Is it possible that Mandelson might bring Starmer down?

[CurlewKate]

?

@OhDear111 for what?

@1dayatatime

So Starmer was given a shit brief and was lied to by PM, and whilst I disagree with his decision to appoint PM, I can see the reasons why he did.

It's not just a case of a supposedly shit brief though...it's public record that Mandelson had been fired twice for (putting it politely) using being less than transparent about his financial arrangements. In many jobs and roles there would be no way back from even the first offence, no matter how adept you were at the day job.

The buck can't all be passed onto the SIS, vetting, briefs...etc....I think the only people really convinced, or apparently convinced by the "yeah but he'll be a brilliant Trump wrangler" argument must have been KS, the closest to him in his office and some of the Westminster media bubble....

A heck of a lot of people outside Westminster and the associated press corp were predicting this would go T U from the day the appointment was announced.

KS's only slim chance of surviving this is by saying "ok, I stuffed up, I take full responsibility for a bad decision...here's what i intend to do now"....do you think he is capable of that?

If he trys to shift the blame entirely onto the security services it's not a good look and he's definitely a goner sooner rather than later (IMO).

Pritti Patel was fired for giving away state secrets to Israel, didn't stop her resuming her career

Agree. Blaming others is typical Labour but it will be his downfall.

This is all going to get very nasty. PM will have a lot on current and past senior figures in the Labour Party ( probably why he was so trusted) and will not hesitate to use it if he thinks it will save his neck.

True, and it shouldn't have happened.

Trusted or feared....

Yes and far far worse than what Starmer has done, which basically is to have believed officials and Mandelson.

Caveated that it doesn't come out he went against security services advice...

So the more i think about it, the less i think he should go over this issue BUT that assumes he gets rid of McSweeney and starts carrying out what he was elected to do...

Yes it is a problem that Peter Mandelson was chums with a convicted paedophile.
But Starmer was not chums with Epstein. He simply got a shit vetting on PM and was lied to by PM.

Oh FFS - that's desperate- trying to pin it on Starmer for being "associated " with PM.

Why not similarly blame King Charles or Queen Elizabeth for their association with Andrew.

A bit desperate...

I was referring to PM hanging out with Epstein actually.

It’s more than associated. He appointed Mandelson to a major Ambassadorial position, knowing about a connecting to Epstein. The FT Jim Pickard raised it before the appointment.

Come now, it was a lot more than that.

Starmer appointed Mandelson knowing his colourful background, and that he presented a risk. He rolled the dice, called it - it did not work out, and now Pandora’s Box has been opened.

Who knows what a scorned Mandelson is capable of now?

And yet none of the opposition parties really raised concerns at the time. Strange that. The information was, as you rightly say, in the public domain prior to the appointment, and yet the main concern expressed by the opposite parties at the time was that PM had previously been rather rude about Trump.

Tbf Labour were the ones in government and making the decision. Like appointing a Chancellor. Its not for opposition parties to get involved and consulted on decisions made using the PMs patronage powers?

You can’t put this on ‘other parties’. This is Starmer and Labour’s issue solely. This constant Labour attempt to shift blame is ridiculous at this point.

And yes they were warned even within their own party and those people were asked to shut up pretty much. Starmer will have to take this one without leaning on the opposition parties for once, if not he may well be out, actually he could go whatever.

Exactly. No one asks the other parties who they should appoint.

I'm not trying to put it on other parties at all. Clearly, the decision was Starmer's and he should take responsibility for it. If that includes standing down, then so be it.

I'm just observing that it's very easy for people to be wise after the event and to proclaim that it was blindingly obvious that PM shouldn't ever have been appointed to the Ambassador role because of the info that was already in the public domain, and yet it's curious that none of them really raised those blindingly obvious concerns at the time.

I'm not trying to get Starmer off the hook. The opposition parties are not responsible for his mistakes. But there is a degree of irony in their outrage now, given that they didn't think to mention it at the time.

Well a quick check shows Kemi objected before Starmer was even stumbling on this. How is he using he lied to me at this stage. Blah and wah. it’s only this week he’s realising how bad it is.

• September 2025 Objection: During Oral Answers to Questions in the House of Commons on 10 September 2025, Badenoch challenged Prime Minister Keir Starmer's confidence in Mandelson, calling it "embarrassing" and a "disgrace".

The concerns were raised. It was all over the media at the time. Keir Starmer did not listen. He can't blame the bigger boys now.

You probably read the wrong media.

For info, from Dec 2024:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/20/appointment-peter-mandelson-new-uk-ambassador-to-us-divides-labour-mps

Last para:

"Figures on the left were more obviously displeased. The former shadow chancellor John McDonnell said on X: “For many reasons associated with Peter Mandelson’s history in and out of political office, many will feel Keir [Starmer] has lost all sense of political judgment on this decision.”

Great, you'll be able to provide the links in that case. Very happy to stand corrected if concerns about the relationship were indeed raised by other party leaders at the time.

Mmmm I think I did raise concerns on Mumsnet at the time of Peter Mandelson’s appointment @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack
There was a thread then iirc.
I shall scroll through and check. It might take a while.

Labour are so bad at taking responsibility for decisions. Starmer in particular.

Even his own party are pointing this out rn, eg Harriet Harman.

That is from September, when information had emerged which led to PM getting sacked. I was asking about concerns which were raised at the time of PM's appointment, specifically in relation to PM's relationship with Epstein.

As I say, happy to stand corrected if there is actually evidence of such concerns at the time. I just feel that there has been a slight rewriting of history but I may be wrong.