Andrew Neil on Starmer and Mendelson

This was Andrew Neil's monologue at "Times at One" yesterday, and posted on X

"BETRAYAL 

And still the revelations about Peter Mandelson’s betrayals from the heart of government come, each one more jaw-dropping than the last.  We learned earlier this week that he’d tipped off his convicted paedophile mate about an imminent €500bn bailout of the Eurozone, advance information hugely useful to a financial fixer like Jeffrey Epstein.  

Even more incredibly, we saw how he’d advised America’s most powerful banker, via Epstein, to threaten the British government over plans to tax bankers’ bonuses in the wake of the Great Financial Crash, caused by said bankers.  Which the powerful banker then did in an intimidating call to then Chancellor Alastair Darling. A call inspired by the government’s very own business secretary, one Peter Mandelson.  

Now we learn that the moment Mandelson was given a note about a highly sensitive meeting between Darling and then US Treasury secretary Larry Summers in March 2010, our business secretary had whisked it to Epstein within five minutes. That’s right. Five. Minutes.  

Mandelson then received a second confidential note on the Darling-Summers exchanges. It took him only two minutes to send that to his pedo mate.  The reality is that Epstein had his very own mole at the heart of the British government, sending him secret and confidential information which could profit Epstein and his billionaire banker friends. And that mole was our business secretary.  

He even tipped Epstein off about the state of talks between Britain and America over a £10bn aerospace contract to provide the RAF with air-to-air refuelling tankers.  

At one stage Mandelson opines to Epstein that the then PM needs to be confined to a sanatorium. Remember Mandelson is saying this of the man who’d revived his political career. It doesn’t get much lower than that. No wonder Brown is seething. 

Let’s be blunt: the evidence is compelling that Mandelson betrayed himself, his department, his PM, his government, his country.  

And let us not forget Mandelson had previously been bunged $75,000 by Epstein. He says he has no recollection of such payments though the bank statements are clear for all to see. But, hey, who hasn’t forgotten a $75,000 gift? Mandelson’s partner also had his snout in the trough. We now learn he received three payments of £4,000 each from Epstein — this on top of £10,000 to take a course in osteopathy. Of course for Epstein it was all chicken feed. He must have been laughing all the way to his insider dealing.  

Whether it’s for misconduct in public office, breaching the official secrets act or dealing in insider information, it’s only right that his former lordship be the subject of the most rigorous criminal investigation. And quickly. This should not be allowed to drag on.  

But Keir Starmer has almost as many questions to answer as Mandelson. Just how was it that such a snake ended up as our man in Washington? Starmer didn’t know what we now know about Mandelson. But he knew a lot. In a faltering performance at PMQs he’s just admitted he did know of Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Epstein. But he still appointed him anyway.  

Starmer now claims Mandelson lied and lied to him. But my understanding is that Mandelson was never properly quizzed about his links with Epstein, so anxious was Starmer and his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, to shoe-horn him into our palatial embassy on Massachusetts Avenue.  

The push is on in Parliament today for the government to reveal all the details of the vetting of Peter Mandelson.  At times like this the default of British governments is to stonewall. But if Starmer truly regrets his Mandelson appointment, which has turned into a political catastrophe for him, he will sanction full disclosure of all relevant material, including who was involved in pressing Mandelson’s appointment.  Nothing less will suffice in what has become the greatest political scandal of our age."