Starmer premiership in crisis after day of drama in Parliament over Mandelson’s Epstein ties

LONDON – Mr Keir Starmer is not the first Labour prime minister to be plunged into crisis by Mr Peter Mandelson
. It is not even the first time it has happened to Mr Starmer.

The difference is that members of his own party are now starting to number his days as leader.

Labour members of Parliament variously described the mood in the governing party as febrile and mutinous, requesting – like others interviewed for this article – anonymity to freely share their views. One minister said it was only the fact that Mr Starmer’s best-placed rivals have reasons to hold back from a challenge that is keeping the prime minister in his post.

The furor seemed certain to distract from Mr Starmer’s latest effort to refocus the discussion on issues more resonant with voters. The prime minister was due to give a speech about patriotism and community pride on Feb 5, while unveiling funding designed to revitalise the country’s most deprived areas.

Questions, however, will surely focus on the fallout from one of Mr Starmer’s worst days yet in Parliament.

The drama began with a parliamentary session in which Mr Starmer struggled to parry questions from Conservative opposition leader Kemi Badenoch. She asked what he knew when about the relationship between the late pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein and Mr Mandelson, the former Labour power broker who he brought back into a plum diplomatic role soon after winning election 18 months ago.

The prime minister was forced to acknowledge that the material used to vet Mr Mandelson for the post of ambassador to the US did contain details of his relationship with Epstein. A tranche of emails freshly released by the US Department of Justice showed those ties remained close even after the financier pleaded guilty to child sex-trafficking charges in 2008.

One minister who sat close to Mr Starmer said they saw his hands trembling as he addressed the House of Commons
.

Ms Badenoch zeroed-in on Mr Starmer’s powerful chief of staff, Mr Morgan McSweeney, who had advocated Mr Mandelson’s appointment as the government sought someone skilled in realpolitik to manage US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Some Labour MPs described Mr McSweeney’s position as untenable and speculated that the only reason Mr Starmer had not fired him was that he realised doing so could hasten his own downfall.

“The prime minister chose to inject Mandelson’s poison into the heart of his government on the advice of Morgan McSweeney,” Ms Badenoch said. Mr Starmer said “of course” he continued to have confidence in Mr McSweeney, whom he described an essential part of his team.

The dispute about Mr Mandelson’s vetting picked up steam when members of Mr Starmer’s own Labour Party allied with Conservatives to seek the release of papers relating to Mr Mandelson’s appointment. That was an attempt to override the broad carve-outs the prime minister had sought for documents relating to matters of national security and international relations.

With several Labour MPs standing in the Commons to say they could not back Mr Starmer, the government was forced to concede that sensitive documents would instead be reviewed by the cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee.

The scandal arrives as Mr Starmer battles record-low popularity ratings. On the horizon are May local elections in which the government is predicted to do badly against an ascendant Reform UK, which could also prove a vulnerable moment for a prime minister losing the support of his backbenchers. 

Some 95 per cent of Britons were aware of Mr Mandelson’s appearance in the Epstein files
, polling by YouGov showed on Feb 4. Almost half said they were following the story closely.

“In situations like this, change can go from unlikely to inevitable very rapidly indeed,” said Professor Rob Ford, professor of politics at the University of Manchester. 

It will come as a relief for the prime minister that Mr Wes Streeting, one of his best-placed rivals, is a close Mandelson ally. That makes it hard for him to resign in disgust over the premier’s judgment in keeping Mr Mandelson close, two senior Labour officials said.

Others who command support of broad sections of the Party – Mr Andy Burnham, Mr Ed Miliband and Ms Angela Rayner – have reasons of their own to delay. Mr Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, was recently blocked by Mr Starmer from standing for the parliamentary seat he would need to mount a challenge for the leadership post.

Ms Rayner’s tax affairs are not yet in order after she resigned as deputy prime minister over them in September. And Mr Miliband, the energy secretary, has always publicly professed his loyalty to the premier after trying and failing to win a general election himself.

Many on the left of the party have said they warned Mr Starmer that rehabilitating Mr Mandelson would be a bad decision. Their fury makes the chance of a leadership challenge more probable than it was on Feb 3, as the gilt curve steepened and the pound weakened against the euro through the afternoon.

Ms Rayner’s influence was on display when she stood up to pressure the government to run disclosures through the security committee. A Labour official said she had made clear she was a serious player ahead of any leadership contest.

The Metropolitan Police entered the fray in an evening statement in which they said they asked the government “not to release certain documents at this time”, owing to its ongoing investigation into Mr Mandelson. The police said on Feb 3 they would be investigating the former ambassador’s conduct in public office.

Despite that 11th-hour intervention, Mr Starmer’s appointment of a man – who, in his own words, “betrayed our country”, “lied repeatedly”, and was “responsible for a litany of deceit” – is forcing one of the most dangerous moments of his premiership yet. BLOOMBERG