Why is Keir Starmer standing by Jeffrey Epstein's 'best pal'?

0:02This is a Global Player original podcast. I don't believe I'm named in Epstein files. I have no doubt at all that there's a lot of traffic, correspondence, exchanges between us. Absolutely. And we know those are going to surface. We know they're going to come out. We know they're going to be very embarrassing. and they know that I'm going profoundly to regret ever having met him and been introduced to him in the first place. But I can't rewrite history. What I can do, what I can do, is express my profound sympathy for those who were badly treated by him. And secondly, I can accept, yes, I can accept that I continued my association with him for too long.

0:48That is Lord Peter Mandelson, our ambassador in Washington, admitting that more very embarrassing details of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein will come out. It's after a Telegraph scoop which discusses a deal that Mandelson and Epstein were trying to broker after Epstein had been convicted of paedophilia. Why is Starmer, our Prime Minister, determined to support the man who calls Jeffrey Epstein his best pal? Welcome to The News Agents.

1:27The News Agents. It's Emily. And it's John. And as we start to record at quarter to one, one of those women who has gone for the deputy Labour leadership role, Belrobero Addy, has just called for Peter Mandelson to resign. We're going to start by looking at some of the claims, the allegations against the man who, in that birthday book to Epstein, called himself Jeffrey Epstein's best pal. And this is a story from The Telegraph, which suggests that Epstein was brokering a deal with Lord Mandelson over the sale of a UK taxpayer-owned banking business after he'd been convicted of child sex offences.

2:11These are from emails that The Telegraph has now printed in full. It was a£1 billion deal negotiated whilst Mandelson was the business secretary and just months after Epstein had been released from prison. And the timeline here is something that is worth checking because there is a suggestion from both The Telegraph and from NPR, the American network, that Peter Mandelson was actually staying in Epstein's Manhattan townhouse, the one he calls 71st because it's on 71st Street, in the month of June 2009. Epstein had pled guilty to child prostitution a year earlier in 2008. He was in prison and he wasn't released from prison until July 2009.

3:01In other words, it is virtually impossible for Peter Mandelson not to have known that the man he was dealing with was in prison on charges of child prostitution whilst he was trying to broker a billion pound deal as the UK government's business secretary. Epstein emerged from jail a month later. And these are some of the questions that are now whirling round, not just Peter Mandelson, but the prime minister himself. Who knew what of those negotiations? And what does it say about the judgment of the man who is now our ambassador to Washington that he thought he could still operate? He could still essentially affect financial deals with a convicted paedophile.

3:49Look, Peter Mandelson was swimming in a circle of very wealthy individuals who were all friends and kind of moths to a flame around Jeffrey Epstein. And what you've seen is the confluence of three things. You've seen the confluence of sex, power, and money. With Mandelson, the sex bit was not part of it. He was there with his partner when he was staying with Jeffrey Epstein. Peter is gay. That's not what drew Peter there. But money and power seems to have been a part of it. And there was another figure in all of this, a guy called Jez Staley, who was a head of the private bank of J.P. Morgan in New York.

4:27And there were this New York Times has done fascinating reporting on the unease that was felt within J.P. Morgan about continuing to bank Jeffrey Epstein and how Epstein somehow always managed to charm his way so that people stuck around, even though, as you say, Emily, there was that criminal conviction against him from the Florida court case, the sweetheart deal, where he got off extremely lightly on pretty serious offences. And Peter Mandelson has found it necessary to give an interview to try to talk about why and why he maintained this relationship with Jeffrey Epstein for so long. He was talking to Harry Cole from The Sun newspaper.

5:11One, I feel a tremendous sense, a profound sense of sympathy for those people, those women who suffered as a result of his behaviour and his illegal criminal activities. And secondly, I regret very, very deeply indeed carrying on that association with him for far longer than I should have done. And I regret very much that I fell for his lies. I fell and accepted assurances that he had given me about his indictment, his original criminal case in Florida. like very many people, I took at face value what he said. With hindsight, with fresh information, many years later, we realised that we had been wrong to believe him.

6:00He's a charismatic, criminal liar, we now see. And I regret very much indeed, I felt it like an albatross around my neck since his death in 2018 or 19 when it was. I feel a tremendous sense of regret, not only that I met him in the first place, but I continued the association and I took at face value the lies that he fed me and many others. So Peter Mandelson there expressing his deep regret that he had stayed in touch with Jeffrey Epstein. I have to say I got the shivers watching that interview this morning because it was exactly the same line of questioning that I put to Prince Andrew nearly six years ago.

6:48Obviously, as you say, the allegations were very different. These were financial, they were not sexual, but it is pretty much the same line of questioning. Why did you carry on being his friend or being his associate after you knew? And when the question was put to Prince Andrew, he said he thought it was the honourable thing to do, to tell him in person, to go and stay at that same Manhattan townhouse for four or five days. It was the honourable thing to go to Jeffrey Epstein and break the news in person. But now we've got a man who was in the House of Lords, smoothing the path for a billion pound deal with a man who'd been convicted of sex abuse.

7:26He's now our ambassador to Washington. Why should our reaction be any different? Well, I think that is the question that Keir Starmer is going to have to wrestle with, because I thought it was a distinctly uncomfortable encounter that he had with Kemi Baden-Ock in the Commons today. And maybe I'm interpreting too much or over-reading. Starmer said, Peter Mandelson, our ambassador, has my support. Normally you would say, has my full support. And it was kind of somewhat watery thin, I thought. And I'm fascinated to know, and I thought, they'd not, you know, we mocked her for doing so terribly last week when it was Angela Rayner in the crosshairs.

8:10I think she absolutely hit the target today by saying, you know, did you know this stuff? Were you aware of these relationships? Were you aware of the closeness of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, my best pal, as he says in that letter. Because I think it is excruciating for Peter Mandelson, and I think it's also excruciating for Keir Starmer over what he does. It's one thing to come to the House of Commons to defend one of your ministers. That is the normal practice of what happens in government. You don't expect to have to do that and expend political capital on an ambassador.

8:47And that's what Keir Starmer had to do today. Yeah, we're going to be looking at that in more detail. But I think it is important to understand when he gave that interview, he was asked about the business relationship. And he said, I mean, these are the words he said, Epstein operated in a financial business way way above my level, a prolific social networker. During all the time I was an associate of his, I never saw the evidence of wrongdoing. No introduction to women. He refers to himself being a gay man, of course. And what he's telling us there is that he never saw young women again. You know, it's an exact echo of the same question that I asked Prince Andrew in different circumstances.

9:26But Mandelson doesn't actually deny the facts coming out of the Telegraph story about that deal. In fact, he goes a step further and he says there will be more material coming out, there will be more emails, there will be more proof of exchanges. In other words, he knows that whilst there may not be, you know, an Epstein file or a little black book or whatever the terminology is to describe, the people that are sort of sewn into that Epstein scandal. He knows of the exchanges that he had with the world's worst paedophile. And he assumes, probably rightly, that they are going to come out. I think that one of the questions that I have, given we talked about this when Keir Starmer first became prime minister, you know, whether it was over freebies or glasses and suits and flats lent to him.

10:19why aren't you getting in front of the story? Why don't you just tell us everything but get it all out there? What bewildered me listening to Prime Minister's questions today was again you keep thinking why don't Downing Street get ahead of the story? I mean one of the things to do would be say right okay look this has come out it's very embarrassing. Manchin regrets it. Here's the email exchanges as well that have taken place over the years and you put it all out there and let people decide. But if it's you're being dragged to this position of openness, and you're just having to play a dead bat in the meantime, I sort of felt that in the end of Prime Minister's Questions, Mandelson was in purgatory.

11:00He hadn't gone to hell, but he wasn't free either. And I just think that there is a lack of deafness. And I wonder how much Keir Starmer has been caught by surprise by all of this and is in the dark himself over much of it. We'll be back in just a moment looking at the whole question of how this has come about and what processes were put in place to scrutinise Peter Mandelson's appointment as ambassador to Washington.

11:35The News Agents. Mr Speaker, can I associate myself with the comments the Prime Minister made about the Duchess of Kent? She lived an exemplary life of public service, and she will be very much missed. And I also agree with the Prime Minister, as should all of us in this House. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Poland and all our NATO allies against Putin's aggression. A NATO country has just had to defend itself against Russian drones. Now, more than ever, we need our ambassador to Washington, fully focused on this issue and liaising closely with America. Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in Peter Mandelson?

12:17Mr Speaker, let me start by saying the victims of Epstein are the forefront of our minds. He was a despicable criminal who committed the most heinous crimes and destroyed the lives of so many women and girls. The ambassador has repeatedly expressed his deep regret for his association with him. He's right to do so. I have confidence in him and he's playing an important role in the UK-US relationship. This is interesting Mr Speaker. He says the ambassador has expressed full regret but the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein have called for Lord Mandelson to be sacked. And just so the House is aware, in 2019 Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of child prostitution and sex trafficking that took place between 2002 and 2005.

13:08That is the precise period which Lord Mandelson called Jeffrey Epstein his best pal. Was the Prime Minister aware of this intimate relationship when he appointed Lord Mandelson to be our ambassador in Washington? Mr Speaker, as she and the House would expect, full due process was followed during this appointment, as it is with all ambassadors. The ambassador has repeatedly expressed his deep regret. He is right to do so. He's now playing an important part in the US-UK relationship. Kemi Bednock. Mr Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister if he knew. The fact that he didn't answer indicates that he probably did know.

13:49I wasn't asking a question about process. I was asking a question about his judgment. Kemi Bednock was forensic. The questions weren't larded with adjectives. she just stuck to the focus of the questions that needed answering by Keir Starmer. And Keir Starmer was kind of had a loyally response saying the due process was followed in his appointment and I've got support for him, not full support, which, you know, Kemi Baden-Ock asked, do you have full support? He said, I support the ambassador. And I kind of think that Kemi Baden-Ock landed the blows. it should also be said that Ed Davey as well raised the question of Peter Mandelson staying on as our ambassador in Washington.

14:33So you've now got the leader of His Majesty's opposition raising the question of whether Mandelson can stay and the leader of the third biggest party in the Commons, the Liberal Democrats, saying, can Peter Mandelson stay? A contender for the deputy leadership, as you just reported, Emily, is saying, can Peter Mandelson stay and arguing that he shouldn't. And I think that it's left Starmer where he's expending a lot of political capital on keeping Peter Mandelson in post when it is very uncertain that he'll be able to keep him and save him from, frankly, all of this. The irony is not lost on many of us that the one person who probably loves having Peter Mandelson in that post is Donald Trump, with whom we are trying to affect a trade deal right now.

15:17He may think of him, who knows, as one of his own. But I think the Mandelson-Epstein problem is potentially a very difficult one for Starmer, not least because he's just fired his deputy over a£40 ,000 tax mistake. Now, nobody called that malicious when Angela Rayner did it. They called it silly. They called it careless. But you're now dealing with an ambassador, with somebody who's been in several government jobs and lost several government jobs throughout the Blair government and indeed with Brown as well, who managed to maintain a relationship with a convicted paedophile. And I think if you're Keir Starmer, you are facing now some really grim questions about women versus men in public life, about posh versus poor, about diplomatic versus councillor state.

16:10And I think if Raina was now looking at this, and obviously she hasn't come out, I doubt she will, you'd kind of be spitting blood. And you are now sort of wanting to know what those in the Labour Party, particularly the women. I mean, it's not a woman's problem, I should stress that. But it just so happens that all the deputy candidates, deputy leader candidates are women. You kind of want to know what they feel about having Mandelson in the job still whilst Rainer is on the outside. and I was calling round a few and I was talking to a few backbenchers and the overriding sense that I had back from those who were willing to speak and I should say that a lot of them weren't willing to speak and I didn't get many replies was this sense that the entire leadership team think it's just or want to call this sort of conspiracy they think it's nonsense that the public don't really care about it and that they see Peter Mandelson as one of them They think of him as eminently qualified.

17:10I mean, what did Keir Starmer reach for? He said he's very important to our trade deal. That doesn't answer the question about his judgment over a convicted paedophile. It suggests that he thinks that the trade deal is now more important and more urgent. and it's more key to keep a man whose judgment has been shown time and again to be lacking in a very prestigious job. And I'm not sure how comfortable that's going to be for, you know, for many in the Labour Party, women and men. Look, I wrote a column when Peter got appointed as our ambassador saying the gamble of appointing Peter Mandelson as Britain's ambassador to Washington, because I've seen this movie before.

17:52I was a political correspondent of Westminster when he was forced to resign, again over money, this time over a£373 ,000 home loan given to him by Geoffrey Robinson, who was then a Treasury Minister. And then again over the Hindujas and the issuing of a passport. And the thing about Peter Mandelson is that he is brilliant. He has a phenomenal political brain, but he does have a habit of getting into trouble. and there is always the slight whiff of cordite about him. One other thing I would say about Peter is that those who love him adore him and think he is brilliant and see the merit in an awful lot that he does.

18:33But Peter has a history of also breaking a lot of legs along the way. He makes enemies quite easily. He can be very acerbic. And there are plenty of people who who will be relishing the idea that Peter Mandelson is in trouble again. The one person who won't be relishing it is Keir Starmer. And as you say, the Trump point, I've just, you know, when Peter's name started circulating about becoming our ambassador with Donald Trump as president, I thought these two people are two people who have absolutely nothing in common whatsoever. They're as different as could be. They have one thing in common, Jeffrey Epstein, and is damaging them both.

19:15Yeah, and I guess that takes us right back to the question that Keir Starmer was unable to answer. I mean, I think there was a lot of speculation at the time that if Kamala Harris had won in 2024, then he might have appointed David Miliband, who he sees more as on the sort of Democrat side of things. And when Donald Trump won, he thought, actually, I'm going to put Peter Mandelson in a former Brussels negotiator. He's good at trade. That's what we need. We need to get this over the line. So he appointed Peter Mandelson to the job. But we want to know now. And the question that Kemi Badenoch was asking quite personally, I think, is how much of all this did Keir Starmer know?

19:58How much did he ask about? And when he says due process was done, I mean, what an empty phrase, because if due process was done and it didn't reveal any of this stuff, then what kind of a process is it? Right. It didn't work. And if due process wasn't done, then he's lying about it. And if he knew about this all originally, but just kind of thought, oh, well, whatever, I've got to get the trade deals done, we'll be fine. Then how naive was that? So I think whichever way you look at it, it becomes increasingly difficult for Peter Mandelson to stay in a job once all this stuff is public and once the reaction of the wider Labour Party starts sort of shaping itself.

20:39And it becomes increasingly hard for Starmer to justify firing a deputy working class woman when he's not firing an ambassador who is clearly linked in some way or other to a convicted paedophile. and it also asks questions of Starmer's own judgment in terms of what he actually admits to knowing at the time. Look, it was always a risk and Starmer would have been aware that it was a risk. He knew the backstory of Peter and the sort of problems that he's had in the past. I don't quite buy the comparison with Angela Rayner, one being working class and one being middle class. I don't quite buy that.

21:18Look, Angela Rayner's problems came from the fact that this was a very recent transaction where she was the housing minister and she was responsible for all of that and she didn't take enough interest in the tax affairs surrounding the purchase of that flat in home. The Mandelson allegations go back to 2007 or thereabouts when he was business secretary and maybe that's water under the bridge. I think the key question is, was Keir Starmer told about all of this? Was he aware of all of this at the time. And then there's, you know, there are serious questions about the business relationship he had with Epstein and when it was and how long it went on.

22:00And then you've got the other set of serious questions as well, which is kind of a perception of this, of, you know, our ambassador cozying up to this guy Epstein. And it just looks terrible, given what we all know about Jeffrey Epstein. We're just getting some new lines out from the lobby briefing, the briefing that always comes to journalists after Prime Minister's questions. And this from Pippa Crear at The Guardian, who says Downing Street appears to suggest that Keir Starmer may already be aware of the embarrassing details Peter Mandelson says are still to come out about his friendship with Epstein.

22:36The PM spokesperson says the association's been a matter of public record for some time. The ambassador has repeatedly addressed questions on it. I guess not including the time last year that he told the Financial Times to fuck off when they asked him about it. He says that Mandelson went through extensive security vetting and background checks by the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office, and that Number 10 has confidence in that process. And of course, you're right, Soaps, you know, you're right in the sense that one was very, very recent and it was directly related to her own job. In other words, she was housing minister and she had come short on her own house purchase.

23:13But I wonder whether it still has a relevance when many in the party, and I'm not saying necessarily in cabinet, I'm not saying those around Keir Starmer, but the perception, I think, is that the government is quite good at closing its eyes, plugging its ears, you know, sort of rounding up the wagons until those voices, until the clamour, until we hear from, you know, maybe the victims' voices more directly. who say, what on earth are you doing? You know, it's much easier to sort of plough on and say, oh, well, that was then, this is now. But actually, it does all come back to a question of judgment, doesn't it?

23:55And if there are people in the Labour Party who feel that there's one rule for some and one rule for another, then I think that does become a more uncomfortable question for the Prime Minister. And also remember that it's very exceptional in British politics for a frontline politician, as Peter Mandelson was, to be appointed as our ambassador anywhere. And I can only think of, I mean, Ed Llewellyn, who used to be David Cameron's chief of staff, was appointed our ambassador to Paris. Before that, you'd have to go back to Peter Jay during the Callaghan years, being appointed as ambassador to Washington.

24:35It is very rare. We have a system. Paul Boateng got appointed our high commissioner to South Africa. That's four people over the space of about 40 years. It's not many. So Keir Starmer used up a lot of political capital and pissed off an awful lot of people in the Foreign Office who thought, actually, it's my turn to go to Washington now. I've done various ambassadorships. You can't just suddenly give this jewel in the crown to Peter Mandelson, but he did. And I think the view in Downing Street until the past couple of days has been that Peter Mandelson has been doing a brilliant job as ambassador.

25:10And he has done a formidable job in cozying up to Trump and building a relationship with Trump land, which I think has paid enormous dividends. But as I said from the start, with Mandelson, there is always a risk. And now Keir Starmer is having to deal with the downside of appointing Peter Mandelson. We'll be back in a moment.

25:39The News Agents. Just while we're recording, I've actually been thinking of another complication to this whole story, which is that Mandelson has, I guess, done what all kind of comms professionals would tell you to do, which is, you know, try and get on the front foot, get out there, give the interview. He's given the interview to Harry Cole. He hasn't denied the Telegraph story. He hasn't denied that it was his signature, his photos, his 10 pages in the Epstein birthday book, which leaves Trump in a very complicated position, trying to argue that the whole thing is a Democrat hoax. And in fact, if you widen that still larger, you get, I mean, all the other signatories, there are about 150 people who contributed to the Epstein book.

26:30I mean, the vast majority of the drawings that we have seen have all been about sex, have all been about Epstein's proclivities. but you have all these other people who are not calling their signatures hoaxes, who are not pretending that they had nothing to do with the book, leaving Trump kind of in the cold now as being the only person who keeps on insisting that his signature was faked, the book is a hoax, it doesn't exist, and he's still suing the Wall Street Journal. So that doesn't really add up. We're going to be discussing that in more detail. Trump and the Epstein relationship with Doug High, the Republican strategist on News Agents USA.

27:17That's coming out today.