Mandelson is another nail in the coffin for Labour’: Readers on why US ambassador had to go

We asked Telegraph readers why they thought the Prime Minister was right to sack Britain’s man in Washington

11 September 2025 11:54am BST

Link

Lord Mandelson has been sacked by Sir Keir Starmer following damaging revelations about his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Lord Mandelson’s career has been mired in controversy, with the revelation on Wednesday that the former ambassador consoled and counselled Epstein and urged him to fight for early release, marking the latest in a long line of mishaps.

Leaked emails and literature published this week disclosed the close nature of the pair’s relationship with Lord Mandelson calling the disgraced financier his “best pal”.

Mike Tapp, the Home Office minister, said that the vetting process ahead of his appointment would have uncovered “all the information” about their relationship.

Readers are unanimous in their belief that the Prime Minister was right to sack him.

‘Mandelson drifts from sleaze to sleaze’

Readers questioned why Lord Mandelson had been appointed to begin with, following multiple controversies while in government, dating back to the early years of Tony Blair’s premiership.

Andrew Hicks said: “It is clear that Mandelson drifts from sleaze to sleaze – it is in his character. There is no way that he should be representing the British people.”

Del Hood concurred: “It’s amazing that knowing Mandelson’s past that Starmer would have appointed him to the Ambassadors role.”

While there is no suggestion of criminality, readers criticised the Government for the optics of the situation.

Diana Peek stated: “On behalf of the victims of these men – sack him.

“Because Epstein didn’t just exist as an individual, he was supported by the community he inhabited, his friends the politicians who supported him.”

‘Starmer’s judgment is the issue’

Christopher Inman highlighted that the crux of this latest PR disaster for the Government again came down to the Prime Minister. He remarked: “Mandelson is not the issue here. It’s Starmer judgement that’s in question or lack of judgement.

“There is a pattern developing which is reflected in how he makes decisions, the number of U-turns and then the hypocrisy which runs through everything he seems to stand for.”

John McGowan agreed: “This may be the end of Starmer.”

Peter FitzGerald, going one step further, insisted that “Starmer must be removed as the first priority. He is the source of all our troubles from Mandelson to Milliband, Reeves to Rayner”.

Linda Booth agreed and said it was “a terrible decision to appoint Mandelson as our Ambassador in Washington”.

“I’m sure the majority of the hierarchy of the Labour Party knew about his dealings with Epstein...

“This is another nail in the coffin for the Labour Party.”

Diplomatic relations

Others highlighted Mr Trump’s upcoming trip to the UK. Dora Beatriz Ridgway asserted that “Mandelson can’t possibly show his face during the State Visit.”

Mario Andretti underlined Sir Keir’s declining credibility with each new scandal: “He has lost all credibility and authority in every possible way. He should resign.”

Richard Marriott concurred: “This whole furore has thrown Trump’s State visit into chaos.

“The UK Ambassador should be in full preparation mode, should be coming over and should be present at state occasions, including the banquet.

“You have to wonder about Starmer - what is it about him that makes him appoint completely unsuitable people into roles, especially Mandelson and Hermer?”

Andrew Hicks questioned: “The writing is clearly on the wall. Why does Starmer allow matters to get much worse before acting?”

Overall, despite Lord Mandelson having now been sacked, readers were unhappy with the time that the Prime Minister took to make the decision and that the UK’s ambassador had been implicated in such a scandal.

Andrew Hicks continued: “I certainly don’t wish Mandelson to remain as my representative with our greatest ally. I doubt that I am alone.”