Wes Streeting defends Mandelson appointment as fresh revelations that a letter was sent to police over Peter Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein deepen the political crisis engulfing No 10.
The disclosure has intensified pressure on Keir Starmer’s government, reignited internal Labour blame games, and raised serious questions about the robustness of the ambassadorial vetting process.
What had already been a damaging episode for the prime minister has now taken on a sharper edge, as ministers are forced to explain how warnings, concerns, or allegations could coexist with Mandelson’s rapid appointment and equally rapid recall.
The letter to police, confirmed by senior political sources, is understood to relate to Mandelson’s past relationship with Epstein and whether relevant information was fully disclosed prior to his appointment as US ambassador.
While no suggestion has been made of criminal wrongdoing by Mandelson, the very existence of a police letter has added gravity to a scandal already dominating Westminster.
Labour figures privately admit the optics are “grim”.One senior MP described the situation as “a slow-motion car crash that suddenly hit a wall”.
Against this backdrop, Wes Streeting emerged as the most senior cabinet minister willing to robustly defend both the appointment and the prime minister’s handling of its collapse.
Speaking on Radio 5 Live, Streeting was unequivocal.“In terms of his appointment to be US ambassador, I can’t see how it would have been known,” he said.
Streeting argued that neither Downing Street nor those overseeing the vetting process could reasonably have uncovered the full nature of Mandelson’s Epstein links.
“I can’t see how it would have been known, or could have been known, the full extent of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein,” he said. He went further, addressing claims that Mandelson shared sensitive information with Epstein while serving as a government minister.
“Indeed the fact that he was passing sensitive and market-sensitive information to this man whilst a serving government minister,” Streeting said, “I don’t think that could have been known and should have been known.”
His defence was clearly aimed at insulating Keir Starmer and No 10 from accusations of negligence or wilful blindness.
Streeting framed the issue not as a failure of judgment, but as a failure of disclosure.
Central to that argument is the suggestion that Mandelson did not tell the full truth during the vetting process.
In the Commons, Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Treasury, openly suggested Mandelson had misled officials.
The implication was stark.
If true, responsibility would lie with Mandelson rather than with those who approved his appointment.
The prime minister’s allies have repeatedly pointed to the speed of Mandelson’s recall as evidence of decisive leadership.
Streeting echoed that line forcefully.
“And if anyone is in any doubt about the judgment and integrity of this prime minister,” he said, “they can judge him by his actions.”
“Making sure the ambassador was woken up in the middle of the night, put on a plane back to London, and recalled as our ambassador,” Streeting continued.
“That was swift, it was decisive, and Keir Starmer acted immediately upon knowing that the assurances he had received through the vetting process had turned out to be false reassurances.”
Yet the revelation of a police letter has complicated that defence.
Opposition figures argue that if concerns were serious enough for someone to contact police, questions must be asked about what ministers knew, when they knew it, and why Mandelson was deemed suitable in the first place.
Privately, Labour MPs acknowledge the story has cut through in a way the party did not expect.“This isn’t just about Epstein anymore,” one MP said.
“It’s about competence, transparency, and whether the system around the PM actually works.”
That unease has fuelled renewed anger toward Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s powerful chief of staff.
McSweeney was a key advocate for Mandelson’s return to frontline politics and is seen by critics as emblematic of the leadership’s tight inner circle.
Mandelson and McSweeney developed a close working relationship in the run-up to the general election, united by their strategic approach and shared hostility toward Labour’s left.
That alliance now looks politically radioactive.According to reporting by Kitty Donaldson, some Labour MPs are openly discussing the need for a “sacrificial lamb” to contain the fallout.
“No one is going to move against Keir before May,” a government source told The i Paper.“But after that, he will need a sacrificial lamb to save his premiership.”
The language reflects a brutal reality of Westminster politics.
When crises threaten to engulf a leader, those closest often become expendable.
“I just feel like a high-profile person’s got to go,” the source said.“Maybe Rachel [Reeves] or maybe Morgan, because it’s either the PM, or somebody close to him.”
Another government source suggested the idea of a post-May reckoning had been circulating even before the Mandelson story exploded.
“This idea has been floating around for a while,” the source said.
“Ideally he’d have a reshuffle, but he probably won’t have the authority to do that.”
“The Mandelson stuff over the weekend has brought this idea up again,” the source added, “because obviously Morgan was the main person pushing for his appointment.”
The police letter has intensified those internal dynamics.
For some MPs, it represents a line being crossed.
“This isn’t gossip,” one backbencher said.
“When someone writes to the police, it changes the tone completely.”
No 10 has declined to comment on the specifics of the letter, citing the need to avoid speculation.
Officials stress that the appointment was made following established procedures and that Mandelson provided assurances that later proved inaccurate.
Still, pressure is mounting for a broader review of how senior diplomatic appointments are vetted.
Even some Labour loyalists concede that reforms may now be unavoidable.
The Mandelson affair has become more than a single misjudged appointment.
It has exposed fault lines within Labour, tested Starmer’s authority, and raised uncomfortable questions about power, transparency, and accountability at the heart of government.
As Wes Streeting defends Mandelson appointment and the prime minister’s response, the emergence of a police letter ensures the story is far from over.
What happens next may determine not just the fate of individuals, but the credibility of No 10 itself.
Read also:India US trade deal sparks uncertainty as Modi and Trump offer conflicting signals
