LONDON \u2014 British Prime Minister Keir Starmer acknowledged Monday that he made the wrong judgment when he picked Jeffrey Epstein ‘s friend Peter Mandelson as U.K. ambassador to Washington, batting away a barrage of calls to resign over a scandal that has left his leadership teetering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Starmer said he would have withdrawn the appointment if he’d known Mandelson had failed security checks, as he tried to explain why Mandelson was given the U.K.’s most important diplomatic post. Starmer placed blame squarely on Foreign Office officials who he said failed to tell him about the security concerns and approved Mandelson’s appointment despite them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Starmer told lawmakers in the House of Commons that “I would not have gone ahead with the appointment” had he known the truth. He called it “frankly staggering” that officials didn’t tell him about the failed vetting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“At the heart of this, there is also a judgment I made that was wrong,” Starmer added. “I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“I take responsibility for that decision, and I apologize again to the victims of the pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Starmer fired Mandelson in September, nine months into the job, when new details emerged about his friendship with Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died in prison in 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
His explanation was greeted with jeers from opposition lawmakers, incredulous that the nation’s leader hadn’t known about the failed security vetting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said Starmer’s lack of curiosity was hard to believe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“It doesn’t appear that he asked any questions at all. Why? Because he didn’t want to know,” she said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Starmer was attempting to set the record straight after repeatedly telling lawmakers that “due process” was followed when Mandelson was appointed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Though he apologized for his error of judgment, he denied misleading Parliament, which is usually considered a resigning offense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Starmer fired the top Foreign Office civil servant, Olly Robbins, within hours of the revelation by The Guardian last week. But allies of Robbins say he never would have been able to share sensitive vetting information with the prime minister.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Robbins is expected to give his own version of events to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Badenoch noted that Robbins is the latest high-profile government departure linked to Mandelson. She said that instead of taking responsibility for his mistakes, Starmer “has thrown his staff and his officials under the bus.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ed Davey, leader of the centrist Liberal Democrats, said Starmer “gives every impression of a prime minister in office but not in power.” Davey said appointing Mandelson was “a catastrophic error of judgment. And now that it’s blown up in his face, the only decent thing to do is to take responsibility.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Senior government colleagues have defended the prime minister. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy said that if Starmer had known about the failed security vetting, “he would never, ever have appointed him ambassador.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But lawmakers in Starmer’s center-left Labour Party, already anxious about its dire poll ratings, are restive. Starmer already defused one potential crisis in February, when some Labour lawmakers urged him to resign over the Mandelson appointment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He could face a new challenge if, as expected, Labour takes a hammering in local and regional elections on May 7, which give voters a chance to pass a midterm verdict on the government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critics say the Mandelson appointment is more evidence of bad judgment by a prime minister who has made repeated missteps since he led Labour to a landslide election victory in July 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Starmer has struggled to deliver promised economic growth, repair tattered public services and ease the cost of living, and has been forced into repeated policy U-turns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He picked Mandelson as ambassador despite being warned by his staff that Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein exposed the government to “reputational risk.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mandelson’s business links to Russia and China also set off alarm bells. But his expertise as a former European Union trade chief and contacts among global elites were considered assets in dealing with U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A trove of Epstein-related documents released by the U.S. Department of Justice in January included emails suggesting Mandelson had passed on sensitive, and potentially market-moving, government information to Epstein in 2009, after the global financial crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
British police launched a criminal probe and arrested Mandelson in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Mandelson has previously denied wrongdoing and hasn’t been charged. He does not face allegations of sexual misconduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Starmer said he had ordered a review into any security concerns arising from Mandelson’s access to sensitive information while ambassador.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Many questions remain unanswered after Starmer’s 2 1\/2-hour question-and-answer session, including why Mandelson failed the vetting and whether officials felt political pressure to approve the appointment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Several lawmakers asked why Starmer chose Mandelson for the job despite red flags.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“I’m interested in his judgment,” said Scottish National Party lawmaker Stephen Flynn. “Does he believe himself to be gullible, incompetent or both?<\/p>\n\n\n\n