London
MPs clashed Tuesday in the House of Commons over whether British Prime Minister Keir Starmer should face an inquiry into claims he misled Parliament over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as US ambassador.
Mandelson was appointed US envoy in December 2024 but was dismissed last September after Downing Street said new information had emerged about the extent of his relationship with convicted US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Opening for the Conservatives, Kemi Badenoch said it was “very obvious” that the prime minister had told MPs things that were “not correct.”
MPs from Starmer’s Labour Party, however, dismissed the motion and the expected vote as a “stunt.”
Stephen Flynn, Westminster leader of the Scottish National Party, argued that Starmer’s position should already have been untenable, saying he should have resigned when he told the Commons he was aware that Mandelson had a relationship with Epstein prior to the appointment.
“That should have been curtains for him,” Flynn said, adding that Starmer is “not fit because his judgment was flawed, and it was wrong.”
He also accused Labour MPs of choosing at the time to “proactively ignore that and to defend him.”
Earlier, Starmer’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney told MPs he had made a “serious mistake” in advising the appointment, though he insisted he did not want vetting to be “cleared at all costs.”
Within Labour ranks, unease evident
Labour MP Gurinder Singh Josan said the motion to refer Starmer to the Privileges Committee was jumping the gun, pointing to “ongoing inquiries by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and even an ongoing police investigation.”
“While that is all ongoing, I would suggest this privilege motion is premature,” he said.
Labour MP Tim Roca defended the government, saying MPs were being asked “to make several leaps of faith,” including believing that, “just nine days from local and national elections, that we are here not because of a political stunt coordinated by the Conservative party, but to accept that they have turned into a sober, principled set of defenders of parliamentary standards.”
Elections on May 7 are set to see millions of British citizens vote for local councils and mayors, as well as local parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales.
Others were more critical.
Brian Leisham, another Labour MP, said the prime minister should “refer himself to the privileges committee” to demonstrate “transparency and accountability.”
Emma Lewell, Labour MP for South Shields, said she felt “let down, disappointed and I am angry,” adding: “Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed, this was a fundamental failure of judgment.”
She also criticized the government’s handling of the vote as “out of touch and disconnected from the public mood.”
Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey rejected claims the motion was a “stunt,” questioning whether Starmer “really expects us to believe” he would have reversed the appointment based on vetting concerns.
Mandelson, long dubbed a political “spin doctor” and the “Prince of Darkness” for his strategic influence, ended his decades-long career with resignations from both the Labour Party and the House of Lords.
Disclosures in the Epstein files show that Epstein made payments totaling about £55,000 ($74,000) between 2003 and 2004 to Mandelson or his partner, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, and covered Silva’s educational expenses.
Emails in the files also suggest Mandelson shared sensitive UK government information with Epstein during the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.
