Prime Minister Keir Starmer will break his silence on the controversy surrounding Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein as Labour MPs warn his leadership could be at risk unless he quickly contains the fallout.
Starmer is due to field questions in Parliament for the first time since the government dismissed its ambassador in Washington after extraordinary emails linked to Lord Mandelson were revealed, the Daily Mail reported. The report said Downing Street was told on Tuesday — two days before the ambassador was removed — that a Bloomberg News memo seeking comment from Lord Mandelson contained language suggesting Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged.
According to the Daily Mail, No. 10 sources maintained that the prime minister had not been informed of the full content of the 2,000-word memo before he told MPs at Prime Minister’s Questions that he had confidence in the ambassador in Washington. The newspaper said Foreign Office permanent secretary Sir Oliver Robbins sought a response from Lord Mandelson, which only arrived on Wednesday afternoon. On Thursday morning the Foreign Office said the reported suggestion that Epstein’s earlier conviction was wrongful was new information and that, in light of that information, the ambassador had been withdrawn with immediate effect.
The revelations have intensified criticism of Starmer’s inner team, with several Labour backbenchers calling for the prime minister’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, to be sacked. Left-wing MP Richard Burgon told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme he expected Starmer to be "gone" by next summer if the party performs poorly in next May’s local elections. "Lots of MPs are looking to the elections next May," Burgon said. "The opinion polls suggest it's going to be a complete disaster, unfortunately." He added that failure to stem losses to both the left and the right could force a leadership change.
Helen Hayes, chair of the Education Select Committee, said if the May elections were as bad as feared there would have to be "questions about the nature of the leadership." Touring broadcast studios, skills minister Baroness Jacqui Smith told Times Radio she did not think Starmer was in the "last-chance saloon" and said the prime minister would be meeting nuclear industry representatives to discuss a deal with the United States aimed at bolstering the UK’s energy supply.
The controversy comes as the government prepares for US President Donald Trump’s state visit. Some Labour MPs expressed anger on the government benches about what they described as a failure of judgment by the prime minister’s office. Concerns about the party’s standing ahead of May’s local elections were also voiced, with mentions of potential electoral gains by Nigel Farage and other challengers.
Starmer entered Downing Street with a substantial parliamentary majority less than a year ago, but the Mandelson-Epstein revelations have underscored internal divisions over strategy and communications. The Daily Mail reported that the memo from Bloomberg had been seeking comment from Lord Mandelson, and that the suggestion regarding Epstein’s conviction played a central role in the decision to withdraw the ambassador.
Labour figures and officials contacted by national outlets have offered differing assessments of the timing and handling of information reaching No. 10. The Foreign Office statement described the relevant detail about the memo as "new information," prompting the immediate withdrawal of the ambassador in Washington. Responsibility for whether and when the prime minister was briefed remains a focal point for party critics.
Starmer is scheduled to outline details of a new nuclear energy agreement with the United States later on the day he faces questions in Parliament. The coming days are likely to show whether he can steady his parliamentary party and control the political damage from the revelations about Lord Mandelson’s correspondence, or whether dissent among Labour MPs will intensify ahead of the local elections.
Reporting in this matter was led by the Daily Mail, and the timeline and quotes reflected those accounts. The prime minister’s office and Lord Mandelson had not issued extended public comment beyond the statements referenced by the Daily Mail at the time of the report.