"It remains to be seen how many documents connected to Peter Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador will be released, and also when they will emerge, given they need to be vetted by parliament's intelligence and security committee. But when the information does arrive, these are some of the key questions that Labour MPs in particular will be keen to have answered."
"As conceded by Keir Starmer in the Commons on Wednesday, when he made the appointment late last year he knew Mandelson had maintained his links with Epstein even after the disgraced financier had served a jail term for soliciting a minor for prostitution. This was an admission of the obvious, given the fact it had been reported by the media before the ambassadorial appointment was made."
"The follow-on question is equally important: given the facts about Mandelson, how did Starmer and his team justify giving him one of the plum jobs in public life? While it remains to be seen if the documents set this out, the answer is also fairly well known already, if difficult to admit. They appear to have decided Mandelson's many flaws were a risk worth taking to parachute a consummate political operator into Donald Trump's court."
Parliament's intelligence and security committee must vet documents related to Peter Mandelson's UK appointment as US ambassador before release, creating uncertainty over timing and content. Keir Starmer admitted knowing Mandelson retained links with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein's conviction for soliciting a minor. Questions focus on what No 10 formally acknowledged and how the appointment was justified given Mandelson's history. Decisionmakers appear to have accepted reputational risk to position a skilled political operator near Donald Trump, reasoning that Epstein's links to Trump made Mandelson less distinctive. Internal pressure targets Morgan McSweeney; documentary proof of his decisive role could force his ouster.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]