LONDON (AP) 鈥� British Prime Minister probably wishes he had never heard the name Peter Mandelson.
Starmer is again facing questions over his future. And again, it鈥檚 do with his misguided decision to appoint a self-professed 鈥渂est pal鈥� of convicted sex offender to the plummiest of plum jobs in U.K. diplomacy 鈥� ambassador to the United States.
Two months ago when he was over the appointment in late 2024, it was his judgment that was in question. Enough for some in his Labour Party, including its leader in Scotland, to urge him to stand down.
Now, he鈥檚 facing over how Mandelson cleared the official hurdles to get the job in the first place.
If he鈥檚 found to have done so, he will be on very thin ice, not least because Starmer put integrity at the heart of his pitch to the British electorate at the July 2024 election to replace the scandal-plagued Conservatives.
鈥淪tarmer set himself up as the guy who always followed the rules, in stark contrast to, say, Boris Johnson, and he came to power effectively promising to 鈥榙rain the swamp鈥�,鈥� said Tim Bale, politics professor at Queen Mary University of London.
鈥淏ecause of that, the latest revelations in the unholy mess created by his ill-judged appointment of Peter Mandelson mean that many voters now see him not only as a liar but as a hypocrite 鈥� and hypocrisy is one of the worst sins that any British politician can possibly commit,鈥� he added.
The vetting bombshell
On Thursday, The Guardian newspaper revealed that Mandelson, 72, failed security vetting before he took up the ambassadorial post in early 2025. That’s a problem for Starmer, who has told Parliament that 鈥渇ull due process鈥� was observed.
The government stressed that Starmer and other ministers only found out earlier this week that the Foreign Office had cleared Mandelson for the job despite the assessment. The quickly led to the resignation of the Foreign Office鈥檚 top civil servant, Olly Robbins.
Starmer is trying to fend off questions about what he did or didn鈥檛 know about the vetting process, which would have involved an assessment of Mandelson鈥檚 suitability for the role in light of questions over his finances, his relationships, , and his personality.
People familiar with the vetting process said that is standard practice for ministers not to be told, because of the sensitive personal information involved. They said the checks don鈥檛 produce a binary pass or fail, but a risk-based assessment that leaves a final decision to senior officials like Robbins.
Starmer is also facing questions over whether he had effectively given direction to officials to sidestep concerns over Mandelson.
Starmer said he is 鈥渁bsolutely furious鈥� that he was kept in the dark, calling it 鈥渟taggering鈥� and 鈥渦nforgivable.鈥� He will make a statement to Parliament on Monday. Robbins, who was effectively fired by Starmer, is due to address lawmakers on Tuesday and may give a very different version of events.
Not Mandelson again
Mandelson was a , given he had twice resigned from Labour governments for financial or ethical missteps around the turn of the century, and his acquaintance with Epstein, who .
The seemingly made by Starmer was clear: the risk was worth it as Mandelson鈥檚 lobbying skills and previous trade expertise would help persuade the Trump administration to spare the U.K. from some of the most onerous tariffs.
That appeared to work but by September 2025, the narrative changed after the release of emails that showed that Mandelson had supported Epstein even when he was facing jail for sex offenses. Though uncomfortable, Starmer hoped his decision to fire Mandelson would settle the matter.
However, the by the U.S. Justice Department in January put an end to that. Starmer鈥檚 political judgment was questioned after emails in the Epstein files suggested that when Mandelson was a member of the Labour government, in 2009-2010, he had passed on sensitive 鈥� and potentially market-moving 鈥� government information to the disgraced financier.
British police launched a criminal probe, in London and western England. Mandelson was on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He was released the following morning after more than nine hours of questioning. He has not been charged, has denied any wrongdoing and does not face allegations of sexual misconduct.
Starmer has repeatedly to the British public and to the victims of Epstein鈥檚 sex trafficking for believing what he has termed 鈥淢andelson鈥檚 lies.鈥�
Mandelson nightmare will go on
Despite Starmer鈥檚 dire personal ratings and the anticipated heavy electoral defeats for Labour in a raft of local and regional elections in May, the had died down. His decision to not get the U.K. directly involved in the war in Iran chimed with the public mood.
Now his job is in danger again.
鈥淭his scandal is not ending,鈥� said Kemi Badenoch, leader of the main opposition Conservative Party. 鈥淗e has run out of people to sack, he has run out of places to hide, he has run out of authority. The buck stops with him. His position is untenable and he must go.鈥�
Starmer’s party commands a large majority in Parliament, so the prime minister’s fate depends on what Labour lawmakers think.
On Monday, Starmer will gauge the mood, when he makes his statement. So far, few in his party have said he should go. If more Labour lawmakers put their heads above the parapet following a weekend of campaigning in their local electoral patches, .
Confidence in a leader can be a fragile thing, no matter how big their majority. Just ask , who was elected with a thumping majority in 2019 and resigned both as prime minister and as a lawmaker three years later, after a string of scandals.
Copyright © 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.
