Yes, there are Keir Starmer’s lies. 

‘Full due process was followed during [Peter Mandelson’s] appointment, as it is with all ambassadors,’ he told the House of Commons on September 10.  

And as we saw graphically exposed last week, there has never been an ambassadorial appointment in British political history in which due process has been as badly corrupted as the one overseen by the Prime Minister in relation to his now disgraced colleague.

Yes, there is Sir Keir’s hypocrisy. 

He was not just elected on a pledge to clean up politics. He specifically promised to provide transparency, end the conveyor-belt of cronyism and – crucially – take personal responsibility for the decisions made in his name by ministers and officials. 

‘I had 8,000 staff,’ he said during the Labour leadership election, citing his time as Director of Public Prosecutions. ‘When they made mistakes, I carried the can. I never turned on my staff, you should never turn on your staff.’

And yes, there is the uniquely sordid nature of Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, one of the world’s most high-profile pimps and paedophiles. 

A relationship Starmer has admitted he was made aware of in basic Cabinet Office vetting prior to the former peer’s appointment, and one that makes a mockery of another of his pre-election pledges, his commitment to prioritising the fight against violence perpetuated by powerful men against women and girls.

But the revelation last week that Mandelson was appointed over the objections of the security services, who specifically judged he was unfit to take up his Washington appointment, has elevated this affair way beyond a bog-standard political crisis that raises damning questions about Starmer’s probity and judgment.

This is now one of the greatest national security scandals of the post-Cold War era. One that sits on a par with Profumo in the 1960s, and the Cambridge spy scandals of the 1950s and 1960s.

It’s not yet known why security chiefs deemed Mandelson such a high-level security risk. But there are numerous clues. 

As The Mail on Sunday reports, the British security establishment has been concerned about Mandelson’s business activities and relationships for years, if not decades.

What’s more, those concerns were communicated to Keir Starmer’s team in 2023, over a year before he entered Downing Street. 

They were given briefings that specifically detailed Mandelson’s ‘close’ relationship with Epstein, which reportedly began in 2006. 

But even more disturbingly, they detailed how Mandelson had been targeted by Soviet intelligence officers as far back as the early 80s, and by their Russian successors throughout the following decades. 

In particular, Mandelson was regarded by Moscow as an especially high-value target during his time as EU trade commissioner.

There has been a lot of focus on the ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation. But to less fanfare, it was announced at the end of February that Mandelson had also been placed under investigation by OLAF, the EU’s anti-fraud office. 

Part of OLAF’s remit is investigating serious misconduct by EU staff and members of its institutions.

Again, none of this should have come as a surprise to Downing Street. 

As I reported in February, British and EU intelligence officers became so concerned about Mandelson’s close ties to senior Putin ally Oleg Deripaska that they sat him down and specifically advised him to break off contact, including his frequent use of Deripaska’s private jet.

Much of the debate over the past week has been over the extent to which Keir Starmer was made aware of the security services’ concerns prior to Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador. But the fact is there were sufficient security ‘red flags’ raised with the Prime Minister prior to Mandelson’s appointment.

As The Mail on Sunday also reported, the Foreign Office mounted a tenacious rearguard against Mandelson’s hiring, with representations made by senior officials to Morgan McSweeney, then head of staff. 

Concerns were even raised by security officials in the United States.

And the published Cabinet Office Due Diligence Checklist presented to Keir Starmer – and which is one of the few documents linked to this affair he has acknowledged passed across his desk – raised issues over Mandelson’s Epstein, Russia and China links.

Again, for very good reason. On Friday, Downing Street published a summary of the UKSV Developed Vetting Template that was used by security officials to interview Mandelson. 

It contained a red box that was to be ticked if the applicant had their clearance ‘Denied or Withdrawn’. It’s understood this was the box ticked in relation to Mandelson.

But this represents only part of the story. According to a senior security source: ‘DV [Developed Vetting] was easiest to pass. 

'He would then have needed to be secure his STRAP clearance, which would have allowed access to especially sensitive intelligence documents. 

'And finally, as Washington ambassador, he would have needed to have clearance for access to what are called Compartmentalised Programmes. 

'This is the highest level of clearance in the diplomatic service, and is granted only to ambassadors to New York, Washington, Moscow, Paris, Berlin and Beijing. 

'That’s because in those roles you have access not just to raw British intelligence, but intelligence being gathered by the Americans and our other allies.’

Staggeringly, it appears that despite Mandelson’s known relationship with Epstein, the known links with Putin’s allies, the known efforts by Russian security services to target him for over 40 years, and over the formal objection of the UK security services, this clearance was approved.

Mandelson was bundled through, at pace and under the Prime Minister’s direct instruction, into the most sensitive diplomatic post in the Western world.

Just consider the nature of the threat this posed not just to British national security, but that of our closest allies. 

Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein – which Keir Starmer himself has admitted his former ambassador went to extraordinary lengths to conceal – made him a clear blackmail risk. 

Mandelson was so predisposed to passing sensitive government information to third parties he is now under investigation on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

But what’s more, he had such close links to Russian intelligence he had to be warned by UK intelligence officers to sever the ties.

In national security terms, Peter Mandelson is effectively the Sixth Man. No, he was not a formal Russian operative. 

But the Prime Minister has publicly accused him of betraying his country. 

He is under investigation by police forces both here and overseas. Britain’s relationship with the Washington security establishment has been trashed. 

The Foreign Office is now embroiled in its biggest crisis for a generation. And the Kremlin is breaking out the champagne.

And why? Because contrary to the spin coming out of No 10 on a daily basis, Keir Starmer did not look to prioritise the British national interest during a uniquely dark and dangerous time in global affairs. 

Instead, he recklessly and deliberately forced through the appointment of Peter Mandelson to the most sensitive post in the British diplomatic service, despite all the warnings.

And he did so solely because he had decided he needed some of his political stardust, and possessed neither the judgment or courage to change course when Mandelson’s failings were exposed.

This week Olly Robbins, Keir Starmer’s latest fall-guy, will appear before the foreign affairs select committee to try to explain this whole fiasco. But he has already made a damning intervention. A few weeks ago he appeared before the committee to explain Mandelson’s appointment.

He stated: ‘At the time we’re describing it was clear the Prime Minister wanted to make this appointment himself. 

'And therefore I understand that the FCDO was informed of his decision and acted upon it... the Prime Minister took advice and formed a view, and we then acted on that view.’

Keir Starmer knew full well the inherent dangers in appointing Mandelson. Not just for himself politically, but for the defence and security of Britain and her allies. 

He and his team were specifically warned about them years before. And he ploughed on regardless.

‘Mandelson betrayed our country,’ Sir Keir furiously insisted to the Commons in the wake of his ambassador’s sacking. But surely the true betrayal has been by the Prime Minister who heedlessly placed him in the position – against the advice of his security services – to commit such a grievous crime.

But surely the true betrayal has been by the Prime Minister who heedlessly placed him in the position – against the advice of his security services – to commit such a grievous crime.