Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced rising unrest in his parliamentary party on Friday after the abrupt dismissal of Lord Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the United States, a move prompted by the publication of emails linking the peer to Jeffrey Epstein.
The sacking, announced yesterday, has triggered a bitter internal blame game with several Labour MPs and insiders pointing fingers at the prime minister’s close aide, Morgan McSweeney, for pushing the controversial appointment. The episode comes less than a week after a hurried cabinet reshuffle prompted by the resignation of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and ahead of a state visit by US President Donald Trump.
Government officials said the decision to remove Mandelson followed the emergence of emails in which the peer had described Epstein as his “best pal,” allegations that ministers said left them with no alternative once the material became public. The prime minister had voiced "full confidence" in Mandelson less than 24 hours before ordering his removal, according to government statements.
Labour figures on and off the record told media outlets that McSweeney had championed Mandelson’s appointment and resisted calls to withdraw it after fresh material surfaced. One Labour insider told the Daily Mail that McSweeney “insisted on appointing him – he's his political hero and mentor,” and that the aide had pressed ministers to defend Mandelson even as concerns mounted.
Downing Street rejected reports that Starmer had overruled security-service advice warning against the appointment. The prime minister’s office said the selection was a matter of political judgment, not the result of ignored security assessments. Whitehall sources, however, told the Daily Mail that senior figures in the Foreign Office had advised against the appointment before it was announced in December.
The dismissal has prompted cross-party calls for greater transparency. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the government had dithered over the decision and demanded clarity on what Starmer knew and when. Some backbench MPs and opposition figures urged publication of documents related to Mandelson’s vetting.
Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander, speaking on BBC Breakfast, acknowledged the political pain in Labour ranks and defended the original decision as a judgment aimed at securing an "unconventional" envoy for a similarly unconventional US administration. Alexander noted Mandelson’s recent presence in the White House and cited his experience, including time as a European commissioner, as factors behind the selection.
Labour backbencher Charlotte Nichols said the dismissal was "not immediate enough" and reiterated that Mandelson should not have been appointed. Other MPs described the party’s handling of successive ministerial exits — first Rayner’s and now Mandelson’s — as damaging to Labour’s message of stability and competence as it seeks to move into a new phase focused on delivery.
The episode has revived scrutiny of the government’s September reshuffle, in which Sir Keir accelerated changes after Rayner’s resignation over tax matters. Former civil servant Sue Gray, who previously served as Starmer’s chief of staff, is reported to have compiled an initial shortlist for the Washington post that did not include Mandelson.
The government said it would now focus on moving forward while insisting that the action taken had been necessary once the new material surfaced. Some senior Labour figures stressed the need to repair internal confidence ahead of the state visit, arguing the party cannot afford further high-profile distractions.
Calls for an inquiry and for the publication of vetting documents were ongoing at the close of the week. Officials in Downing Street and the Foreign Office will face continued scrutiny from MPs about the selection process, the advice that was received, and the steps taken once the emails became known. The unfolding controversy has added pressure on Starmer to demonstrate decisive leadership in the days before the US president arrives in London.