Another document, dated December 11, 2024 and labeled “official confidential information” shows some of the steps in the process of appointing Mandelson as British ambassador to the USA, indicating that McSweeney discussed candidates with Starmer, the “main candidate being Peter Mandelson”, having also discussed “Peter’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, which we will analyze with you”.
This note also shows that the communications director at the time, Matthew Doyle, “is satisfied with your responses [de Mandelson] to contact questions [com Epstein]”. Recalling that a month ago, Starmer, already weakened by the Mandelson case, had to defend himself in parliament due to Doyle’s friendship with a former Labor MP convicted of possessing pornographic images of minors. Matthew Doyle, who was Starmer’s communications director until March 2025 and who the Prime Minister appointed as a member of the House of Lords in December, was subsequently suspended from the Labor Party.
Following his dismissal last September, Peter Mandelson asked for more than £500,000 in compensation for terminating his contract, having received just £75,000 – with £40,330 relating to the three months’ notice provided for in his contract and £34,670 as special termination compensation. According to the documents now released, the negotiations “began with a request from the individual [Mandelson] for the payment of the remainder of the four-year salary costs of the fixed-term contract. This would total £547,201.”
Liberals ask for documents from former Prince Andrew
Speaking in parliament this Wednesday, the Prime Minister’s chief secretary stated that Mandelson “should never have been appointed”, but that, in defense of Keir Starmer, he said that the report of due diligence of the office “did not expose the depth and extent” of the former ambassador’s relationship with Epstein.
“We have already taken action to address weaknesses in the system and ensure that when standards of conduct do not meet the high standards expected, there will be more severe consequences,” said Darren Jones, adding that “we are conducting a review of the national security vetting system to ensure we learn from the failures in policies and processes relating to the Peter Mandelson case.”
Jones – who classified Mandelson’s request for compensation in excess of £500,000 as “inappropriate and unacceptable”, explaining that the final amount agreed “aimed at avoiding even greater costs involving a lengthy legal process in the employment tribunal – guaranteed that the victims of the American sex offender will be the government’s “top priority”, apologizing for having to “relive the horrors” without “there being any justice yet to be done”.
During this debate, the Conservatives, through Shadow Cabinet minister Alex Burghart, assured that Keir Starmer “knew everything he needed to know” when nominating Mandelson, describing the decision as a “bad choice”. “The prime minister knew everything he needed to know. The responsibility was his. And it remains so. He let his party down. He let his country down. I very much doubt either of them will trust him again.”
For Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, “these files show, without a doubt, that the Prime Minister was well aware of the risks of his appointment. What an insult to the women and girls who suffered at the hands of Epstein.” Criticizing the subsequent payment to Mandelson and noting that “the disgraced ambassador must donate in full any compensation he received to charities”, Davey noted that these were “the first documents from the UK’s Epstein archives. The government must now release all documents relating to Andrew’s appointment as trade envoy, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, by the end of March.”
Leave a Reply