LONDON — Keir Starmer has successfully won Donald Trump back around to supporting his controversial Chagos Islands deal, rescuing a key foreign policy goal that the U.S. president blasted last month as an “act of GREAT STUPIDITY.” The U.K. prime minister’s plan to hand over sovereignty of the archipelago in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius while retaining use of a joint U.S.-U.K. military base on the island of Diego Garcia was thrown into disarray a fortnight ago by the president’s surprise criticism. But Trump wrote Thursday on Truth Social, the same platform where he had unleashed his criticism, that he now understands it’s the best deal Britain was able to get after he had “very productive discussions” with Starmer — though he warned he wouldn’t hesitate to get involved if he felt U.S. interests were at risk.   “If the lease deal, sometime in the future, ever falls apart, or anyone threatens or endangers U.S. operations and forces at our Base, I retain the right to Militarily secure and reinforce the American presence in Diego Garcia,” the president added.  To the ire of British officials, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and the Conservatives’ Kemi Badenoch had lobbied Trump to oppose the deal, which will cost Britain around £3.4 billion over the initial 99-year lease.  But official diplomatic channels have won the debate, and Starmer will take Trump’s backing as a modicum of sweet relief during a dire moment in which his authority is being questioned. Government officials, speaking under condition of anonymity to avoid further fraying diplomatic relations, had ascribed Trump’s Jan. 20 criticism of the Chagos deal to Starmer’s public defense of Greenland from American threats to seize the Danish territory. Starmer broached the agreement with Trump in a call over the weekend, as well as during another on Thursday.  Downing Street’s account of the call said the leaders had “agreed on the importance of the deal to secure the joint U.K.–U.S. base on Diego Garcia, which remains vital to shared security interests.” The men also agreed that both sides would “continue to work closely on the implementation of the deal,” the statement added.

LONDON — Keir Starmer apologized Thursday to the victims of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for choosing Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Washington. The prime minister has faced heavy criticism after documents in the most recently released Epstein files appear to show the late financier was leaked sensitive government policy discussions by Mandelson, who was the U.K. business secretary and a senior member of the government at the time. The British prime minister, who sacked Mandelson as ambassador last September over the extent of his friendship with the late sex offender, directly addressed Epstein’s victims during a visit to the seaside town of Hastings on the south coast of England. “I am sorry,” Starmer said. “Sorry for what was done to you, sorry that so many people with power failed you, sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointed him and sorry that even now you’re forced to watch this story unfold in public once again.”  The PM said his government will “not allow the powerful to treat justice as optional,” and will do everything in its power to “ensure accountability is delivered.”  He spoke against a backdrop of anger from some Labour MPs who are infuriated the PM appointed Mandelson and want Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, who they see as having been instrumental to that decision, to leave No 10. Veteran Labour MP Karl Turner told Times Radio that Starmer should “get rid of those advisers who frankly have given terrible advice.” Keeping Morgan in post puts Starmer “up against it in a way that he doesn’t need to be,” Turner said. But government ministers insist McSweeney’s position is safe. “The person at fault here is not the prime minister or his team,” Communities Secretary Steve Reed, a close ally of the No. 10 chief of staff, told Sky News. “It is Peter Mandelson who lied, manipulated and deceived everybody.” 

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music * Sky News As the political drama over Peter Mandelson spills into the Commons – with another climbdown and a damaging revelation – it raises the bigger question: How secure is the Sir Keir Starmer premiership? With some MPs calling for Sir Keir to go – along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney – pressure is mounting over the stark confession that the prime minister knew about Mandelson’s continuing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein before he was appointed the UK’s ambassador to the US. Elsewhere, has Andy Burnham actually improved his leadership chances by being barred from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election? Plus, Sam and Anne gauge the mood in the Labour Party to figure out what happens next to the prime minister.

Mujtaba Rahman is the head of Eurasia Group’s Europe practice. He posts at @Mij_Europe. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has only four months to save his premiership. After the U.K. parliament’s return from Christmas recess, Starmer marked his first 18 months in Downing Street with a speech touting his Labour party’s efforts to ease the cost-of-living crisis. But behind the scenes, anxiety is growing that voters won’t feel any meaningful relief before the decisive regional and local elections on May 7, which could seal the prime minister’s political fate. And the outlook is bleak: After placing third in the Welsh Parliament elections behind Plaid Cymru and far-right leader Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, failing to unseat the Scottish National Party in Scotland, and bleeding support to both the Greens and Reform UK in English council contests, Labour risks humiliation across the U.K. And national polling only underscores the danger, with Reform UK now averaging close to 30 percent, and Labour languishing in the teens alongside the Greens and the Conservatives. Still, Starmer’s advisers privately argue that “less bad than expected” results might be enough to save him. But many Labour MPs expect a leadership challenge regardless, as it would require only 81 out of 404 MPs to initiate one — and Starmer is hardly popular with the wider party. Then there’s the unfolding scandal over Labour stalwart and former U.K. ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson. Mandelson was appointed by Starmer before being removed from his position in September once the extent of his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein became clear. Under mounting pressure, Starmer has been strong in his criticism and push for transparency — but that may not be enough, as Mandelson’s now under investigation for misconduct while in public office. A challenge may not come immediately, or even right after polling day in May. But the sense that Starmer’s authority is waning is unmistakable. For one, the prime minister is already preparing his defense. A King’s speech designed to reset the agenda ,outlining proposals on special education needs and digital ID, is now penciled in for mid-May. A cabinet reshuffle may follow, and some in Labour believe Starmer might even sacrifice his chancellor if he thinks it would placate restive backbenchers. He’s also expected to recall former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner to the cabinet, hoping her return could blunt any leadership ambitions. Labour’s traditions may offer Starmer only limited protection.While the party prides itself on avoiding the “regicide” that’s plagued the rival Conservatives, this instinct will weaken if electoral defeat looms. Labour MPs may dread a destabilizing leadership contest, but many have already concluded Starmer won’t lead them into the next general election. And privately, some ministers believe it’s no longer a question of if the prime minister falls, but when. Their concerns are understandable: Energized by new leadership, the Greens are siphoning some progressive voters, while Reform UK is eroding Labour’s traditional working-class base. Meanwhile, the Conservatives have stabilized enough under Kemi Badenoch’s leadership to reduce the likelihood of another revolt — a development that leaves Starmer more exposed. So, if a contest is triggered, he’s unlikely to survive it. Party members — roughly 250,000-strong — tend to favor the soft left. And that dynamic would advantage Rayner, should she stand. Last week’s events in Greater Manchester only further crystallized this perception of Starmer’s weakness. His decision to block Mayor Andy Burnham from contesting a parliamentary by-election was a lose-lose proposition: Either deny Burnham a Westminster platform and risk a party backlash, or enable a future leadership challenger. And Starmer chose the former, provoking fury while reinforcing the perception that he’s defensive and frail. Then came news of Mandelson. Starmer was elected on the promise of ending the chaos of government sleaze, and this saga will only foment questions about his judgement when appointing Mandelson ambassador. And the prime minister may well end up having to sacrifice his beloved advisor Morgan McSweeney, who lobbied for Mandelson to be picked for the plum Washington post. Labour MPs may dread a destabilizing leadership contest, but many have already concluded Starmer won’t lead them into the next general election. | Lukas Coch/EPA Meanwhile, foreign policy — the one area where Starmer’s performance has proven more assured — is offering Number 10 no relief either. U.S. President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has distracted him from and sometimes undermined his domestic agenda, particularly in the case of tariffs. And the latest crisis over Greenland was no exception. Managing relations with the U.S. under Trump has forced Starmer into awkward contortions, attempting to respond to provocations while trying to preserve his strategy of staying close to both Washington and Brussels, where his government is trying to reset relations. As it stands, the debate inside Labour over whether to pivot toward the EU is intensifying, and there’s now growing support within the party for a customs union with the bloc. But Starmer’s preference for incremental sector-by-sector alignment risks satisfying no one, viewed in Brussels as cherry-picking and at home as timid. Even loyalists concede a damaging story has taken hold: A prime minister unable to impose a vision or discipline, haunted by his early decisions, buffeted by U-turns and trapped by his own party. Starmer wanted to avoid a Tory-style drama. Instead, he’s now heading one of Labour’s own — slower, quieter but no less brutal. And four months isn’t long to change the narrative, especially when so many in his own party have already turned the page.

LONDON — Keir Starmer will strive for “maximum transparency” when releasing files on Peter Mandelson’s appointment as British ambassador to the U.S., a senior U.K. minister said Wednesday. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the prime minister wants to release as much information into the public domain about how Mandelson was appointed, his correspondence with ministers and his subsequent sacking last September over the former Labour peer’s friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “The prime minister’s going for maximum transparency here,” Streeting, a former friend of Mandelson, told Sky, though added the PM is “obviously drawing a line” by “not releasing information where it might compromise our national security and our security services, or where there may be information in there that might undermine international relations with other countries.” The opposition Conservatives have put forward a humble address — a parliamentary message to King Charles that was favored by Starmer during his time as leader of the opposition — calling for “all papers” relating to Mandelson’s appointment last year to be published. These include “due diligence which was passed to Number 10,” conflict of interest forms over his work in Russia and China, and correspondence (including electronic communications) between Mandelson, ministers and the PM’s Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney — who encouraged Starmer to send the then Labour peer to Washington. The government has published an amendment to the address accepting the Tories’ request, with the caveat that it will exclude “papers prejudicial to U.K. national security or international relations.” U.K. lawmakers will debate the substance of what should be released this afternoon. “What we’ve seen in recent days also is a prime minister acting rapidly to make sure that Peter Mandelson is stripped of all of the titles and privileges that were conferred on him through public service,” Streeting told the BBC, calling his behavior “so jaw-droppingly stupid and outrageous.” The Metropolitan Police confirmed Tuesday evening that Mandelson is under investigation for alleged misconduct in public office after it appeared he leaked sensitive government discussions at the height of the financial crisis to the late financier. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation on Tuesday evening. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. And in a Times Newspaper interview that was conducted before the most recent batch of Epstein files were released, Mandelson attempted to explain his historic association with the disgraced financier. “I don’t know what his motives were — probably mixed — but he provided guidance to help me navigate out of the world of politics and into the world of commerce and finance,” Mandelson told the newspaper. Mandelson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation on Tuesday evening. Mandelson also resigned from the House of Lords and left Labour following the latest tranche of correspondence in the Epstein Files.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music * Sky News Another day and another podcast dominated by Peter Mandelson – but as the political pressure ramps up across parliament, how will Number 10 react and is the carnage over? In a frantic 24 hours, Lord Mandelson gave up his peerage and the Metropolitan Police announced it is reviewing reports of alleged misconduct in public office over accusations he leaked sensitive government information to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Facing a key Conservative vote in the House of Commons later today – can Sir Keir Starmer bury his associations with Lord Mandelson and his decision to appoint him as the UK’s ambassador to the United States? Plus, Sam explains the significance of the battle ahead in parliament between the prime minister, his own MPs and opposition parties on whether he will be forced to disclose confidential vetting documents from Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador.

LONDON — Keir Starmer will draft a new law to strip Peter Mandelson of his right to sit in Britain’s House of Lords after new revelations about the former British ambassador to Washington’s links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein appeared in the Epstein files. The British prime minister has asked officials to draft legislation to remove Mandelson from the House of Lords “as quickly as possible,” his spokesman told reporters Tuesday afternoon. No.10 Downing Street said the Cabinet Office has also referred material to the police after the newly released files appeared to show Mandelson sharing live government policy deliberations with the disgraced financier.  The Metropolitan Police said Monday it is reviewing allegations of misconduct in a public office. Starmer’s spokesperson said the Epstein file documents “contain likely market sensitive information surrounding the 2008 financial crash and official activities thereafter to stabilize the economy.” “Only people operating in an official capacity had access to this information, [with] strict handling conditions to ensure it was not available to anyone who could potentially benefit from it financially,” the spokesperson said, adding: “It appears these safeguards were compromised.” Mandelson, a former Labour Cabinet minister who twice had to resign from Tony Blair’s government, was given a seat in the House of Lords by Gordon Brown in 2008 — a move which allowed Brown to appoint him as business secretary. More recently, the peer was made U.S. ambassador by Starmer as he sought to build strong ties with Donald Trump’s administration. The British prime minister sacked Mandelson last year after the release of U.S. Department of Justice files which shed new light on Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein. The former ambassador quit the ruling Labour Party on Sunday— but Starmer is under mounting political pressure to go further. Starmer “regards it as ridiculous that a peerage cannot be removed, except with primary legislation, something that has not happened since 1917,” his spokesman said Tuesday. “The prime minister believes there is a broader need for the House of Lords to be able to remove transgressors more quickly,” the spokesperson added. Downing Street has called for cross party support for its bid to modernize the unelected House of Lords. Currently peers can retire from the upper chamber — but they cannot be removed.

LONDON — Peter Mandelson said he has nothing new to tell U.S. lawmakers about Jeffrey Epstein, as he branded his sacking as Britain’s Ambassador to Washington over his links to the convicted sex offender a “life-changing crisis.” “There is nothing I can tell Congress about Epstein they don’t already know,” he told the Times in an interview published Monday night. “I had no exposure to the criminal aspects of his life,” he added. Britain’s Metropolitan Police said Monday it is reviewing reports relating to alleged misconduct in a public office. Newly-released Epstein files appear to suggest Mandelson passed information from inside the U.K. government to the convicted sex offender while he was business secretary. In the same Times interview, Mandelson, who twice resigned from the New Labour government, said being sacked as U.S. ambassador last September “felt like being killed without actually dying.” “I’ve had a lot of bad luck, no doubt some of it of my own making,” he said. The Times interview was conducted on January 25 — before the latest tranche of documents was published – and the paper also spoke to Mandelson on Sunday. U.K. minister Karin Smyth, speaking for the U.K. government on Tuesday morning, criticized Mandelson’s lack of self-awareness. “I’m sure you’ve seen and interviewed over time, men that have been involved in similar sorts of behavior, seem to not be able to recognize their own self in that,” Smith told Sky News presenter Sophy Ridge. Smith said Mandelson should testify before U.S. Congress, if asked, adding: “Anybody who’s got information should support the investigation, should be as open as they can be.” Newly released Epstein files appear to show Mandelson shared sensitive government policy decisions with the disgraced financier. They also suggest Epstein made payments linked to Mandelson. Mandelson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has previously said he was wrong to have continued his association with Epstein and apologized “unequivocally” to Epstein’s victims. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has asked Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald to investigate the apparent government leaks. Politicians from across the political spectrum have called on Mandelson, who resigned from Labour, to retire or be removed from the House of Lords.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music * Sky News Lord Mandelson is still the main topic for discussion on the podcast – as Anne reports back from an event with the US ambassador to London, Warren Stephens. Sam and Anne both pick over Peter Mandelson’s interview with The Times, where he is pictured standing next to an aga and seems to hint there’s still a way back to politics by saying “I want to be more of an outsider”. At last night’s event, Anne picks up on US reaction to the Mandelson saga – but there is a stark warning for transatlantic business relations. Plus, what does all this mean for the prime minister and his senior staff who appointed Lord Mandelson as a UK ambassador to the US?

LONDON — Britain’s pubs are in distress. The beer-loving Nigel Farage has spied an opening. The Reform UK leader and his chief whip Lee Anderson are set to unveil a raft of new policies Tuesday meant to support struggling publicans — and punch a Labour bruise. It comes days after Chancellor Rachel Reeves — under pressure from a highly-organized pubs industry — was forced to U-turn on plans from her budget and announce a three-year relief package for the U.K.’s ailing hospitality sector. Farage isn’t alone — the government’s other rivals are setting out pub-friendly policies too, and are helping to push the plight of the British boozer up the political agenda.  But it’s the latest populist move by the right-wing outfit, whose leader often posts pictures from the pub on social media and has carefully cultivated an ale-drinking man-of-the people persona, to capture the attention of an electorate increasingly soured on Labour’s domestic efforts. ‘GENUINE PISS ARTIST’ Reform will on Tuesday lift the lid on a five-point plan to “save Britain’s pubs,” promising a slew of tax cuts for the sector — including slashing sales tax VAT to 10 percent, scrapping the employer National Insurance increase for the hospitality sector, cutting beer duty by 10 percent, and phasing out business rates for pubs altogether. The party will also pledge to change “beer orders” regulation, which sees large pub companies lock landlords into contracts that force them to buy beer from approved suppliers at much higher prices than the open market. Reform says the plan would be funded through social security changes — reinstating a two-child cap on universal credit, a move the party claims would save around £3 billion by 2029-30. “Labour has no connection to how real life works,” Farage said earlier this month as he lambasted government plans to lower the drink drive limit. One of the British pub industry’s biggest names thinks Farage could have a genuine opening with voters on this front. The Reform boss has “got the massive advantage in that he’s a genuine piss artist,” Tim Martin, the outspoken owner of the British pub chain JD Wetherspoons, said. “He genuinely likes a sherbet, which, when it comes to pubs, people can tell that, whereas I don’t think [they do] with the other party leaders,” he said. The pub boss recounted watching as Farage “whacked down two pints and had two cigarettes” ahead of an appearance on BBC Question Time in which Martin also featured, as other politicians hovered over their briefing notes. The dangers of upsetting the pub industry have not been lost on Labour’s political opponents. | Ben Stansall/AFP via Getty Images Green MP Siân Berry is less impressed with Farage’s pub shtick, however. She accuses him of “playing into a stereotype of pubs as spaces for older white men to sit and drink.” “Most people who run a pub business these days know that it needs to be a family space,” she said. SHOW US THE POLICY Either way, Farage is exploiting an opening left by Labour, which riled up some pubs with its planned shake-up of business rates. “When the Labour government came in, the pub industry was already weak — and they piled on more costs,” said Wetherspoons’ boss Martin. Since Labour won power in 2024 Reeves has also hiked the minimum wage employers must pay their staff, increased employer national insurance contributions, and raised beer duties. While the industry cautiously welcomed Reeves’ business rate U-turn last month, they say there’s still more to do. “This will make a significant difference, as three quarters of pubs are now going to see their bills staying the same or going down,” Andy Tighe, the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA)’s strategy and policy director, said of the U-turn — but “it doesn’t solve everything,” he added. “For most operators, it’s those big sorts of taxes around business rates, VAT, duty, employment-related taxes that make the real difference, ultimately, to how they think about the future,” he said.  A U.K. Treasury spokesperson said: “We are backing Britain’s pubs — cutting April’s business rates bills by 15 percent followed by a two year freeze, extending World Cup opening hours and increasing the Hospitality Support Fund to £10 million to help venues. “This comes on top of capping corporation tax, cutting alcohol duty on draught pints and six cuts in interest rates, benefiting businesses in every part of Britain,” they added. ALSO PITCHING The dangers of upsetting the pub industry have not been lost on Labour’s political opponents. Politicians of all stripes are keen to engage with the industry, Tighe says. “Pubs matter to people and that’s why I think political parties increasingly want to ensure that the policies that they’re putting forward are pub-friendly,” he said.  Polling found that nearly half (48 percent) of Farage’s supporters in 2024 think pubs in their local area have deteriorated in recent years. | Henry Nicholls/AFP via Getty Images The Tories say they will abolish business rates for pubs, while the Liberal Democrats have pledged to cut their VAT by 5 percent. The Greens’ Berry also wants to tackle alcohol advertising which she says pushes people to drink at home. “A pub is a different thing in a lot of ways, it is more part of the community — drinking second,” the left-wing party’s representative said. “I think the evidence base for us is not to be anti-pub, but it might be against advertising alcohol.” Industry bigwigs like Martin have consistently argued that pubs are being asked to compete with supermarkets on a playing field tilted against them.  “They must have tax equality with supermarkets, because they can’t compete with supermarkets, which are much stronger financial institutions than pubs,” he said, citing the 20 percent VAT rate on food served in pubs — and the wider tax burden pubs face.  GLOOMY OUTLOOK The plight of the local boozer appears to be occupying British voters too. Polling from the think tank More in Common conducted in August 2025 found almost half of Brits (44 percent) go to the pub at least once a month — and among people who voted Labour in 2024 that rises to 60 percent. The same polling found nearly half (48 percent) of Farage’s supporters in 2024 think pubs in their local area have deteriorated in recent years — compared to 31 percent of Labour voters. “Reform voters are more likely than any other voter group to believe that their local area is neglected,” Louis O’Geran, research associate at More in Common, said. “These tangible signs of decline — like boarded up pubs and shops — often come up in focus groups as evidence of ‘broken Britain’ and drive support for Reform,” he added.  The job now for Farage, and his political rivals, is to convince voters their local watering hole is safe in their hands.