Sir Keir Starmer used the conflict in Iran, and the Conservative Party’s stance on it, in response to repeated questions about what he knew about Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
At Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) on Wednesday, Kemi Badenoch accused Starmer of trying to evade scrutiny about the appointment of Mandelson as British ambassador to the United States, noting that documents which Parliament had demanded – through a parliamentary process known as a humble address – be released came into the public domain after last Wednesday’s PMQs.
“Let me ask him now, did the prime minister personally speak to Peter Mandelson about his relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein before appointing him as our ambassador to Washington”, the leader of the opposition asked.
Starmer responded that it was his “mistake” to appoint Mandelson, apologised again to Epstein’s victims and said that the government was complying with both the humble address and an ongoing police investigation into Mandelson.
“The matter of process was looked at by the independent advisor or ministerial standards. It's clear the appointment process wasn't strong enough, and that's why I've already strengthened it. But it was my mistake... and I've apologised for it”, Starmer said.
He went on to attack Badenoch for her for her stance on the US-Israeli operations against Iran, telling MPs: “She should follow suit and apologise for her gross error of judgment in calling for the UK to join the war in Iran without thinking through the consequences.”
On March 2, in response to the strikes which killed Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, Badenoch attacked Starmer for refusing to support American strikes on Iran, telling the House of Commons: “I have made it very clear that the Conservative party also stands behind America taking this necessary action against state-sponsored terror.”
Replying to Starmer, Badenoch accused Starmer of evading answering questions on what he knew about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein prior to appointing him.
“I know he doesn't want to talk about the documents he tried to bury last week. He's going to try and talk about anything else, but he's not going to get away with it. I asked him a question. He did not answer. We know the prime minister was warned about the risk of appointing Peter Mandelson.
"This is not about the process. He knew that Mandelson stayed in Epstein's house after Epstein had been convicted for child prostitution. He knew that, so I will ask him again. Did he speak to Peter Mandelson about this before the appointment? Yes or No?”
Starmer didn’t directly address Badenoch’s question in his response, saying instead: “I've already made clear that he was asked questions and gave untruthful replies. The government is complying with the humble address. The process has been set out. The independent [ethics] adviser has looked at it, and he said, ‘the relevant process for a political appointee was followed’” but acknowledged that this was “obviously” a question of his judgement.
The prime minister went on to again attack Badenoch’s judgement over support for the US-Israeli actions in Iran: “She wanted to rush into a war with Iran without thinking it through.
“The decision to commit the UK to a war is the biggest decision a prime minister can take, and she got it completely wrong.”
Badenoch then continued to press for answers about whether Starmer had spoken to Mandelson about his relationship with Epstein before appointing him, and, during the exchanges, the prime minister also criticised shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy for his social media post in which he called public Muslim prayer in Trafalgar Square an act of “domination”.
At the conclusion of their exchanges, Badenoch said: “The prime minister wants us to believe that he is a serious leader, but he doesn't do the work. He outsources the decisions. And when things go wrong, he blames the vetting. He blames the chief of staff, he blames the cabinet secretary. He blames anyone but himself.
“This prime minister appointed Peter Mandelson but didn't bother to ask the questions. If he cannot be straight with the House on something as simple as this, why should we believe a word he says about anything”.
Despite reports in the Times that the government is considering whether Britain can join the US operations on the legal basis of self-defence, the Starmer indicated he was against any further escalation in the conflict and wanted to see a diplomatic solution.
Responding to a question from Social Democratic and Labour Party MP Claire Hanna, Starmer said: “We will protect our people in the region. We will take action to defend ourselves and our allies, and we will not be drawn into the wider war.
"I want to see this war end as quickly as possible… the longer it continues, the bigger the impact on the cost of living. And that's where we intervene to support households with costs of heating oil. The best way forward is a negotiated settlement, with Iran giving up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon.”
Later, commenting on reports in the Guardian that Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, had attended the final set of US-Iran talks and thought that there was an offer to prevent the outbreak of a war, a Downing Street spokesman told reporters that neither Powell nor any British officials participated in the talks.
He told reporters: “These negotiations were bilateral between the US and Iran, facilitated by Oman. Jonathan was not present in the talks in Geneva and was not part of talks in the residence. No team of British officials participated in the negotiations. The UK supported the approach Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner took and their efforts in pursuit of a negotiated solution.”
To get more Politics news, click here to sign up for our free politics newsletter.