Sir Keir Starmer delivered a remarkable public apology to Jeffrey Epstein's victims on Wednesday, admitting he had been "lied to" by Lord Mandelson about the extent of the peer's relationship with the convicted sex offender. The apology marks an extraordinary moment for a serving Prime Minister and represents a significant blow to Downing Street's authority.
The Prime Minister's climbdown came after intense pressure from Labour backbenchers, with anger in the Parliamentary Labour Party reaching what one veteran MP described as the "angriest" atmosphere they had ever witnessed in the Commons. The government was forced to agree to release documents related to Mandelson's appointment as ambassador to the United States, a reversal of its initial position.
"I apologise to the victims for believing Peter Mandelson's lies about his relationship with Epstein," Starmer told the House. The statement represents a remarkable breach of the traditional prime ministerial practice of standing by one's appointments, particularly those as senior as an ambassadorship.
As they say in Westminster, "the constitution is what happens"—precedent matters more than law. And the precedent here is troubling for Number 10. Prime Ministers who apologise for misjudgments over senior appointments rarely recover their authority fully. Theresa May never quite regained her footing after the disastrous 2017 election campaign, and Boris Johnson's endless apologies over Partygate marked the beginning of the end.
The controversy erupted following the release of documents showing Mandelson maintained contact with Epstein well after the financier's 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Parliamentary sources indicated that Mandelson had assured the Prime Minister he had minimal contact with Epstein and none after the conviction—claims now demonstrated to be false.
What makes this particularly damaging for Starmer is the process by which Mandelson secured the Washington posting. Multiple sources have confirmed that Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, personally championed the appointment, dedicating considerable time to meetings at the Cabinet Office and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to push it through. This raises uncomfortable questions about the vetting procedures—or lack thereof—that allowed such an appointment to proceed.
Karl Turner, the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull East, was among several backbenchers who issued what amounted to an ultimatum to the Prime Minister. "The mood on the backbenches is dire," he said, adding that unless changes were made at the top of Downing Street, "the prime minister is going to have to make a decision about his future."
The comparison to previous troubled premierships is inescapable. John Major's government was plagued by scandals involving senior figures, each one chipping away at his authority until the 1997 election wipeout. May's difficulties with Brexit were compounded by poor judgment in personnel matters. Now Starmer, barely months into his tenure, faces similar questions about his judgment and his willingness to stand up to powerful figures within the Labour establishment.
The government's initial attempt to resist pressure to release documents about the appointment process lasted less than 24 hours before Labour MPs forced the climbdown. That speed of capitulation suggests Number 10 understands how serious the political danger has become.
As of Wednesday evening, Lord Mandelson remains in post as ambassador-designate to Washington, though he has yet to present his credentials. The question now is whether he can remain in the role, or whether further revelations will make his position untenable. What is already clear is that this episode has inflicted serious damage on the Prime Minister's standing, both within his own party and in the country at large.
The irony will not be lost on Westminster observers that Mandelson—the architect of New Labour's communications strategy and the man who taught a generation of politicians how to manage scandal—has now become the source of one that threatens to define this government's early months in office.
