contrast to, say, Boris Johnson, and he came to power effectively promising to ‘drain the swamp’,” said Tim Bale, politics professor at Queen Mary University of London.
“Because of that, the latest revelations in the unholy mess created by his ill-judged appointment of Peter Mandelson mean that many voters now see him not only as a liar but as a hypocrite — and hypocrisy is one of the worst sins that any British politician can possibly commit,” he added.
The vetting bombshell
On Thursday, The Guardian newspaper revealed that Mandelson was initially denied security clearance for the post he was eventually fired from nine months later. This is a problem for Starmer as he told Parliament that “full due process” was observed.
The government stressed that Starmer and other ministers only found out earlier this week that the Foreign Office made a different overall assessment. The fallout has already led to the resignation of the Foreign Office’s top civil servant, Olly Robbins.
Starmer is trying to fend off questions about what he did or didn’t know about the vetting process, which would have involved an assessment of Mandelson’s suitability for the role in light of questions over his finances, his relationships, including that with Epstein, and his personality.
Starmer is also facing accusations over whether he had effectively given direction to officials to sidestep concerns over the 72-year-old Mandelson.
Starmer said he is “absolutely furious” that he had been kept in the dark, calling it “staggering” and “unforgivable.” He will make a statement to Parliament on Monday.
Not Mandelson again
For all Starmer’s dire personal ratings and the anticipated heavy electoral defeats for Labour in a raft of elections in May, the frenzy around his leadership had died down. His decision to not get the U.K. directly involved in the war in Iran chimed with the public mood.
Mandelson was a high-risk appointment, given he had twice resigned from Labour governments for financial or ethical missteps around the turn of the century, and his acquaintance with Epstein, who died in prison in 2019.
The calculation seemingly made by Starmer was clear: the risk was worth it as Mandelson’s lobbying skills and previous trade expertise would help persuade the Trump administration to spare the U.K. from some of the most onerous tariffs.
That appeared to work but by September 2025, the narrative changed after the release of emails that showed that Mandelson had supported Epstein even when he was facing jail for sex offenses. Though uncomfortable, Starmer hoped his decision to fire Mandelson would settle the matter.
However, the release of millions of pages of Epstein-related documents by the U.S. Justice Department in January put an end to that. Starmer’s political judgment was questioned after emails in the so-called Epstein Files suggested that when Mandelson was a member of the Labour government, in 2009-2010, he had passed on sensitive — and potentially market-moving — government information to the disgraced financier.
Starmer has repeatedly apologized to the British public and to the victims of Epstein’s sex trafficking for believing what he has termed “Mandelson’s lies.”
British police subsequently launched a criminal probe, searched Mandelson’s two houses in London and western England. Mandelson was arrested on Feb. 23 on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He was released on bail the following morning after more than nine hours of questioning. He has denied any wrongdoing and does not face allegations of sexual misconduct.
Mandelson nightmare will go on
Starmer would have hoped that his cool head in the crisis around Iran would keep a lid on any leadership speculation, even in the event of his party’s anticipated drubbing in the May elections, Britain’s equivalent of the U.S. midterms.
That’s wishful thinking.
“This scandal is not ending,” said Kemi Badenoch, leader of the main opposition Conservative Party. “He has run out of people to sack, he has run out of places to hide, he has run out of authority. The buck stops with him. His position is untenable and he must go.”
The real focus is on what Labour lawmakers think.
On Monday, Starmer will gauge the mood, when he makes his statement. So far, few in his party have said he should go. Should anymore Labour lawmakers put their heads above the parapet following a weekend of campaigning in their local electoral patches, he may be in real trouble.
Confidence in a leader can evaporate in an instant. Just ask Boris Johnson, who was elected with a thumping majority in 2019 and resigned both as prime minister and as a lawmaker three years later, after a string of scandals.
