I with others argued that appointing Lord Mandelson as Ambassador was a bad idea. We had a good career diplomat Ambassador in Washington, liked by President trump, who got appropriate access and set out the UK case.
The PM knew Mandelson had connections with Epstein though he may well have not known what has come out. He would have known that President Trump had no wish to have friends of Epstein in the Oval Office given Epstein’s criminal convictions. He should have worked out that some of Mandelson’s past views and certainly some of his past statements about Trump were far from helpful in winning over President Trump. By any measure this was a bad appointment before we learned of more of the detail of the Epstein relationship.
One of my biggest annoyances is the damage this has done to UK/US relationships and the impact it has had on UK policy. When he was first appointed I urged Mandelson to see the damage the Chagos give away would do. Instead he helped Starmer reassure the President this was a good policy. Now the President has found out more of the truth about the deal he has concluded it is a very bad idea.
It looks as if Lord Mandelson failed to explain to the President the US/UK Treaty promising the UK would keep the freehold of Chagos, failed to explain the consequences of Mauritius being signed up to a No nuclear Treaty, and failed to consider the defence impact of the islands being owned by a friend of China.
An Ambassador being close to our most important ally let us down badly by not explaining all this to the President,leaving the President no choice but to change his view when someone else put the full truth to him about this bad deal.
When responding to this remember Mandelson has not been accused of any criminal offence and is innocent until proved guilty. Of course the revelations of his lifestyle and the involvement with Epstein has been quite enough for the PM to say he has behaved badly, should not be a peer and should be subject to an enquiry. All this from the man who thought he was the best person to be our most important Ambassador and who said he had full confidence in him when the Opposition pressed him in Parliament.
Why did he ever force Mandelson onto the diplomatic service given his troubled past when in government? This was well known to all of us given his loss of office twice over conduct issues.
February 3, 2026
Indeed rather foolish of Mandelson to accept the post too given what he surely knew was coming down the tracks. Mandelson always seems dire and untrustworthy to me, has he resigned from the Lords yet?
Gordon Brown brought the twice-disgraced Peter Mandelson back into the Cabinet in 2008, even Ed Balls, his staunchest supporter, admitted it was “a risk”. Other Labour MPs were rather less nuanced, describing it as “perplexing” and “divisive”William Hague said it was a “stunning failure of judgment” Lord Mandelson, awarded a peerage by save the world and sell the gold Gordon Brown, was using his access to the highest levels of government to leak Downing Street memos to the man he called his “best pal”, Jeffrey Epstein.
February 3, 2026
the problem is I have seen similar levels of corruption in all the parts of the UK public sector I have worked in. it is only because sex offences are part of it here that stuff is being revealed.
February 3, 2026
Why did Starmer appoint Mandleson? Well we know Starmer gets virtually everything wrong. Perhaps Mandleson’s PPE Oxon degree and his ability to lie impressed him? “An ambassador is a (no so) honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country,” Sir Henry Wotton in 1604 but amended.
February 3, 2026
Worst than that why did the Labour executive committee appoint Starmer as there leader
February 3, 2026
Starmer certainly would not want a fine upstanding man of principle as ambassador. He would not do as he is told by his unprincipled master. Mandelson’s expertise in the dark arts and manipulation and being not well aquainted with truthfulness, appeal greatly to Starmer as a human rights lawyer with no moral compass.