“With Hindsight, Mandelson’s Red Flags Were Actually Red,” says Starmer

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has insisted that there was “absolutely no way of knowing” that a man who had previously resigned twice from senior government roles amid ethical scandals might once again cause problems when placed in one of the most sensitive diplomatic posts in the country.

“Look, hindsight is a wonderful thing,” Starmer told reporters, standing in front of a rapidly expanding pile of hindsight. “At the time, all we had were decades of controversy, documented associations with deeply questionable individuals, and a political career resembling a warning label. None of that conclusively proves anything.”

Downing Street sources confirmed that the vetting process for Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador consisted primarily of asking him whether he thought appointing himself was “a good idea,” to which he reportedly replied: “Absolutely,” before adding, “Also, I’ve changed.”

Senior aides say the prime minister was reassured by Mandelson’s insistence that his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was “purely social, strictly historical, and definitely not something that would resurface in millions of leaked documents.” Starmer later admitted this explanation was accepted after Mandelson promised, cross-heartedly, that nothing embarrassing would happen “this time.”

As criticism mounted, Starmer apologised for believing Mandelson’s assurances, while stressing that believing powerful insiders when they say “trust me” has long been a proud British constitutional tradition. “If we stop doing that,” one official warned, “the entire system collapses.”

Meanwhile, Labour MPs have expressed shock at discovering that appointing a figure synonymous with the New Labour era’s most enduring scandals might have consequences. “We’re all learning lessons,” said one MP. “Mostly about how memory works, and how it apparently stops around 2003.”