Can Keir Starmer save himself from the Mandelson scandal?

0:00Hello, it is Ryan, and we could all use an extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we? Just to make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes, counting your steps, you know, all the mundane stuff. That is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino. Chumba Casino has all your favorite social casino style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere with daily bonuses. So sign up now at ChumbaCasino.com. That's ChumbaCasino.com. No purchase necessary. VGW group void. We're prohibited by law. 21 plus terms and conditions apply. This is a Global Player original podcast. I am sorry.

0:38Sorry for what was done to you. Sorry that so many people with power failed you. Sorry for having believed Mandelson's lies and appointed him. And sorry that even now, you're forced to watch this story unfold in public once again. That was Keir Starmer this morning and honestly the most full-throated and I think sincere message directly to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein that we have heard from any political leader, frankly from anyone in power. And the question is now, can he distance himself, his premiership, from what he knew about Peter Mandelson when he appointed him last January? The feeling in the parliamentary Labour Party among Labour MPs is sulfurous.

1:30Has this affair crippled Starmer's authority, whether he resigns now or later? Is it all over for him? Welcome to The News Agents.

1:47It's Lewis. It's Emily. And this morning at around 11 o 'clock, Keir Starmer popped up in Hastings and he wanted to, I guess, talk about renewal, talk about the Labour projects. But he was conscious that none of that would sink in without first addressing the elephant, the Mandelstein, the Mandelson Epstein. I mean, that Mandelstein kind of works, doesn't it? the files. And the first thing, pretty much the first thing he said was that apology, which I thought was actually really, really welcome and really convincing. And he went on to say, we won't look away. We won't allow the powerful to treat justice as optional.

2:32We'll do everything within our power to ensure accountability is delivered. It's what victims deserve and it's what I will do. And I guess the subtext to this is, I'm on your side, victims, and I'm deeply sorry that I appointed the man we all know now to be, I mean, where to begin, you know, somebody who was not only a very, very intensely good friend of a convicted paedophile, but somebody who was betraying his own government at the time. It takes us back to this question, which will soon become more apparent, I guess, from what we're allowed to read, which is what did Keir Starmer know at the time he appointed him?

3:14And what kind of questions was Mandelson asked in the vetting? Yeah, and I think that is going to be absolutely crucial, the contents of the documents, and in particular, how onerous and how substantial the questions about Epstein were. We were saying when we recorded yesterday that it looked likely that the government would have to backtrack on exactly how the release of those documents would work. And indeed, that is exactly what happened. Just to recap, the government initially wanted to publish the documents to accept the strictures of the Humble Address. That was the bit of parliamentary business that was compelling the release of these documents about Peter Mandelson and his appointment.

3:59but initially they wanted to decide which documents wouldn't be released on the basis of it not being in the national interest or national security and so on because you can imagine there are things that could embarrass the US-UK relationship whatever it happens to be. As we saw in the case of Kim Darroch, the former UK ambassador who ended up resigning because his quite frank memos had been leaked. Absolutely, so you can understand that but what became clear in the Commons yesterday and I do think this is crucial for the question of Keir Starmer's authority it became clear that once again despite that huge majority that he has got that on a very practical basis it wasn't there because Labour MPs even during the course of Prime Minister's questions yesterday hearing the Prime Minister say aloud something that to be honest we all knew already but hearing him say aloud that he knew that Mandelson continued his relationship with Epstein even after his conviction for paedophilia hearing him say that aloud seemed to curdle the blood of labour and peace now you can have a discussion i think we probably should about whether that's hypocriticals because like as i say everyone kind of knew that anyway but hearing say it aloud seemed to crystallize something and through the course of that debate it became clear that even his own mps did not trust their own number 10 to oversee the release of those documents and so in the end they ended up with a compromise position where the intelligence and security and committee of Parliament is going to oversee it and decide which documents are released and what is put into the public domain.

5:26But as I say, in terms of the Prime Minister's authority, which relies on the confidence of the Commons, he didn't enjoy it yesterday, which is a crippling blow. It's worth explaining, if you're wondering why we're talking about people knowing that Epstein was a convicted paedophile, that he had a conviction on one count of what they then called child prostitution. I think we'd probably call it child rape now, quite frankly. But the bulk of his crimes had not then been convicted. He had never been brought to justice for the mass number of rapes and abuse that he'd committed. So he was convicted on that very slim sort of one count.

6:09I mean, that's a whole story in itself. And I think there were people, and I think Mandelson was one, who believed Epstein when he sort of said, oh I don't know that it was just a little you know it's just a little slip it wasn't a big thing it wasn't it wasn't real it wasn't bad it was just prostitution it was kind of like that there's this weird phrase that come out it was like it was like stealing a bagel you know that was the way that they minimized it. Manolson says he believed that he'd been framed. He'd been framed or it wasn't it wasn't that we knew about the mass network at that stage but obviously if somebody is accused of grooming children even if it's one child then all your antennas should be right and I guess the interesting thing today is that Mandelson has this week been telling friends that in that vetting procedure he was never asked about Epstein.

6:54I put this to somebody who's right at the centre of the vetting system and I said, is it possible that he was never asked about Epstein? And this person just said, not possible. Even if he wasn't asked explicitly, he will have been asked if there's anything the appointments process should be aware of to fail to reply honestly and openly is itself a disqualification. So I just went on and said, well, is it possible then they didn't say Epstein by name? Could they have just not used the name in that vetting procedure? And this person said, yes, but given what was publicly and readily available about his past friendship, I would have been astounded if he wasn't explicitly asked that.

7:36And I say this as somebody who has been through deep vetting. In other words, I mean, maybe it's not a big surprise that Mandelson is telling something that turns out not to be entirely truthful. But he is now trying to say they never asked me about Epstein. They asked me about my mum. They asked me about my family. They asked me about my past. They didn't mention Epstein. And from this person, it sounds like it was almost impossible. That's true. But even still, the onus is on the person being vetted to declare anything that could be compromising or embarrassing or prohibiting. if you're sitting in the chair asking those questions, being asked those questions?

8:11There is a question that's been rattling around my own head a lot over the past few days, not least because in a very small way, actually, it affects something that I myself sort of did. And I'll get to that in a minute. But like, the question is this, if Keir Starmer is guilty of this terrible sin, is that sin also basically so much of the rest of Westminster and the media and everybody else guilty of the same thing in politics, i.e. overlooking that 2008 conviction of Epstein. And I say that for a very simple reason. Look, if Starmer has misled anyone and misled Parliament about the contents of that vetting and the questions he was asking and about the communications that existed at that time, clearly he will have to resign because he has misled everybody about what he said he did as part of the Mandelson process.

9:02So that's a separate question. But if these documents do show, beyond a kind of reasonable doubt, that Mandelson did mislead him, then what we're basically saying is, is that Keir Starmer overlooked that 2008 conviction and that that is wrong. But the truth is, we all knew that 12 months ago. So why is it such a problem today, like a potential resignation problem today, if it wasn't a problem or it wasn't considered a resignation problem 12 months ago? Now, one obvious answer is obviously we're seeing just how lurid and how deep and how profound that connection was between Mandelson and Epstein.

9:39But again, you can say that could Starmer reasonably have known that? Well, certainly he wouldn't have seen the contents of the emails, presumably. And what I mean by this slightly more widely is this. I was just looking back at some of the coverage of the Mandelson appointment at the time from across the media. And it's very, very striking. There is almost no mention of the Epstein connection at all. I should say from the beginning, this will exempt the Financial Times who have been doggedly pursuing this for a long time. But looking across the media, The Guardian, Mandelson's China stance, making bad choice for US ambassador, say critics.

10:10The Times, Lord Mandelson to be confirmed as US ambassador, despite China claims. The Telegraph, Mandelson rose back on China praise in attempts to woo Trump. GB News, Farage snubbed, as if that's the big story. Farage snubbed. It always is. as Starmer announces new UK ambassador to the US. And then in terms of some individual comment pieces as well, we see a piece from Michael Gove, why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump. We see another piece in the mail, ruthless, cynical and cunning, why Mandy is the perfect choice to be US ambassador. So there's two kind of corollaries to that.

10:46One is 12 months ago, apart from the Financial Times and a few other people, MPs in particular, generally speaking, the received Westminster consensus was that Mandelson was a good pick and insofar as he was a bad pick, the problem wasn't about Epstein. The problem was about his China and EU relations. Indeed, I would say, I would say that what is particularly grim about this is I think we all know why Starmer appointed Mandelson and it's the thing he can't say, which is he didn't pick Mandelson in spite, in a sense, of his Epstein connections and of being a dark character. He picked him because of it, because he was the perfect fit, it seemed.

11:25For Trump. For the Trump era, for the Trump court. And the perfect way of testing that is, would Starmer have picked Mandelson if Kamala Harris had become president? No way. Absolutely not. No way. For loads of reasons, including the Epstein connections. But the truth is, is that the received wisdom, and you can see why Starmer did it, is because the sort of man that Mandelson, everyone sort of thought he was, this sort of dark arts character, someone who could thrive in the court of Trump, He was picked because he was the sort of person who had those Epstein connections. I think that's so interesting.

11:56And that's the grim reality. I think that's so interesting. And the thing I'd add into that is if you cast your mind back, at the time, Mandelson was going for two extraordinary jobs. One was UK ambassador to Washington and the other was chancellor of Oxford. And he was up against William Hague. And obviously, there was no moment where Oxford as a university said, we can't have this. They put him on the shortlist. He was one of five. You know, we went to talk to him specifically about the... I was going to mention that. And that is the thing that's been running around my head. Because full disclosure, I mean, I interviewed Mandelson in November 2024.

12:30And I did, I was aware of the FT reporting at the time. And I thought long and hard about whether to ask about the Epstein stuff. And now I regret not doing so, because clearly it was the right question to ask. And it was a kind of journalistic oversight on my part. And I thought long and hard about why, particularly in the kind of like the light of all of this, that I didn't. And the truth is, is that having reflected long and hard about it, there were two main reasons. One was that, as I say, the overall kind of like feeling at the time was, is that the main encumbrance to him becoming ambassador was about China and the EU, which is what I asked about.

13:05And secondly, was because I knew from the FT's asking him about it, that Mandelson would not engage, which told me to fuck off. That would have been a great clip. but that potentially as well he would be then litigious and then sort of say this would... So the sort of net cost of it for what was to be gained wasn't worth it. Now, in the end, that was clearly a mistake and I regret it. But I think what it does reveal is the general tenor of the moment of the time. And I think what it does is I, you know, I can't sit here without a sense of hypocrisy and go, well, Starmer was just completely outrageous in appointing him in the knowledge, given that he knew what he knew at the time because at the time the whole or much of the media and political class and it doesn't show the political media class a good light whatsoever by the way but it is true to say that that was not the emphasis and focus at the time and it speaks to something about just complete honestly speaking it speaks to something about the psychology of news and the pack and the herd which we all must try and work better against but it is nonetheless the truth of the situation 100 % and actually to exactly that point when we had him on the news agents in the first couple of months I mean this was like going back four years ago I remember asking him about his relationship with Oleg Deripaska he'd been on the yacht again it was his relationship to powerful men with lots of money offering him freebies and at the end of that interview he went off and said such a silly girl for asking those silly questions.

14:37I mean, it's exactly what, as a female journalist, you think you're getting, but it's never explicitly sort of spelled out like that. And that was him sort of trying to shut it down and make you feel small. He would have made you feel small for asking about that and slightly threatened. He made me feel small because I raised Deripaska, I raised the question of like bad Russian money because it was at the beginning of the Ukraine war. And I think it does speak to something really important, which is to constantly swim against the tide. Yes, absolutely. You will quite, if you get the wrong moment, you will be made to feel A, wrong, B, sort of apologetic, C, like you've misunderstood the sort of the tenor of the interview that you should have been doing.

15:23But I also think just to go back to whether Starmer appointed him because he was Trump adjacent, I think there's still another question, which is we all know that Starmer is a delegator, really. And I can't help wondering, and this is not to sort of exculpate or excuse, but there will be other people that were close to Mandelson and close to Starmer who probably said, that's the one you want. I can imagine a world in which Starmer, quite frankly, left Karen Pierce, who was an excellent ambassador, exactly in her role, because why would he need to rethink it? And I could sort of, I could understand a world in which there was pressure put upon him.

15:59Should there have been pressure put upon a prime minister? Of course not. But I sort of think we know the sort of personality at the centre and I can imagine a world in which that pressure basically became something that he said, oh fine, get on with it. If you think so, fine. And look, it doesn't stop there being a question and an entire legitimate question about Starmer's judgement, which is that a different prime minister and a different leader, despite the fact that they might have seen the kind of logic of someone like Mandelson and how efficacious he might be in the court for Trump just go, you know what, it's just too much of a risk.

16:29I don't like the guy. I think it's too much of a risk for too little gain. And also, yeah, there's the Epstein side. I'm just not touching it. And so that is clear. It's completely legitimate, these questions. And I think Starmer's authority is clearly damaged by it. He has unwittingly brought the Epstein files, Jeffrey Epstein, to the heart of Downing Street. And obviously that is not by design, but it is the net cost. But as I say, I think it is worth sort of thinking about some of the hypocrisy that we're seeing. And just on Trump, again, this is Trump who makes a fool of us all in so many ways.

17:00Because in exactly the same way that people say, well, we looked at Mandelson, but we kind of all knew what he was, really. We all know what Trump is, really. We all know what kind of man Trump is, really. But we spend day after day and week after week, these same people who are now lecturing Starmer lecture everybody else about, you know, what hidden depths there are to the guy. And, you know, actually what an extraordinary dealmaker he is and how he's reshaping global politics. Oh, it's ridiculous. But we all know, really, the sort of guy that he is. And actually, I do think there is something that we should be kind of proud of as a country, which is it is much nicer to have a prime minister standing up there taking really hard hitting questions from the press, which are about his leadership, about his judgment, about his position, quite frankly.

17:44And he takes all of them and he doesn't turn around as Trump does and say, why aren't you smiling more Miss Piggy? right I mean you know we are doing pretty well as a country in terms of from the Epstein files in terms of holding those in power to account and I think that is not a bad place to be actually well and just very briefly the other irony of course of all of this is potentially that you know Keir Starmer I have no doubt actually in fairness to him I think Keir Starmer we can see this from his record as DPP as well he does have a proper record in terms of policy on violence against women and girls I've interviewed Jess Phillips you've interviewed Jess Phillips I've you know she's a straight shooter she says it privately as well as publicly when she talks about how passionate Starmer is and how much license he gives to her to pursue that agenda also they've literally put it no government's ever done that before as one of the you know put it up in lights as one of the five missions I have no doubt that Starmer genuinely cares about this stuff it is of course an irony that we're discussing potentially the downfall of a prime minister who yes he's made a huge mistake huge miscalculation maybe worse let's see what's in these documents maybe worse but assuming there's not but clearly has actual no personal connection to the Epstein files or anything like that and there are so many men who are personally right at the centre of this who won't be touched who will not be touched at all well we've been talking about Starmer's position within the PLP I've been talking to Brian Leishman who is a critic of Starmer I think it's fair to say but nonetheless someone who has got real concerns about how Starmer's handled this affair that's coming up

19:17Breaking news, in-depth analysis and trusted voices, all in one place. From award-winning journalists asking the questions that shape your world. Prime Minister, you talked about doing patriotic things. Welcoming the leader of the opposition, leader of the Conservative Party, Kerry Bates, not back to the studio. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed Davey. The news that matters from the UK and around the world and why it matters to you. Listen on our free Global Player app or the LBC app. LBC, leading Britain's conversation. Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah, it's even better with Chumba by my side.

19:54Race to ChumbaCasino.com. Let's Chumba! No purchase necessary. VTW Group. Void where prohibited by law. CTNCs. 21+. Sponsored by Chumba Casino.

20:07The News Agents. Well, obviously, one of the imponderables right now, and one of the crucial things right now, is what the Parliamentary Labour Party thinks and what the Parliamentary Labour Party is going to do. I'd like to say we've got one of the 400 or so members of the PLP in the Commons with us now, Brian Leishman, who's the MP for Aloha and Grangemouth. Brian, thanks so much for coming in, back on the News Agents. Thanks for having me. Does the Prime Minister survive? It's a long way back for him, I would say. I think, though, it goes deeper than the Prime Minister. I think we've got to have a proper analysis, objective analysis and diagnosis of the people that surround the Prime Minister.

20:45and we've got to then really look at his chief of staff. You think Morgan McSweeney has to go? I think Morgan McSweeney has got an incredible amount of influence within the Labour Party, his direction, how he's shaped it in his own image and I think he's got questions to answer. But do you think he should go? Yes. And do you think that the Prime Minister, were you satisfied, I mean the Prime Minister's been making a speech this morning, he kind of reiterated what he said in the Commons yesterday that Mandelson lied to him, lied to the Cabinet Office, lied to the Foreign Office and everyone who asked him about the extent of his connections with Epstein.

21:16Does that reassure you? Not overly, because Peter Mandelson has been living in plain sight. Everyone knows what Peter Mandelson is, who he is as a character. He has been sacked repeatedly from cabinet positions in the past. The toxic culture that is at the heart of the Labour Party at the moment is largely down to people like Peter Mandelson. Everyone knows who he is. What do you mean by that? Because some people listening to this, particularly our younger listeners of whom there are a lot, viewers actually don't know who he is. So what do you mean by that? The intense and bitter factionalism that's at the heart of the Labour Party, we've seen that with internal candidate positions, stitch-ups, for want of a better phrase, the lack of internal democracy at the party, the stifling of internal debate, and internal debate, Lewis, let's be honest, if we had robust internal debate on policy, then a lot of the misjudgments and the missteps of our first year and a half or so in government would have been avoided.

22:11If listening to, back bench Labour MPs. So that culture has been created by people like Peter Mandelson. But is it not the case? Let's just imagine, we can't know what's in those documents yet, but let's just imagine that those documents are published and there is a sufficient kind of range of documents. It's clear that they've not been kind of hidden away from us. And let's imagine that they show what the Prime Minister says, which is that in terms of the vetting that was done, Mandelson misled them, lied about the nature of his relationship, and that therefore Or you could say that the Prime Minister made a misjudgment, but that it wasn't anything graver than that.

22:48I mean, isn't that fair enough? Well, at best case scenario, we're looking at it being a misjudgment, a complete misjudgment and a real error on the Prime Minister's power. But isn't it true, Brian, just to push back on it, it is true to say, I mean, I don't know what you were saying about it at the time. I suspect you were very critical of it. But it is true to say that if you look back to the commentary and a lot of the political reaction to this from the time, both from within some parts of the Labour Party, but also across the political spectrum, Generally speaking, A, the bulk of the commentary was saying this was a sort of clever move because Mandelson would be exactly the sort of person who would thrive in Trump's Washington, which is presumably what Starmer was thinking.

23:22And that B, insofar as there was a problem, again, most of the commentary at the time was saying that the problem is that he's too close to Europe and too close to China. So in a way, we're all just waking up to the fact what was staring us in the face. But we're all guilty as that or many of us are as guilty of that as Keir Starmer was. Well, I think that you've touched on something that is at the heart of this matter, Lewis, and that is the fact that Peter Mandelson has been embedded in the elite, or the inverted commas, the political establishment of this country for decades. He has been at the heart of the Labour Party and policy making in this country.

23:57Peter Mandelson has repeatedly shown what side he is on. That of the elites, the super wealthy, anti-trade unionism, anti-working class. That is the real issue that we've got to the bottom here. So the wider political commentariat or the wider political establishment were probably quite comfortable and quite happy because they recognised who Peter Mandelson was and what Peter Mandelson stood for. and a lot of the politicians in this country would have been entirely comfortable with that. Do you think the bit of Mandelson should go to prison? I'm not a judge, but I think he's got questions to answer.

24:30I think there's a serious case for him to answer and put it forward to relevant authorities. And I was looking through some of that, and in fairness, the Prime Minister can't have known this bit and I think we can all probably agree with that. I was looking through in slightly more detail the exchanges of messages which were pretty constant, like a stream of consciousness really, between Mandelson and Epstein, particularly in the last days or the last months of the brown government and he was talking about day by day kind of almost psychological reports about brown talking about how he needed to go how he was persuading to get rid of him as well of all of the sort of secrets that we now know he divulged to epstein i can't think of anything quite like it this is a man who as you say not to your liking but helped build the modern labor party might he now destroy the modern labor party Well, the destruction of the party, the party is not, and I've always rejected when the Prime Minister, for example, describes it as my Labour Party.

25:25It's not Keir Starmer's Labour Party. It's not Peter Mandelson's Labour Party. It's the Labour Members Party. It is a phenomenal movement. The wider Labour movement have championed so many causes and campaigns in this country's history. The Labour Party will not die, but it really needs to rid itself of the toxic and cancerous culture that people like Peter Mandelson have foisted upon it. Do you think that Keir Starmer is now a credible figure with the public? I think the approval ratings speak for themselves in that one. Nothing you're saying about what you're saying, Brian, indicates to me that you think that the Labour Party isn't in any way better off with Keir Starmer leading it.

26:03Let me just say then, I want Keir Starmer to be a success. I want Keir Starmer to improve. But do you think he can be a success? I think that if he is incapable of changing and incapable of being the Prime Minister that the party, and more importantly, the country needs, then we've got to get the right person in position and it might not be Keir Starmer. Does he have the confidence right now of the parliamentary Labour Party? You know, 400-odd Labour Party members within Parliament. I'm only going to speak for myself and I've got serious reservations. Were you at Prime Minister's Questions yesterday?

26:36I was not. I was in meetings, but I have caught up with it since. You've caught up with it since and doubtless caught up with some of your colleagues since. It seems undeniable that that blackened the mood of Labour MPs. Is that fair to say? Absolutely fair to say. Of course it did. We saw the performance yesterday in PMQs. We then saw the drama unfold on an almost minute by minute, hour by hour basis. And the Peter Mandelson statement wasn't covering ourselves in glory. And it was clear as well, in a way, yesterday, you just mentioned the kind of what happened afterwards in terms of what happened with the humble address.

27:08It was clear, wasn't it, then, that on a very basic level, you talk about kind of, or me asking you, about the mood of the PLP. The mood of the PLP was clear because the government tried to get its way on multiple occasions and backed down because it knew that it couldn't, because it knew that it would probably lose. And doesn't that show that the PLP has already spoken, that in a sense they don't have confidence in the Prime Minister, or at least his authority on this matter? Well, what I would say, I think the PLP really showed itself up yesterday for being the force for good that it is. We've seen that on other occasions, for example, on the welfare debacle from last year as well.