Friday, September 12, 2025
Mandelson sacked, but why was he appointed in the first place?
There was a certain inevitability about Peter Mandelson being sacked from his role as UK ambassador to the US following mounting pressure over his newly revealed links to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
The Independent reports that the sacking came after it was revealed that Mandelson had maintained ties with Epstein after the disgraced former banker was jailed for a child sex offence:
Responding to an urgent question in the House of Commons, foreign minister Stephen Doughty said Lord Mandelson had been sacked after leaked emails showed that his relationship with Epstein, who died in 2019, was “materially different from that known at the time of his appointment” as UK ambassador to the US last year.
The Tories said it showed an “extraordinary error of judgement by this prime minister” and that it raised “massive questions” about what he knew about the pair’s relationship and when.
Announcing Lord Mandelson’s sacking, Mr Doughty said: “In light of additional information in the emails written by Peter Mandelson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States.
“The emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information.”
While there were cheers at the news in the Commons, Tory shadow minister Neil O’Brien was not satisfied with the explanation after prime minister Sir Keir Starmer made a robust defence of Lord Mandelson just 24 hours ago.
He said: “This is yet another extraordinary error of judgement by this prime minister. It raises massive questions.
“It is not just that Peter Mandelson said that Epstein was his best pal and that he loved him. It wasn’t just that he brokered a deal for him while he was business secretary. We now, of course, know that he was working for Epstein’s early release after he was convicted.
“And the simple question is this: is the minister now saying that the prime minister did not know about any of this at the point where [Lord Mandelson] was appointed? What did the prime minister know at the point of his appointment?”
The paper adds that while Lord Mandelson has insisted he regrets ever having met Epstein, an investigation by The Telegraph has detailed a two-decade friendship between the pair, which continued even after Epstein was jailed for a child sex offence in 2008:
Its report includes claims that Epstein brokered a deal involving the then Mr Mandelson, who was the Labour business secretary at the time, in relation to the sale of a taxpayer-owned business, after Epstein had been convicted of child sex offences.
Mandelson was a controversial appointment in the first place, he had resigned in disgrace twice before, had a longstanding relationship with Epstein and widespread, complicated, and opaque commercial interests. He was a significant reputational risk.
In retrospect, making him our ambassador to the US was a huge risk, and must bring into question Starmer's judgement. What did he know and when did he know it? Why did he go ahead with this appointment?
The Independent reports that the sacking came after it was revealed that Mandelson had maintained ties with Epstein after the disgraced former banker was jailed for a child sex offence:
Responding to an urgent question in the House of Commons, foreign minister Stephen Doughty said Lord Mandelson had been sacked after leaked emails showed that his relationship with Epstein, who died in 2019, was “materially different from that known at the time of his appointment” as UK ambassador to the US last year.
The Tories said it showed an “extraordinary error of judgement by this prime minister” and that it raised “massive questions” about what he knew about the pair’s relationship and when.
Announcing Lord Mandelson’s sacking, Mr Doughty said: “In light of additional information in the emails written by Peter Mandelson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States.
“The emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information.”
While there were cheers at the news in the Commons, Tory shadow minister Neil O’Brien was not satisfied with the explanation after prime minister Sir Keir Starmer made a robust defence of Lord Mandelson just 24 hours ago.
He said: “This is yet another extraordinary error of judgement by this prime minister. It raises massive questions.
“It is not just that Peter Mandelson said that Epstein was his best pal and that he loved him. It wasn’t just that he brokered a deal for him while he was business secretary. We now, of course, know that he was working for Epstein’s early release after he was convicted.
“And the simple question is this: is the minister now saying that the prime minister did not know about any of this at the point where [Lord Mandelson] was appointed? What did the prime minister know at the point of his appointment?”
The paper adds that while Lord Mandelson has insisted he regrets ever having met Epstein, an investigation by The Telegraph has detailed a two-decade friendship between the pair, which continued even after Epstein was jailed for a child sex offence in 2008:
Its report includes claims that Epstein brokered a deal involving the then Mr Mandelson, who was the Labour business secretary at the time, in relation to the sale of a taxpayer-owned business, after Epstein had been convicted of child sex offences.
Mandelson was a controversial appointment in the first place, he had resigned in disgrace twice before, had a longstanding relationship with Epstein and widespread, complicated, and opaque commercial interests. He was a significant reputational risk.
In retrospect, making him our ambassador to the US was a huge risk, and must bring into question Starmer's judgement. What did he know and when did he know it? Why did he go ahead with this appointment?
