Laura Kuenssberg tore into Sir Keir Starmer‘s judgement over Lord Mandelson as she grilled a Cabinet minister this morning. The Prime Minister is fighting for his premiership after appointing the peer as US ambassador despite knowing his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein continued after his conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution in 2008.
The BBC host pressed Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden about Sir Keir handing him the Washington role. Referring to the vetting process for his appointment, she said: « We know that after the Prime Minister was given the original report that he asked three questions of Peter Mandelson, only three questions.
« He asked him why he carried on his friendship after he was convicted, if he stayed in the townhouse in New York belonging to Epstein and if he’d carried on being involved in a charity that was connected to Epstein.
« The Prime Minister, who at one point was the director of public prosecutions, only asked three questions. »
Mr McFadden replied: « I don’t know if that’s the full picture but also I think it’s important to remember Peter Mandelson wasn’t plucked from obscurity or disgrace for this post. »
The BBC host went on: « But this is about the Prime Minister of this country’s judgement, to hire him to one of the most high-profile jobs. And, of course, the benefit of hindsight can be 20/20. But the Prime Minister’s curiosity seems to have fallen way, way short here. »
Mr McFadden said: « I believe the Prime Minister will have asked about this relationship. It sounds to me Peter Mandelson will have enormously diminished it, portrayed himself as some kind of victim of being duped rather than what’s ben revealed in the exchanges that we’ve seen. »
But the BBC presenter continued to press Mr McFadden, saying: « This is about the Prime Minister’s personal judgement. He made that decision and decided it was a risk worth taking and it’s blown up in his face. »
Turning to questions over Sir Keir’s leadership, she added: « This now raises questions for many people in your own party about whether the Prime Minister makes the right judgements on all sorts of things. Do you accept that Keir Starmer‘s leadership is now in big trouble? »
Mr McFadden replied: « I don’t think it should be. I think he is working hard for the country, this was the wrong decision but he’s had a five-year mandate from the general election just 18 months ago, he’s focused on the cost of living. He’s more frustrated than anyone that since the new year there have been a number of stories which have taken attention away from that.
« I also don’t think it’s good for the country to be changing its Prime Minister every 18 months to two years. It has an economic cost, a confidence cost, an international reputation cost.
« I appreciate this has been a week of terrible headlines, my thoughts in all of this are for the victims of what Jeffrey Epstein was doing. But I believe the Prime Minister is a man of good faith, I think he should have the support of the party and continue in his job. »
Source link
