UK police have executed search warrants at two locations as part of an investigation into alleged misconduct in public office linked to former ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson. This development follows increasing scrutiny over Mandelson’s connections to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which has drawn criticism of Prime Minister Keir Starmer for appointing Mandelson to the ambassadorial role in 2024.
On March 1, 2024, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that searches were underway in Wiltshire and the Camden area of London. While no arrests have been made, police indicated that the individual under investigation is a 72-year-old male, referring to Mandelson. The police’s actions come as pressure mounts from various Labour MPs seeking accountability from Starmer regarding his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who is seen as responsible for Mandelson’s controversial appointment.
Calls for Accountability Within Labour
Several Labour backbenchers have openly called for McSweeney’s resignation. MP Simon Opher criticized the situation on the BBC, suggesting that any chief of staff who made such a decision would likely be dismissed. Veteran MP Clive Efford and MP Patrick Hurley echoed similar sentiments, recommending that McSweeney be reassigned to a role focused on party campaigns instead of government affairs.
This growing discontent is echoed by Baroness Harriet Harman, the former deputy leader of the Labour Party, who urged Starmer to consider a “real reset” within Downing Street. She warned that without decisive action, Starmer’s leadership could be jeopardized.
In a significant show of support, over 22 Labour MPs have backed a call from MP Nadia Whittome for a comprehensive public inquiry into Epstein’s connections with influential figures in the UK. Despite the backlash, most MPs have refrained from demanding the resignation of Starmer, expressing their support for him while advocating for changes in his administration.
Government Response and Future Developments
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman reiterated that Starmer maintains “full confidence” in McSweeney. In a speech addressing the controversy, Starmer defended his decision to appoint Mandelson, accusing the peer of lying during the vetting process. He also extended an apology to Epstein’s victims for having trusted Mandelson’s “lies” during his appointment.
On March 2, Starmer stated, “None of us knew the depth of the darkness” surrounding Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein at the time of the appointment. The full extent of what was known is expected to emerge as parliamentary documents related to Mandelson’s vetting are made public. This includes messages exchanged between Mandelson and government ministers, which are anticipated to be extensive.
The release of these documents will be subject to review by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which must assess any items that the government wishes to withhold for national security reasons. It is unclear when these reviews will be completed, with the potential for documents to be released gradually rather than all at once.
In light of the ongoing investigation, the Metropolitan Police has requested that certain documents be withheld, citing concerns that their release could compromise the criminal inquiry into allegations that Mandelson shared market-sensitive information with Epstein during his time as business secretary following the 2008 financial crisis.
While Mandelson has not made a public statement regarding the investigation, sources indicate he maintains that he acted without criminal intent and for no personal gain. As the situation develops, the implications for Starmer and his administration remain significant.
The ongoing scrutiny highlights the delicate balance the Labour Party must navigate as it addresses both internal dissent and public accountability in light of serious allegations involving high-profile figures.
