Share and Follow
Peter Mandelson, a Labour Party heavyweight with ties to scandal, was initially denied security clearance but still managed to secure the role of British Ambassador to the United States. This controversial appointment has sparked urgent demands for Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to resign if he misled Parliament regarding the decision.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is under fire for allegedly deceiving both Parliament and the public about appointing Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to Washington. This issue has unfolded into one of the most significant political scandals of the current British government, prompting rival parties to call for Starmer’s resignation.
There is ongoing uncertainty regarding the Prime Minister’s knowledge of the situation. Official statements claim he was unaware that Mandelson’s security clearance had been denied by the security services, a decision that was ultimately overruled. The reasons behind Mandelson’s initial rejection remain unclear. This scandal, which has been developing over several months, has already led to the resignation of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, known for his opposition to Breitbart News. McSweeney’s departure appears to be an attempt to shield Starmer from further scrutiny.
The British newspaper The Guardian, which is left-leaning but not necessarily supportive of Starmer, reported on Thursday that according to multiple sources, the vetting process for Mandelson’s appointment was incomplete when the Prime Minister announced him as the future ambassador in 2025. The vetting concluded with a rejection on January 28th of that year, a decision that was subsequently overturned by the Foreign Office, allowing Mandelson to assume the position.
This revelation suggests that the British government’s security protocols were bypassed—a move that, while technically allowable, is extremely rare. It appears to have been done to avoid the political fallout from retracting the ambassador’s appointment after it had been publicly announced.
When the United States published fresh tranches of Jeffrey Epstein emails earlier this year, Mandelson’s name featured heavily. While Mandelson’s association with Epstein was long known, and before Starmer decided to make him ambassador, the emails appeared to show the relationship between the two men was deeper and longer-lasting than previously publicly known, and appeared to display that lies had been told.
Mandelson is now being investigated by police for alleged charges of misconduct in public office over emails that appeared to show him emailing confidential British government documents to Epstein while Mandelson was a government minister under Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
When Starmer was called upon to defend his decision to appoint earlier this year when the Epstein emails were released, he said several times that Mandelson had been vetted by the security services and that he’d gotten clearance. These remarks were interpreted at the time as a clear bid by the Prime Minister, and others who spoke for him, to shuffle the blame onto the security vetting process. For instance, Starmer had said in February that there was “security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post.”
When Starmer came to power after the last UK General Election, it was on a platform promising probity, thoroughness, and a ‘buck stops here’ model of accountability. Indeed, as leader of the opposition, Starmer had previously made absolutely clear that he believes that a Prime Minister who misled the House of Commons should resign, which is precisely what he is now accused of doing.
Brexit pioneer and leader of the country’s top-polling political party Nigel Farage was among the first of those calling on Starmer to now resign over the scandal. He said: “Keir Starmer said in February that the security services had given Mandelson “clearance for the role”. Now we discover that he has blatantly lied, the Prime Minister should resign.”
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said “we now know” that Starmer misled Parliament and that accordingly he should now take “responsibility”. The hard-left Green Party also called for him to step down, and said in their statement:
Keir Starmer has lied and lied again over his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson and he must resign. Starmer told parliament ‘due process’ had been followed. This report makes clear that was untrue.
He has tried to blame the vetting process, when in fact it is reported that a decision was taken to ignore a failed vetting. We need answers on what and when Starmer and David Lammy knew about this decision to overrule the vetting report.
The Greens also called for the reason Mandelson failed vetting to be revealed. While it is evident his relationship with Epstein was a national security risk, it’s by no means clear if that was the only skeleton in the closet unveiled by the security services during that process.
Much depends on whether the Prime Minister and those close to him can convince the country that, despite being in charge of the country and having intervened to make Mandelson ambassador against normal practice, that the whole process of vetting, its reporting, and then it being overruled was done secretly without their ever being told.