Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney is under increasing pressure over her role in the appointment of Lord Peter Mandelson as US ambassador to Washington, which Labor figures accuse her of personally leading.
A number of party MPs have questioned McSweeney’s decision in the wake of revelations about Mandelson’s behavior and relationship with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, which Starmer branded “appalling” and “disgraceful”.
The criticism risks spreading to the Prime Minister himself, as one Labor frontbencher said it has fueled new questions about “who is really in charge” in Number 10 and warned that the saga could become a test of “the extent of Kiir’s loyalty” to his colleague.
On Wednesday Starmer was challenged by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch on whether he still supported McSweeney. “Of course I have confidence in him,” the Prime Minister told MPs.
“Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. She helped me transform the Labor Party and win the election.”
McSweeney remained Mandelson’s political protégé for years, receiving strategic and personnel advice from the New Labor giant.
Mandelson once said of the Irishman: “I don’t know who, how or when he invented it, but whoever it was… they will find their place in heaven.”
McSweeney used Mandelson as a sounding board during the years of opposition and continues to do so in government after the 2024 election.
Many aides saw Mandelson’s influence in Starmer’s last reshuffle in September, which included the sacking of soft-left MP Lucy Powell from cabinet, a sideways move for former business secretary Jonathan Reynolds and a failed attempt to move Energy Secretary Ed Miliband elsewhere.
Days later, Starmer dismissed Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the US in the wake of leaked emails that showed him expressing support for Epstein after his 2008 conviction. But while some Cabinet ministers wanted Mandelson to be removed immediately, McSweeney was initially more reluctant, according to some aides.
On Tuesday Blairite health secretary Wes Streeting insisted that colleagues – including McSweeney – could not have known about Mandelson passing on information to notorious convicted pedophile Epstein just months after he was released from prison.
Streeting argued, “Mandelson’s connection to Epstein or the fact that he was giving this individual sensitive and market-sensitive information while he was a serving government minister – I don’t think it could or should have been known about.”
But several backbench Labor MPs have turned up the political heat on McSweeney by asking serious questions about who was advising Starmer when he gave Mandelson his most senior diplomatic posting.
Labor MP Clive Eford said that “The key question here is who advised the Prime Minister? I do not expect the Prime Minister himself to do due diligence on such appointments, but people around him may have done so.”
“It appears that there were questions that needed to be asked of Lord Mandelson and they were not asked, or if asked, were not answered.”
He asked for a guarantee from the government that “those around the Prime Minister who may have advised him on his appointment will be fully investigated”.
Simon Ofer, a backbench Labor MP, said that while most of the anger within the party was reserved for Mandelson, whom he described as a “rogue individual”, it nevertheless questioned “Morgan McSweeney’s judgment” over his role in bringing the peer back into frontline politics.
“If he loses the by-election I think he (Morgan) will have to go,” Ofer said, referring to the upcoming vote in the seat of Gorton and Denton, which has until now been considered a safe Labor seat.
Mandelson was forced to resign twice from Tony Blair’s government over allegations related to his friendships with ultra-wealthy individuals, and his close friendship with Epstein came to light when he was given a job in Washington.
Several Labor figures claimed that MacSweeney had personally supported the idea of Mandelson as ambassador, despite senior colleagues, including some Foreign Office officials, objecting to this.
Labor MP Ian Byrne this week called for an urgent investigation into “who knew what and when about Peter Mandelson before and during this disastrous appointment as ambassador”.
On Wednesday the opposition Conservative Party plans to use a parliamentary mechanism known as “polite address” to force the government to publish the full extent of the investigation process that took place when Mandelson became US ambassador early last year.
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said in September that a full national security investigation had not been conducted until Mandelson’s appointment was announced.
The FT revealed in 2023 emails that Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse while the disgraced financier was serving a prison sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Starmer was asked about that story at a public event in January 2024, a year before Mandelson was hired.
Simon Hoare, the Tory chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee, is also writing to the Cabinet Secretary Sir Chris Wormald demanding he face questions over the inquiry process.
The Conservatives said in a statement on Tuesday that McSweeney was “deeply implicated in the scandal, had known Mandelson personally for many years and reportedly lobbied hard within Number 10 for his appointment – despite knowing there were concerns about his relationship with Epstein”.
However, a UK official insisted that Mandelson’s appointment made sense at the time – and that he had played a key role in securing UK tech and trade deals.
The official said, “I feel for Morgan because the argument was solid. Mandelson was familiar with big business and his tribe; with them he felt in his comfort zone. The difference between what we know today about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein and what we knew about it when he was appointed is stark.”
Another official said that neither McSweeney nor other colleagues would have supported the appointment if they had known the truth about the colleague and Epstein.
