A Daily Mail column on Wednesday called on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to resign unless he provides a full account of what he knew, and when he knew it, about Peter Mandelson’s links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
In a piece headlined that Starmer should step down if he cannot or will not explain his knowledge of the matter, columnist Dan Hodges set out a series of allegations and documents he said raise questions about the vetting and appointment of Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Washington.
Hodges wrote that a leaked email from Mandelson to Epstein showed the former European Commission president expressing personal warmth toward Epstein and offering him advice about seeking early release, and quoted the message as saying: “I think the world of you and I feel hopeless and furious about what has happened,” and urging Epstein to “be incredibly resilient, fight for early release and be philosophical about it as much as you can.” The column attributed the material to a leak but did not publish a copy of the full email.
The columnist also reported that a Cabinet Office memo detailing an attempt by Mandelson to arrange a meeting between then-prime minister Tony Blair and Epstein had been suppressed on grounds it “could damage UK–US relations.” Hodges said that memo was withheld from publication during the appointment process and questioned the claim made at the despatch box that “full due process was gone through” in Mandelson’s selection.
Hodges further cited a memo prepared by Lord Glasman after the US presidential inauguration, which was reportedly forwarded to a senior Downing Street adviser, Morgan McSweeney. According to the column, Glasman’s note said Mandelson’s appointment was “an unnecessary provocation,” referred to a photograph shown to Glasman of Mandelson celebrating a birthday with Epstein, and advised Downing Street to withdraw the appointment.
The column recounted a Commons exchange in which Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch pressed the prime minister to distance himself from Mandelson. Hodges said Starmer repeatedly expressed confidence in the ambassador at the despatch box, even though, the column added, Mandelson had told a television interviewer the previous evening that further embarrassing revelations about his relationship with Epstein were due to be published.
Hodges offered three possible explanations for the apparent discrepancy between Starmer’s public defence and the emerging material: that the prime minister did not ask Mandelson for details; that he did ask and subsequently misled Parliament; or that Mandelson lied or refused to answer — and wrote that any of the three would, in his view, render the prime minister unfit for office.
The Daily Mail column framed the episode as a test of a pledge Starmer made before taking office to “restore standards in public life,” and urged the prime minister to provide “unequivocal and transparent” answers about the appointment process and what he knew of Mandelson’s communications with Epstein.
The newspaper column did not offer an immediate response from Downing Street. The accusations and documents cited by Hodges have not been independently verified in the column, and the government has not published the suppressed Cabinet Office memo referenced in the piece. Neither Mandelson nor Starmer were quoted in the column defending against the specific allegations cited by Hodges.
The emerging dispute adds to scrutiny of the UK’s diplomatic appointment to Washington at a sensitive moment in relations with the United States, and raises questions about vetting procedures for high-profile envoys. Parliament’s standards rules treat knowingly misleading the Commons as a serious offence that can prompt calls for resignation, and the column urged a full public account to resolve whether those rules have been engaged.
Further reporting and comment from Downing Street, the Cabinet Office and the ambassador’s office will be required to corroborate the claims outlined in the Daily Mail column and to determine what, if any, official action follows.