Jess Phillips has disclosed that she pretended to be ill to avoid defending Lord Mandelson.
The former minister admitted she refused to appear for Home Office questions because she could not honestly claim that the then-ambassador was “good at his job”.
Anyone else in any other job would have been fired for doing this!
Apparently, Number 10 are telling people that we are to bet treated to a performance of "angry" Starmer at the Commons today as he seeks throw Robbins under the bus.
As entertaining or otherwise as this may be, performative anger must not deflect from the fact that this whole security disaster came about because Starmer desperately wanted to appoint Mandelson as ambassador, despite warnings from all and sundry that this was a stupid idea.
Mobile phone filled with Lord Mandelson's messages 'stolen'.
Starmer is trying to stop the publication of the Mandelson emails, by holding another vote.
They shouldn't bother, as people have screenshot them!
As a result of Lord Yum Yum's vow to bring Starmer down, following his dismissal as US Ambassador, Starmer has expressed his full confidence in himself.
Therefore it can only be a matter of days before he is gone!
In a stunning turn of events that has rocked the UK political landscape, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has sacked Peter Mandelson as Britain's ambassador to the United States on September 11, 2025, amid explosive revelations about his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. This dramatic U-turn comes just one day after Starmer publicly declared his "full confidence" in Mandelson during Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs), exposing what many are calling a monumental failure in judgement. With Donald Trump's high-profile state visit to the UK looming from September 17 to 19, 2025, Starmer's position now appears increasingly untenable, raising serious questions about his leadership and what he knew—or chose to ignore—about Mandelson's controversial past.
Peter Mandelson, a veteran Labour politician and architect of New Labour under Tony Blair, has long been scrutinised for his association with Jeffrey Epstein. Fresh details, including emails and business dealings, emerged this week, intensifying calls for his removal. Despite these well-documented links—known for years—Starmer appointed Mandelson to the prestigious ambassadorial role in December 2024, with him assuming office in February 2025. Critics argue this decision ignored glaring red flags, including Mandelson's presence in Epstein's infamous "black book" and reports of multiple meetings with the disgraced financier.
The sacking was announced by the Foreign Office, citing "additional information" about Mandelson's Epstein connections as the reason. But why now? The timing couldn't be worse, as it unfolds mere days before Trump's arrival for a lavish state visit hosted by King Charles III, complete with carriage processions and visits to Windsor Castle. Mandelson's role was seen as crucial for navigating UK-US relations under a second Trump presidency, making his abrupt dismissal a diplomatic embarrassment.
Keir Starmer's decision to install Mandelson in Washington was controversial from the start. To make room for him, Starmer effectively sidelined the previous ambassador, Dame Karen Pierce, a highly respected career diplomat who had served admirably since 2020 and was well-liked in both London and DC for her steady hand during turbulent times like Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic. Pierce's removal was perceived as a political manoeuvre to reward Mandelson, a close ally and mentor to Starmer's inner circle, despite widespread warnings about his baggage.
Experts and opposition figures had cautioned against the appointment, pointing to Mandelson's history of scandals—including two previous resignations from government roles under Blair over ethical lapses—and his Epstein ties. Yet Starmer pressed ahead, betting on Mandelson's political savvy to strengthen transatlantic ties. This gamble has backfired spectacularly, with Labour MPs breaking ranks to demand action and even allies questioning the PM's foresight.
Starmer's judgement here is nothing short of abysmal. Appointing someone with such a tainted reputation to represent the UK on the world stage, especially in a post sensitive to issues like sexual misconduct and elite corruption, smacks of arrogance or wilful blindness. What did Starmer know about Mandelson's Epstein connections, and why did he dismiss the risks?
Just 24 hours before the sacking, Starmer stood firm in the House of Commons. When grilled by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey on Mandelson's future amid the Epstein revelations, Starmer emphatically backed his ambassador, insisting he had his "full confidence" and highlighting Mandelson's "positive work" in the role. This defence came despite mounting pressure from within his own party and public outcry.
The overnight reversal has left Starmer looking weak and indecisive. Media outlets are already asking: Why didn't he act sooner? The "additional information" cited by the Foreign Office suggests new evidence tipped the scales, but sceptics argue Starmer only moved when the political heat became unbearable. This flip-flop undermines his authority and fuels accusations of poor crisis management.
The timing of Mandelson's sacking amplifies the damage. Donald Trump's state visit—his second to the UK—kicks off on September 17, with a packed itinerary including meetings at Buckingham Palace, a visit to the late Queen Elizabeth II's tomb, and discussions on trade and security. Mandelson was positioned as a key player in these talks, given his experience and contacts. His absence creates a vacuum, potentially weakening the UK's negotiating stance at a critical juncture.
For Starmer, this scandal could be the tipping point. His government, already facing domestic challenges like economic woes and public sector strikes, now contends with a foreign policy fiasco. Opposition leaders are circling, with Badenoch labelling it an "embarrassing headache" for the PM. Starmer's lousy judgement in appointing Mandelson despite warnings, sacking a well-regarded predecessor, and offering unwavering support just yesterday has eroded trust. Whispers in Westminster suggest his leadership is on shaky ground—what he knew about Mandelson's past and why he ignored it could haunt him for months.
In the cutthroat world of politics, such missteps are unforgiving. As the UK prepares to roll out the red carpet for Trump, Starmer must explain how he let this happen. His tenure, once promising, now looks precarious, all because of one disastrous appointment.
Peter Mandelson to Fox
— Alex Wickham (@alexwickham) January 29, 2025
"I consider my remarks about President Trump as ill-judged and wrong. I think that times and attitudes toward the president have changed. I think that he has won fresh respect. He certainly has from me, and that is going to be the basis of all the work I…
TROUGHER NEWS: German Finance Minister Confirms Former UK-EU Politicians Kinnock, Mandelson, Clarke et al. would LOSE EU pension post-Brexit— Paul Quigley (@quigleyp) June 17, 2016
