Newscast – “Epstein Files: Will Mandelson Cost Starmer His Job?”

BBC News, aired: February 5, 2026
Panel: Host Adam Fleming (C), Henry Zeffman (A, BBC), Alva Ray (B, New Statesman), Luke Sullivan (D, Starmer’s former advisor)

Episode Overview

This Newscast episode dissects the explosive fallout from the “Mandelson affair” – the political storm around Peter Mandelson’s appointment as UK Ambassador to the US, despite his ties to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The panel investigates what Keir Starmer knew, the pressure mounting within the Labour Party, the risks to Starmer’s leadership, and the broader impact on Westminster standards and public trust. Featuring insight from political journalists and insiders, the episode traces how this crisis unfolded, how Starmer responded, and who might be next in the firing line.

Main Discussion Themes & Insights

1. The Parliamentary Blunder and its Fallout [03:14–06:03]

• What happened?
  The government was caught flat-footed by the Conservative motion to release all files related to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson, leading to legislative confusion and an ineffectual Labour response.
• Why did it go wrong?
  • Luke Sullivan: “The Tories tabled the motion sort of 7 o’ clock at night… the government had… about 20 minutes to work out what to do… They were working at speed and I think they hadn’t quite grasped it.” [03:39]
  • Adam Fleming asks if this will be “one of the big … Parliamentary missteps,” but Alva Ray suggests the long-term issue isn’t the legislative details, but deeper concerns around Mandelson’s appointment itself.

2. Starmer’s Apology and Political Peril [06:31–10:45]

• Starmer’s big speech: Supposed to focus on a "Pride in Place" initiative, it was dominated by the Mandelson affair.
• Key moment:
  Starmer begins by apologizing to Epstein’s victims, acknowledging the anger of Labour MPs.
  • Notable Quote:

    “I want to say I am sorry. Sorry for what was done to you. Sorry that so many people with power failed you. Sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointed him.” — Keir Starmer [08:07]

• The verdict:
  • Luke Sullivan: “I think it came across very heartfelt... it’s a sign... of the political peril and position that the Prime Minister finds himself in.” [08:54]
  • Sullivan and Henry Zeffman lay out that Starmer’s leadership now hinges on rebuilding trust with Labour MPs, who are incensed by the perceived error in appointing Mandelson.

3. What Did Starmer Know, and When? [10:45–13:50]

• Due diligence and warnings:
  • Alva Ray reveals the Cabinet Office report before Mandelson’s appointment detailed his business links to Russia/China, past resignations, and “a section on Jeffrey Epstein… a report by the Financial Times which said that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s flat after his conviction.” [11:49]
  • Starmer and his chief of staff saw these warnings; Starmer claims he then relied on Mandelson’s answers—which now appear dishonest.
• Key concern:
  • “Does this mean that Keir Starmer believed the word of Peter Mandelson over the reporting in the Financial Times… and those photographs?” — Alva Ray [13:21]
• Question to Starmer:
  Chris Mason asks why he appointed “a man… with a publicly known ongoing friendship with a convicted paedophile” [13:50]. Starmer reiterates that he relied on Mandelson’s misleading assurances [14:16].

4. Was Starmer Just a Passenger? The Role of Advisers [20:27–24:23]

• How Mandelson got picked:
  • Alva Ray: “Sue Gray… drew up a shortlist… [Mandelson] was not on the shortlist. Then the Chief of Staff changed, US election happened, new shortlist, and Mandelson’s name appears.” [20:39]
  • “Keir Starmer initially favoured George Osborne” but was “persuaded” into Mandelson; Ray describes this as “even more curious” given what Starmer knew about Mandelson/Epstein.
• Deeper issue:
  • “He’s kind of a passenger in his own premiership… decisions supplied to him by advisors,” observes Henry Zeffman [22:37], echoing concerns from Labour MPs that Starmer lacks personal conviction and leadership force.

5. The Core Problem: Judgment, Not Just Lies [26:42–29:22]

• Why wasn’t the risk enough?
  • Luke Sullivan: “The problem… is going to be the question that is very difficult to answer. The Prime Minister is a very truthful person… it’s very difficult without putting your hands up and saying, I think I got this wrong.” [27:33]
  • Alva Ray: “If you know that there was some sort of relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein beyond his conviction, why take that risk? … what does that say about … Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and the standards you want to hold?” [28:41]
• Impact on women in Westminster:
  • Ray recounts “just how upset so many women in Westminster are about this… people who have probably worked very closely with Morgan McSweeney and Keir Starmer… really upset and furious… [and] have nothing more to say.” [29:22]
  • The anger is widespread but often not expressed publicly due to internal party dynamics.

6. Could Starmer Actually Fall? Labour’s Dilemma [33:13–36:27]

• Leadership threat:
  • Very few Labour MPs are publicly calling for Starmer’s departure, but momentum could build if the backlash in constituencies grows over the coming days.
  • “Is this some sort of Dominic Cummings Barnard Castle moment in their inboxes and on their doorsteps, or is it not?” — Henry Zeffman [34:11]
• Who else?
  • No clear alternative: “Wes Streeting also knew Peter Mandelson well… Angela Rayner is still, you know, undergoing an investigation into her tax affairs…” — Alva Ray [35:19]
  • Paradox: Desire for change, but fear that no better option exists, creating “a sort of strange stasis.” [36:27]

7. Wider Crisis: Political Class and Public Trust [36:28–38:31]

• Luke Sullivan reflects:
  • Cites the 2009 expenses scandal as precedent for lasting public disillusionment.
  • Warns that this could trigger long-term damage: “I do fear for the political class that for the British public, it just reconfirms their view that all politicians are rotten and in it for themselves.” [38:12]
• What happens next?
  • Could mean Starmer, Morgan McSweeney, or others lose their positions—as the scandal could continue to widen with new revelations.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Parliamentary chaos:
  “They hadn’t quite grasped it… I think you’re gonna have a problem.” — Luke Sullivan on Labour’s mismanagement of the Tory motion [03:14–03:39]

• On the heart of the issue:
  “Keir Starmer knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted… and appointed him anyway.” — Henry Zeffman [18:17]

• On Starmer’s apology:
  “I want to say I am sorry. Sorry for what was done to you. Sorry that so many people with power failed you. Sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointed him.” — Keir Starmer [08:07]

• On Labour’s anger and women MPs:
  “Even… people who have probably worked very closely with Morgan McSweeney and Keir Starmer… are really upset and furious… and feel like this is… such a terrible error of judgment.” — Alva Ray [29:22]

• On the absence of clear leadership alternatives:
  “It’s not really clear who could replace Keir Starmer at this point… so there’s this paradoxical feeling where people really want a scalp and want to see change… but… if Keir Starmer left at this moment, they might not get their preferred person.” — Alva Ray [35:19]

• On the risk to public faith:
  “For the British public, it just reconfirms their view that all politicians are rotten and in it for themselves.” — Luke Sullivan [38:12]

Timeline of Key Segments

| Timestamp | Segment Summary | |-----------|-----------------| | 03:14–05:25 | Parliamentary mishandling of Mandelson motion explained; Labour’s scramble | | 06:31–08:47 | Starmer’s speech: apology to Epstein’s victims and Labour MPs | | 08:54–10:45 | Panel’s reaction to apology; scale of Starmer’s political risk | | 10:58–13:42 | Discussion on what Starmer knew from vetting; due diligence content | | 13:50–16:03 | Chris Mason’s question & Starmer’s explanation about judging Mandelson/Epstein links | | 18:07–24:23 | Insider revelations: how Mandelson got on the ambassador shortlist; role of advisers | | 26:42–29:22 | Analysis of the core failing (judgment, not just being misled); emotional fallout, especially among women MPs | | 33:13–36:27 | Prospects for Starmer’s survival, Labour’s lack of alternatives, party stasis | | 36:28–38:31 | Reflecting on the potential for long-term decline in public trust | | 39:54–end | Final reflections: Is Starmer a survivor? What next for Labour and Westminster? |

Tone and Language

• The panel maintains a serious, probing, at times incredulous tone — matching the gravity of the scandal.
• Language is direct, with personal asides (“I think you’re gonna have a problem”; “He’s kind of a passenger in his own premiership”) and explicit about the emotional impact (“people… really upset and furious…”).
• Critical, especially towards Starmer’s decision-making, but self-aware about political complexities and the lack of straightforward answers.

Final Developments [40:03–End]

• BBC notes Lord Mandelson has not responded to requests for comment, reiterates that he denies acting criminally or for financial gain, and has apologized for his relationship with Epstein.
• Intelligence and Security Committee has requested that most documents regarding Mandelson’s vetting be published soon, with sensitive material going to them unredacted for review.

Summary Takeaway

The episode vividly captures the existential threat posed by the Mandelson-Epstein scandal to Keir Starmer’s premiership—a crisis rooted not just in what Starmer or his advisers knew, but in their broader judgment, and damaging to much of Labour’s claim to cleaner politics. The sense of a party—and a political class—adrift is palpable, with no easy answers, and no obvious successor if Starmer should fall. The story, all agree, is far from over.