Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Why is Peter Mandelson worth protecting?

54 replies

Mugfills · 11/09/2025 10:02

I quite like Keir Starmer and I don't think his performace so far has been quite as bad as some want us to believe, but I am mystified at his decision to support Mandelson.

To my mind, Mandelson has always had an air of dodginess around him, so I was surprised when he got this appointment in the first place, but why would the PM risk his own career and other political fallout, rather than saying "sorry Peter, you're going to have to go, I can't defend this"?

OP posts:
Gardenroomdoom · 11/09/2025 10:07

Presumably if mandelson is in 'those' circles then he has a lot of power. He's obviously well connected to Trump who is volatile and could randomly tariff us further at the drop of a hat.

Macette · 11/09/2025 10:10

Well presumably he has something on Starmer?

Original poster
Mugfills · 11/09/2025 10:12

Macette · 11/09/2025 10:10

Well presumably he has something on Starmer?

I'd be very surprised at that, but guess he probably does have "something" on lots of influential people.

OP posts:

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Politics
joanofaardvark · 11/09/2025 10:12

It's not about Mandelson.

It's about the optics, to the US, of saying 'you used to hang out with out Epstein, you have letters in that birthday book, so you need to be sacked'.

Starmer needs to stay on the right side of Trump, as far as possible, for a myriad of reasons, from minimising the harm of the economic instability his tariffs are causing to diplomatically minimising Trump's knee-jerk foreign policy which quite literally could threaten world peace.

I agree that in a vacuum Mandy should go, if for nothing else than his unmitigated support for Epstein following the original conviction. But anyone who can even do a half-hearted Trump-whispering job (Starmer) needs to be doing nothing to jeopardise that position.

Summeriscumin · 11/09/2025 10:13

He isn’t responsible for the behaviour of a friend. He trusted his word which was foolish but not criminal.

Lovemybunnies · 11/09/2025 10:13

It’s not going to help Keir Starmer which is a shame as I think he is a good man. It does seem a bit dodgy considering Trump’s alleged links to Epstein as well. I thought Trump originally objected to Mandelson but could be wrong.

Original poster
Mugfills · 11/09/2025 10:14

joanofaardvark · 11/09/2025 10:12

It's not about Mandelson.

It's about the optics, to the US, of saying 'you used to hang out with out Epstein, you have letters in that birthday book, so you need to be sacked'.

Starmer needs to stay on the right side of Trump, as far as possible, for a myriad of reasons, from minimising the harm of the economic instability his tariffs are causing to diplomatically minimising Trump's knee-jerk foreign policy which quite literally could threaten world peace.

I agree that in a vacuum Mandy should go, if for nothing else than his unmitigated support for Epstein following the original conviction. But anyone who can even do a half-hearted Trump-whispering job (Starmer) needs to be doing nothing to jeopardise that position.

Yes, I agree to a point, but it plays so badly at home that Trump won't be Starmer's problem for long!

OP posts:
Macette · 11/09/2025 10:14

Summeriscumin · 11/09/2025 10:13

He isn’t responsible for the behaviour of a friend. He trusted his word which was foolish but not criminal.

What!!!

Pharazon · 11/09/2025 10:16

Because realpolitik. If he is fired for being mates with Epstein, it will be seen as a direct affront to Trump, which the UK cannot afford at the moment.

twistyizzy · 11/09/2025 10:16

Summeriscumin · 11/09/2025 10:13

He isn’t responsible for the behaviour of a friend. He trusted his word which was foolish but not criminal.

He supported Epstein AFTER the convictions! You are just excusing him

Bulbsbulbsbulbs · 11/09/2025 10:19

It's because he has been a great ambassador and he has the ears of lots of people in The White House. Trump likes him. It will be very difficult to parachute someone in with the same knowledge and relationships.

Pharazon · 11/09/2025 10:19

Lovemybunnies · 11/09/2025 10:13

It’s not going to help Keir Starmer which is a shame as I think he is a good man. It does seem a bit dodgy considering Trump’s alleged links to Epstein as well. I thought Trump originally objected to Mandelson but could be wrong.

He did but Mandelson wormed his way in and Trump now rates him highly and has lavished praise on him. The relationship is why the UK has got off so lightly in Trump’s trade war. Fire Mandelson and it’s perfectly possible that Trump will see this as an affront and retaliate.

Glurgle · 11/09/2025 10:22

Mandelson has always been a smarmy git who liked large amounts of money.

Why Starmer appointed him, I have no idea. Probably so he would smarm up to Trump.

The immediate problem for Starmer is the timing. Obviously Mandelson has to go, but it would be vvv awks to do that before Trump's state visit next week.

Alexandra2001 · 11/09/2025 10:27

twistyizzy · 11/09/2025 10:16

He supported Epstein AFTER the convictions! You are just excusing him

Show quote history

Well yes he did but thats not a crime, Mandelson is gay, there is no suggestion he took part in any trafficking etc.

However, v surprised he was appointed, another own goal.

Glurgle · 11/09/2025 10:29

Alexandra2001 · 11/09/2025 10:27

Well yes he did but thats not a crime, Mandelson is gay, there is no suggestion he took part in any trafficking etc.

However, v surprised he was appointed, another own goal.

Show quote history

If you can traffick females, you can traffick males...

AgentPidge · 11/09/2025 10:29

YANBU. He's always been a bit dodgy - slimy.

leli · 11/09/2025 10:30

joanofaardvark · 11/09/2025 10:12

It's not about Mandelson.

It's about the optics, to the US, of saying 'you used to hang out with out Epstein, you have letters in that birthday book, so you need to be sacked'.

Starmer needs to stay on the right side of Trump, as far as possible, for a myriad of reasons, from minimising the harm of the economic instability his tariffs are causing to diplomatically minimising Trump's knee-jerk foreign policy which quite literally could threaten world peace.

I agree that in a vacuum Mandy should go, if for nothing else than his unmitigated support for Epstein following the original conviction. But anyone who can even do a half-hearted Trump-whispering job (Starmer) needs to be doing nothing to jeopardise that position.

Brilliant comment.

Alexandra2001 · 11/09/2025 10:30

Glurgle · 11/09/2025 10:29

If you can traffick females, you can traffick males...

Show quote history

Zero evidence of this..... criminals can and do anything they like.

But like i said, he shouldn't have been appointed.

ScholesPanda · 11/09/2025 10:33

As PPs have said, it's an awkward position for the UK. If he sacks Mandelson for links to Epstein, it suggests he thinks Trump should pay some sort of political price too.

Given Trump's delicate nature, that would probably see us hit with 10,000% to tarrifs or similar.

Original poster
Mugfills · 11/09/2025 10:34

Alexandra2001 · 11/09/2025 10:27

Well yes he did but thats not a crime, Mandelson is gay, there is no suggestion he took part in any trafficking etc.

However, v surprised he was appointed, another own goal.

Show quote history

I don't think being gay means he couldn't have been involved. Maxwell wasn't sleeping with the girls either (afaik?).

OP posts:
Alexandra2001 · 11/09/2025 10:35

Mugfills · 11/09/2025 10:34

I don't think being gay means he couldn't have been involved. Maxwell wasn't sleeping with the girls either (afaik?).

Show quote history

No evidence for this, have you got some?

Vaxtable · 11/09/2025 10:37

Keir is nothing more than a scardy cat when it comes to making hard decisions. And not only as PM.

He won’t want to make any hard decision. He couldn’t even define a woman until the recent high court case solved that problem for him.

. . Any other PM would have by now ie they would have sacked Mandelson.

you only have to look at how he handled the Raynor issue

Dancinginthemoonlightbulb · 11/09/2025 10:37

ScholesPanda · 11/09/2025 10:33

As PPs have said, it's an awkward position for the UK. If he sacks Mandelson for links to Epstein, it suggests he thinks Trump should pay some sort of political price too.

Given Trump's delicate nature, that would probably see us hit with 10,000% to tarrifs or similar.

This.

Original poster
Mugfills · 11/09/2025 10:39

Alexandra2001 · 11/09/2025 10:35

No evidence for this, have you got some?

Show quote history

I haven't said he was involved, only that it's not impossible.

I think it's highly unlikely that anyone close Epstein didn't at least know something of what was going on.

OP posts:
Plinketyplonks · 11/09/2025 10:40

It’s a shame Keir didn’t appoint a career diplomat to the post, a veteran whose background has been checked to the nth degree and has already had ambassadorships.