Spartacus Blog

The Strange Appointment of Peter Mandelson

On 4th July Keir Starmer won a landslide victory at the 2024 general election, ending fourteen years of Conservative Party government with Labour Party becoming the largest party in the House of Commons. The major reason for this was the public was very angry with the Conservative Party who had been in power for 14 years. Starmer, with a 174 seat majority now had the freedom to pass any legislation he wanted. Then some very strange things began to happen. Straight away he started announcing some things that was not in the manifesto. For example, on 29th July 2024, chancellor Rachel Reeves, announced that the winter fuel benefit would only be given to those in receipt of Pension Credit or other means-tested benefits. This removed the benefit from around 10 million pensioners. (1)

The strangest decision of all was on 20th December 2024 Starmer announced that Peter Mandelson was to become the ambassador to Washington. There were several reasons why this was a bad idea and was bound to cause Starmer long-term problems. For example, in 2020 the government appointed Karen Pierce, as Britain's first female ambassador to the United States. (2) On 7 November 2024, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Pat McFadden, announced that Pierce was doing "an excellent job" as ambassador, with the "full confidence of the British government", and would remain in Washington until after the inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2025. (3)

The post of ambassador to Washington is nearly always a diplomat and not a politician. The last time that this happened was in 1977 when James Callaghan appointed his son-in-law Peter Jay to the post of ambassador to Washington. As Jay was just 40 years old, was not a diplomat and had never held any public office; the appointment caused some controversy and accusations of nepotism. (4)

It was difficult to understand why Mandelson had been chosen as ambassador. It was initially claimed it was because of Mandelson's experience of trade issues and that he might be able to secure trade opportunities with the US. On the other hand, in the past, when working for the Chinese government, he described Trump as "little short of a white nationalist and racist", as "reckless and a danger to the world", and likening him to a bully. When the appointment was announced, Chris LaCivita who was a co-campaign manager for Trump's presidential election bid, criticised the British government's decision saying it was replacing a "professional universally respected ambassador with an absolute moron". (5)

One of those closest political figures to Starmer, Peter Kyle, tried to explain the decision. "The Cabinet Office did an independent inquiry into the appointment, as they do in every public appointment of this nature, and the information was presented to the prime minister... The second process was obviously a political process where there are political conversations done in No 10 about all the other aspects of an appointment of this nature. Now, both of these things turned up information that was already public and a decision was made that, based on Peter's singular talents in this area, the risk of appointing knowing what was already public was worth the risk." You take risks because of the possible size of the gains available. What were these possible gains? (6)

Starmer's chief of staff, Sue Grey, also opposed the appointment so she was replaced by Morgan McSweeny, Mandelson's close friend. (7) Starmer was also having problems with senior civil students. Sir Christopher Wormald who was appointed as Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service by Starmer in 2024 was unhappy with the Manderson's appointment. After a series of leaks about Wormaid's performance, he negotiated a pay-off. According to The Civil Servants World: "Wormald's departure was confirmed on 12 February after several days of briefings that Keir Starmer was considering removing him from the civil service's top job. The value of the payment has not been officially confirmed but is widely reported to be in the region of £260,000." (8)

On 2 February 2026, a batch of documents released by the United States government showed that Mandelson was in close contact with Jeffrey Epstein during a period in which he was at the heart of government amid the financial crisis. Mandelson's emails showed that he gave Epstein advance notice of an impending EU bailout, sent him internal government information about the state of the UK economy and lobbied the Treasury on banking policy at Epstein's suggestion. Mandelson had forwarded internal government information to Epstein in June 2009, at which point he was acting as Gordon Brown's business secretary and de facto deputy prime minister. (9)

Peter Mandelson was forced to resign over this issue. This now became a national scandal and on 6 February 2026 the House of Commons voted to force the UK government to release all documents that could explain Starmer's decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. The documents to be released covered all electronic communications, which could include WhatsApp messages and emails. (10)

On 11 March 2026 the government released the first batch of documents. The 147 pages revealed new details about the appointment of Mandelson. (11) For example, just a few days after Pat McFadden announced that Karen Pierce was doing "an excellent job" as ambassador, Starmer was suggesting to Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, that he was considering replacing Pierce with a political appointment. Case replied in a letter on 11 February, that this was extremely unusual and informed the problems that James Callaghan encountered when he appointed Peter Jay to this position. He then added: "If this is the route that you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice." (12)

A Due Diligence Report was carried out on Mandelson. Starmer received the report on 4 December, 2024, and it suggested several reasons why Mandelson's appointment would pose a "reputational risk". This included his involvement with Global Counsel, a company that had several dubious clients. It also added that "Global Counsel is currently under investigation by the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists for failing to disclose the Qatari Free Zones Authority as a client."

The report also looked at the two occasions when Mandelson was sacked from the Cabinet: "Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, 1999-2001. Resigned after the 'passports-for-cash' scandal, where he lobbied the Home Office to grant citizenship for Srichand Hinduja, who was also sponsoring the Millennium Dome.... Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, 1998. Resigned due to not declaring a £373,000 loan from Geoffrey Robinson, a Cabinet colleague, which was used to fund a property purchase." It concluded that Mandelson posed "general reputational risk around previous departures from the New Labour Government, both relating to financial matters, including high-profile donors to government." (13)

The Due Diligence report also looked at Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein: "A 2019 report commissioned by JP Morgan found that Epstein appeared to 'maintain a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of the British government'. The report cited Epstein's personal records which showed contact beginning in 2002 and continuing throughout the 2000s. After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was Business Minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein's house while he was in jail in June 2009." It then went on to warn Starmer that The Daily Telegraph had reported on these matters in great detail on 10 January 2024. (14)

It then went on to say "The Cabinet Office holds official records that are likely to be released by the National Archives early next year, which relate to a Tony Blair meeting with Epstein that was facilitated by Mandelson. It also looked at the connections between Mandelson and Nigel Farage: Mandelson quoted saying of Farage, contrary to UKG policy: "You can't ignore him, he's an elected member of parliament. He's a public figure. He's a bridgehead, both to President Trump and to Elon Musk and others.... National interest is served in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways." (15)

The report is referring to an email that Peter Mandelson sent to Jonathan Powell on 7 May 2002, about a proposed meeting between Tony Blair and Jeffrey Epstein. "Do you remember when Clinton saw TB he said he wanted to introduce his traveling friend, Jeffrey Epstein, to TB? This was frustrated – TB said at the time – in the office for reasons (he says) he was unclear about. I think TB would be interested in meeting Jeffrey, who is a friend of mine, because Jeffrey is an active scientific catalyst/entrepreneur as well as someone who has his finger on the pulse of many worldwide markets and currencies. He is young and vibrant. He is safe (whatever that means) and Clinton is now doing a lot of traveling with him. I mentioned to TB that Jeffrey is in London next week and he said he would like to meet him. I have ascertained from Jeffrey is flexible – he could be here anytime from Tuesday onwards to fit round the diary – but would obviously need to know reasonably quickly so as to re-schedule accordingly." (16)

The report was worried about his relationship with Mandelson's relationship with China: "Seen as an advocate for closer UK-China relations. Mandelson gave a speech at the University of Hong Kong where he claimed that the rule of law and independence of the judiciary remain intact there. He argued the Conservatives' 'cold shoulder' to Hong Kong was wrong and there should be a thaw in relations. He has long called for closer engagement with China and said of US-China relations in 2018: 'It is absurd to imagine putting a country of such weight in the naughty corner' and 'It is also necessary to recognize Mr Trump's behaviour for what it is: he is a bully and a mercantilist who thinks the US will gain in trade only when others are losing.' " (17)

The report also highlighted a Daily Mail article by Andrew Pierce, published on 10 September 2025: It included the following: "Global Counsel offers to help corporations 'see opportunities in politics, regulation and public policy' and has offices in London, Berlin, Brussels, Doha, Singapore and Washington. Mandelson has never declared a single client of Global Counsel in the House of Lords register of interests, despite several rule changes intended to achieve greater transparency. What is clear, however, is that he has connections with Vladimir Putin's Russia. Mandelson served as a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, which is itself the majority shareholder of RTI, a defence technology company. RTI produced radar and satellite communications for Russia's land-based missile early warning system and its chairman was one Yevgeny Primakov, a Putin ally and former prime minister. Mandelson remained on the board until June 2017, long after Putin's annexation of Crimea in 2014." (18)

It then went on to look at his Chinese links. "The website of Global Counsel still contains his flowery account of his October 2018 meeting with Chinese president Xi Jinping. Headlined 'Tea with Xi', he waxed lyrical about the Communist ghoul and urged stronger links between Europe and Beijing.... The praise of Xi – condemned worldwide for human rights abuses in China and the brutal suppression of democracy in Hong Kong – was presumably designed to show potential clients how well-connected Mandelson is. Some in Westminster ask if his support for closer trade links with China could end his hopes of becoming ambassador in Washington, where he would have to court the Trump administration just as it plans massive trade tariffs on Beijing." (19)

Andrew Pierce ends the article with the fact that Nigel Farage was campaigning for Peter Mandelson to be given the job of ambassador to Washington: "Farage, who as an MEP regularly crossed swords with Mandelson, had an equally surprising take. 'We are politically miles apart,' he told me. 'But Peter Mandelson is highly intelligent, a clever political operator, he is always on top of his brief as I discovered when he was the EU commissioner. He has a huge intellect. And has to be a serious contender to be the next ambassador.' (20)

On 10 December 2024, Mandelson was questioned about issues identified in the Due Diligence Report. At first Starmer gave the impression that he was the one who asked Mandelson, however, it was eventually discovered it was two of Mandelson's close friends, Morgan McSweeny and Matthew Doyle, who carried out the interview. The following day, on 11 December, after receiving the answers that Mandelson gave in response to the due diligence report, Starmer told Labour Party MPs that he had made his decision. On 20 December, Starmer announced the appointment of Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. Three days later Mandelson's Foreign Office security vetting began. (21)

On 6 February 2026 the House of Commons voted to force the UK government to release all documents that could explain Sir Keir Starmer's decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. (22) The first batch of documents were released on 11 March 2026. The first 147 pages included the Due Diligence Report that the appointment posed a "general reputational risk". Starmer had been told JP Morgan bank commissioned a report in 2009 that found Mandelson had maintained "a particularly close relationship" with Epstein after the financier's conviction for soliciting prostitution with a minor. This undermined Starmer's claim that he did not know "the extent and depth" of Mandelson's relationship with Epstein when he appointed him. (23)

Another published document appears to show details of a fact-finding call between Starmer's General Counsel Mike Ostheimer and National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell about the appointment process, which took place the day after Mandelson's sacking. Powell, claimed to have raised concerns about Mandelson directly with Starmer's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney - but was told they had been addressed. A summary of the discussion says that Powell, a veteran government adviser, found the process "unusual" and "weirdly rushed." (24)

The government then took its time to release the rest of the documents. On 16 April 2026 The Guardian reported that the government was holding back documents that showed that Peter Mandelson had in January 2025, failed a developed vetting process, a highly confidential background check by security officials. One of the authors of the article was Pippa Crerar. She is the same journalist who first revealed the story that became the Partygate scandal. Crerar is married to Tom Whitehead, who works as a senior civil servant in the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. Starmer responded later that day that he had only discovered this information when it had been told about it by Antonia Romeo and Cat Little on the 14th April, 2026. "Mandelson's failure to secure vetting approval has not previously been publicly revealed, despite intense scrutiny over his appointment and the release by the government of 147 pages of documents supposed to shed light on the case." (25)

The government responded to the article with the statement: "Neither the prime minister, nor any government minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week. Once the prime minister was informed he immediately instructed officials to establish the facts about why the developed vetting was granted, in order to enact plans to update the House of Commons." That evening Starmer sacked Sir Olly Robbins, the Foreign Office's top civil servant for not informing him about the failed vetting. (26)

Starmer was much attacked for sacking Robbins for not taking responsibility for his own decision making. Over a period of several months he had removed Simon Case, Sue Grey, Karen Pierce, Christopher Wormald, Philip Barton, Tim Allan, Morgan McSweeny and Matthew Doyle over the Mandelson appointment. Tony Wright, the former Labour MP wrote about the sacking of Olly Robbins: "Perhaps the most damaging consequence of the Mandelson affair is not the fate of the prime minister but the breakdown in the relationship between the government and the civil service. This relationship is crucial for good government. The removal of a distinguished civil servant for trying to navigate the competing pressures on him when landed with the Mandelson problem sets a dangerous precedent. It was the wrong decision, and should be reversed before lasting damage is done." (27)

The following day the Foreign Affairs select committee chair Dame Emily Thornberry invited Robbins to give evidence on 21 April. Thornberry told Sky News: "Perhaps he can tell us… was it his own idea, or was he being leant on elsewhere? Or was he, being a civil servant, was he getting direction from elsewhere, and if so, by whom?" Dame Emily also pointed to the careful language in a letter she received from the Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper on the vetting process, which noted the vetting process had "concluded" with clearance being granted. "It says he was vetted, and it says he was appointed, but it doesn't say it was overridden… I'm saying is that, you know, people have basically been telling us half the story," she added. (28)

Most political commentators considered that Sir Olly Robbins came across well on and that it was clear that Starmer had treated him badly. Robbins did get some revenge on Starmer by replying to a question from Edward Morello about other political appointments to diplomatic posts. Olly Robbins said he had several conversations with No 10 about finding a role for Matthew Doyle, who was later suspended as a Labour peer after it emerged he had campaigned for a friend charged with possessing indecent images of children. Robbins said he had been asked not to mention the idea to David Lammy, who was foreign secretary at the time. Robbins described the conversations as part of more general pressure from people at the top of the government to place senior political figures in senior diplomatic posts. (29)

Robbins revealed that he came under considerable pressure from Starmer to appoint Mandelson without carrying out the necessary security checks. He added that there had been discussions between security officials in the department and the Cabinet Office "over whether Lord Mandelson needed DV vetting as a 'Fit and Proper Person' given his membership of the House of Lords". Robbins told the committee, "my office and the foreign secretary's office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing". Asked about where the pressure was coming from Robbins said the source he "was most conscious of was from the No 10 private office". (30)

Robbins did admit that even if this pressure had not existed, he would still have ignored the Developed Vetting (DV) that suggested he was a security risk. Although he claims that he was not told about this failed vetting, Starmer appointed Mandelson to the post of ambassador to Washington on 20 December 2024, four days before vetting began. Starmer had got what he wanted, Mandelson had got the job without his security vetting. (31)

This decision threatened national security. As Richard Dearlove, the former head of the MI6 (1999-2004), reported in The Guardian: "The role of British ambassador in Washington… sits across a number of highly classified compartments. It is no ordinary diplomatic job. The extensive security acreage of the special relationship includes, for example, the UK's nuclear deterrent, the intelligence relationship, the UK-US alliance which ties together the National Security Agency and GCHQ by treaty, and other domains of great sensitivity. The ambassador has access to these even though their need to become involved in them in normal times is limited. The British staff that comes under the ambassador's authority is extensive and stretches beyond those working in the embassy. The ambassador's access to the US administration is also usually highly privileged, such is the nature of the special relationship."

Dearlove to go on to argue: "The decision to appoint Mandelson was called into question when the vetters recommended against granting the DV; but the new Foreign Office permanent secretary, Olly Robbins, chose not to oppose Mandelson going to Washington. He was under heavy pressure to approve the appointment so understandably decided that the risk could be managed rather than alerting his minister, the foreign secretary, to the problem. My own experience with vetting problems of this type (though without the explosive political charge of this particular one) was never to allow anyone the benefit of a doubt. The permanent secretary therefore paid a heavy price for not unloading the problem on to his political masters. Clearly that was a misjudgment, but either way his own position was probably at risk: oppose the PM's wish or manipulate the process with mandarinate dexterity. Either choice was potentially career-ending, as has proved to be the case." (32)

However, as Olly Robbins pointed out in his testimony, that these "risks" could be "managed" and "mitigated" by the Foreign Office. He added that this security vetting was only concerned with Foreign Office documents and was not responsible for Developed Vetting (DV) with STRAP. This is clearance at the highest level of security vetting, allowing access to extremely sensitive intelligence. This was something that would have been done by the intelligence services. The Guardian pointed out: "STRAP clearance is required for access to documents even more sensitive than top secret, such as intelligence material...It is unclear whether or not Mandelson received STRAP clearance. Given UKSV's conclusion that Mandelson did not clear the barrier of DV, for him to receive an additional level of clearance would be extraordinary." (33)

Catherine Little, the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, also gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs select committee. Little was given responsibility for overseeing the process of releasing documents related to Lord Mandelson's appointment. It was through this process that she asked Robbins if she could see a document summarising the vetting agency's recommendation in relation to Lord Mandelson and the Foreign Office's final decision, as well as any records related to the decision-making process. "It was made clear to me that that information would not be forthcoming," she told MPs. As a result, Little said she requested the information directly from security officials, which she received on 25 March. She did not share the information with the PM until 14 April, saying she first wanted to seek legal advice on how to handle such sensitive documents. (34)

Sir Philip Barton, the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office when Mandelson was appointed also appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee. He told MPs there was no way for him to raise his concerns about Lord Mandelson's appointment as the UK's ambassador to the US. Barton said no-one in Downing Street consulted him before making the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson when he was the top civil servant in the Foreign Office in 2024. He said he thought appointing Lord Mandelson could be a "potentially difficult issue" because of the Labour peer's known links to the late convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. Barton said No 10 seemed "uninterested" in the vetting process around Mandelson's appointment, and said there were no avenues for him to express his concerns. He said he was "presented with a decision" made by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and "told to get on with it". (35)

Morgan McSweeny, Starmer's Chief of Staff, was also interviewed before the Foreign Affairs Committee. He admitted he had made a "serious error of judgment" in advising Starmer to appoint Mandelson, but that he had felt his "experience, relationships and political skills", including on trade, could serve UK interests as Donald Trump re-entered the White House. McSweeney acknowledged that he had asked the then top official at the department, Philip Barton, to conduct the process "at pace". He added: "There is a real difference between asking people to act at pace and asking people to lower standards. We never did that. We never asked people to skip steps at any part of the process ... It was all about, can we do this at pace, not, can we do anything improper." He insisted he had not been involved in Mandelson's vetting process, nor had he asked officials to "ignore procedures, request that steps should be skipped or communicate explicitly or implicitly that he should be cleared at all costs" as that would have been "unacceptable".(36)

McSweeney was asked why after he saw the Due Diligence Report he still thought Mandelson was a good choice as ambassador he said he initially believed that Mandelson was telling the truth about the extent of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. "The nature of the relationship that I understood he had with Epstein was not a close friendship." However, McSweeney, could not explain why he still thought it was a good idea after being made aware of the JP Morgan report that after Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011. (37)

When he was asked about how Due Diligence Report highlighted the problems of Mandelson's links with senior government figures in China and Russia, McSweeney replied that he thought the UK Security Vetting system would discover if his appointment posed serious security risks. McSweeney said he considered Mandelson to be the "lead candidate" because of "his experience as an EU trade commissioner and the political skills that I thought he could bring to the table". (38)

McSweeney agreed that Mandelson had twice been sacked from the Cabinet (1998 and 2001). As the Due Diligence report pointed out that Mandelson posed a "general reputational risk around previous departures from the New Labour Government, both relating to financial matters, including high-profile donors to government." McSweeney accepted this part of the report but argued that he had recovered his reputation as an honest politician while working as an EU trade commissioner. (39)

The truth of the matter was that Mandelson was mired in controversy while the EU Trade Commissioner. For example, on 22 April 2005, The Times reported that Mandelson had spent the previous New Year's Eve on the yacht of Paul Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft, a company that was at the centre of a major EU investigation at the time. According to the newspaper, "The European Trade Commissioner was forced to admit that he was a guest at a party thrown by Paul Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft. Details of Mr Mandelson's Caribbean holiday emerged as the sleaze row deepened over European commissioners accepting free hospitality... His opponents say his presence could be a serious conflict of interest. Microsoft is in a protracted legal battle with the European Commission, which last year fined it £355 million for abusing its near-monopoly in the software market. Microsoft and the Commission are still in often turbulent negotiations about how to verify that the company has changed its business practices." (40)

Questions was asked about Mandelson's relationship with two other businessmen who it was claimed had benefited from his EU decisions. Apparently he was lent a private jet by Nathaniel Rothschild, the banking heir who is also a wealthy hedge fund manager, and had been entertained by Lakshmi Mittal, the steel tycoon. Mandelson described the reports as "muck-raking"' and "innuendo", insisting that what he did in his private life had no impact on the decisions he had taken in the course of his public duties as EU trade commissioner. However, it was pointed out that Rothschild and Mittal, had both benefited from EU trade decisions.(41)

The Daily Mail reported on Mandelson's close relationship with Diego Della Valle, an Italian businessman: "Peter Mandelson is at the centre of a new controversy after it was revealed he was entertained by an Italian businessman who benefited from EU tariffs that Mr Mandelson imposed during his time in Brussels. Tycoon Diego Della Valle, who runs the exclusive shoe and handbag company Tod's, has played host to Mr Mandelson on the Italian island of Capri several times.... The former EU Trade Commissioner first stayed with Mr Della Valle in August 2006 – four months after a temporary 20 per cent tariff proposed by Mandelson had been implemented on millions of cheap Chinese shoes being imported into the European Union. On August 30, 2006, he formally proposed a five-year campaign aimed at curbing unfair competition from China. It was one of the most contentious political acts Mr Mandelson was involved in during his four-year tenure in Brussels, triggering the so-called 'shoe wars' with China." (42)

Another scandal while Peter Mandelson was EU Trade Commissioner was his friendship with Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch. It was disclosed that he had enjoyed hospitality aboard the billionaire's yacht during his time as EU trade commissioner. He also met Deripaska for dinner on at least two occasions in Moscow. Deripaska, benefited from the lifting of EU trade tariffs on aluminum in 2005. The Independent pointed out in 2008: "Mr Deripaska can boast links with the Russian political elite, notably through a friendship with Vladimir Putin, and an official position within the oligarchs' cadre which allows him regular audiences with President Medvedev. While one of the world's biggest global players, not all of the world is open to him. Mr Deripaska's US visa was revoked in 2006 after concerns over his business dealings were raised by the FBI. Nevertheless, he remains a central member of the elite cadre who make the really important decisions about how the world is run." (43)

Morgan McSweeny's ignorance of these matters is surprising as they are all documented on Mandelson's Wikipedia entry. This information would also have been available to those carrying out Mandelson's security vetting. This vetting is interested in four main issues: (1) Does the candidate have financial problems? (2) In the past has he been involved in any corrupt activities? (3) Is there anything in his life that makes him blackmailable? (4) Does he have friends and contacts in countries that are an enemy of the UK and the US? Mandelson would pass 1 but fail questions 2, 3 and 4. Therefore, Starmer must have been aware he would have failed this vetting.

This takes us back to the question that Starmer was unwilling to answer in the House of Commons. One MP asked the question about how The Independent and The Daily Telegraph reported in September 2025 that Mandelson failed his vetting by MI6. The journalists asked 10 Downing Street if this was true. The then director of communications, Tim Allan, replied: "Vetting done by FCDO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) in normal way". Allan must have asked Starmer about this and it is clear that they had avoided answering the question. Now, if MI6 had told Starmer that if Mandelson was sent to Washington, he would be a security risk and was a potential spy for China and Russia, would he have rejected this advice? If he did, he would be appearing to be acting on behalf of a foreign power. (44)

In February, MPs passed a binding parliamentary motion, known as a humble address, requiring the government to publish "all papers" relating to Mandelson's appointment as ambassador to the US. The motion made an exemption for documents "prejudicial to UK national security or international relations", which would be given to the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), a trusted nine-person group of MPs and peers who oversee the activities of the intelligence agencies. It seems that Starmer and some senior civil servants have been against these documents being disclosed. Amid an impasse, there were fears among at least some officials that there might be a cover-up and the documents would never see the light of day. (45)

Alex Burghart, a Conservative shadow minister, told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that MPs had instructed the prime minister to hand over "all of the documents associated with this" two months ago. He said: "We understand that No 10 are trying to work out whether they should release documents under the humble address. That's not what parliament said. Parliament said hand it over and if it's sensitive, it should go to the ISC. Once again this government is not doing the right thing. The only reason this has come out now is because of investigative journalism." (46)

There is still no news of Peter Mandelson or Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor being charged with any offence. BBC News ran an interesting story on 24 April 2026 that showed how reluctant the police are to deal with this scandal. The BBC searched through millions of pages of records gathered by the US Department of Justice in its investigation of Epstein, to piece together the most detailed picture yet of his operation in the UK. The BBC found evidence of four flats, rented in the affluent borough of Kensington and Chelsea, in receipts, emails and bank records contained within the Epstein files. Six of the women housed in them have since come forward as victims of Epstein's abuse. Many of them - from Russia, eastern Europe and elsewhere - were brought to the UK after the Metropolitan Police decided not to investigate Virginia Giuffre's 2015 allegation that she had been a victim of international trafficking to London.

The BBC investigation found British police had other opportunities to open an inquiry into Epstein's activities in the UK, in addition to Giuffre's complaint that she had been trafficked and forced to have sex with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in 2001. Some of the women housed in the London flats were coerced by Epstein to recruit others into his sex trafficking scheme, as well as regularly transported to Paris by Eurostar to visit him, according to emails in the files. It shows how the operation grew more extensive than was previously known - with more victims, established infrastructure such as housing, and frequent transportation of women across borders - right up to Epstein's death, despite warnings to UK police.

Tessa Gregory, a human rights lawyer told the BBC she was "staggered" that no UK police investigation had ever been launched, after she saw the BBC evidence. "Where there are credible allegations of human trafficking, the UK state, even if no victims come forward, has a positive legal obligation to conduct a prompt, effective and independent investigation." Kevin Hyland, a former senior detective with the Met Police who was the UK's first Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, told the BBC. "People are outraged that somebody came forward and said, 'I was trafficked by this man', and yet he was just allowed to carry on. Who in the police made that decision?" (47)

It is clear that US authorities have gone to enormous lengths to cover-up the crimes of Epstein and his wealthy friends. A picture has slowly been emerging that the same thing has been happening in the UK. It is still possible that Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor will get away with whatever crimes that have committed. Starmer is not going to be so lucky. Political pundits are saying that he will be forced to resign over the election results on Thursday (7 May). However, I believe that he will go after the publication of the next batch of documents that relate to the appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador.

This documents are unlikely to reveal the real reason why Starmer made this strange appointment. Was he being blackmailed into placing a spy in the British Embassy? Is Starmer an agent of China or Israel. Was the Epstein set-up a Mossad, CIA, FBI or MI6 honeypot operation? Our masters will never allow us to know that in our lifetime. However, I expect the documents, the ones that Starmer is trying so hard to prevent being published, will show that Starmer knew that Mandelson had failed his Developed Vetting (DV) with STRAP or some other British Intelligence vetting, but still appointed him to become ambassador. If that is the case, I cannot see how he could possibly survive as prime minister.