An emergency debate held today in the House of Commons [16th September] saw MPs from across the House question Starmer’s judgment in appointing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador last summer.
The emergency debate over Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal to the prestigious role of UK ambassador to the US was called by Tory MP and former Brexit Secretary David Davis.
Opening the debate today, Davis remarked on the importance of the US ambassador to the UK-US ‘special relationship’: “Our ambassador in Washington stands at the nexus of our most important bilateral relationship.”
Davis said of Mandelson that he was: “Easily dazzled by wealth and glamour and…willing to use his public position to pursue those things for himself”, drawing comparisons with Mandelson’s two previous sackings from government in 1998 and 2001.
In 1998 Mandelson was forced to resign after it emerged that he had not declared a loan of over £300,000 from ministerial colleague Geoffrey Robinson.
Mandelson was then forced to resign from government a second time in January 2001 after he was accused of lobbying the Home Office to help Indian tycoon Srichand Hinduja obtain a British passport.
Labour MP Emily Thornberry, who dropped out of the Labour deputy leadership race last week, criticised the failure of Number 10 to properly vet Mandelson prior to his appointment. As current Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Thornberry argued that the committee should have been allowed to question Mandelson about his appointment.
“I do think…that the Select Committee should have a role in that [appointment] process.”
“Clearly, we all think that it [Mandelson’s appointment] was a mistake. The question is how the mistake occurred and how we can ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again, because something went very wrong.”
Thornberry’s calls for reform to the appointment system were echoed by Lib Dem leader Ed Davey, who said that the government’s link to the Epstein scandal through Mandelson: “Should be a source of deep shame to Ministers.”
Richard Tice of Reform said that the incident had: “Humiliated and embarrassed this nation on the international stage.”
Corbynite Labour MP Richard Burgon questioned why Mandelson had not yet had the Labour whip removed, while others such as Rachael Maskell had been suspended from the party for rebelling against the government’s proposed welfare cuts in July.
The same question was raised by Apsana Begum, who was suspended by from Labour in July 2024 after voting to scrap the two-child benefit cap. Begum questioned why: “While I and other Members [of the Labour party]…appear to be held to one standard, Lord Mandelson appears to be held to another?”
Opposition leader, Kemi Badenoch, accused the PM of: “Hiding from Parliament and hiding from questions”, as he was not present in the chamber during the debate.
Badenoch said that the key point of the debate was: “The Prime Minister’s judgement.”
“This was an appointment apparently forced through by the Prime Minister and/or his Chief of Staff.”
“This is a Government of sleaze and scandal, and Labour MPs know it.”
With the resignation of senior aide, Paul Ovenden, just yesterday over sexually explicit messages sent about veteran female MP Diane Abbott, Starmer’s political judgement over appointments to his team has come increasingly into question.
Defending the government in the debate today was Stephen Doughty, Minister of State for Europe, North America and Overseas Territories, who said that: “Mandelson would not have been appointed if all the information we now have was available at the time.”
Mandelson’s resignation has come at a difficult time for UK-US relations – this week will see Trump’s historic second presidential visit to the UK, an occasion that Starmer will be keen to get right.
Featured image via Carrie Dorean / UK in USA on Flickr.
