Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced mounting criticism from within his own party on Friday after the sudden dismissal of Lord Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the United States, a move triggered by media reports of emails linking the peer to Jeffrey Epstein.
Labour MPs and party figures expressed alarm that the episode had undermined confidence in the prime minister’s judgment and in the government’s handling of senior appointments, with some calling for urgent disclosure of the vetting documents. The sacking came less than 24 hours after Downing Street had publicly expressed confidence in Mandelson, and days before President Donald Trump’s state visit to the United Kingdom.
Downing Street said action had to be taken when the new material emerged and insisted the prime minister continued to have confidence in his top team. No 10 rejected suggestions that Starmer had overruled security advice or that the government had acted improperly in the appointment process. Whitehall sources quoted in media reports said officials in the Foreign Office had advised against the appointment before it was announced in December.
The controversy centres on reports that a tranche of emails showed Mandelson describing Epstein as his "best pal". The peer has publicly said he regrets his friendship with Epstein. Labour sources also told media outlets that Morgan McSweeney, a senior adviser to Starmer, had pushed for Mandelson’s appointment and sought to defend him after the latest revelations. Those claims were described by other party figures as the view of “Labour insiders.”
Clive Lewis, a Labour backbencher, said on BBC’s The Week in Westminster programme that the episode showed a prime minister who had "lost control" and argued Starmer was "not up to the job." Kim Johnson, another Labour MP, told Sky News that "trust is eroding" and called for Mandelson to be stripped of the party whip and removed from the House of Lords. Protest from within the parliamentary party followed an already fractious period after a reshuffle and the departure of senior figures earlier this month.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused Starmer of "dithering" over the decision and said there were "serious questions over what Starmer knew and when." Nigel Farage said the prime minister had ignored warnings and taken too long to act. Labour figures and some MPs have urged the publication of all documents related to Mandelson’s vetting and for a cross-party inquiry into the episode.
Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander, speaking for the government, defended the original decision as a judgment based on Mandelson’s international experience, including his time as an EU trade commissioner, and noted the peer had recently been involved in UK trade work with the United States. Alexander said many colleagues were "despondent" after a difficult fortnight and that when the evidence emerged action had to be taken.
Those internal divisions were reflected in press reporting that Starmer’s former chief of staff, Sue Gray, had produced an initial short list for the Washington role that did not include Mandelson. Labour backbencher Charlotte Nichols said the sacking had not come soon enough, while other MPs described the handling of the appointment as a "shambles." One Labour source quoted in the media said McSweeney had been insistent on Mandelson’s appointment because the peer was a political mentor to him.
The controversy compounds a challenging week for Labour. The party recently carried out a reshuffle after the resignation of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner over tax issues, and Starmer has been attempting to set out a renewed focus on delivery in what he calls "Phase Two" of his government. Critics argue the episode damages that agenda ahead of high-profile diplomatic engagements in Washington.
Downing Street has so far resisted calls for a full public inquiry but faces pressure from MPs across parties to disclose the documents and advice that preceded the appointment. Starmer met his Irish counterpart at Chequers on Friday and had not made a substantive public statement on the sacking by midday, according to government briefings. Officials said senior ministers and advisers were continuing to work on the government's priorities while the matter was addressed.
Labour figures and commentators differed on the political consequences. Some argued the situation exposed problems in appointment processes and internal management, while government supporters stressed the need to move on and focus on the UK’s diplomatic relationship with the United States. With the state visit by President Trump imminent and calls for transparency growing, the government is likely to face further parliamentary and media scrutiny in the coming days.