The Peter Mandelson Interview

Summary

---

Newscast: The Peter Mandelson Interview (January 11, 2026)

Episode Overview

In this special edition of Newscast, Laura Kuenssberg sits down for an in-depth, candid conversation with Lord Peter Mandelson. The discussion covers Mandelson's role as the former UK ambassador to Washington, his insider perspective on Donald Trump's foreign policy, the UK's evolving defence priorities, and Mandelson's controversial association with Jeffrey Epstein—which ultimately led to his sacking. The tone is probing yet conversational, with Mandelson offering both personal reflection and geopolitical analysis.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump’s Foreign Policy and the 2026 World Order

• Mandelson’s Perspective on Trump’s Methods:

  • Mandelson stresses that Trump operates in a "world full of conflicts, of hard power, of growing rivalry, and particularly between the United States and China." He suggests Trump's blunt approach is both a strategy of deterrence and a matter of style.
  • "From [Trump’s] point of view, you need to understand that he feels that we live in a world that's full of conflicts..." (01:56)

• Venezuela and Greenland Incidents:

  • Kuenssberg presses Mandelson on Trump's direct action in Venezuela and aggressive stances towards Greenland—a NATO ally. Mandelson downplays the likelihood of military action in Greenland, calling Trump "an extraordinary risk taker" but not reckless.
  • "He's not going to land on Greenland, take Greenland by force...he knows fully well...that would be completely counterproductive and would spell real danger for America's national interest." (05:22)

• NATO and European Security Guarantees:

  • Trump has made it clear that US security guarantees for Europe are conditional on NATO allies increasing their own defence spending. Mandelson echoes this sentiment, urging Europe to step up.
  • "What he's saying is that the piggybacking has got to stop...Britain...and the rest of Europe...have all got to step up." (07:09)
  • He voices skepticism over UK government plans to meet those new obligations, citing competing fiscal pressures.
  • "I haven't seen the financial plans, not for the future, not in the way that they need to build up..." (08:19)

• American Leverage and Tactics:

  • On Trump's pattern of escalating language, Mandelson notes:
    "A lot of it is...he's exercising American leverage, okay? He's getting people to focus..." (10:22)
  • He warns against misinterpreting Trump’s threats as inevitable action but concedes the unpredictability of US responses.

2. Iran, Protesters, and Prospects for Intervention

• Trump’s Threats Against Iran:
  • Trump recently warned he’d "shoot back" if the Iranian regime killed protesters. Mandelson is uncertain of specifics, but underscores the West’s responsibility to support democratic change in Iran, advocating for careful, collaborative strategy with allies.
  • "I can't tell you exactly what form that support will take, but...we cannot stand idly by and simply allow events to take their course..." (11:44)

3. UK Politics—Criticism and Reflection

• Within the Labour Party and the Anti-Trump Sentiment:

  • Mandelson is frank about the divisiveness of aligning with Trump, especially for Labour:
    "I know there are many people...who prefer pearl clutching and moral indignation...over grasping a reality and doing something about it." (13:40)
  • He says the UK must be more relevant and useful to the US to be taken seriously.

• Lessons from Iraq & Political Toxicity of Military Intervention:

  • Reflecting on the Iraq War legacy, Mandelson insists both US and UK have learned the dangers of 'forever wars'.
  • "These were not two entirely successful, forever wars...they are very mindful of those lessons..." (14:59)

• On Changing the Rules-Based Order for one US President:

  • Mandelson implores the UK not to let dislike for Trump cloud judgment:
    "This sort of allergic reaction to Trump personally mustn't be allowed to get in the way of Britain's objective national interest." (15:55)

• Trump’s Position on Ukraine:

  • Asserts that Trump supports Ukraine’s sovereignty and is energetically engaged in the issue.
    "He is definitely on the side of maintaining and protecting the sovereignty, freedom and democracy of Ukraine." (16:52)

4. Personal Reflections on Trump

• Kuenssberg asks directly if Mandelson likes Trump:
  • "Did I like him? Yes. I liked his humour, his graciousness...I liked his directness. You knew exactly what he was thinking and where you stood..." (17:43)
  • Mandelson justifies Trump's risk-taking as necessary in a dangerous world:
    "I attach a lot of importance to somebody's preparedness to take risks, and he does, for good reasons, in pursuit of good objectives." (17:54)

5. The Epstein Controversy and Mandelson’s Downfall

• Regret and Explanation:

  • Mandelson admits grave error in maintaining ties with Epstein after his sex crime conviction:
    "It was a most terrible mistake on my part. I believed the story he told...I wish I hadn't." (20:09)
  • Emphasizes the plight of Epstein’s victims and his own lack of knowledge about Epstein’s crimes: "Do you really think...if I knew what was going on...I'd have just sat back, ignored it and moved on?" (21:48)

• On Whether He Was Shielded by Being Gay:

  • Suggests he was kept out of Epstein’s sexual activities because of his sexuality.
    "Because I was a gay man in his circle, I was kept separate from what he was doing..." (23:59)

• Apologies and Accountability:

  • Mandelson apologizes to victims for "a system that refused to hear their voices", but stops short of apologizing simply for his association after conviction:
    "If I had known, if I was in any way complicit or culpable, of course I would apologize." (26:16)

• Circumstances of His Sacking:

  • On accusations of being “economical with the truth”:
    "Whoever said that to you was obviously not amongst the Officials in number 10 Downing Street...I was unable to share emails with them that I didn't recall and I didn't possess." (28:01)
  • Accepts his sacking, says he understands it but won’t reopen the issue: "I'm not going to seek to reopen or relitigate this issue. I'm moving on. I realize I won't be going back into public office." (29:10)

6. What’s Next for Mandelson and the Labour Party

• He remains uncertain about his next steps:
  • "Who knows what's next?...I'm absolutely determined to be transparent...I have been and I will continue to be." (29:12)
• On Labour’s current travails and leadership:
  • "I do think they have the policies and the determination to navigate there...But let us not underestimate how difficult the coming years are going to be." (30:29)

---

Memorable Quotes

• On Trump’s Strategic Communication:
  "A lot of it is...he's exercising American leverage, okay? He's getting people to focus..." — Peter Mandelson (10:22)

• On Personal Regret: "It was a most terrible mistake on my part. I believed the story he told...I gave my support to somebody because I believed what he was telling me and it was misplaced loyalty." — Peter Mandelson (20:09)

• On Lessons from History: "These were not two entirely successful, forever wars...they are very mindful of those lessons..." — Peter Mandelson (14:59)

• On Apologizing to Victims: "I want to apologize to those women for a system that refused to hear their voices and did not give them the protection they were entitled to expect." — Peter Mandelson (25:57)

• On His Own Political Future: "I'm not going to go and just sort of disappear and hide. That's not me. I will find something useful to do..." — Peter Mandelson (29:12)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• Trump's worldview and US foreign policy: 01:56–07:50
• Europe’s need to step up on defence: 07:09–09:15
• US leverage, Venezuela, and Greenland: 10:00–11:25
• Iran, intervention, and Western responsibility: 11:25–13:17
• Labour, anti-Trump sentiment, and alliances: 13:17–15:55
• Lessons from Iraq and changing the world order: 14:46–15:55
• Ukraine, leadership, and supporting allies: 16:48–17:40
• Mandelson on Trump's character: 17:43–19:44
• Epstein controversy—accountability and regret: 19:44–26:31
• Sacking, transparency, and moving on: 26:51–29:43
• Advice (or lack thereof) for Labour and what’s next: 29:43–31:06

---

Summary for New Listeners

This episode is an unflinching exploration of high-level diplomacy, a reflection on political wrongdoing, and a personal reckoning. Peter Mandelson provides rare insight into how global leaders are dealing with an unpredictable world, especially in handling an assertive US under Trump. Despite a measured defence of Trump’s methods, Mandelson does not shy away from expressing regret about his own actions, particularly his long-standing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Throughout, Laura Kuenssberg’s probing questions elicit honest, sometimes uncomfortable responses from Mandelson, making this a compelling listen for anyone interested in UK politics, international relations, and political accountability.

Transcript

[BBC Announcer]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk. At the BBC we go further so you see clearer. Through frontline reporting, global stories and local insights, we bring you closer to the world's news as it happens. And it starts with a subscription to BBC.com, giving you unlimited articles and videos ad free podcasts the BBC News channel streaming live 24.7plus hi hundreds of acclaimed documentaries subscribe to trusted independent journalism and storytelling from the BBC. Find out more at BBC.com join.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Peter Manderson was rarely far from power Peter Mandelson was rarely far from scandal. But he's not said anything in front of a microphone since his sacking. At the time, newscasters you might remember Downing street said he was economical with the truth, that he hadn't given the full version of events and the extent of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. Does he agree? I ask him about that and all the other controversies as well as Trump's new World Order. And here is my long conversation with Peter Mandelson, including what he might do next. Newscast Newscast from the BBC Fat boy.

[Peter Mandelson]

Slimming me in the classroom doing our violin lessons. I was the tattletale in the class. Can I have an apology, please? I trust almost nobody that daddy has to sometimes use strong language Next time in Moscow.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

I feel delulu with no salulu.

[Peter Mandelson]

Take me down to Downing Street.

[BBC Announcer]

Let's go have a tour.

[Peter Mandelson]

Blimey.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Lord Mandelston, thank you for speaking to us today. You left your position in Washington for reasons we'll come to in a few minutes, but you have a unique perspective from having been Britain's ambassador and dealing with Donald Trump in the White House. How should governments, including the UK, react to this incredibly turbulent beginning to 2026, his strikes on Venezuela and his threat to grab a NATO ally in Greenland?

[Peter Mandelson]

I know people will sometimes be taken aback by his language and his approach to things. I had a ringside seat in a sense, and so I saw how the truth social posts would come out and how some people used language and took positions that were, to our mind in Europe, quite undiplomatic. But from his point of view, you need to understand that he feels that we live in a world that's full of conflicts, of hard power, of growing rivalry, and particularly between the United States and China, and that sometimes nettles have to be grasped and that that requires deterrence. If you want peace, you get peace through strength, but also sometimes you'll have to use force as well. And I think we've got to understand that and not simply react the whole Time to the language he uses.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

But it's more than language, though, isn't it? It's action. I mean, at the beginning of this year, he struck Venezuela, a sovereign state. He grabbed the leader, Maduro. Few are shedding tears for him losing his position. But Donald Trump's actions are what worry so many people. Are you suggesting that the UK and its allies simply give up on the rules they've tried to promote for so long?

[Peter Mandelson]

No, you don't, IGN international law.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Looks like he does.

[Peter Mandelson]

But you have to recognize, Laura, that there are many countries and bad actors in this world who do not obey the rules. They don't follow the rules. And if you take Putin's invasion by Russia, of Ukraine, or Iran's actions in spewing out spreading violence and terrorism across the Middle east through their funding of Hamas, of Hezboll, of the Houthis, etc. If you think of North Korea and what they're doing, these are not countries that care about the rules. Now, I'm not saying, just let me make it absolutely clear again, that we ignore international law in our response to these countries. But sometimes, I'm afraid, as a last resort, very difficult, very complex situations require decisiveness. They require sometimes force. But also above all, for those of us in the west, they really require us working together. And I think it's wrong, by the way, for people to assume sometimes as they do, that President Trump doesn't care about public opinion or he doesn't care about the views of his allies. It's true that he's more decisive than consultative. I mean, he is an extraordinary risk taker. But to say that he doesn't care about his allies views is really not true.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

But when it comes to Greenland, though, specifically in the last 36 hours, he has said we'll take it the easy way or the hard way. That's a military threat to a NATO ally.

[Peter Mandelson]

I know, but we all know, don't we, President Trump is not going to sort of land on Greenland, take Greenland by force, occupy the. He's not going to do that.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

So you know he's not going to do that.

[Peter Mandelson]

I know, but I'm offering you my best judgment. As somebody who's observed him at fairly close quarters, he's not a fool. He knows fully well and those people around him, and he has a very tight circle. Vice President J.D. vance, Secretary Rubio, Secretary Bessen, Pete Hesketh. These are people who work with him in a very collaborative way. And they will be reminding him that were he to intervene in such a unilateral way of deploying military force in order to take Greenland, that would be completely counterproductive and would spell real danger for America's national interest. And that's why I think it's not going to happen like that. What's going to happen is there's going to be a lot of discussion, a lot of consultation, a lot of negotiation. And at the end of the day, we are all going to have to wake up to the reality that the Arctic needs securing against China and Russia. And if you ask me, who is going to lead in that effort to secure, we all know, don't we, that it's going to be the United States. Unless we in Europe, unless we in Britain are prepared to stump up the forces and the radars and the anti missile systems and the air defense systems to protect Greenland and the Arctic. Are we? No, we're not. And that's why we, at the end of the day, going to be dependent on the United States to do so.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

But it is clear, though, from Donald Trump's actions and his rhetoric that he is no longer willing to provide the security guarantees for our continent, for a Europe that America has for such a long time. So what?

[Peter Mandelson]

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, it's not clear that he's not prepared to provide security guarantees, but the same level of security guarantee.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

That's what he said.

[Peter Mandelson]

Well, what he's saying is that the piggybacking has got to stop. And we recognize that too. Our own Prime Minister and Defence Secretary recognize that. The question is when and how and over what period of time we are going to invest sufficiently in our military capabilities, our defense and our security, and not just us in Britain, but in the rest of the Europe in order to step up more to provide for our own security.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

And as things stand, the Prime Minister has given extra commitment to spend more on defence than had previously been planned. But do you think that level of commitment.

[Peter Mandelson]

I'm sorry, but the money's got to follow?

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Well, that was going to be my question. As things stand, we don't know where all of that money is going to come from. So are you convinced that this government in this country has really grasp that nettle has really worked out, as you say, that the world has changed fundamentally and that needs a different level of support and belief in paying for our own defence from UK governments?

[Peter Mandelson]

I think the principle is accepted, I think the funding is embraced. But I haven't seen the financial plans, not for the future, not in the way that they need to build up and unfold in the years to come. And look, this is difficult. I mean, we have huge fiscal challenges on us as a country. The welfare bill is spiraling, looking after the elderly and their social care, net zero debt servicing, paying for how much we borrow costs the earth. So of course, spending more on defence is going to be hard, but it is going to be necessary.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Do you think the government's been completely straight with us, the public yet about the kinds of sacrifices or the kind of changes perhaps that might be required to get to the level of spending that you believe is needed?

[Peter Mandelson]

I think there are very real and difficult choices to be made. And trade offs, there are real trade offs that have got to be made. But let me get back, if I may, to President Trump because I don't want to be sort of a commentator on my own government. President Trump is not just going to expect Britain, but Germany, France and other European countries to fulfill the commitments they made at the NATO summit last year. It's not just Britain, it's all European countries who have got to step up, all the members of NATO who have got to fulfill the commitments and the promises they've made. And I'm afraid not just in our own country, but in others too. We've yet to see the detail of those plans.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

But how are leaders, whether it's Keir Starmer or other European leaders meant to respond when you say Donald Trump's actually not going to invade Greenland, he's not going to use the military against a NATO ally. But that's what he said repeatedly. And when it came to Venezuela, he made many similar warnings. And many people thought, oh, well, he's not really going to do it. And then he did.

[Peter Mandelson]

Yeah, but a lot of it is, is he's exercising American leverage, okay? He's getting people to focus, he's getting people in the right place for a negotiation to start. That's how he works and that's what I believe he's doing. In the case of Greenland. I'm not saying that he was waiting for a negotiation to start with President Maduro. I'm not saying that. But if you take another country like Iran, for example, where we have a very, very fast changing and I think increasingly urgent situation to face in Iran, he gave plenty of warning to the regime about what would happen and what he would follow through if they ceased their uranium enrichment and the development of their military nuclear program. And at the end of the day, they didn't act, they wouldn't negotiate, they weren't talking sensibly. And he went in and used force.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

And he bombed them. And this weekend, he said if the Iranian regime were to shoot protesters in the streets who are out there trying to fight for a democratic way of life, he said if the government forces shoot protesters, America would shoot back. So what do you think he means by that? Would he intervene?

[Peter Mandelson]

I'm really not sure what he means by that. But I do know that there are millions of people in Iran who want their freedom back, who want to restore their democracy, who want a good, progressive, secular leadership in place so that they can remake their country. And they look to us, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and others as their friends to give them that support when the time comes. I can't tell you exactly what form that support will take, but. But I do not think, given everything that is at stake, both for the Iranian people themselves, but also for the change, we want to see, the transition we want to see in Iran in order to make Iran once again a peaceful, democratic player in the Middle east, we cannot stand idly by and simply allow events to take their course without giving any assistance or support to the Iranian people.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

So what should assistance be be, then? What kind of form should that take?

[Peter Mandelson]

I'm not sure what form it should take, and I'm not anticipating a military intervention. It's really not my job to do that. But what I would say is, I hope there are some really serious, urgent, intensive discussions taking place between the United States and its European allies, as well as other players in the Middle east in the region, about what we can do to bring about and help support this democratic transition in Iran.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

You know that in your own party, that sometimes the very thought of any more vigorous military intervention and even the thought of closer relationships with Donald Trump, to some people in your party and on the broader left and some people watching this interview, they think actually what the UK should be doing is condemning the way that Donald Trump behaves.

[Peter Mandelson]

Look, I know there are many people, not just in my party and not just in this country, you know, who prefer pearl clutching and moral indignation and outrage over grasping a reality and doing something about it. Yes, that is the case. But I think that what we've got to recognize, and again, not just in my party and not just in our country, is that if we want the United States to lead in an active, responsible, and respectful way, then we have got to beef up our own diplomatic muscle, and indeed our own military hard power, and demonstrate that we are relevant and useful to the United States in what they have to do to keep the world a stable and a peaceful place. And if we don't do that, if we don't demonstrate our relevance, then we can't expect to be taken seriously. We can't expect to be listened to and to influence what the United States is doing.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

But you know that it can be politically toxic for UK governments to take a tougher line on defence and military intervention. You were around during the Iraq period and that was toxic for your party and Tony Blair's government.

[Peter Mandelson]

I know, I know. But shall I tell you something also? I think probably not just us, but actually the United States and its political leaders have learned a lot, not just from Iraq, but from Vietnam as well. These were not two entirely successful, forever wars that the United States fought and led. And actually, I think you will find in the minds of the American leadership, President Trump and those around him, that they are very mindful of those lessons and that experience and they want to do things differently in the future.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

But is it right for multiple governments and international organizations to completely rejig the way that they have worked, to rejig the kind of rules based order, to use the jargon, that there's been attached to for years, because of the character of one American president who will not be there forever?

[Peter Mandelson]

I know, but Laura, we need a US President to be decisive. We need a US President not simply to sit at home and sit on his hands and doing nothing where American heft is needed elsewhere in the world to sort problems. And we've got to ask ourselves, I think, whether our reaction is because we don't want any US President to act decisively, or whether actually we're simply allergic to Donald Trump and we're not thinking objectively enough about what he's actually doing, what he needs to do and the support we should give. And I think that this sort of allergic reaction to Trump personally mustn't be allowed to get in the way of Britain's objective national interest.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Whose side is he on when it comes to Ukraine?

[Peter Mandelson]

He is definitely on the side of maintaining and protecting the sovereignty, freedom and democracy of Ukraine.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

You're convinced by that? Is that something he said? He said to you?

[Peter Mandelson]

We have discussed it. I have no doubt that that is the case now. How you bring about the end of Russia's invasion, how you reach a settlement between those two countries and what it means territorially, obviously is open to debate and to negotiation. But one thing I'm absolutely sure, he wouldn't be doing this. He wouldn't be expending so much energy and effort and time on Ukraine if he didn't believe in a very basic way in the sovereignty and the freedom of the Ukrainian people.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Did you like Donald Trump?

[Peter Mandelson]

I found him. Did I like him? Yes. I liked his humour, his graciousness.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Graciousness, that's not a word that many people associate with Donald Trump.

[Peter Mandelson]

No, I know it isn't. I know it isn't, because he has a. For many people, he has a completely different image. I liked his directness. You knew exactly what he was thinking and where you stood and what he wanted and how he was proposing to engage with you. Did I like all his language? No, I didn't. Did he make me gasp sometimes in some of the things he said? Of course. But at the end of the day, President Trump is an extraordinary risk taker. And for me, in the world today, given all its conflicts and its dangers and how I would define leadership of a country, I attach a lot of importance to somebody's preparedness to take risks, and he does, for good reasons, in pursuit of good objectives. We've seen that in relation to Ukraine, We've seen it in relation to Gaza. Do you think any other country than the United States would be able to pull apart Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces? No. Do you think there's any other country that would be able now to be embarking on a phase two of this peace process, this peace settlement in Gaza? No, not the Europeans, I'm afraid. They're not there to do this. The United States is with us in support, I hope, and contributing to the process. But at the end of the day, in so many cases, and I think Iran is another one coming up, it's American heft that makes the difference.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Now. You lost your job as ambassador because of your friendship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. You've said many times you regret that you were close to him, but there's a question many people have. It was one thing to be friends with him in the early 2000s, quite another to keep your friendship going with him when it was clear and he had a conviction for abusing young women. Why did you stick with him?

[Peter Mandelson]

Well, it was a most terrible mistake on my part. I believed the story he told in 2008 in his first indictment in Florida. I accepted his story and I wish I hadn't. I gave my support to somebody because I believed what he was telling me and it was misplaced loyalty. But I just have to say this to you, while it's had the most calamitous consequences for me, and I regret ever having been introduced to him in the first place I regret continuing a friendship with him. The crux of this is not me. The crux of this is not the friendship I had 25 years ago with Jeffrey Epstein. The crux of this is that so many hundreds of young women were completely trapped, powerless in a system that did not listen to what they had to say. I didn't hear their voices. Other people didn't hear their voices. They were disempowered within that system.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

You described him though, as your best pal. We've all seen the pictures of you relaxing with him on holiday in a bathrobe. During the time you spent with him, did you ever at any point see or hear anything that gave you any cause for concern? Anything whatsoever?

[Peter Mandelson]

Look, I was at the edge of this man's life.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

You described him as your best pal.

[Peter Mandelson]

Yeah. And they were awful, toe curling messages and emails that were published and they're very embarrassing and just make me distraught every time I hear them. But I have to say to you, and I can say this absolutely, I can say it to you categorically, I never saw anything in his life when I was with him, when I was in his homes that would give me any reason to suspect what this evil monster was doing in preying on these young women. Now, do you really think that if I knew what was going on and what he was doing with and to these vulnerable young women that I'd have just sat back, ignored it and moved on and said, okay, that's his life he can get on with? Do you think I would have done that? Do you think I'd have written emails like that if I had had any one iota of knowledge or suspicion of what he was doing? I certainly would not.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

But you did have the knowledge that he had to conn conviction. Yes, and I believe he had conviction for abusing.

[Peter Mandelson]

And I believed his story.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Over a court.

[Peter Mandelson]

And I believed his. Yes, I believed his story and that of his lawyer who spent a lot of time trying to persuade me of this, because I did go into it that he had been falsely criminalized in his contact with these young women. Now I wish I had not believed that story. I wish I had been more skeptical, I wish I had been more questioning. But I'm afraid I believed a story. I believed a friend. I placed mistaken loyalty in place of the skepticism that I should have shown and I deeply, deeply regret it.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

You made clear though at the time also you made clear when this story was running very hard, that as a gay man you had never been offered any kind of sexual favor. There were Never any conversations at all.

[Peter Mandelson]

Possibly some people will think because that I am a gay man, I was sort of insensitized or I wasn't attuned to what was going on. I don't really accept that. I think the issue is that because I was a gay man in his circle, I was kept separate from what he was doing in the sexual side of his life. I mean, he, in a sense, had three buckets of people in his life. The business and the financial, the political and the academic. And then what he was doing with young women. It's possible that some people crossed over, but I didn't. And I think probably the reason I was separate from the third of those is because I'm gay.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

But what did you think all the young women on the island or on the plains were there for? What did you think they were doing?

[Peter Mandelson]

When I spent, on one occasion, two nights, I think, or three nights on the island, the only other people there were two middle aged housekeepers.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

So was that separate for you?

[Peter Mandelson]

Epstein was never there. Epstein was never there. I think Ghislaine Maxwell, his accomplice, came for a night. But there were no girls on that island when I was there, whether on the island or in New York or there was another occasion I stayed at a ranch in New Mexico. Again, the only people were there were the housekeepers. Never were there any young women or girls or people that he was preying on or engaging with in that sort of ghastly, predatory way.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Do you want to take this chance to apologize to his victims for your association with him which went years beyond his original conviction?

[Peter Mandelson]

I want to apologize to those women for a system that refused to hear their voices and did not give them the protection they were entitled to expect.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Do you apologize for your association with him after his conviction and that system.

[Peter Mandelson]

That system gave him protection and not them. If I had known, if I was in any way complicit or culpable, of course I would apologize.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

But you weren't. For your association with him after his conviction.

[Peter Mandelson]

But I was not culpable. I was not knowledgeable of what he was doing. And I regret and will regret to my dying day the fact that that powerless women, women who were denied a voice, were not given the protection they were entitled to expect from the American system.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Then we come to your time as ambassador at the highest levels of government. People felt you'd misled them about how close you were to Epstein and about how your friendship had continued after his conviction. And the line from the government was that you were sacked because new information came to light. That's what they said. Is that true or do you think you told them everything?

[Peter Mandelson]

The emails that were published came as a huge surprise and a huge shock to me. Not just to them. I didn't remember sending them. I still don't actually recall the circumstances or thought processes that led me to send them. They no longer existed on my server. I had long since disused. So it came as a shock to them and it came as a surprise. But I was unable to share emails with them that I didn't recall and I didn't possess.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

But a senior figure in government told me you'd been economical with the truth, to use their phrase. When you gave them assurances before you were given the job as American Ambassador about your relationship with him, were you economical with the truth?

[Peter Mandelson]

Whoever said that to you was obviously not amongst the Officials in number 10 Downing Street High School spoke to during the consideration of me as ambassador. So you told them everything they knew everything.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Did you therefore deserve to be sacked? Not the emails, but aside from.

[Peter Mandelson]

Because they came as a surprise to.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Me, did you deserve to be sacked?

[Peter Mandelson]

I understand why I was sacked.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

It's a different question.

[Peter Mandelson]

The Prime Minister found himself in the middle of what must have seemed to him a sort of thermonuclear explosion. I've been there. I know what goes on. I know how these circumstances are. Look, I wish I'd had the opportunity to remind him of the circumstances of my relationship, my friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, and how I came to write the emails in the first place. I didn't. So I understand why he took the decision he did. But one thing I'm very clear about is I'm not going to seek to reopen or relitigate this issue. I'm moving on. I realize I won't be going back into public office.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Well, I was going to ask, what's next? What do you want to do?

[Peter Mandelson]

Well, who knows what's next? I don't know what's next, but I'm not going to go and just sort of disappear and hide. That's not me. I will find something useful to do. I don't know what it is, and no doubt it will take some time to discover. I am absolutely determined to be transparent about what happened and I have been and I will continue to be.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

And will you be transparent about your view of how the Labour government is doing? Do you think that Keir Starmer ought to be the person who leads Labour into the next election? Or would you have any advice for him about how to climb out of the doldrums. I mean, it has been a dreadful start to his time in office in so many ways.

[Peter Mandelson]

You know, when I was in government and advising prime ministers and being a campaign director for my party, one thing I couldn't stand is people who went on the Sunday morning programs, like armchair generals and commentators, telling us how badly we were doing and how if only we adopted all their views, how much better we would be doing.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Maybe you might have helpful advice for them because they are in a fix. You know that here Starmers become incredibly unpopular incredibly quickly.

[Peter Mandelson]

I think the government faces some real serious challenges. We've touched on one or two of them during the course of our discussion. They are huge challenges. They're huge challenges. I do think they have the policies and the determination to navigate there and the country's way through them. I do believe that Keir Starmer will continue to give the leadership he is in that process. But let us not underestimate how difficult the coming years are going to be. They're going to be really very difficult indeed.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

Lord Mandelson, thanks so much for taking the time to speak to us.

[BBC Announcer]

At the BBC. We go further so you see clearer through frontline reporting, global stories and local insights, we bring you closer to the world's news as it happens. And it starts with a subscription to BBC.com, giving you unlimited articles and videos ad free podcasts. The BBC News Channel streaming live 24. Seven plus hundreds of acclaimed documentaries. Subscribe to trusted independent journalism and storytelling from the BBC. Find out [e-mail] join.

[Laura Kuenssberg]

And there'll be a normal episode of Newscast where we talk about that interview and other things along a bit later in your feeds, me and Paddy, we'll talk to you then. Newscast, Newscast from the BBC. Well, thank you for making it to.

[Peter Mandelson]

The end of another newscast. You clearly ooze stamina. Can I gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds? And then without having to do anything else, our meandering chat will miraculously make its way to your phone.

[BBC Announcer]

At the BBC, we go further so you see clearer through frontline reporting, global stories and local insights, we bring you global closer to the world's news as it happens. And it starts with a subscription to BBC.com, giving you unlimited articles and videos ad free podcasts. The BBC News Channel streaming live 24. Seven plus hundreds of acclaimed documentaries. Subscribe to trusted independent journalism and storytelling from the BBC. Find out [e-mail] join.