Badenoch Challenges Starmer on Mandelson’s Ties to Epstein

The latest session of Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) revealed a heated exchange between Labour Leader Keir Starmer and Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch over former Labour minister Peter Mandelson and his connections to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. The debate focused on Mandelson’s suitability to serve as the UK’s ambassador to Washington, especially following the release of a note in which Mandelson referred to Epstein as his “best pal.”

Key Issues Raised During PMQs

The session, which took place on March 6, 2024, marked the last PMQs before the conference recess, and tensions were palpable. Badenoch questioned Starmer’s confidence in Mandelson, citing the ambassador’s ongoing ties to Epstein, even after the financier’s indictment on multiple charges. The note, released by U.S. lawmakers on the same day, stated that Mandelson found it “very embarrassing to see and to read.”

Starmer defended Mandelson, labeling Epstein a “despicable criminal who committed the most heinous crimes.” Despite this condemnation, Badenoch pressed for clarity, asking if Starmer had full confidence in Mandelson’s role, given the ambassador’s controversial past. She underscored the need for a representative “fully focused on this issue,” particularly in light of rising geopolitical tensions.

Geopolitical Context and Political Ramifications

The exchange occurred against a backdrop of heightened global tensions, with Starmer previously condemning Vladimir Putin for his aggressive actions towards NATO member Poland. Badenoch emphasized that the current political climate made it essential to have an ambassador who could dedicate full attention to these issues. She pointed out that concerns about Mandelson’s past relationships could undermine the UK’s diplomatic efforts.

Badenoch challenged Starmer on whether he was aware of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein when appointing him to this prominent diplomatic position. Starmer maintained that “full due process was followed” during the selection process, a response that prompted further scrutiny from Badenoch, who suggested that Starmer likely knew about the friendship.

Highlighting a report by The Telegraph, Badenoch noted that Epstein had brokered a deal with Mandelson while he was serving as Business Secretary, raising further questions about the appropriateness of his appointment. She demanded transparency regarding the vetting documents for Mandelson’s role, to which Starmer responded that such matters were “subject to the usual procedure.”

Badenoch criticized this focus on procedure, asserting that the situation was about “judgment” rather than bureaucratic processes. She referenced Starmer’s previous support for former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, who later resigned, suggesting that his backing of Mandelson could lead to similar fallout.

Throughout the session, Starmer emphasized Mandelson’s importance to diplomatic efforts, but Badenoch dismissed his arguments as “waffle and whataboutery,” reiterating that Mandelson remained “mired in scandal” and unable to concentrate on crucial NATO issues.

In a lighter moment, Starmer remarked on the ongoing Conservative leadership contest, joking that the government was “putting out the fires” left by previous Tory decisions. This session of PMQs was marked by intense exchanges and significant implications for both leaders and their parties.

As the session concluded, it was clear that the political landscape remains fraught with challenges, particularly concerning diplomatic appointments and the broader implications of past associations. The scrutiny over Mandelson’s connections to Epstein will likely continue as both parties navigate their paths ahead.