Starmer Demands Mandelson's Resignation from Lords Over Epstein Links
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has issued a direct call for Peter Mandelson to resign from the House of Lords following explosive revelations about his financial connections with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The demand comes alongside an announcement that an urgent investigation will be launched into the nature of their relationship during Mandelson's time as a cabinet minister.
Constitutional Limitations and Political Pressure
The Prime Minister's official spokesman stated unequivocally that Lord Mandelson "should not be a member" of Parliament's upper chamber. However, they acknowledged that constitutional technicalities prevent Starmer from personally revoking Mandelson's peerage, creating a significant political dilemma for the government.
Despite Mandelson's recent resignation from the Labour Party, the political organisation is proceeding with disciplinary action against the former business secretary. Labour sources indicate this action was already in motion before Mandelson announced his party departure.
Transatlantic Investigations and Evidence Requests
Starmer's spokesman has suggested Mandelson should present evidence before a United States committee currently investigating the Epstein files. This recommendation mirrors similar advice given to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, over the weekend.
A separate Whitehall-led investigation will examine the relationship between Epstein and Mandelson during his tenure as business secretary. This probe follows the emergence of new email evidence suggesting Mandelson forwarded sensitive government information to the disgraced financier.
Revealed Correspondence and Financial Transactions
The leaked email in question contained an internal note from a Gordon Brown adviser discussing an "asset sales plan" designed to support public finances in June 2009. Mandelson reportedly described the document as "interesting" to Epstein and subsequently suggested that land property would likely constitute the government's asset sales.
Documents released by the US Department of Justice reveal Mandelson received between $75,000 and £55,000 in financial support from Epstein between 2003 and 2004. Another confidential email containing government plans was also leaked, though the sender's identity remains redacted in released files.
Potential Criminal Implications
Law and tax expert Dan Neidle, who uncovered the emails within the released files, has suggested Mandelson's actions could constitute a criminal offence. "It all looks like a very corrupt arrangement," Neidle told Times Radio. "The question is, is this just scandalous or does it go beyond that? Is this actually misconduct in public office which is a criminal offence?"
Mandelson has stated he resigned from Labour to avoid causing "further embarrassment" to the party and claims to have "no record or recollection" of the payments from Epstein.
Historical Context and Current Fallout
The former minister, who once referred to Epstein as his "chief life adviser," has previously expressed regret for "ever having known Epstein" and for maintaining their relationship after Epstein's conviction. He has apologised "unequivocally to the women and girls who suffered."
These latest revelations raise serious questions about Starmer's decision to appoint Mandelson as ambassador to the UK and the security vetting procedures that were followed. They also prompt broader concerns about how sensitive information is handled within Westminster.
Starmer dismissed Mandelson from his ambassadorial role late last year after initial emails revealing the closeness of their relationship were published.
Cross-Party Political Reactions
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch commented on Monday: "I think there is a lot that needs to be looked into, including investigating how he ever came to be appointed, and all levers which can be pulled in order to remove him from public office looked into, including removal from the House of Lords."
The unfolding scandal continues to dominate political discourse, with implications for parliamentary standards, government transparency, and the handling of sensitive information at the highest levels of British politics.
