Government probes Peter Mandelson’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein
Lord Peter Mandelson will face a full government investigation into his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and the inquiry may lead to his peerage being revoked, reports BritPanorama.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has instructed the Cabinet Secretary to examine Mandelson’s contacts with the convicted sex offender while he held a ministerial position in the Labour government. This scrutiny follows the emergence of documents from the US government suggesting that Mandelson received £55,000 from Epstein between 2003 and 2004.
Additionally, allegations have surfaced that Mandelson leaked sensitive financial information to Epstein while serving as Business Secretary. The Prime Minister is reportedly seeking new powers to remove Mandelson from the House of Lords, as well as stripping him of his titles.
The Prime Minister’s spokesman articulated a firm stance, stating, “The Prime Minister is very clear that he should not be a member of the House of Lords or use the title.”
Mandelson has publicly asserted that the evidence regarding payments from Epstein is “false.” However, he resigned from his Labour Party membership to mitigate further embarrassment during the investigation into these claims. He expressed, “I have dedicated my life to the values and success of the Labour Party, and in taking my decision, I believe I am acting in its best interests.”
Top civil servant Chris Wormald has been appointed to review all of Mandelson’s communications with Epstein during his tenure in government. A spokesman for Starmer indicated that Wormald is expected to assess all relevant information pertaining to Mandelson’s dealings with Epstein as a government minister.
“He’s asked the Cabinet Secretary to report back to him. Obviously, this material that has come to light over the weekend has just emerged, so it is something that the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Secretary to look at urgently, and that process is now underway,” the spokesman added.
Downing Street noted that while the Prime Minister wishes to have Mandelson expelled from the Lords, current laws prevent such direct action without an extensive legislative process. Starmer noted that he desires the cooperation of the House of Lords to enact a system allowing for the dismissal of discredited peers.
Amidst these developments, Labour Party insiders disclosed that Mandelson was already facing disciplinary action before his resignation, which suggests that internal pressures were mounting. His affiliation with Epstein, which persisted post-conviction, has long been a subject of scrutiny, and last year led to his removal from the role of ambassador to the United States.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has called for a comprehensive Cabinet Office investigation into how Mandelson managed to accept funds from Epstein while in ministerial office. She remarked, “If Starmer lacks the backbone to order this investigation, then it will be all the more clear that he bears full responsibility for bringing Mandelson back into British public life despite knowing about the relationship with Epstein.”
The latest revelations regarding Mandelson and Epstein might mark the end of his long career in frontline politics, which has spanned over four decades. Mandelson has a history of resignations under scandal, having left two cabinet positions during Tony Blair’s premiership. Nonetheless, he successfully rehabilitated his public image, serving as Gordon Brown’s de facto deputy.
In his most recent public interview since his dismissal as ambassador, Mandelson asserted that Epstein kept him separate from his “morbid sex life,” attempting to distance himself from the controversial figures surrounding Epstein.
The investigation into Mandelson’s activities is likely to draw considerable public and media attention, as it touches on issues of accountability within the UK’s political landscape.
As the inquiry unfolds, it will reflect on the broader questions of integrity and ethics within modern governance, emphasizing the necessity of transparency in political actions and affiliations.
