The Guardian view on Downing Street in crisis: Keir Starmer's judgment looks fatally flawed | Editorial

"Accused of terrible misjudgment in appointing Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, Sir Keir Starmer says that questions were raised but answered with lies. Mandelson portrayed Jeffrey Epstein as someone he barely knew and was sacked as soon as it became clear the relationship had been much closer. Addressing the scale of the deception on Thursday, the prime minister sounded authentically outraged. Mandelson had failed a basic test of honesty and such deceit is incompatible with public service."

"Focusing on the lies obscures the extent of what was already known to be true when the fateful appointment was made. It was not a secret that Mandelson had some kind of friendship with Epstein. Evidence of it was in the public domain. The necessary question that followed was what level of intimacy with a man who had trafficked underage girls for sex might be tolerable in a potential ambassador. The only good answer was zero."

"The cupidity that brought him into Epstein's orbit in the first place, his social facility in that sleaziest of milieux, may even have been a perverse recommendation, given the character of the US president. The risk of some scandal erupting high in any event, given Mandelson's record of ignominious resignations dating back decades was deemed worth taking for the perceived benefit of influence in the White House."

Sir Keir Starmer faced accusations of terrible misjudgment in appointing Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington despite public evidence of Mandelson’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. Mandelson portrayed Epstein as someone he barely knew and was sacked once the closer relationship became clear. Deceit of that scale is incompatible with public service and undermines credibility. The link to Epstein was already in the public domain, which meant the appropriate standard for an ambassador was zero intimacy with a convicted trafficker of underage girls. Downing Street failed to apply that standard, apparently valuing perceived access to the White House over care for Epstein’s victims.

Read at www.theguardian.com