Why did Starmer take the risk of appointing Peter Mandelson?
Why did Starmer take the risk of appointing Peter Mandelson?
Many Labour MPs think the prime minister should have seen the Mandelson scandal coming a mile off, writes Joe Pike.
Read the full article on BBC Politics
Truth Analysis
Analysis Summary:
The article appears mostly accurate based on the provided sources, focusing on the appointment of Peter Mandelson and the perceived risks associated with it. There's a slight bias towards highlighting the controversial nature of the appointment and potential downsides. The core claim of Starmer appointing Mandelson is verified, but the article's interpretation of the widespread opinion of Labour MPs is harder to verify definitively.
Detailed Analysis:
- Claim: Keir Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson.
- Verification Source #1: Confirms that Keir Starmer has taken the risk of appointing Mandelson.
- Verification Source #3: Confirms that Keir Starmer is about to announce that Lord Mandelson will take over as US ambassador.
- Verification Source #4: Confirms Starmer's decision to appoint Mr. Mandelson to a post.
- Verification Source #5: Confirms Starmer is taking a big risk in appointing Mandelson.
- Assessment: Supported by multiple sources.
- Claim: Many Labour MPs think the prime minister should have seen the Mandelson scandal coming a mile off.
- Verification Source #2: Quotes a cabinet minister describing Mandelson as “high risk, high reward” when appointed last December, suggesting awareness of potential issues.
- Assessment: Partially supported. Source 2 indicates awareness of risk, but the claim about 'many Labour MPs' is difficult to verify definitively with the provided sources. The article presents this as a widespread opinion, which may be an overstatement.
Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:
- Source 1: 'Instead, Keir Starmer has taken the risk of appointing Mandelson.'
- Source 3: 'Keir Starmer is about to announce that Lord Mandelson ... take over as Donald'
- Source 2: 'When Peter Mandelson was appointed last Dec, one cabinet minister told me he was “high risk, high reward”.'