[0:00]Breaking news this hour. Let's go live to Westminster. Our political correspondent, Serena Barker Singh. Serena, we're hearing in the last few moments that Peter Manderson has been asked to withdraw as ambassador by the
[0:11]prime minister. >> Yes, exactly. Withdraw from being the ambassador or essentially uh he's been sacked by the prime minister and you heard from the foreign minister there,
[0:20]Steven Douty, who was drawn out uh by the conservatives urgent questions today uh to make that announcement. It's not a surprise. We were talking this morning
[0:31]about how long could Peter Mandlesson sustain this drip feed of information, these very embarrassing photos, uh that one of him in a a bathrobe at one of
[0:43]Jeffrey Epstein's uh residencies, but it seems to be these emails that are the most damning. And uh the um foreign office has said these are the new
[0:54]information that emerged. this sacking has gone down, whether uh he was told personally, whether he was summoned um in, but it was clearly becoming
[1:03]untenable that Peter Mandlesson could sustain his position. And remember uh the government has a commitment to um women and girls and having violence against women and girls was optically
[1:15]not looking very good. But it seems like those emails were the most damning uh things. And that's why the prime minister has said today via his foreign minister uh that the US ambassador now
[1:27]has been sacked. >> Serena, just looking at at some of the pressure that was building just considering comments from the Labour peer Harriet Harmon, Baroness Harmon telling Sky News's electoral dysfunction
[1:39]podcast, I think it's best to fire him now and get on with making Donald Trump's visit a good success. She told uh the electoral dysfunction podcast. uh going on to say building the confidence
[1:51]of the people who are looking to this government to make tackling sex abuse of women and girls a real priority for this government. I think that's what he's got to do. He the prime minister. Uh it it
[2:01]it's notable that pressure was building within the party as well. We heard from some backbench MPs as well yesterday saying that Peter Manderson should be sacked. Harry Harmon telling Sky News
[2:12]electoral dysfunction the same thing. So from across the political spectrum and from across the seniority of the Labour party itself, real pressure was building on the prime minister.
[2:22]>> Yes, it seems that she's just voicing uh what a lot of MPs privately were thinking. Uh you had a few uh come out to say who have always been critical of
[2:32]the government, I should say. uh Kim Johnson uh Andy McDonald had said they were clearly uncomfortable with this appointment but privately uh MPs uh were even more uncomfortable though had been
[2:44]unwilling to go against the government. The pressure was mounting uh and it seems that today that didn't hold and as you say there is this big President
[2:53]Trump state visit next week. Um Jeff um Peter Mandlesson had been very instrumental in some of the plans in fact uh across uh Labour the Labour
[3:03]party they acknowledged that he has very good relationships with the new administration but even that couldn't uh keep his job in post um it was becoming
[3:13]too politically untenable for him to stay and for the prime minister he's having now in quick succession a few scandals now being racked up he's lost
[3:24]his debt deputy only a couple of days ago, Angela Raina, he lost his homelessness minister over the summer. All sort of engaged in some form of
[3:34]political scandal. This is not only a drip feed um of uh scandals for the for the government, but it makes all politicians uh look bad, which voters
[3:44]really really don't like. >> Serena, stay with us as we gather political reaction to this story. But this story is is far from one of the
[3:54]past few days. This has been a longunning issue. Earlier this year, Lord Madison quizzed in fact on his association with Epstein by our US correspondent James Matthews.
[4:06]In June 2009, did you stay at the apartment in Manhattan of Jeffrey Epstein? >> I'm not answering any questions uh about uh him. Uh >> he was in jail at the time for
[4:17]soliciting prostitution from a minor. and my my knowledge of him is something uh that I regret. I wish I'd never met him in the first place. >> Why did you have an association with him
[4:28]because he was in jail at the time? >> Why why did many people uh meet him? He was a prolific uh networker and I wish I'd
[4:38]never met him in the first place. >> That was Peter Manderson speaking to James Matthews earlier this year. Peter Manderson is obviously a name that that
[4:48]many will know. His involvement in politics has been been the case for decades now. From 1992 to 2004 he was member of parliament for Hart Lipool
[5:00]then European Commissioner for Trade from 2004 to 2008 and in the year of 2008 appointed to the House of Lords as a life peer. He took a period of
[5:11]indefinite leave from that role when he was uh appointed as ambassador. He took that appointment in December 2024 and
[5:21]started the role in February 2025. And Peter Manderson's held a range of senior positions in previous governments under the prime ministerships of both Tony
[5:31]Blair and Gordon Brown as well. He was a secretary of state for business innovation and skills, secretary of state for business and trade and also secretary of state for Northern Ireland
[5:41]as well. And alongside that had roles in the Labour party's campaigns and communications in the late 1980s into 1990 and also a co-founder of a global
[5:52]public policy advisory firm. His most recent role which we are just hearing this hour that he has been asked to withdraw from by the prime minister was of course ambassador to the United
[6:03]States and it wasn't Serena Barker Singh an appointment that came without controversy in the first place. >> Saw James Matthews ask him about uh his relationship with piece with Jeffrey
[6:14]Epstein and that was months ago. It was known uh that there was a relationship at the time of the appointment. Um so there are questions around what that procedure and vetting looked like. Now
[6:25]yesterday prime minister's questions the prime minister said that all the proper procedures were followed. Um but that doesn't really tally with what was in the public domain. Um so people are
[6:36]asking questions and and two when the prime minister knew about the full extent of the relationship. I think one also glaring hole is that these may not
[6:46]be the end of the emails. Uh we know that uh Peter Mandlesson was um speaking to Jeffrey Epstein well after uh that conviction but how long did they
[6:58]maintain a relationship afterwards? We still uh don't know. So uh still lots of questions uh surmounting but uh incredibly damaging for the prime
[7:08]minister and again uh head of this state visit will cause him um potentially lots of uh planning issues uh whether they're going to put a new uh ambassador in post
[7:19]before that. Um lots more difficulties for the prime minister to come as well. Serena Barker Singh with us for this breaking news. Reaction from the leader
[7:30]of the Conservative party, Kimmy Bonok posting on X saying Mandlesson might have gone, but just as with Angela Raina, Starmer dithered when he needed to be decisive. Time and again he puts
[7:41]party above country, he has no backbone and no convictions. There are now serious questions over what star knew and when. We deserve to know reaction there. from Cammy Badnock, leader of the
[7:51]Conservative Party. It's 11:00. You're watching Sky News, our coverage of the breaking news this morning. Lord Mandlesson sacked as UK ambassador to the United States. The
[8:03]British embassy in Washington has released the following statement in light of the additional information in emails written by Peter Mandlesson. The Prime Minister has asked the foreign
[8:13]secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. The emails show that the depth and extent of Peter Manderson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different to that known at the time of
[8:23]his appointment. In particular, Peter Manderson's suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein's first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. In light of that, and mindful of the victims of Epstein's
[8:34]crimes, he has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect. This is the moment the news of Lord Madison sacking was announced to the Commons. In
[8:43]light of additional information in emails written by Peter Mandlesson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States.
[8:55]>> The emails show, Mr. Speaker, that the depth and extent of Lord Madison's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at
[9:05]the time of his appointment. In particular, Mr. Speaker, Lord Madison's suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein's first conviction was wrongful and should be
[9:14]challenged is new information. And in light of that, Mr. Speaker, and mindful as we all are of the victims of Epstein's appalling crimes, um he has
[9:25]been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect. Stay with us here on Sky News as we bring you the full details,
[9:37]developments, political fallout, and implications of this breaking news. Gareth Barlow with you. Plenty more on the live blog on the politics hub blog on the Sky News website and app. Also
[9:48]following this is our political correspondent, Serena Barker Singh. Uh Serena, just tell our viewers who are joining us this morning at 11:02 what we've been hearing in the past 20 minutes. Well, it's both surprising uh
[9:59]and not that surprising at all. It's been pressure had been mounting on the prime minister since uh full uh the full extent of the relationship between Peter Mannerson and Jeffrey Epstein came to
[10:09]light. Uh but now it seems that cannot hold and the prime minister uh has asked uh the UK the UK's US ambassador um to
[10:19]resign. Um now Peter Manderson uh we're told has been relieved of his post. Uh I'll just read you the statement uh that we were given, but he's also been
[10:30]speaking in the house. He says, "In light of the additional information in emails written by Peter Mandlesson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. The emails show that the depth and
[10:42]extent of Peter Mandlesson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Peter Manderson's suggestion
[10:52]that Jeffrey Epstein's first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. So it seems that since yesterday when at prime minister's
[11:02]questions uh the prime minister seemed to uh stick by his man that has changed in light of emails uh unearthed by the son and Bloomberg which appear to show
[11:13]that pisa manderson was not only speaking uh with Jeffrey Epstein long after his conviction uh but somehow queried the conviction and actually asked him to maybe appeal. Some of the
[11:25]quotes are are shocking. They say I think the world of view and I feel hopeless and furious about what has happened. Uh the the email also encourages Epstein to fight for an early
[11:35]release. So it seems that that is the lynch pin by which the prime minister has said uh that is enough and and and in effect he has been sacked. I I'm not
[11:46]sure if um people will understand the nuance of that. It does seem that a lot of information about this relationship was known yesterday when the prime minister defended him. Uh but also there
[11:57]are questions now about when did the prime minister know about that full extent of the relationship. Why wasn't the vetting done? When this controversial appointment was made potentially he won't have to answer
[12:08]that. Now all of these uh problems may have gone away for the prime minister but obviously not for Peter Manderson who has now been sacked from his post.
[12:17]Sering with us. Earlier this year, Lord Manderson was quizzed on his prior associations with the Jeffrey Epstein by our US correspondent James Matthews.
[12:27]Let's take a listen. >> In June 2009, did you stay at the apartment in Manhattan of Jeffrey Epstein?
[12:36]>> I'm not answering any questions uh about uh him. Uh >> he was in jail at the time for soliciting prostitution from a minor.
[12:45]and my my knowledge of him is something uh that I regret. I wish I'd never met him in the first place. >> Why did you have an association with him because he was in jail at the time?
[12:56]>> Why why did many people uh meet him? He was a prolific uh networker and I wish I'd never met him in the first place.
[13:06]>> Take you Let's take you live to Washington DC. Our US correspondent Mark Stone joins us. Uh early in the morning with you Mark in Washington but uh
[13:16]certainly time for the PM to withdraw that appointment of the US ambassadorship to Jeffrey Eper Manderson following those connections
[13:29]and those emails to Jeffrey Epstein. Talk to us about how this will go down in Washington this morning. >> Yeah, very good morning Gareth. Yeah, it's only just gone 6:00 a.m. uh here in
[13:38]Washington. Uh and uh yeah, this this is huge news. I mean, I don't think it's altogether surprising. I think uh over the course of the past few days, uh this
[13:48]issue uh for Lord Mandelson has gathered huge momentum uh with emails being released uh adding to that extraordinary
[13:57]letter uh that appeared uh in that 50th birthday card to Jeffrey uh Epstein. Um it was clear, it's been clear for years to be honest, uh that Lord Mandlesson
[14:08]had a relationship uh with Epstein, knew him. Um but but up until this week, it was not clear just how close that relationship was. And and and when that
[14:19]letter emerged, and this is a letter in in a birthday book uh that Gileain Maxwell put together for Jeffrey Epste. It's a it's it's a book that was put together in 2003, so many years ago. uh
[14:31]that book uh was was released by a committee of lawmakers of politicians on Capitol Hill because remember the Epstein story here in the United States is huge as well because of Donald
[14:42]Trump's connections with him. Now when that book was published and I mean I was looking through it the night it was published three three four nights ago and I I was just looking through it in curiosity. It's a kind of scrapbook.
[14:53]It's sordy. It's horrific in places. Some of the sexual language from some of the letters is absolutely awful. And then suddenly there it was, seven pages
[15:02]uh from Peter Mandolson. I mean that for me and I think clearly for for for everyone was was a a wow moment. He was in the files. He was in the Epstein
[15:12]files. Not we must stress with with a letter that was in any way sexual in nature. uh but with a letter that made very very clear in his handwriting in
[15:23]Peter Mandlesson's handwriting that he was not just friends with Jeffrey Epstein but he counted Jeffrey Epstein as his best pal. Now that was just
[15:33]extraordinary. Uh since that was published, um emails have emerged that have proved uh that Peter Mandlesson uh continued his friendship with Jeffrey
[15:44]Epstein after all the uh um the information about the fact that he was a pedophile came out. Peter Mandlesson still kept on that friendship. Not only
[15:55]that, uh but he said, "You know, your closest I'm paraphrasing here, but your closest friends will always stick with you." and he encouraged and advised Epstein uh in a legal sense in how he
[16:06]thinks he he thinks he could have fought his his legal case um for for everything that he was he was accused of with minors. So, so that that was that was that that added to it. And then on top
[16:18]of that, uh Bloomberg got got emails which suggested uh that he had, for example, tried to introduce then uh Prime Minister Tony Blair uh to Jeffrey
[16:28]Epstein uh because of some business relationship. So, you know, take all this together, Gareth, and I think it was very very clear very quickly that
[16:37]Lord Mandlesson's um future as Britain's ambassador here was untenable. It's worth saying as well uh that that this
[16:46]there are huge questions for Kstarma. There are huge questions for the British government. How did it get to this point? They must have known uh that that Peter Mandlesson had this close
[16:57]friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. So why do they think it was appropriate for him to be appointed as ambassador in the first place? I mean, look, I remember when when his name was in the rounds, was was one of the names being being
[17:09]brought up as a possible future ambassador for Washington. Uh there were lots of question marks over his business ties with ch with China and then the Epstein thing. People would always say,
[17:20]isn't he connected in some way to Epstein? So, the British government must have known that this this would h would would become a problem. Uh and so it has. Now the other thing I'd say um is
[17:32]that there is no question that as an ambassador he has been hugely successful. He's kind of the custodian of the special relationship and over the past what is it seven eight months since
[17:42]he took over as ambassador. He has um kind of fostered that relationship very very well. He he's he's done well. Uh Britain is in a pretty good place with a
[17:52]very very complicated President Donald Trump. We've got that trade deal of sorts. adapt Mandelson's work. Um, and you know, he's busy set was busy setting up the state visit that is that is
[18:03]literally just next week. So, you know, I guess the British government wanted to get this this done quickly and wanted him out uh before the state visit because the optics of having him wandering around Windsor Castle with the
[18:15]king and the president um with all this hanging over him, I think it was all just too much. >> Stone in Washington. and we'll come back to you in due course Mark for more
[18:25]reaction from the US. We've had reaction from Westminster. This is a post on X from the leader of the Conservative party bed. She's put the following.
[18:36]Mandles might have gone, but just as with Angela Raina Starmmer dithered when he needed to be decisive time and again he puts party above country. He has no backbone and no convictions. There are
[18:48]now serious questions over what staring you and when. We deserve to know comments there from Kemmy Bnock. Just having a look at some of the profiles
[18:58]from other leading politicians of the other opposition parties. Not seeing any response from Sarah Davyy. Nothing from Zir Yousef. Just looking at some of the
[19:07]other reform leadership. Nothing from them either. So we'll keep a close eye on what opposition parties say. As yet
[19:17]only comment from Kem Benedok. We'd heard uh earlier this morning from the Labour peer Harriet Harmon, Barry Baroness Harry Harmon that she had
[19:28]called prior to this announcement had called for Peter Manderson to be sacked by the prime minister if that was so required. She making the points that Mark Stone
[19:40]was just making regarding the fact that the optics of that state visit going ahead with Peter Manderson present would be difficult for the United Kingdom. And so Harry Harmon speaking to our
[19:50]electoral dysfunction, our electoral dysfunction podcast. Uh you can get more of that on the Sky News blog and the website and app. Let's
[20:01]just bring back in Mark Stone. Uh Mark, just tell us more. >> Well, I I think what what is very interesting is that this has happened this has come before the sun has even
[20:11]risen uh here in in Washington. So, so I I don't know the extent to which uh Lord Mandlesson and his officials uh back here, the extent to which his officials
[20:22]back here are even going to be aware of this uh yet. Uh he was due to fly to London um tomorrow uh Friday uh ahead of
[20:32]the state visit uh next week. Uh there's been a huge amount of work that has gone into the the state visit and and he was at the very center of that. So there
[20:42]will now be a scramble uh to try and uh insert someone temporarily into that position because you know people have sort of assumed that the state visit is
[20:53]just like a a sense of pomp and circumstance but actually there's a huge amount of substance uh that is that is that is underlying that state visit and a huge amount resting on it. Remember it
[21:03]was K star who handed the letter to the president saying you're welcome to come for a second state visit. They want trade deals out of this and Mandelton has been at the heart of that
[21:13]negotiation to try and get uh those trade deals. I was speaking to officials last night uh at the embassy and I have to say, you know, as late as 8:00 last
[21:24]night from from officials at the heart of this of this of Britain's embassy here, there was no sense I didn't catch any sense that that we would wake up just hours later with him him having
[21:35]been sacked. So I think that's that's very interesting uh indeed. So so so clearly over the course of the night while Washington's been sleeping uh very quick decisions have been made in London
[21:47]and you have to wonder whether perhaps there is more uh that that or you know not withstanding the emails that we now know about the letter to Epstein that we now know about. Um is there more that that the government knew was going to
[21:59]come out and therefore they needed to get to get on top of this? I mean, one key unanswered question uh has been when did Lord Mandolson last see Jeffrey Epstein. He's never answered that. In
[22:10]fact, he's never answered any questions in detail about this relationship. He he's been um very very prickly about the subject. And I can tell you that that
[22:22]when James um Matthews asked that question uh to Lord Mandlesson, that was back in May. You played it a few moments ago, that was um when Mandlesson was leaving an event where he done a speech
[22:33]about Britain's relationship with the United States. Um now, justifiably uh because it it was an issue then as it clearly is now, we wanted to ask him about his relationship with Epstein and
[22:44]so James did. And the consequence of that and we should you know it's important to stress this the consequence of that is that I know that Peter Mandelson was deeply angry that we had
[22:54]even had the audacity to ask that question and for several months after that our relationship with Britain's embassy here and with officials there was very very difficult. So, so that's
[23:05]telling. More than that, back in February, just before he became ambassador, uh, the Financial Times again asked him about his relationship with Epstein, and his response on the records of the Financial Times was that
[23:17]this was that Epstein was an FT obsession and that the Financial Times should just f off. So, you get a sense there of how sensitive Lord Mandlesson was about this issue, an issue that has
[23:28]brought him down now. And there was a sense I got yesterday, Mark, of comments that that Manderson made where he he was acknowledging what
[23:39]was coming and whether he was trying to soften the blow or whether he was trying to get ahead of the story, we won't know unless he was to tell us himself. But, you know, these comments of a lot of traffic correspondent exchanges, we know
[23:51]they're going to surface. We know they're going to come out. They're going to be embarrassing. Uh saying that he fell for Epstein's lies. But there was that real sense yesterday in in some of those interviews that that the
[24:01]Mandlesson was aware that that the axe was was getting ever closer and it most likely was going to swing in his direction. >> Yeah. Uh that interview with with Harry
[24:12]Cole uh from from the Sun uh a long interview and and clearly I think a pre-planned interview because he'd want he they were talking about plenty of other things other than Epstein. that it
[24:23]was absolutely clear to me uh that this was uh an intentional decision by Lord Mandlesson and his communications team uh to try and get ahead of the story uh
[24:33]to face it head on uh and and to talk about what what was out there and what might come out uh and hope that that would be enough uh for him to survive
[24:42]but but um you know it clearly wasn't so I mean he he is uh you know the prince of darkness he's been called for many many years he he is the the consumate uh
[24:53]communications person uh the the architect of new labor, former uh deputy prime minister, um the um Northern
[25:03]Ireland minister, a commissioner at the European Commission in Brussels. This this is a man who has had many many lives, many many careers. Uh but I think
[25:13]for him uh the the job of British ambassador was was something that he was he was honored to do. And as I said a few moments ago, um I think, you know,
[25:23]objectively he he did the job as ambassador very very well. He handled what could have been an incredibly difficult uh um relationship between any
[25:34]country and the United States under Donald Trump. But Britain and the United States under Trump, it could have been a tricky relationship. Uh indeed, many people questioned Mandelson's
[25:44]appointment. They questioned his ability to do the job. But as ambassador, I think many people would agree he handled that tricky relationship, that special relationship very very well. Uh but it
[25:55]seems that his private life, his relationship with with Jeffrey Epstein, um clearly was was something that should have been flagged that the British government that Karma who knew about it,
[26:06]Kia Starmer and Peter Mandlesson are close friends. Uh they clearly he clearly knew about it. So Mandlesson's gone. Very serious questions now for Kia Starmer and for the government.
[26:18]>> Mark Stone in Washington. Appreciate your time. We'll we'll leave it there with you because we're going to speak to political commentator Adam Bolton in just a few seconds time. Before we do that, I just want to remind you of the
[26:28]fact to everything Mark has just been saying that these associations have have long been questioned with regards to Lord Mandlesson and Jeffrey Epstein. It was a question put to Lord Manderson
[26:39]back in May by our US correspondent James Matthews >> in June 2009. Did you stay at the apartment in Manhattan of Jeffrey Epstein?
[26:48]>> I'm not answering any questions uh about uh him uh >> he was in jail at the time for soliciting prostitution from a minor
[26:57]>> and my my knowledge of him is something uh that I regret. I wish I'd never met him in the first place. >> Why did you have an association with him? because he was in jail at the time.
[27:08]>> Why Why did many people uh meet him? He was a prolific uh networker and I wish I'd never met him in the first place. >> Let's bring in political commentator
[27:20]Adam Bolton. Adam, what do you make knowing what we know now of that pretty measured response there in May from Peter Mandles?
[27:29]>> Well, I think it shows that um Peter Mandles knew that this was a very sensitive area. uh that while he had disclosed his relationship uh with Jeffrey Epstein,
[27:41]his friendship, which was undeniable, uh as he said in his interview yesterday with uh Harry Cole of the Sun, uh he knew that there would be uh embarrassing
[27:52]details uh likely to emerge. And I think it's quite important to remember that the process by which all this has emerged since uh Peter Mannison took up
[28:02]the role in February uh is all to do with Donald Trump. It's all to do with the pursuit of Donald Trump's relationship with Epstein. That's why the birthday book was published. That's
[28:12]why apparently this cache of documents uh of emails has also emerged. So in that sense, Peter Mandlesson is
[28:21]collateral damage uh through these embarrassing revelations of uh the ongoing argument uh about Donald Trump, which I think is probably one reason uh
[28:32]why uh the instinct of Saki Starama was to try and keep him on as ambassador. But what has happened clearly is that the vibe the appearance of what Peter
[28:44]Mandlesson has done which is about an unwise bad judgment and an unwise friendship and private comments not about any of his work but the vibe has
[28:55]got so toxic uh that uh he has had to go and I have to say it does show up uh flaws which those of us who followed Peter Manson's career over the past 40
[29:06]years find familiar. Uh first of all uh Peter Mandelson uh is uh someone who has a taste for the high life for rich
[29:16]friends. Every single one of what are now his three departures from public life have been connected to that. First of all that loan from the rich Labour MP
[29:28]Jeffrey Robinson uh of £373,000 which was undeclared. Secondly, uh his relationship with the Indian billion
[29:38]billionaires, the Hindujas uh where he was subsequently exonerated but again at the time Alistister Campbell as now thought that it looked uh so bad for the government that he had to go and now
[29:49]there's his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein who uh you know clearly as Peter Mandlesson said was a networker, a
[29:58]spider almost trying to draw people in uh to uh his net. I mean, it's important to remember at the time that Peter Mandlesson wrote this note revealed in
[30:08]the Times today, uh, suggesting that Tony Blair should get to know Epstein, which he didn't, um, uh, was also a time
[30:16]when Epstein was a a friend of um, Bill Clinton, uh, who' just been president, and also Bill Gates and and other kind of prominent figures in America. So, it
[30:28]wasn't a kind of uniquely weird thing to say. What I think does strike people as weird is Peter Mandlesson continuing uh with his close friendship after the
[30:39]convictions of uh Epstein. He says that's because uh he believes that Epstein's claims that he was innocent and was wrongly done by uh but I think a
[30:51]lot of people will will think that probably it was the loyalty to his friend which outrade his good judgment in that as well. You mentioned previously, Adam, Kama's
[31:01]instinct. I'm interested as to how sharp you think his instincts are right now because some would say this could have been done hours ago, if not days, if not weeks ago.
[31:12]>> Well, I think this is is clearly a blow and it clearly shows that uh he's not all powerful within his government. Otherwise, he might have been able to say, "Look, this has got nothing to do
[31:23]with Peter Mandlesson's performance as an ambassador. Therefore, I'm happy for him to stay. He hasn't done that and we know that Peter Madison had strong supporters uh such as Morgan Mweeny. Uh
[31:34]we also know as I say that the normal procedure was gone through in vetting Peter Mandlesson. It was a known fact as uh your interviews with James Matthews
[31:45]and uh your reference to uh the Financial Times shows that he had had a friendship with Epstein. So this was looked into but it's the subsequent information uh coming out uh which has
[31:56]proved so embarrassing. Um and clearly there was another ambiguity about what to do because Donald Trump is coming and
[32:06]you know Donald Trump is being given all the honor of a state visit when actually uh he's not really being accused of doing anything worse uh in terms of his friendship with Epstein than what Peter
[32:18]Manderson has just had to resign for. So that clearly uh would have been one of the calculations uh within uh number 10 about this. I
[32:27]mean that said um there are plenty of people both in the Washington embassy and formerly in the Washington embassy one thinks of the last ambassador uh Karen Pierce who's still in the
[32:38]diplomatic service who can fulfill the role uh of um the uh ambassador to Washington. But I think it's probably fair to say that so long as Donald Trump
[32:49]is uh in the presidency, uh they're going to be somewhat wary about forming relationships with uh the British ambassador because of the potential backwash or the actual backwash which
[33:00]has happened in this case. >> Adam, you've uh interviewed Peter Madison over the course of time. What did you make of the man when you were to face to face with him? I've known Peter
[33:12]Mansson for many years since he was uh the um press officer of the Labour Party in the 1980s when uh because of a variety of circumstances he banned me from Labour headquarters on election
[33:23]night. So uh we've had a perfectly uh normal confrontational uh prime minister uh politician to um uh journalist
[33:34]relationship. That said, uh Peter Manson is one of the few uh politicians I've ever dealt with who has never misled me, never lied to me. Uh whereas for most of
[33:45]them that comes as a second instinct. I think he's he is someone who, as I've said, is um very loyal uh to his friends
[33:55]and intensely loyal to the Labor Party. remember at one stage he came back uh to help uh Gordon Brown uh when his uh premiership was in trouble and to try
[34:07]and broker uh the results of the hung 2010 election. And one of the things to remember about Peter Mendlesson, he has this image as the prince of darkness as
[34:17]a manipulator, a slightly circum circum serpentine character. That said, very few people dispute that as a minister and he was several times in the
[34:27]department of trade business. He was a very good minister who was by and large liked by his civil servants and liked by the people he dealt with. He was very
[34:36]successful as uh the UK commissioner uh to uh on the European Commission when Britain was a member of the European community. And as we've just heard from
[34:48]Sky Washington staff, by most accounts, he was doing an extremely good job in Washington on his brief, which rightly or wrongly was to get very close to the
[34:58]Trump administration. So I think you know professionally he has been a very successful politician uh through you
[35:08]know a decades long career but he's always had this uh personal taste uh for luxury uh and um he's also had people
[35:19]who don't like him uh partly because uh he he's gay and uh you know there was a period when that was frowned on in Westminster politics.
[35:30]um and partly because he has been um so successful in building alliances. A lot of people have been jealous of that. But I think this will this decision will
[35:41]have been taken uh with a heavy heart by Karma, not least because um he also called on Peter Mandlesson to help him
[35:51]out and given advice as previous Labour leaders with the remarkable exception of uh Jeremy Corbyn have done. So it, you
[36:01]know, it it's a sad end to uh Peter Mandlesson's public career, but something that he uh has to a certain extent um brought upon himself through
[36:11]his his personal foibless. But I think a stronger prime minister might have been able to to ride this out. But in this circumstance, clearly that is not where
[36:21]Karma is at the moment. And just on the point of uh the conservative handling of this, uh it has to be said uh that um they've done well politically over the
[36:33]last few days. Chem B not had one of her better performances at Prime Minister's questions. Uh Neil Lebran putting down that question urgent question in parliament today. Uh clearly was
[36:45]punching a bruise. A lot of people would see that's what the opposition have to do. But the basic point uh which Kem Bay is trying to make about uh Karma
[36:55]dithering and um uh hanging on to his ministers and not taking decisions. I have to say in both the case recent cases of Angela Raina and Peter Mandlesson it's been a matter of a few
[37:06]days whereas we all remember uh in the previous governments particularly the Boris Johnson government but others as well uh ministers dangling for weeks on end.
[37:16]You said there, Adam, a sad You said there, Adam, a sad end. Is that your sense here that this is the end of of Peter Manderson's political career? >> I cannot Well, of course, he's still a
[37:27]member of the House of Lords. Um, he will still be a grande. I think he's still someone whose opinion uh will be sought, but I cannot see him uh after
[37:37]this um three strikes and you're out after having to resign three times or or quit public office, major public office three times. I think it's very very
[37:46]difficult to see uh him coming back in another major public appointment. Just seeing here reaction from the Libdem leader Sir Ed Davyy saying that
[37:57]the prime minister needs to appoint a new ambassador who will stand up to Trump not cozy up to him and his cronies. He also needs to come before parliament and explain why Lord Mandlesson was appointed in the first
[38:08]place giving everything the government knew then. This government Sarah Davies says seems to be lurching from one crisis to another. It desperately needs to get a grip on fixing the economy and
[38:18]public services damaged by the conservatives. But S Davy Libdam leader there 72 MPs for the party saying that the PM should appoint an ambassador Adam Bolton who stands up to Trump not cozies
[38:30]up to him. >> Well, that is the stance which the Liberal Democrats and Ed Davyy have taken. uh they of course Ed Davyy turned down his invitation to the state banquet in Windsor which is going to take place
[38:41]next week uh and has said uh that he believes the prime minister should stand up directly to Donald Trump. All I can say is that is not the stance uh that
[38:51]Saki Starmer and the Labour party have taken. We saw all that cozying up to the vice president JD Vance involving uh the man who is now the deputy prime minister
[39:02]uh Mr. Lammy. I mean if uh the government were to take uh the advice uh from uh the Liberal Democrat leader, they would be performing a U-turn in
[39:13]their policy which rightly or wrongly has been that America remains Britain's most important ally and that warm relationships uh with uh the president of the United States, whoever that may
[39:24]be, are beneficial uh to the country. Um you can see it the other way. Um but uh I don't think we're going to get a radical change in that direction. And
[39:33]indeed uh the reaction we've heard uh to the shooting overnight of uh the far right influence uh uh shows that um what
[39:45]this government is doing as indeed are the leaders of the Conservative Party is they want to express sympathy uh to Donald Trump and his cohorts. Not the contrary.
[39:54]I'm just interested for some of the the cross party reaction here. Sir Ed Davyy calling on the prime minister to to come for the house and and kind of update them on what he knew. I'm just seeing
[40:05]here father of the house Edward Lee, former conservative minister, urging the government to release all of the documents relating to Lord Mandlesson's appointment. Uh asking the minister to
[40:17]ensure every single document is released post haste about the process. Um so that it it can be shared with the house and
[40:27]that's echoed to some degree by a Labour MP Andy McDonald asking whether there will be an inquiry into this case. Uh
[40:36]what's your sense as to how much Sakir and the government will be prepared to share be prepared to to own with regards to this situation? >> Well, I think a standard opposition
[40:47]technique uh is what you'd expect the opposition to ask for. Uh and Andy McDonald of course was a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn. So no lover of the present Labor government. So one would
[40:58]expect that them to say that. That said uh vetting uh has through successive governments always been regarded as a
[41:08]confidential matter. Uh although some papers uh were disclosed uh which um the times uh published uh this morning uh about Peter Mandlesson recommending a
[41:19]meeting uh to uh then Prime Minister Tony Blair with Levenson uh with Epstein. I think some of these things probably will come out. But I think that the standard position taken by this
[41:30]government as every previous government is that those matters to do with vetting and decision-m and appointments are things which rightly remain uh
[41:41]confidential as for example uh do uh the deliberations of the Lord's the house of lords appointment committee on who they
[41:51]uh accept and reject for nomination. Adam Bolton, appreciate your time and your insight. Really appreciate you joining us here on Sky News just getting a bit more political reaction. Green
[42:02]Party leader Zach Palansky fresh in post saying the following. Starmmer's instinct was to stand by Peter Mandlesson despite the evidence. His resignation now isn't a matter of principle. It's simple political
[42:14]expediency. It's a symbol of a broken politics where the same insiders always fail up. How long until Manderson ends up in a high-paid consultancy somewhere? While another washed up former uh
[42:25]Westminster insider ends up in Washington. His resignation, like his original appointment, is a sign of a dirty, broken political system. No
[42:36]question marks over the views of the Green Party leader, Zach Palanski. Let's discuss this further with former government adviser Lord Warning. Uh my lord, good to have you with us. your reaction to the developments of the past
[42:48]hour or so, if you will. >> I I think once the the extra information came out during the course of yesterday, it was probably probably inevitable that
[42:59]Lord Mandlesson would would uh stand down or or be dismissed. But I I understand why opposition leaders will
[43:09]be rubbing their hands with glee and yeah every party in in opposition is in a similar position. But I hope they will
[43:19]also think and I hope that we can think as a country that actually and understand that this is a blow in the short term at least to the special
[43:31]relationship which the UK government has rightly in my viewed as essential to preserving with President Trump. And the
[43:41]reasons why Peter was was selected for this role was because he has an extraordinary ability to uh understand
[43:53]the the the president the Trump regime which he was showing and that was bringing clear strategic benefit to the United Kingdom. So this is a blow to our
[44:05]relations with with uh with America and we shouldn't see it in any other terms. I I wonder your views as to whether and this is
[44:15]something that that Adam Bolton, I'm sure you will have heard his comments kind of alluded to that the the fact that the three departures now of Peter Mandlesson from political positions have
[44:25]been mired in in controversy various reasons. Obviously the Hajjuda brothers relations exonerated over those. But that the prior to the undeclared loan of almost £400,000 from Jeffrey Robinson,
[44:37]now this situation with Jeffrey Epstein, should the prime minister maybe have been a little more cautious in this appointment? At the end of the day, there are more than one option in these appointments. There are other people
[44:49]than Peter Manderson. There are other people that that could have taken up that role as ambassador to the US. The wisdom you alluded to, was it wise on the prime minister's part? Well, look, I
[44:59]I mean, by definition, really, he will regret having appointed Peter because it has blown up so quickly. And of course, there will be a an inquiry publicly, and
[45:10]there'll be internal inquiries as to why the extent of Peter's relationship wasn't uh fully understood or wasn't factored in. That's that's obvious. But
[45:22]I think of course now people will look at Peter's long career and the three resignations that are in it. But also
[45:32]another way of looking at this is the reason he was brought back twice is because he is a superlative
[45:42]strategic thinker for the Labor Party. And generally the Labour Party does better when it is following Peter's advice and when it is is not. I was had
[45:53]the privilege of working in Downing Street for Gordon Brown at the end of the the last Labor government when Peter
[46:01]was plucked uh out surprisingly uh by Gordon Brown to be returned to British politics as business secretary
[46:11]and he was a commanding figure then. His advice to the prime minister uh at the time Gordon Brown was invaluable. It was hugely influential and import and
[46:22]important in the early progress the UK government has made in forming a deal with a a relationship with with President Trump which has brought a
[46:32]trade deal. Uh there are hopefully still set to be uh significant uh steps forward in in our agreement in the uh to
[46:44]be announced at the state visit next week. So he adds enormous value and that's why he is going to be a real loss for the UK. Now he's had to um now he's
[46:55]had to be dismissed. I'm interested for your reaction to your fellow peers comments, Harry Harmon's comments. This these these were given to our electoral dysfunction podcast with
[47:06]Beth Rigby shortly before actually this announcement was made >> by Downing Street and and it kind of points to some of the the comments
[47:15]you've made Harry Harmon saying you know musing on the fact would it be best to to fire Peter Manderson ahead of of President Trump's visit to ensure that it's a good success and thereby build
[47:26]the confidence of people who are looking to this government to make tackling the issue of of sex abuse of women and girls a real priority for the and and Harriet Harmon saying I think that's what he's got to do. Referencing the prime
[47:37]minister having to to fire Peter Manderson. Do do you think that that the timing of this is is notable in in it in its timing? >> Well, look, I mean, once this had
[47:48]reached the critical point and the extra information was out there, then clearly it was going to dominate everything that Peter did from from there. And so in
[47:56]terms of in basic news management terms then you want if you're going to go somewhere you're going to do something you should generally do it quicker
[48:05]rather than let it drag on. But we are in uncharted territory here. Let's remember that. I mean it is it is hard
[48:14]it is almost implausible to uh have to put forward a fictional plot which has the the leading the UK ambassador
[48:24]embroiled in a an ongoing scandal which I it to which the deeply controversial president of the United
[48:34]States is also um uh is also up to his neck in. And so that that may have given
[48:43]pause for thought for the the prime minister particularly with the proximity of the state visit. But ultimately and I
[48:53]I respect Saki for this. He has looked at the issue um in in isolation um rather than looking at the immediate
[49:04]and and possibly enduring knock-on consequences. He's decided that there was a a mismatch between what he thought he he knew about the candle and what subsequently transcribed and that Peter
[49:16]position was unsustainable. I respect that. But I just I hope that anyone who does value the strength of the special relationship and there are many politicians who want us to take an
[49:28]entirely different and cut ourselves off from America. But for those who do respect that special relationship, I hope they will understand and acknowledge the value that Peter was
[49:39]bringing to it and the blow that we get from him no longer being in position. >> My lord, Lord Warney, appreciate you joining us from our Westminster studio. Thank you so much. Let's bring in our
[49:49]international affairs editor, Dominic Wagghorn. And Dominic, I just want to pick up on Lord Warn's comments there. The blow to the special relationship. This is politics in the UK being played
[50:01]out on an international stage on the most international stage. >> Yes, I think there are a number of problems with this. As you say, problems the the special relationship um most of all of course the fact that we're we're
[50:11]now looking at a state visit, Donald Trump's second state visit next week uh without a British ambassador in place. an ambassador who we have been saying for all uh his faults that have led to
[50:21]his uh his downfall uh now um is regarded as a as a particularly effective uh ambassador and someone who has sort of gone from somebody who uh people thought actually would not be
[50:33]accepted as ambassador in Washington. I think you know have to remember going back to January there's a lot of speculation that Donald Trump would not allow him to be appointed. uh law. Mandelson had written things critical of
[50:44]Donald Trump, particularly his attitude uh to free trade. Uh and I think it was links between Mandlesson and China that was reported to have been a bit of a fly
[50:54]in the ointment for the way Donald Trump regarded Mandlesson. Uh but uh Donald Trump got over that. Madison was appointed. And in the months that we've seen since, he's become so effective in
[51:06]handling this erratic and um uh kind of maverick American president. uh that he's been regarded as and being called a Trump whisperer and you know any we just have to remember his performance in the
[51:17]Oval Office when uh that trade agreement was announced by Donald Trump some time ago. The way he dealt with the American president, you could see his sort of ability to deploy charm and diplomatic
[51:29]skill uh deployed um to the utmost in that encounter and he was regarded as very effective in in handling Donald Trump. So the fact that he's gone I think exposes uh preparations for the
[51:41]state visit next week um and leave a massive hole. The question of course is what are the mechanics for replacing him? How quickly can he uh be be replaced? Of course his predecessor
[51:50]Karen Pierce uh not a politician but a career civil servant was also regarded as very effective uh as at dealing with Donald Trump and dealing with the MAGA movement in general. a uh sort of
[52:02]regular uh someone who was often on Fox News and someone who despite being a civil servant was able to kind of I guess appeal and deal with uh the more
[52:12]right-wing of American politics. So there's a possibility she's still in the civil service, still in the foreign service that she might be brought back as a kind of stop gap or maybe some deputy in the embassy will be asked to
[52:23]act up. But you know there there are protocols there are mechanisms in place to replace an ambassador even though this is an highly unprecedented event as the previous guest was saying.
[52:35]Uh but it does leave a massive problem I think in terms of preparing for next week's state visit which was going to be obviously deeply controversial anyway given how uh the American president is regarded in Britain.
[52:46]>> Just picking up on that state visit Donald Trump is a vibesbased president isn't he? He kind of cares what's happening in the moment and and what it
[52:55]means for him and about him and he is obsessed with the state visit. He fang girls over the royal family. Uh to what degree do you think he will be minded of
[53:06]the events of the last few hours or to what degree do you think they they won't uh make an impression on him? Well, I think even though he does seem to have sort of come around to liking Lord
[53:16]Mandlesson and and appreciating uh Lord Manderson's ability to sort of flatter him and uh ego stroke uh this sort of famously narcissistic president, I think
[53:27]he will he will resent the manner of Mandlesson's departure because of course it highlights what is a very difficult issue uh that is Donald Trump's uh
[53:36]relations and past with with Epstein. something that he has uh his critics at least would say gone to great lengths to try and distract the American public's
[53:46]attention from and the big problem for for Donald Trump is that uh his relationship with Epstein is a fundamental issue for those closest to him within the MAGA movement. Now the
[53:58]divisions um that uh that kind of fault line have sort of opened up in the MAGA movement seem to have subsided a little since they came to a head some weeks
[54:08]ago. But every time this comes up again, uh, it is a big problem politically for Donald Trump. So, I think he will resent Maddles's departure because it's brought it all up again. It's put it right there out into the headlines again. I think in
[54:20]terms of the state visit next week, um, you know, it state visits are more about more than about just one British ambassador in Washington. Obviously, um, you know, he was extremely effective,
[54:29]Madison, at sort of using the mansion, the British ambassadorial residence there at charming, uh, Washington society. He reveled in this role. He
[54:39]used that to the utmost to uh flatter and and uh appeal to this administration. Uh but obviously the plans for the state visit are a lot more
[54:49]than just what one ambassador can put together and help lubricate as it were. So I think you know the plans are in place and I guess crucial to that is the way that the state visit appeals to what
[55:00]Donald Trump likes. He is an Anglo file. He likes the royal family. He likes to be in the spotlight. He he loves all the pomp and ceremony and circumstance that these state visits bring. And as long as
[55:10]he can enjoy that and revel in it and not see too much of the protest that will undoubtedly uh accompany this visit and remember last time the first state
[55:19]visit, they were kept far away and and not in the president's eye, then this is a a visit that can be managed. But I think it is it's problematic. It's controversial for Karma obviously uh
[55:30]because he invited him you know with the the palace's blessing and I think that the fact it's happening now without someone who is as proficient a diplomat and politician as Lord Mandlesson is in
[55:42]the wake of this scandal is is going to make next week even trickier for the uh for the prime minister. >> Thoughts, insights and analysis there from our international affairs editor
[55:52]Dominic Wackov at the moment. Dom, thank you so much because I also want to bring in former Labour Party political adviser Max Wilson. Max, good to have you with us. Good of you to share your time. This is not a good moment for the prime
[56:03]minister, is it? Okay, >> Max Star personally um in that he um
[56:13]made the decision to to put Peter Mandlesson in, but I think it's also a problem strategically as well because um early on in Storm's premiership, he made
[56:24]the decision that not only would it be he made the personal decision of putting Peter Mandlesson in, but he also made the strategic decision that actually the new British ambassador to the United States should be a political figure
[56:35]quite high-profile figure. Traditionally in the UK, our ambassadors tend to be career diplomats unlike say the USA which uh which does tend to put in um
[56:46]donors, fundraisers, um political figures. So I think that he was always slightly going to be making himself um making Peter Madison a bit of a target
[56:56]by putting him in to to such a position. So I think that Stalman does need to reflect on whether that is what he wants to do for Peter Madison's successor or whether he wants to go to the down the
[57:07]traditional route of putting in a career diplomat again. >> To what degree will pressure build on the prime minister? I'm just thinking about the opposition parties. In fact,
[57:17]actually, let me just play you this Max. This is uh some comments from Kemmy Block in the past few moments. Let me just show you this first. Peter Mandlesson is now gone, but K star
[57:30]failed yet another key test of leadership. I asked him about Peter Mandlesson's links to the notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein six times a prime minister's questions and six times
[57:42]he could not provide any answers. >> I have confidence in him and he's playing an important role in the UK US relationship. >> He gave his full backing to a man unfit
[57:53]for office. This matters for you because the prime minister has been distracted from the serious national security and economic challenges our country is facing. He is a weak prime minister who
[58:04]doesn't have the courage to do the right thing at the right time. The deficit is growing. Debt is mounting. The welfare budget is spiraling out of control. And we are bracing for punishing tax rises
[58:15]from Rachel Reeves this autumn. Enough is enough. The British public deserve a government focused on making sure our country is safe, lives within its means,
[58:25]and puts the public finances back on a sound footing. Only the Conservatives can deliver that. >> Just worth noting that's a video taken from Kemy's own Twitter feed. The jump
[58:35]cuts and edits are are those of the Conservatives, not those of of Sky News. But I'm interested in in in your thoughts, Max, about how how the Labour Party will respond to the challenge being laid at their door by the
[58:46]opposition parties now. >> Yeah, I don't think it's going to be this is going to be a long-term problem for Labor. Mandles has left. The world will keep turning and Labour will move
[58:58]on building up to next week's state visit and then conference after. It's been a couple of good days for Kem Bay and I think she's she's really struggled
[59:09]in many different ways as conservative leader and one of the main ways she struggled is actually to insert herself into the political debate and I think that she had a good session at PMQ's
[59:20]yesterday clearly pressing on a bruise for Stara. It's unusual for her to be sustaining all six questions on one subject. Um, but I think that really that's more about shoring up her own
[59:31]position and I think that she'll be she'll be pleased at the reaction from the Tory benches to her performance yesterday and now she's moving on with
[59:40]that and the fact that we're even here talking about Kem Benov which frankly in most of the political conversations of the last few weeks and months she's been
[59:50]an irrelevant. So look hats off to Kem. He's having a good couple of days. But I think what's really even more interesting is it's not just the Tories
[1:00:00]that are putting pressure on Labor here. It's a combination of factors. It's it's um it's it's the the press. It's uh
[1:00:09]Labour left-wing MPs even because I think everybody is using this Mandlesson uh issue as a proxy to uh to try and
[1:00:20]damage Star for his inevitable uh relationship with Donald Trump because as prime minister he has to have a strong relationship with Donald Trump. But everybody knows that that is a
[1:00:30]political vulnerability. So I think a combination of different political forces are taking the opportunity to to hit star hard. >> Max Wilson, uh, former Labour Party political adviser. Appreciate your time.
[1:00:42]Thank you so much. >> Breaking news to bring you now. Let's bring in our political editor Beth Riby who's in Downing Street for us, Beth.
[1:00:52]>> Yes, Gareth. So we have a bit more information now about the circumstances in which Peter Manderson has been sacked. As I understand it, the decision to sack Peter Manderson was made this
[1:01:03]morning at a meeting between the prime minister and the new foreign secretary of Cooper in Downing Street behind me. I'm told the prime minister had reviewed all the new info published last night.
[1:01:15]Uh and I've been told that information was not made available uh to the prime minister or his team at the time of the appointment of Lord Mandolson as the US
[1:01:26]ambassador. I'm also told that the emails that have emerged in that cache uh leaked to Bloomberg uh news uh were
[1:01:35]not available to Peter Mandleston now or at the time of the appointment since they are from a long closed email address. Uh and sources are telling me
[1:01:46]that a vetting process was followed. As I understand it from some sources in government, Peter Mandolen was trying to fight on. did that interview with Harry
[1:01:57]Cole uh at the Sun in order to put his case out there if you like before these emails were published by Bloomberg but the prime minister clear that Peter
[1:02:08]Mandelon could not carry on and he has been sacked and really what I would say Gareth is the prime minister had no option on this uh I've just recorded a podcast our electoral dysfunction
[1:02:20]podcast with Harriet Harmon uh this morning and she was very clear uh that the prime minister could not let Mandolen uh stay on and and when he was
[1:02:30]sacked uh she said uh that he should have resigned ahead of this in the public interest and Starmmer was right to sack him. That is the view of the
[1:02:40]parliamentary Labour party. There was absolute fury yesterday when MPs realized that Peter Mandelson had continued contact and support for
[1:02:50]Jeffrey Epstein after he had been convicted of sex offenses in 2008. And when that detail emerged in those emails, it really was a question of
[1:03:01]when, not if, he had to go. He could have resigned uh but clearly the prime minister had decided to sack him. But still there are so many questions about
[1:03:11]what was the vetting process, who knew what when, how did Lord Mandlesson get put back into government given his historic relationship with Epstein, and
[1:03:20]also given that he had been forced to leave government twice before in the Blair years there was a bit of disqu, different views about whether he should come back into government. K Star, I
[1:03:32]imagine, is regretting that decision to have him back as his ambassador. He has tried to act swiftly now and uh sacked him from the post. But there is
[1:03:42]undoubtedly huge collateral damage now on K star having to let go a key member of his government two in two weeks in the start of the new term.
[1:03:53]Yeah, you mentioned that fury but from some Labour party members regarding Mandlesson's behavior in the past, but there'll there'll surely be fury as a result of of kind of what he's forced
[1:04:03]the prime minister to have to do now by not resigning himself. >> Yeah. I mean, look, there is um this this was definitely the view of Harriet Harmon when we were recording the podcast and actually the news broke as
[1:04:15]we were recording our podcast and we did a quick reaction section in that podcast. She was really furious that Mandlesson hadn't resigned and she her view was the prime minister would have
[1:04:26]been in her words in anguish over this and then she was absolutely clear he had to resign and and that was the view of Labour MPs and Star would have been in really hot water with his party had he
[1:04:38]not done what he's done today. >> Joining us live from Downing Street our political editor Beth Riby. I'm sure we'll have plenty more with you Beth over the coming hours for the moment. Thank you so much. Just reminder there
[1:04:48]is plenty more on this story bringing together all the reaction, the impact, the insights and analysis. You can get it for yourself on the politics hub blog on the Sky News website and Sky News
[1:04:58]app. I'm Gareth Malo. Don't go anywhere. Stick with us for the full story first here on Sky News. [Music]
[1:05:12][Music] Heat.
[1:05:16][Music]
[1:05:36]Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat.
[1:05:46][Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]
[1:06:12][Music] Heat. [Music]
[1:06:37]Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat.
[1:06:47][Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]
[1:07:48]This is Sky News Today it's 12:00. The headlines this hour. The UK ambassador to the US is sacked over his links with the disgraced financia Jeffrey Epstein.
[1:07:57]In light of additional information in emails written by Peter Mandlesson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador
[1:08:06]to the United States. >> Questions of judgment for Sakir Stalmer as Lord Manderson becomes the second high-profile loss to the prime
[1:08:15]minister's team in a week. Also to come. counting or noticing gang violence. [Music] >> A dark moment for America. Shock and condemnation following the killing of
[1:08:27]high-profile US activists and Donald Trump supporter Charlie Kirk. Witnesses relive the horror after the 31-year-old who had over 20 million followers online
[1:08:37]was shot at a university in Utah. >> I was maybe 10 or 15 ft away when it happened. Huge manhunt is underway to track down
[1:08:50]the killer thought to have fired from the roof of a nearby building. [Music]
[1:09:01]It's 12:00. The UK's ambassador to the United States, Lord Mandlesson, has been sacked from his role over his dis his links to the disgraced financia Jeffrey Epstein. In emails leaked this week,
[1:09:12]Lord Manderson appeared to show support for Epstein even when he faced jail for sex offenses. A list of birthday messages released showed Lord Manderson had described the pedophile as his best
[1:09:23]pal in 2003. The British embassy in Washington released the following statement. In light of the additional information in emails written by Peter Manderson, the prime minister has asked
[1:09:34]the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. The email showed that the depth and extent of Peter Mandlesson's relationship with Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of
[1:09:44]his appointment. In particular, Peter Mandlesson's suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein's first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. In light of that, and mindful of the victims of Epstein's
[1:09:55]crimes, he's been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect. Well, this is the moment the news of Lord Mandlesson's sacking was announced to the Commons. In light of additional
[1:10:05]information in emails written by Peter Mandlesson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States.
[1:10:16]>> The emails show, Mr. Speaker, that the depth and extent of Lord Madison's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at
[1:10:25]the time of his appointment. In particular, Mr. Speaker, Lord Madison's suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein's first conviction was wrongful and should be
[1:10:35]challenged is new information. And in light of that, Mr. Speaker, and mindful as we all are of the victims of Epstein's appalling crimes, um he has
[1:10:46]been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect. Well, this all came after the Sun published details of an email it obtained reportedly from Madison to
[1:10:57]Epstein while he was facing criminal charges in 2008 in which he writes, "I think the world of you and I feel hopeless and furious about what has happened." The email also sees
[1:11:07]Mandlesson encouraging Epstein to fight for early release and ends with him saying, "The whole thing has been years of torture and now you have to show the world how big a person you are and how
[1:11:18]strong." Both Lord Mandlesson and number 10 have been contacted for comment on those allegations. Well, let's bring in our political editor, Beth Riby, in Downing Street for us. And Beth, just
[1:11:29]bring our viewers up to speed of of the swift moving events of the last hour or so. Yes, Gareth. Look, it was pretty clear in the House of Commons yesterday that
[1:11:39]the Prime Minister was struggling to defend his ambassador, deeply uncomfortable, and so he should be because these emails emerged that showed
[1:11:50]that Lord Mandolson had tried to support Epstein after his conviction in 2008 of sexual offenses. And it seems to be that
[1:12:01]that has really shifted uh the decision against him by the prime minister. Really a prime minister with no other option but to let him go. As I
[1:12:11]understand it, Lord Mandlesson even last night wanted to fight on. But as I understand the prime minister met with the foreign secretary in Downing Street
[1:12:22]this morning and decided that they had to let their ambassador go. So effectively Lord Mandolson was sacked. he did not resign. Uh and the decision
[1:12:32]was make made after the prime minister reviewed this new information uh that was published last night. And that information was a cache of emails leaked
[1:12:43]to Bloomberg which detailed the close relationship uh with uh Epstein and Lord Mandlesson. and and crucially uh the
[1:12:52]details of Mandolson seeming to say to Epstein that he believed that his first conviction that conviction in 2008 was wrongful and it should be challenged and
[1:13:04]that really is the point where the prime minister having seen that new information uh decided that uh Mandosa had to go. Now it was a matter of public
[1:13:14]record that he had had a relationship with Epstein. Indeed, when our colleague James Matthew Matthews doorststepped him about it, he was furious uh with James Matthews and I think James Matthews
[1:13:25]spent quite a lot of time in the deep freeze when it came to Peter Mandlesson after that. He did not like uh being questioned about this when the Financial Times asked him about this. He told them
[1:13:36]to f off uh just a sense of how much he didn't want to talk about it. But as I understand it, the prime minister reviewed uh this information. information I'm told was not available
[1:13:48]at the time of his appointment as UN ambassador. I', as I understand it, the emails were not even available to Peter Mandolson now or at the time of the
[1:13:58]appointment uh because they were from a a long closed email address. And I think that that information has been made public because it's a defense if you like about what did you know when and I
[1:14:10]think what the argument will be from down street because this will be chewed over. What did the prime minister know when why did the prime minister think it was okay to appoint Mandlesson? I think what's clear from that is there is a
[1:14:21]stress there that this information was not known at the time of the appointment. But really there was fury
[1:14:30]amongst parliamentary uh Labour MPs yesterday on the news that Mandlesson had tried to support and defend Epstein
[1:14:39]after his conviction. uh uh one saying to me that it was just you appalling uh and that the prime minister just couldn't defend this and and actually
[1:14:50]the news broke when we were recording our electoral dysfunction podcast this morning and and Harriet Harmon, the former deputy leader, a very senior woman in the Labour Party. This is what
[1:15:00]she said on news that Lord Mandlesson had been sacked. She said it's shameful that Peter Mandolson didn't resign in the national interest and in the interest of the government, but he's not
[1:15:11]that sort of person. So, it's right that Kier Starmer sacked him. So, look, Lord Mandolson is gone. I think there was a sense in government at the beginning of this uh that they wanted to try and hold
[1:15:23]on to him because there is a Trump state visit next week. But as this scandal began to spiral and more information came out, as I understand it from some
[1:15:34]white hall sources, there was a view within government that actually this had to be put to bed as best they can that Manderson had to go. We've still got a
[1:15:44]week out until uh President Trump or six days arrives in the UK. But of course, this is really difficult, not least because the US ambassador is meant to be
[1:15:55]the one that's teeing up uh the visit. And I don't need to tell you how uncomfortable Donald Trump is about discussing anything about Jeffrey Epstein. And he does not like questions
[1:16:06]about that. And now, of course, our own UK ambassador to the US has lost his post over his connections with Epstein. don't need to tell you what the questions might be around Donald Trump's
[1:16:17]visit and how politically difficult this is. Uh I think K Starmmer had no option. I think if he didn't sack Peter Mandolson then he could have found a
[1:16:28]real mutiny in his parliamentary party. But also as the director of public prosecutions in his old job as a politician that said he would uphold standards in public life really where
[1:16:39]else could he go uh but not Sack Mandolson. Uh but look in the bigger picture of this government last week uh the resignation of Angela Raina after it was found that she had underpaid tax uh
[1:16:51]the prime minister's ethics advisor said that while she had acted in good faith she didn't seek advice that she should have sought and therefore did not uphold the highest standards in public office
[1:17:02]and she had to resign and now a week later or less than a week later the ambassador to the US is sat from government. This is a not the reset that
[1:17:13]K star had hoped for. >> Live in Downing Street for us, Beth Rugby for the moment. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Well, we've been having political reaction to Lord Mandlesson's sacking. Let's bring it to you now. The
[1:17:24]Tory leader Chem Bo saying Mandlesson might have gone, but just with Angela Raina, Starmmer dithered when he needed to be decisive. Time and again, he puts party above country. Liberal Democrat
[1:17:35]leader Sarah Davyy said the following star needs to come before Parliament and explain why Lord Mandlesson was appointed in the first place given everything the government knew then. This government seems to be lurching
[1:17:46]from one crisis to another. Green Party leader Zach Balansky said the following Star's instinct was to stand by Mlesson despite the evidence. His resignation now isn't a matter of principle. It's
[1:17:57]simple political expediency. It's a symbol of a broken politics where the same insiders always fail up.
[1:18:08]Let's bring in Andrew Fischer, former head of policy for Jeremy Corbyn joins us now. Good to have you with us, Andrew. Just looking at some of these comments, a lot of pressure on on the prime
[1:18:19]minister and on the government and S Davies saying the government seems to be lurching from one crisis to another. It it feels like a long time ago this afternoon that we were talking about Angel Rea's departure, but the reality
[1:18:30]is it's just the space of a week. What do you make of this on a personal level for the prime minister? How much pressure is he under? >> Well, I think he's under a lot of pressure and a lot more pressure on this
[1:18:41]particular one because he appointed Peter Mandlesson. It was his personal choice to appoint him as US ambassador. He was advised not to by people right across the political spectrum within the
[1:18:51]Labour party. You know, you had Lord Glasman who's, you know, very much on the right of the Labour Party, blue Labor figure, saying he shouldn't have appointed him. The shadow chancellor, John McDonald at the time, or former shadow chancellor John McDonald at the
[1:19:03]time was saying, "Don't appoint Peter Mandelon. He's a liability." Look, it was known that Peter Mandles had stayed in the house of Jeffrey Epstein after
[1:19:14]his conviction and was still in touch with him and phoning him and corresponding with him after his conviction for child sex crimes. Now that in itself should have prohibited
[1:19:24]any appointment. When you're appointed to a senior position like an ambassador, you go through some sort of vetting process. I don't know the particulars what it is for an ambassador, but you will go through that process. There's a
[1:19:36]series of questions asked. There's a, you know, normally candidates are asked to disclose anything that might embarrass them. What was disclosed by Peter Mandlesson? What was known at the time? because Karma cannot say he did
[1:19:47]not know about his ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein after his convict after his first conviction and now we've learned that obviously a bit more detail of that that's certainly I'm sure some
[1:19:58]of the detail of it is new but it was known at the time and you know journalists have tried to ask questions of Karma of this tried to ask questions of Peter Mandlesson on this and they've shut it down and now it's come back to
[1:20:10]bite them so I think this is a much bigger case than the Angela Raina case which is yeah about a very complex personal situation which is quite unique and I think most people would have struggled to get it right. This is a lot
[1:20:21]more serious and I think you know questions will be asked about what Karma knew what advice he was given why he appointed him in the first place and the details of that process that I think
[1:20:33]could rebound much more deeply on Karma than anything to do with Angela Raina or or any of the previous cases. What's your reaction to to what we were hearing
[1:20:42]from Beth Riby there that that sources tell her that Peter Manderson was was keen to try and play this one out and to to try and stay in post? What what do you make of those comments?
[1:20:53]>> Well, I think I agree with what Harriet Harmon, the former deputy leader of the Labour Party said, which is look, he's could have resigned in the interest of the government and the country, but he's not that sort of person. And that again
[1:21:04]just kind of goes to why he shouldn't have been appointed in the first place. This is a a man who was twice sacked in disgrace from Tony Blair's government. I mean, he's got form. He tends to uh
[1:21:14]bring controversy and and corruption, frankly, with him wherever he goes. And now he's been sacked again. And a lot of people saw that coming. And from Harriet Harmon's comments to Beth Riby, it
[1:21:26]sounds like she was probably advising in the background not to appoint him as well because she clearly doesn't have a very high opinion of him. So um I I think it says a lot about Peter
[1:21:36]Mandlesson. I think it probably doesn't reflect that well on KA that it took so long to sack him once the details started emerging. But the bigger question is what was known at the time of his appointment.
[1:21:48]>> There have been calls from uh both Labour MPs, backbench MPs, and also from other parties for there to be an inquiry for the details S Davies to asked for to be laid out in front of the Commons. To
[1:21:59]to what degree do you envisionage that will or won't happen? >> Well, I I think it's pretty untenable that it won't happen. There certainly be demands for it. I would imagine some of the select committee chairs will want to open inquiries into this as well. The
[1:22:11]foreign uh affairs select committee would be an obvious place given he was an ambassador Peter Anderson until this morning. Um and so I think there will be inquiries at some level. Um clearly that
[1:22:22]won't be comfortable for K Star either because you know he will have been advised not to appoint him by senior figures. There will have to be some disclosure about what was what was the nature of the vetting process. How
[1:22:33]thorough was it? Because there you know there is footage as I think you've shown earlier in the package of your own correspondent trying to ask Peter Manderson of it. There's footage of the Financial Times as Jim Pickard asking
[1:22:44]Kia Star about it before the general election. So before Kmer even became prime minister, asking them about his relationship with Peter Manderson in light of the revelations that he'd
[1:22:54]stayed in Jeffrey Epstein's home after he was convicted for child sex offenses. So and Kama replied then I don't know the details. Well, when he looked to appoint him as US ambassador, he should
[1:23:06]have looked into the details very very thoroughly. And if he didn't or if it was overlooked, that's a much bigger reflection on Karma, which you know
[1:23:15]could have further connotations. The the Labour party under Sistama does have a pretty slamming majority still in in the commons. Uh it was a successful
[1:23:26]election at the end of the day. Will Sakistama lead the party into the next election? >> Uh I mean look, I speak to a lot of MPs across the across the party, not just on
[1:23:36]the left where I sit. I have not spoken to a single MP who will even privately tell you yes Kama will lead us into the next election. I don't think anybody thinks that. If you look at the poll
[1:23:47]ratings, Kama's personal rating is worse than Richie Sunnak was before the 2024 election and he led the Conservative party to the worst defeat in British
[1:23:57]Democratic history. So I I don't think anybody thinks that's tenable. The Labour Party's polling around 20% in the polls. It's lost a third of its vote since the general election. If it carries on at this rate, it will be in
[1:24:08]single figures this time next year. So no, I don't think even before today and you know the sacking of Peter Mandelon, I don't think it was tenable that he would lead Labour into the next
[1:24:19]election. I think the big question is who in place who instead? And there's not an obvious answer to that at the moment. >> Former head of policy for Jeremy Corbyn, Andrea Fischer, good to have you with us
[1:24:29]joining us from South London. Thank you. Well, earlier this year, Lord Mattlesson was quizzed on his association with Epstein by our US correspondent, James Matthews. >> In June 2009, did you stay at the
[1:24:41]apartment in Manhattan of Jeffrey Epstein? >> I'm not answering any questions uh about uh him. Uh >> he was in jail at the time for soliciting prostitution from a minor.
[1:24:53]>> And my my knowledge of him is something uh that I regret. I wish I'd never met him in the first place. Why did you have an association with him? Because he was in jail at the time.
[1:25:04]>> Why Why did many people uh meet him? He was a prolific uh networker and I wish I'd never met him in the first place. >> Let's bring in our international affairs
[1:25:16]editor, Dominic Wagghorn. And Dominic, this is a crisis at the heart of Westminster at the moment this afternoon, but it's a crisis that also makes its way all the way back to Washington DC. and the president who's
[1:25:27]due to arrive in just a matter of days. >> Yeah, absolutely. And it leaves, I think, a bit bit of a hole in the plans for that controversial state visit that K star uh sort of announced when he went
[1:25:37]to visit uh President Trump uh and extended the invitation for a second state visit. And the plan then was that uh it would it would help uh oil the sort of wheels of diplomacy particularly
[1:25:49]towards uh a trade agreement between Britain and America and help seal the special relationship under the the new president. Uh and central to that was uh this very effective diplomat but someone
[1:26:01]with a lot of baggage and someone with a bit bit of risk attached when he was appointed uh by Sakir Stalmer. So yeah, I think the question now is how much
[1:26:10]damage does it do to the relationship uh but also to these plans for a state visit uh next week. I think that one one of the problems here of course is that Epstein is the story that just won't go
[1:26:21]away for Donald Trump. It leaves him extremely exposed in the constituency that matters to him most, the the MAGA movement and the allegations that he had connections that have not been fully
[1:26:32]exposed and revealed and explained with this uh pedophile uh is a a sort of real sort of third rail issue for the MAGA movement uh who have been obsessed with
[1:26:43]this idea of pedophile cabal running the world and had expected Donald Trump to go into office and expose uh the secrets about that and the fact that uh he
[1:26:54]hasn't done so in their minds is a a real problem for them and every time he tries to distract attention away from this issue it comes back again and obviously the resignation of Britain's
[1:27:04]ambassador uh in Washington uh surrounding all this brings it back into the headlines. So I think he there will be some resentment obviously from the American president that this has happened. It'll put him in a bad mood
[1:27:16]ahead of the state visit. But crucially, I think for the prime minister, it takes somebody out of the mix who would be really helping ease the path towards this controversial state visit. Someone
[1:27:26]whose appointment, I think, was in a lot of doubt back in uh the beginning of the year. Uh there was a lot of speculation that Donald Trump wouldn't be happy with him being ambassador because of his
[1:27:37]criticism of the American president, because of his close ties with China. Um in the end, that wasn't a problem. And in the time that he's been British ambassador, he has proven effective and
[1:27:48]been nicknamed the Trump whisperer. So he's gone from somebody who was regarded as a real problem with Donald Trump to somebody who's regarded as very effective at handling him. And the fact that he's now out of the mix, I think does make life even harder for the prime
[1:28:00]minister ahead of next week. It also of course raises questions about the prime minister's judgment in appointing him. He's somebody who has had a colorful past and he's somebody who's a kind of
[1:28:10]political icorus. He likes to fly close to the wind to the sun and he likes also to fly close to the political wind but he also has a soft spot for the finer
[1:28:20]things in life. That was his undoing of course in two resignations or firings as cabinet ministers uh uh as in previous scandals and has exposed him I think in
[1:28:30]this latest uh scandal. So, you know, he deprivives his departure leaves deprivives the prime minister of somebody who would help prepare for that state visit, but does raise questions about the prime minister's judgment in
[1:28:41]appointing him. But also, Matt is an extremely proficient politician. He had great political antenni and that was very important to a prime minister who maybe is arguably slightly deficient in
[1:28:51]that department. So, he's he's he's losing out in a number of ways with his ambassador going like this. >> Dominic joining us live from our Westminster studio for the moment.
[1:29:00]Appreciate it. Thank you so much. 12:21, you're watching Sky News. Still to come, we'll be hearing from Labour MP Bel Roberto Audi about the sacking of Lord
[1:29:10]Madison. [Music]
[1:29:25]Heat. [Music] Heat.
[1:29:40][Music]
[1:29:54]So [Music] the best
[1:30:12][Music]
[1:30:26]Are you [Music] ready?
[1:30:42]Heat.
[1:30:43][Music]
[1:30:57]Heat.
[1:31:00][Music]
[1:31:20]Breaking news this afternoon. The UK's ambassador to the United States, Lord Mandlesson, has been sacked from his role over his links to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. In emails leaked this week, Lord Mandlesson
[1:31:31]appeared to show support for Epstein, even when he faced jail for sex offenses. A list of birthday messages released showed Lord Manderson has described the pedophile as his best pal
[1:31:42]in 2003. Let's h bring in Labour MP Bel Roberto Adi. Good to have you with us. Appreciate you sharing your time. I was just looking at your feed on X and you
[1:31:52]say it is right that the US ambassador is gone. >> Yes. Um I believe that it is. Why so? >> Well, I think it we came to a position
[1:32:03]where what has happened is becoming a complete distraction um quite frankly and also the idea that he thought it was
[1:32:13]you know a good thing to do to continue um his friendship uh with Jeffrey Epstein having known uh the the the the accusations that he'd faced or or actually Jeffrey Epstein having accepted
[1:32:24]those is is a huge problem. and we look at all the problems um it's it's it's been causing over the past couple of days and how long uh it would have gone on until he he was sacked. So I think it
[1:32:36]was absolutely the best thing to do. But I think it says a lot um that he was sacked and he didn't think that he had to resign. >> You you called on Sakist Dharma to to sack Peter Mandlesson yesterday.
[1:32:47]>> Yeah. Yeah, I said there should at the very least be an an an investigation um uh by by um the prime minister's ethics uh watchdog. And you know, I I I couldn't see a situation in which that
[1:32:58]investigation didn't conclude uh that he did uh resign. But I'm I'm quite surprised that in these circumstances, knowing what happened, somebody wouldn't think it was the right thing to do to resign. Considering the circumstances,
[1:33:10]considering what was being learned, considering questions that have gone on for for months now, what what do you make of the time scale of the the prime minister's actions? You know, there there was a lot of pressure in PMQs yesterday. There's been pressure from
[1:33:21]within the party in previous days as well. What do you make of him making this announcement today? >> I think people are concerned. There are
[1:33:32]a lot of people that think that uh Peter Manderson shouldn't have been appointed in the first place and that's definitely something um that we should think about, but there are going to be a lot of
[1:33:42]raised eyebrows. Ultimately, uh we've now come to a conclusion which I think is more acceptable uh for all. And I hope uh this story doesn't uh I suppose derail from uh a whole load of other
[1:33:53]important things that are happening um in in in in in the coming weeks uh and and months. But it's right that he has been sacked. I I I don't believe an
[1:34:02]investigation um would have seen uh fit otherwise. Um and we have to question why he was appointed in the first place. >> In in recent days, you've been seeking nomination to become the party's deputy
[1:34:14]leader. That that bid, that campaign didn't prove to to be successful for you personally, and I I just wonder to what degree you see confidence in the leadership of the party at the moment.
[1:34:26]Well, uh, I've still got until 5:00 p.m. today to secure nominations. It It is definitely looking unlikely. I'm very concerned about the process and how that process has meant that somebody to the
[1:34:36]left of the party is unlikely uh to get onto the ballot. And I think that is not great for our membership. It's important for our membership to see a a diverse range of candidates. You know, we're
[1:34:47]we're losing members uh we're losing voters and we need to change course. And I think that's what our membership want to see. Um, I would hope that even at this late stage, uh, Labour MPs would
[1:34:58]understand that it's in their best interest, in the best interest of the party for us to have a proper discussion about what's gone wrong, uh, to change course and actually to protect the democracy of our Labor Party.
[1:35:09]>> Appreciate you keeping me uh to time on my timings of the process. Just with that final thought, where will the party go forwards in this regard? To what
[1:35:20]degree can the drive and direction that that Labor looks to achieve be be regained? Because it's it's been a torid week internally and and your opposition parties would
[1:35:32]say it's been a torid time in power for the past year. C can you grasp the grasp the challenge ahead of you and and kind of head down and deliver as you're saying you will do? >> Uh absolutely. I I don't think that
[1:35:43]anything is impossible. Um I I I I live in hope here. I do believe uh that when we're not trying to out reform reform and we are doing the very best at being
[1:35:53]Labor, we deliver for the country. And you know, even in this contest, in the debates that have been had, what candidates have said, it's clear that people understand that we do need uh to
[1:36:04]change course. And the way we're going to do that is if we start to listen, if we start to learn um and if we move forward in that way. Our membership is so important to this. And you know that's one of the reasons why I wanted
[1:36:14]to put myself forward um as the deputy leader of the party to make sure that the membership were heard and I hope through the rest of the process that they are uh but ultimately uh Labour can
[1:36:24]chase course we just need to get on with doing it. >> Really appreciate you sharing your time with us joining us live west. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> The Tory leader Kimmy Bnox been speaking
[1:36:36]the past few minutes. Let's take a listen. It's extremely damaging for the Labour Party because what it shows is that Kier
[1:36:46]Stalmer has very very bad judgment. This appointment was a personal appointment by him. He put Peter Mandlesson in that job. Even though he'd had to resign from
[1:36:57]cabinet twice in disgrace, he could have had a diplomat doing the role. He chose to put a Labor politician with a reputation that was already known. And this it is not a surprise that this has
[1:37:08]come to pass. Should the prime minister now come clean on what he knew about the links between uh Jeffrey Epstein and his former ambassador? >> The prime minister does need to come
[1:37:18]clean about every single thing he knew. And we're going to be pushing for all of the papers around his vetting to be released. This is absolutely critical. Just yesterday he told me at prime
[1:37:29]minister's questions that he had full confidence in Peter Mandlesson even though he knew even though he knew that Peter Mandlesson had said that there are more revelations to come. I think that
[1:37:40]is part of uh evidence that he has extremely bad judgment. We want to see all the papers and know all the information that surrounds Peter Mson's hiring in the first place. >> The government said there was new
[1:37:52]information that was materially different. that's what uh ma made their decision. Do you agree with that? >> No, I don't agree with that. Peter Madison gave an interview yesterday
[1:38:02]morning long before uh I asked the prime minister questions. And in that interview, he said that there was more to come. And yet the prime minister still chose to give him his full confidence. He could have said he was
[1:38:13]looking into the issue, but he gave him his full backing. And that just shows what terrible judgment he has. This would not have happened if I had not been pushing and pressing at Prime Minister's questions. Just as I asked
[1:38:24]last week for him to sack his deputy prime minister, he showed that he had no backbone by refusing to do so only to lose her two days later. >> And uh Peter Manderson had deep links
[1:38:35]within the Trump administration. Trump also has his own awkward relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Is Trump now tarnished by association? >> My concern is about the British national
[1:38:46]interests and right now what we have seen is that Peter Melson's appointment has damaged British national interests. We've got a state visit next week. President Trump is coming to the to to the UK. Our ambassador is one of the key
[1:38:58]hosts and now we've got no ambassador. This is a problem for Karma who has been distracted by the loss of his deputy prime minister, his deputy leadership uh
[1:39:08]elections at a time when our economy is in crisis. We also have a diplomatic crisis uh in Poland. We had an incursion into NATO airspace. The prime minister is not able to focus on this because he
[1:39:19]has to deal with all of the internal Labour Party drama. >> But surely if there's outrage over association with a convicted sex offender, then that should apply to President Trump as well, shouldn't it?
[1:39:30]>> Karma has control over who he appoints as uh ambassador to the US. He does not have control over what is going on in the United States. He is not able to control his party. He is not able to
[1:39:41]face down his backbenchers or even the trade unions who are causing strikes all around our capital city. He is weak. He has poor judgment and he needs to explain himself how it was that this situation came to pass. That's why we're
[1:39:53]calling for the releasing of all of the papers around the vetting. >> And do you have any ideas on who you think should be the new ambassador? >> Uh that is something for the governments to make a call on. We had an ambassador
[1:40:03]in place previously. They chose to sack her and give uh a Labour politician the job. That is yet another example of K star's really bad political judgment. And this is only the latest resignation
[1:40:14]uh or sacking that we've seen. He's lost his ambassador to the US. He's lost his deputy prime minister. He lost the transport secretary accused of fraud. He knew about that. He lost an anti-corruption minister because of allegations of corruption which he was
[1:40:26]aware of. This keeps happening again and again and it will continue to happen. And then just finally one on one of your own MPs as well Bravman is sharing a platform with political rival uh Richard
[1:40:37]Ty of reform talking about a potential Tory policy leaving the ECR. That's that's a bit awkward for Tories, isn't it? >> It's not awkward at all. This is a live issue. People want to talk about it.
[1:40:47]People have cross party discussions and sit on panels. I've sat on many panels with Labor MPs. That's not a problem at all. I think it's really important that we have a healthy debate in this country and I'm very happy if my MPs are having
[1:40:59]those debates about issues that people in this country care about. >> Even with Reform UK, >> why not? They are a political party in this country. They are elected. If they're going to have debates with Labor and Greens, they should be having
[1:41:10]debates with other left-wing parties like reform. >> Kimmy Bay there reacting to the news that Peter Manderson has been sacked as ambassador to the United States by Sik
[1:41:20]Stama. Plenty more reaction and insight and analysis. It's on the live blog on the Politics Hub page on the Sky News app. 12:33. You're watching Sky News. Still to come, we'll also bring you
[1:41:30]reaction following the fatal shooting in the United States of the right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk. [Music]
[1:41:47][Applause] Heat. Heat. [Music]
[1:42:12]Heat. Heat. [Music]
[1:42:34]Heat. Heat.
[1:42:36][Music]
[1:42:48][Applause] Heat. Heat.
[1:42:57][Music]
[1:43:48][Applause] [Music] Heat. Heat.
[1:44:06][Music]
[1:44:39]UK's ambassador to the United States. Lord Mandlesson has been sacked from his role over his links to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Our political correspondent tomorrow Cohen's been taking a look at his turbulent political
[1:44:50]career. >> It was the ultimate comeback even for the man who'd made a career out of them. Peter Mandelson's surprise appointment as the UK's ambassador to Washington.
[1:45:00]Handpicked by Kier Stalmer. His job to charm and cajol the Trump administration at a critical time. He was known to have associated with Jeffrey Epstein in the
[1:45:10]distant past, although these photos of him, as never seen before, in a birthday book in which he called him his best pal, were deeply embarrassing. But the fatal damage was in revelations that
[1:45:21]their relationship continued after Epstein's conviction, a subject he's tried to avoid. >> In June 2009, did you stay at the apartment in Manhattan of Jeffrey
[1:45:31]Epstein? I'm not answering any questions uh about uh him. >> He now admits he did stay in touch and regrets it.
[1:45:40]>> I regret very very deeply indeed carrying on that association with him for far longer than I should have done. >> It's all a long way from the early days when he was the spin doctor tasked with
[1:45:52]helping Labour out of the doldrums and nicknamed the prince of darkness. He became MP for Hartley in the northeast and when Labour won power under Tony
[1:46:02]Blair, he went into the cabinet. His political career was a tricky ride. Forced to resign twice. First over a loan scandal and then for influencing a
[1:46:12]passport application for a businessman, it seemed to be all over. But after a spell as a trade commissioner in Europe, he made a shock return to the front line under Gordon
[1:46:23]Brown as his business secretary and fixer. bringing this package of investment together, >> gaining a periage in the process and throwing himself into the troubled 2010
[1:46:33]election campaign. It was around this time emails show he was in contact with Epstein. >> In my view, the only way forward for Mrs. May is to continue the negotiation
[1:46:45]and put the best deal that she can find to a people >> to or to the pe to a people's vote. Never far from the political fray, during the Brexit years, he pushed for a
[1:46:55]second referendum to the annoyance of Labour's leadership. And then late last year, as Donald Trump returned to the White House, reports circulated that Mandolen, who was advising Kier Starmer,
[1:47:06]was in the frame to be our man in DC. Just ahead of a historic second state visit by the president to London that he masterminded. What should have been the
[1:47:16]pinnacle of his career has come crashing down. Tomorrow in Sky News, >> let's take you live to Westminster. The Labour MP Andy McDonald joins us here on
[1:47:26]Sky News. Good to have you with us. You said yesterday that Peter Manderson's causing the government and the Labour Party damage. If he doesn't do the right thing and resign, the prime minister should sack him. I assume on that basis
[1:47:38]you've welcome the developments. >> Well, it's the right decision. Um, and it's also the right decision for the prime minister to recall him through the foreign secretary. uh but uh he's
[1:47:50]eventually got to the right position. I don't know what was known yesterday. That's the my difficulty. Um obviously the prime minister was standing by Peter Mandlesson yesterday and expressing his
[1:48:01]confidence in him. Um what's emerged overnight uh is is more information. Uh, and there's got to be an inquiry as to why there's such a a catastrophic
[1:48:12]failure of intelligence in the first instance as to that detailed information that's revealed by others. Uh, the Sun and Bloomberg, uh, we've seen those
[1:48:22]details. But more broadly about the appointment process as well that has failed. The vetting process has failed if it hasn't unearthed these uh, uh,
[1:48:32]issues. So there are still questions to be asked and I think the sooner we have an inquiry as to what went wrong here uh the better. >> You've described the situation as a catastrophic failure saying that the
[1:48:44]process has failed. With that in mind, to what degree do you have confidence in Sakistan at the moment? >> Well, let's have that inquiry and see where that leads us. But there will be
[1:48:53]questions over judgment. I've got to say that I uh more than raised an eyebrow at the very thought of Peter Mlesson becoming the ambassador in the United
[1:49:03]States given his checkered history in government prior to that. Um the fact that you would actually appoint a politician uh to such a role is another
[1:49:13]issue. We did have Karen Pierce prior to Peter Mandlesson a career diplomat and we departed from that tradition of having career diplomats in such
[1:49:24]positions. We've got to have a a discussion as to whether that was a sensible a sensible move. Um these are difficult waters to navigate. Uh and that's what our diplomats do supremely
[1:49:35]well and perhaps we should have stuck to that principle rather than appointing a politician who was always going to present a risk. Uh with respect Andy, you said that
[1:49:46]there needs to be an investigation and an inquiry. You you didn't say unequivocally whether you've got confidence in in the prime minister. Do I infer by that that that's not the case at the moment? >> Well, that's what the the inquiry's got
[1:49:57]to reveal what was known by whom and when. Uh and if we can get that information, we can form a judgment. But it doesn't look good that um the prime minister came to the dispatch box
[1:50:09]yesterday uh uh seemingly possessed of information that led him to uh express confidence in Peter Mandlesson and then some short hours uh later some few hours
[1:50:20]later to have information that took him to the completely different conclusion. That's um a worry. Um and the and the and the question arises is is it as to
[1:50:32]the lack of information, lack of evidence, or is is it uh a judgment call that's gone appallingly wrong? And that we don't know. In in in your post on X,
[1:50:42]you talked about the situation causing the government and the Labour Party further damage. You won't need me to remind you that there's 10 to 15% depending on which poll you take between
[1:50:53]you and reform at the moment and reform are leading that. How much more damage can the party take? Because you've only been in power for for a little over a year and it has been well a pretty
[1:51:04]turbulent slide down in people's views and and reviews so far. >> Well, it's it's it's a it's a rapid decline in our fortunes from a uh a colossal landslide that's put us in a
[1:51:15]position to bring about bold and radical change to our country that our my constituents and people across the country are crying out for. They feel as if they're not being heard. Um despite
[1:51:26]the excellent things that this Labor government has done, uh opposite the National Health Service, bringing waiting lists down, the employment rights bill, improving, uh workers rights protections, free school meals,
[1:51:37]nursery places, uh and so on, bringing industrial disputes to an end. All of these things have impacted people directly, but they're not feeling it. And what they're looking at are the
[1:51:47]debacles around winter fuel allowance, WASPY, and uh uh welfare rights. Um, so these are the things that people are saying we don't expect a Labor
[1:51:58]government to be doing this to us and hence our lagging behind and our position over Gaza not being strong enough with the the Israeli government in the way that they have behaved. These
[1:52:09]things mount up and and collectively. Um they amount to a huge amount of disappointment and people looking elsewhere, be that to uh uh reform or to
[1:52:21]a more progressive uh uh alliance of of parties. But we are narrowing our vote and narrowing the the the capacity within the the the Labor Party uh
[1:52:32]currently. And we've got to arrest that and that's hugely important. That's why I think we should be having a very open and honest conversation through the deputy leader leadership campaign.
[1:52:44]>> Uh Labour MP Andy McDonald joining us live from Westminster. Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Breaking developments to bring you from Downing Street. Beth Rigby standing by.
[1:52:54]Beth, what can you tell us? >> Well, Gareth, the lobby, that's when the political journalists around Westminster have a briefing with the prime minister's official spokesman. that has
[1:53:04]just finished and I can confirm uh what we all expected that the deputy ambassador James uh Rosco he's currently head deputy head of the mission he's
[1:53:15]been promoted he will now be uh the interim ambassador uh to the US uh and he will now be in charge of planning that crucial state visit next week. So
[1:53:26]that's the new information we have that James Rosco, as we expected, is now stepping in uh to Lord Mandolson's shoes as they now search uh for his
[1:53:37]replacement. Uh there were obviously loads of questions about what did the prime minister know when, why did he not move quicker, why did he defend uh Lord
[1:53:47]Mandolson in the House of Commons uh yesterday and say he had confidence in him. And the prime minister's official spokesman has said the prime minister didn't know the depth and breadth of
[1:53:58]everything. He's now taken in everything. He's heard Lord Mandolson's deep regret, but he has taken swift and
[1:54:08]decisive action and the prime minister's official spokesman stressing that the state visit will continue as normal. So the prime minister there really
[1:54:19]reiterating what was said in the House of Commons earlier and what's been told to me on background from sources around White Hall too that uh the prime minister took this decision uh he looked
[1:54:31]at the information overnight in that leaked cache of emails that had been uh released uh to Bloomberg. Lord Manderson trying to get ahead of this, then given
[1:54:40]an interview uh to the son in an attempt to put his case forward before all this material uh emerged. But really uh the killer for him were emails in which Lord
[1:54:52]Mandolson was defending uh Epstein, telling him to fight on, telling him his friends loved him after he had been
[1:55:01]convicted in 2008 for sexual offenses. And really with that information uh the prime minister had nowhere else to go nor I imagine would want anywhere else
[1:55:13]to go uh but to sack him given that K star was director of public prosecutions has made a point of trying to prosecute sexual predators and also has made
[1:55:24]having violence against women and girls one of the missions of his government. Um so really there was nowhere else to go. uh he as I understand it took the decision in down the street with his
[1:55:35]foreign secretary of Cooper uh this morning but there are so many questions around K star now and his judgment and you heard that in Kem Benedok's uh
[1:55:45]remarks how did Lord Mandlesson even get back into government uh given that there was a knowledge of a relationship with Epstein now uh people in government are
[1:55:55]saying to me none of these emails have been seen that Peter Mandolson didn't even see these emails because it was in a closed email account, but when they came to light, uh, the decision were
[1:56:05]taken, swift and decisive, as the PM's team put it. Um, but there are questions about why Mandlesson was let back in, and many a Labour MP uh disagreed with
[1:56:16]that decision. He'd had to leave uh previous Labor administrations in the new Labor uh years, not once, but twice uh because of his conduct. So, uh questions still about the prime minister
[1:56:28]that I don't think are going to go away. And now of course all eyes on the state visit and how does that uh play out uh with a Donald Trump that does not like any associations
[1:56:39]uh about around Epstein and is himself under heavy questioning and scrutiny uh in the US about his relationship uh with the convicted pedophile.
[1:56:49]>> And Beth, this is a subject that you were discussing on the electoral dysfunction podcast today. What more was said there? Well, Gareth, it was we we record it in in the morning on a
[1:57:00]Thursday and we knew that the urgent question was coming and so we waited uh to to see what happened. And to be honest, by the time we'd finished the recording before the UKQ, it was very
[1:57:11]clear to me that both Harriet Harmon and Ruth Davidson, who I do that pod with, both thought he would have to go and and were shocked he hadn't. uh and these this is the reaction of both those
[1:57:22]politicians to the news uh that he had been sacked by the prime minister. >> Well, I think he's right to sack him. Um I wish he'd never appointed him, but now
[1:57:33]he's gone. I think it's really shameful that Peter Mandlesson didn't actually resign. I think he should never have put himself forward for that job knowing what he Peter Mandles knew about what was likely to come out. So I think it's
[1:57:45]been a horrible awful episode and the important thing is to move on now. >> Ruth, >> well I I think it's one mad that you appointed him but two absolutely mad that Kier Starmmer stood up in the House
[1:57:56]of Commons at Prime Minister's questions yesterday and backed him and said that he had faith in him uh and said it more than once. I have confidence in him. But it was clear as day that there was more
[1:58:07]to come out here. uh and that Mandlesson knew about it when he put himself forward for the post and and that Kristar couldn't have known about the extent of it. But there's a I I think a mistake here from the Tories as well in
[1:58:17]that the timing of this this you know we're talking at 10 to 11 on on on Thursday and it came out just before a foreign office minister had to stand up in the Commons because the Tories had
[1:58:27]tabled an urgent question about Peter Mandlesson and they either had to guttle through another day of saying he's still in post or they had to make a decision and fire him. And what I I I think it must have been a difficult decision for
[1:58:38]Kier Star Dmer because he didn't do it yesterday where whereas actually this now will calm down a little bit for Kier Starmer. This this makes in a sense part of this go away and and actually if if
[1:58:49]you're the conservatives you probably wanted this to drag on. I imagine for the prime minister seeing him yesterday uh that this will be relief to him because he was you could see I mean
[1:59:01]Harry the way you described it was he was anguished uh by the continuation of Mandals in the post. There's questions about why did he defend him in that moment but we know in politics that
[1:59:12]sometimes you're trying to work out what to do and you adopt a holding position and that seems to me what what happened yesterday. I think there's probably more to come now about well what did you know
[1:59:23]when and didn't you know this stuff when you back in when you appointed him and why didn't you vet him more closely and
[1:59:30]we we talk about that uh in the pod. Yeah, questions still for Kier Starma. As I said, what I've subsequently
[1:59:40]learned since recording that uh podcast that uh the prime minister's uh team are clear that there were many pieces of information that the prime minister did
[1:59:49]not know about that only came uh to light last night when Bloomberg published details of that cache of emails and the relationship uh between
[2:00:00]uh Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandlesson that continued uh beyond uh the conviction in 2008. And I think the thing that has really tipped the balance
[2:00:11]against him uh for the prime minister at least uh was the fact that he was trying to defend someone that had been convicted of sexual offenses and really
[2:00:22]uh taking the side of a perpetrator and not the side of the victims. Now, Peter Mandolson himself says he deeply regrets it that the relationship was an
[2:00:32]albatross around his neck. He said that he wrongly believed uh what Epstein and his legal council have been telling him and and that he regrets that. Um but
[2:00:43]still uh this is an impossible situation for a prime minister. There's no way he could have kept Mandlesson on in light of that. And I'd say also that the parliamentary party were up in arms.
[2:00:55]There were MPs disgusted uh by the way Mandlesson had conducted himself uh with Epstein following that conviction that somehow some MP said to me you know
[2:01:06]before he was convicted you could understand that perhaps there was a relationship but after continuing that relationship even doing business with
[2:01:14]him after uh that was an untenable uh position. I still think there are lots of questions about when did Peter Mandelson last have contact with Jeffrey
[2:01:25]Epstein? Did he go and visit him again? Uh there are lots of questions around what the prime minister did or didn't know. Uh what the vetting process was, should it have been better, as Harriet
[2:01:37]Harmon makes a point in the podcast that he was a political appointment, not a civil service appointment. And actually Harriet points out that the vetting process uh is a bit different. Uh so I
[2:01:48]think there will be lessons to be learned from all of that. But but I think there was also a realization overnight from Downing Street. I think perhaps they started off thinking Peter
[2:01:58]Mandles being sacked or having to step out of the post just days before a visit. It is bad news because it's widely been viewed that he's done a good job as US ambassador and managed to work
[2:02:10]with the Trump administration. But I think overnight what was clear was this story was only going to build and build and build. And what they didn't want was it still to be very live in the sense of
[2:02:21]Peter Mandlesson being uh in the picture uh when Trump arrived because then the Epstein questions really don't go away. And we know that uh Epstein him uh
[2:02:32]Donald Trump himself has been alleged to have been in that birthday book. Uh there is a note from him allegedly. He's saying it's fake news, but that's all
[2:02:41]going on uh in the US. So, the prime minister with little option uh but to sack him. But my my instinct is that K star would have wanted to do that
[2:02:51]because if he ran an election campaign saying he was going to clean up politics, he simply cannot protect or try to defend Lord Mandlesson given what
[2:03:02]we now know. Uh, and I would also say that in the comments yesterday at Prime Minister's Questions, he looked like he was absolutely hating it, putting a terrible performance, partly because he
[2:03:12]knew that he was trying to defend what I suspect he privately thought was indefensible. >> And and Beth, what do we need to consider with regards to kind of the the
[2:03:23]wider party thinking here of of the cabinet reshuffle and also that deputy leadership uh race that's going on in the background, too? Where where do those metrics play into this? Well, look, I think with the
[2:03:34]Parliamentary Party, there would have been absolute mutiny had Peter Manderson not gone. He was a divisive figure in the party anyway. And a number of MPs have told me that the parliamentary
[2:03:43]party was absolutely furious after they realized what uh Mandles had said to Epstein following that conviction and that he was still imposed. So, point
[2:03:54]one, I'm not sure how much option Starmmer would have had. I think he could have fel faced quite an existential crisis of leadership had he not taken this action. The second point
[2:04:04]on the deputy leadership Emily Thornberries dropped out today. It now looks like uh the two runners into the race in terms of the hust and then the votes uh will be Bridget Philipsson from
[2:04:16]the cabinet and Lucy Pal who was just until recently the leader of the house lost her position in cabinet. Uh so that is now playing out. I wonder whether MPs
[2:04:26]will want uh will want someone that's in cabinet in that post. >> Beth Riby live in Downing Street for us. Thank you so much. We're going to bring plenty more insight, reaction, and
[2:04:37]analysis both from here in the UK and also of of course across in Washington DC as well reacting to that news that Peter Manderson has been sacked as UK
[2:04:48]ambassador to the United States over his links with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. A replacement has been announced. We'll bring you all the details after this short break. Plenty more on the Politics Uplog, online, and
[2:04:59]on the app.