Share this post:
Keir Starmer is a liability and should resign as prime minister for the good of the United Kingdom.
Right?
He received an official briefing — including a Cabinet Office report — warning that Peter Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein represented “reputational risks”.
He personally appointed Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the United States anyway – overriding normal Foreign Office procedure.
Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein — including staying at Epstein’s Manhattan flat after his conviction — was already public knowledge.
Starmer defended Mandelson in Parliament even after civil servants began verifying newly leaked emails showing that Mandelson expressed affection and support for Epstein.
Those emails later forced Mandelson’s sacking, exposing how reckless the original appointment had been.
By any reasonable standard of integrity, he should now consider his position.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/
Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/
Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share
Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm
Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
We know this now because Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald has told MPs on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee what happened. Here’s The Guardian:
“Keir Starmer was briefed on details of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein before he decided to make him US ambassador, senior civil servants have said.
“The prime minister received a Cabinet Office report that contained “a summary of reputational risks” associated with appointing Lord Mandelson, including his “prior relationship with Jeffrey Epstein” and past resignations as a Labour minister.
“Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary, told MPs that the report contained “direct extracts from media reporting and notes a general reputational risk” arising from making the appointment.
“Speaking at the foreign affairs select committee, he said the “judgment about whether to make the appointment or not” had ultimately been one for Starmer.
“Mandelson’s longstanding friendship with Epstein, which continued after the disgraced financier was convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor, was a matter of public record before his appointment was made.”
Keir Starmer was explicitly told that Peter Mandelson’s association with Jeffrey Epstein posed “reputational risks”, and he went ahead with the appointment anyway.
That briefing, according to the Cabinet Secretary, included direct extracts from media reports about Mandelson’s links with Epstein and mentioned his prior ministerial resignations — so Starmer can’t claim ignorance.
If you’re prime minister, then once you know that someone you’re appointing to a senior diplomatic post has a documented relationship with a convicted sex offender — and that they stayed at that offender’s home even after the conviction — the “judgement” call becomes purely political.
The question isn’t whether he knew; it’s whether he decided those risks didn’t matter. And by making the appointment regardless, he took ownership of those risks.
That means the fallout from the later revelation of the 2008 “love and support” emails isn’t just Mandelson’s scandal — it’s Starmer’s misjudgment.
The Cabinet Office report and the Foreign Office’s testimony make clear that Starmer was warned but pressed on anyway.
That fits a familiar pattern: a leader prioritising connections and loyalty over propriety.
So the responsibility for appointing a man already publicly linked to Epstein lies squarely with Starmer.
The later sacking doesn’t erase the original decision — it only underscores how reckless it was.
Why did he appoint Mandelson, in the light of the facts?
“Jobs for the boys,” I expect.
Peter Mandelson has long been part of Labour’s old Blairite establishment: the inner circle that rebuilt the party in the 1990s, dominated it under Tony Blair, and later backed Starmer’s leadership campaign as a route back to power and influence.
Mandelson’s role as a behind-the-scenes adviser during Starmer’s rise is well-documented — he reportedly helped shape the early strategy and candidate selections after 2020.
So when Starmer personally overrode the Foreign Office’s usual process to install Mandelson as US ambassador — despite warnings about “reputational risks” — it looked exactly like a “jobs for the boys” appointment: rewarding an ally from the right wing of the party with a prestigious, high-profile post.
The fact that civil servants described the decision as one the prime minister made himself reinforces that impression.
So this has all the hallmarks of a patronage appointment: Starmer looking after a loyal member of the Labour elite rather than choosing on merit or integrity.
It’s the kind of insider favouritism that New Labour was once accused of institutionalising — and part of a sad pattern that many prime ministers have followed.
Peter Mandelson himself is a classic case. Blair twice brought him back into government after Mandelson had been forced to resign over scandals (the 1998 mortgage loan from Geoffrey Robinson, and the 1999 Hinduja passport affair).
In both instances, Blair said Mandelson’s “talents outweighed past mistakes” — which is political code for loyalty matters more than reputation.
Mandelson also became a close personal adviser to Blair on EU and global contacts, despite deep unease in Whitehall.
David Cameron appointed his old friend and party donor Lord (Andrew) Feldman as Conservative Party co-chairman — a role critics said blurred the line between government and party fundraising.
More recently, Cameron’s own return to government as Foreign Secretary under Rishi Sunak (2023) was widely condemned as an insider move: a “revolving door” appointment bringing back a disgraced former PM via a peerage, rather than open recruitment.
Boris Johnson’s appointments were notorious for prioritising personal loyalty:
- Lord Lebedev, the son of a former KGB officer, was made a peer despite security service warnings; Johnson pushed it through personally.
- Chris Pincher, appointed Deputy Chief Whip despite known misconduct allegations, later caused Johnson’s downfall.
- Johnson also placed allies such as Dido Harding and James Wharton into senior roles without competitive process.
Liz Truss’s short-lived government leaned heavily on ideological allies from the Tufton Street network, such as Kwasi Kwarteng and various think-tank alumni, disregarding wider advice from the civil service.
Rishi Sunak retained ministers like Suella Braverman and Gavin Williamson even after major controversies, simply to appease party factions — until pressure forced resignations.
Seen against that background, Starmer’s decision to push ahead with Mandelson’s appointment despite clear reputational warnings is part of a well-established Westminster culture: leaders protecting their own.
Put it all together, and what we’re looking at isn’t a one-off misjudgement; it’s a conscious participation in a long-standing Westminster culture of cronyism, where personal loyalty and insider status trump ethical standards or public trust.
Starmer was warned that appointing Peter Mandelson carried serious reputational risk because of his association with a convicted sex offender — and he chose to proceed.
That shows deliberate disregard for propriety, not an oversight.
When a prime minister knowingly appoints a tainted ally to a major diplomatic role, and then defends him in Parliament even as new evidence emerges, it goes to the heart of political accountability.
The concept that leaders should consider their future when their judgement so clearly fails the public test — applies here as squarely as it did to Boris Johnson over Partygate, to Liz Truss after her economic collapse, or to ministers in earlier eras who resigned over far less.
Starmer built his political brand on “integrity, professionalism, and accountability.”
If those words still mean anything, then by his own standards, this episode demands that he reconsider whether he has the moral authority to lead.
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Starmer should resign – he was briefed about Mandelson and hired him anyway
Share this post:
Keir Starmer is a liability and should resign as prime minister for the good of the United Kingdom.
Right?
He received an official briefing — including a Cabinet Office report — warning that Peter Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein represented “reputational risks”.
He personally appointed Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the United States anyway – overriding normal Foreign Office procedure.
Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein — including staying at Epstein’s Manhattan flat after his conviction — was already public knowledge.
Starmer defended Mandelson in Parliament even after civil servants began verifying newly leaked emails showing that Mandelson expressed affection and support for Epstein.
Those emails later forced Mandelson’s sacking, exposing how reckless the original appointment had been.
By any reasonable standard of integrity, he should now consider his position.
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
We know this now because Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald has told MPs on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee what happened. Here’s The Guardian:
“Keir Starmer was briefed on details of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein before he decided to make him US ambassador, senior civil servants have said.
“The prime minister received a Cabinet Office report that contained “a summary of reputational risks” associated with appointing Lord Mandelson, including his “prior relationship with Jeffrey Epstein” and past resignations as a Labour minister.
“Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary, told MPs that the report contained “direct extracts from media reporting and notes a general reputational risk” arising from making the appointment.
“Speaking at the foreign affairs select committee, he said the “judgment about whether to make the appointment or not” had ultimately been one for Starmer.
“Mandelson’s longstanding friendship with Epstein, which continued after the disgraced financier was convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor, was a matter of public record before his appointment was made.”
Keir Starmer was explicitly told that Peter Mandelson’s association with Jeffrey Epstein posed “reputational risks”, and he went ahead with the appointment anyway.
That briefing, according to the Cabinet Secretary, included direct extracts from media reports about Mandelson’s links with Epstein and mentioned his prior ministerial resignations — so Starmer can’t claim ignorance.
If you’re prime minister, then once you know that someone you’re appointing to a senior diplomatic post has a documented relationship with a convicted sex offender — and that they stayed at that offender’s home even after the conviction — the “judgement” call becomes purely political.
The question isn’t whether he knew; it’s whether he decided those risks didn’t matter. And by making the appointment regardless, he took ownership of those risks.
That means the fallout from the later revelation of the 2008 “love and support” emails isn’t just Mandelson’s scandal — it’s Starmer’s misjudgment.
The Cabinet Office report and the Foreign Office’s testimony make clear that Starmer was warned but pressed on anyway.
That fits a familiar pattern: a leader prioritising connections and loyalty over propriety.
So the responsibility for appointing a man already publicly linked to Epstein lies squarely with Starmer.
The later sacking doesn’t erase the original decision — it only underscores how reckless it was.
Why did he appoint Mandelson, in the light of the facts?
“Jobs for the boys,” I expect.
Peter Mandelson has long been part of Labour’s old Blairite establishment: the inner circle that rebuilt the party in the 1990s, dominated it under Tony Blair, and later backed Starmer’s leadership campaign as a route back to power and influence.
Mandelson’s role as a behind-the-scenes adviser during Starmer’s rise is well-documented — he reportedly helped shape the early strategy and candidate selections after 2020.
So when Starmer personally overrode the Foreign Office’s usual process to install Mandelson as US ambassador — despite warnings about “reputational risks” — it looked exactly like a “jobs for the boys” appointment: rewarding an ally from the right wing of the party with a prestigious, high-profile post.
The fact that civil servants described the decision as one the prime minister made himself reinforces that impression.
So this has all the hallmarks of a patronage appointment: Starmer looking after a loyal member of the Labour elite rather than choosing on merit or integrity.
It’s the kind of insider favouritism that New Labour was once accused of institutionalising — and part of a sad pattern that many prime ministers have followed.
Peter Mandelson himself is a classic case. Blair twice brought him back into government after Mandelson had been forced to resign over scandals (the 1998 mortgage loan from Geoffrey Robinson, and the 1999 Hinduja passport affair).
In both instances, Blair said Mandelson’s “talents outweighed past mistakes” — which is political code for loyalty matters more than reputation.
Mandelson also became a close personal adviser to Blair on EU and global contacts, despite deep unease in Whitehall.
David Cameron appointed his old friend and party donor Lord (Andrew) Feldman as Conservative Party co-chairman — a role critics said blurred the line between government and party fundraising.
More recently, Cameron’s own return to government as Foreign Secretary under Rishi Sunak (2023) was widely condemned as an insider move: a “revolving door” appointment bringing back a disgraced former PM via a peerage, rather than open recruitment.
Boris Johnson’s appointments were notorious for prioritising personal loyalty:
Liz Truss’s short-lived government leaned heavily on ideological allies from the Tufton Street network, such as Kwasi Kwarteng and various think-tank alumni, disregarding wider advice from the civil service.
Rishi Sunak retained ministers like Suella Braverman and Gavin Williamson even after major controversies, simply to appease party factions — until pressure forced resignations.
Seen against that background, Starmer’s decision to push ahead with Mandelson’s appointment despite clear reputational warnings is part of a well-established Westminster culture: leaders protecting their own.
Put it all together, and what we’re looking at isn’t a one-off misjudgement; it’s a conscious participation in a long-standing Westminster culture of cronyism, where personal loyalty and insider status trump ethical standards or public trust.
Starmer was warned that appointing Peter Mandelson carried serious reputational risk because of his association with a convicted sex offender — and he chose to proceed.
That shows deliberate disregard for propriety, not an oversight.
When a prime minister knowingly appoints a tainted ally to a major diplomatic role, and then defends him in Parliament even as new evidence emerges, it goes to the heart of political accountability.
The concept that leaders should consider their future when their judgement so clearly fails the public test — applies here as squarely as it did to Boris Johnson over Partygate, to Liz Truss after her economic collapse, or to ministers in earlier eras who resigned over far less.
Starmer built his political brand on “integrity, professionalism, and accountability.”
If those words still mean anything, then by his own standards, this episode demands that he reconsider whether he has the moral authority to lead.
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
Let’s start the New Year with some hopeful news
Like this:
More mistakes in the script? Correcting Cameron’s New Year speech
Like this:
The lies that smashed the unions and destroyed our coal industry
Like this:
Like this: