radiofree.asia

Starmer bottled it on the emergency Mandelson debate in parliament

On Tuesday 16 September, parliament held an emergency debate on how Keir Starmer could have appointed Peter Mandelson to the role of ambassador to the US. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Starmer was a no show to this brutal event:

Brutal for Starmer over Mandelson

Stephen Flynn (SNP commons leader) is just one of many MPs who laid into the absent Starmer. At the beginning of his speech, Flynn noted that Labour MPs are finding Starmer’s mistakes hard to stomach (they’re certainly not what Mandelson might describe as being “yum yum“):

I often think it is a grave pity that the cameras in this House tend to be trained just on the individual speaking, because it means that the public did not get the opportunity that we did earlier to look at the faces of the Labour MPs as this debate began—to see the glum, serious look on their faces as they recognised the significance of the situation that faces their Prime Minister here and now.

Flynn went on to say:

I hate to say it, but this is mired in politics, because this was a political decision by the Prime Minister. He chose to stand at the Dispatch Box last week and tell not just us but the public that there was nothing to see here—that he had absolute confidence in Lord Mandelson. It is the Prime Minister who chose to ignore the facts that were plainly in front of him, not for weeks, hours or days, but for months. He was the man who appointed Peter Mandelson to be the ambassador to the United States. Peter Mandelson told a Financial Times journalist earlier this year to “fuck off”—his quote, not mine—when he was asked about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. That was what Lord Mandelson said. He also said it was “an FT obsession”. Well, guess what? It is our obsession now, and we are going to make sure that we get to the bottom of this.

Mandelson freaking out about this question from the FT should really have inspired journalists to dig deeper into the relationship. Instead, outlets like the BBC described it as “undiplomatic language” which “was a rare media misstep” for Mandelson.

Flynn additionally said:

The Prime Minister is not above the scrutiny of the House of Commons; neither is he above the scrutiny of the public at home. The greatest scandal of all is the fact that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom appointed a man to that role, knowing that that man had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein despite the fact that Epstein had been convicted in 2008, in Florida, of having 14-year-old girls masturbate him. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom thought it was fitting for the best friend of that individual to hold the highest diplomatic office in the United States of America on behalf of the people of these isles. What a complete disgrace.

The only thing that seems to have caused any consternation for the Prime Minister in any of this is not that that happened, but the fact that for a short period, Peter Mandelson appeared to think Jeffrey Epstein was innocent. That draws us to the conclusion that if Peter Mandelson had maintained the friendship with Jeffrey Epstein but thought he was guilty, he would still be in post. What has happened to the moral compass of this place, and of the office of the Prime Minister, where we can simply accept a rationale such as that?

Flynn is referencing this interview:


This is what Starmer said regarding the leaked emails’ revelations:

what the email showed was he was not only questioning but wanting to challenge the conviction of Epstein at the time that, for me, went and cut across the whole approach that I’ve taken on violence against women and girls for many years, and this government’s approach.

As we’ve argued before, nothing in the recent revelations was worse than what the media and Starmer already knew. And as Flynn noted, you could argue the version of events Starmer claims to believe was worse before the leaked emails came out.

Pile on

Many other MPs used the opportunity to direct their anger at Starmer’s stand-in, chief among them:


Apsana Begum suggested that Keir has a two-tier system of standards when it comes to the Labour whip:


This is despite Labour MPs claiming Starmer has actually raised the standards for those in public office. This is what Starmer boot licker John Slinger had to say about his absent boss (emphasis added):

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a man of integrity. He has shown that he believes in accountability and he acts on it. The Leader of the Opposition can reel off a list of Ministers who have been sacked, but that rather proves my point. Frankly, this is a welcome change and no matter how uncomfortable recent events have been, we are seeing, under this Prime Minister, that public officials, Ministers and yes, ambassadors are being held to higher standards than previously, and I welcome that.

And here’s what business secretary Peter Kyle said on Sunday 14 September:


Luke Evans called out Starmer for hiding from the debate:


Starmer can’t hide forever

Looking at the faces of his front bench, you can see why Starmer sat this one out:


Starmer can’t hide forever, though. He might try, but whether it’s delivered through debate or the ballot box, people will make their opinion on Starmer known.

Featured image via Parliament – the National / Parliament – BBC

By Willem Moore

This post was originally published on Canary.