Labour minister loses it in furious Mandelson clash on GMB: 'You're making up lies!'

Good Morning Britain hosts Susanna Reid and Richard Madeley launched a fiery clash with Labour minister Steve Reed over Sir Keir Starmer's actions surrounding Lord Peter Mandelson's friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. On Wednesday (February 4), the Labour leader told Parliament he was aware of the former business secretary's ongoing friendship with the convicted pedophile when he appointed him as US ambassador last year. He insisted that he was misled about the "sheer depth and extent" of their relationship, but admitted, "I regret appointing him."

On Thursday morning (February 5), the dynamic duo welcomed the Housing Secretary onto the programme to quiz him on whether the disgraced politician's friendship with the American financier was enough to disbar him from his position as US ambassador. The 69-year-old broadcaster began: "Setting aside Mandelson's undoubted lies during the vetting process, wasn't it enough that he already knew about his relationship with Epstein to comprehensively disbar him from such an important job?"

He replied: "It's easy, isn't it, with hindsight when you know the truth to look back at a time when that was known," before Richard interjected with: "No, the question was about what was already known."

Reed fumed: "You're not actually letting me answer. What is the point of asking me a question if I can't answer it? You've not even listened to it, so how do you know I've misinterpreted it?" To which Richard clarified: "Because of your opening statement, you talked about hindsight.

"What I was saying was the information that was in possession of the government and the Prime Minister, setting aside Mandelson's lies during the vetting process. Wasn't that information sufficient to disbar him from being such an important job?"

The minister insisted: "No, no. I know you're saying that because you've got the benefit of hindsight but at the time, no, it wasn't. There was a process that was gone through, and Mandelson lied. Nothing additional was thrown up at the time to make it clear that Mandelson was lying, so he was appointed.

"Everyone regrets that now, of course, but as soon as the truth came to light with that first release of files from the United States months ago, the Prime Minister took immediate and decisive action. He phoned him up at 5am in the morning and sacked him on the spot as the UK's ambassador to the United States."

It was at this point that Susanna admitted: “I am really confused by what you’re saying. I know you’re confused by our questions, but I am really confused by what you’re telling us because the Financial Times had reported in 2023 about the relationship between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein.

"That reporter told Sir Keir Starmer that at a press conference in 2024, but you’re saying it was new information. It wasn’t. It was in the public record." Reed replied: "What I’m saying, Susanna, is that during the vetting process, Peter Mandelson lied and said that his relationship with Epstein had ended long ago and had been next to nothing.

"The vetting process did not show that that was a lie, so Mandelson was appointed. It shows that the vetting process wasn’t good enough, and that’s one of the things we need to look at. But it is a long, established vetting process that long precedes this government coming into power, but it clearly failed.

"As soon as he found out, he was sacked. We can’t legislate against liars lying. What you can judge somebody by is what they do when the liar is exposed, and Keir Starmer could not have acted more quickly or more decisively."

Richard argued that the politician was dodging the main question, which sparked Reed to accuse the hosts of lying live on air. Richard insisted "You keep avoiding the point, you keep invoking hindsight. Can I finish my question, sir?"

To which Reed blasted: "Well, you're making up lies about me avoiding your questions. I'm answering every single one." Richard snapped back with: "I'm not making up lies, and I think anybody watching this interview will observe that you have used the excuse of hindsight to defend the Prime Minister.

"What I'm putting to you, and I'll try for the third time, is that what the Prime Minister was already aware of before the vetting process was undergone, before that - so we can't talk about hindsight - he was aware that Mandelson had a close relationship with a convicted pedophile financier. He knew that, that wasn't hindsight. He knew that."

Reed doubled down with: "I'm afraid, Richard, that is not true. That is not true, categorically." At the end of the interview, Susanna described the explosive clash as "just about the most touchy interview that we've had with a government minister for a very long time".

It didn't take long before viewers flocked to social media to share their concerns about the heated row online, with one user admitting: "That ITV interview was deeply uncomfortable, not because the questions were hard, but because the answers again were not honest. When stripped of scripts, what we saw was evasion, contradiction, and an ill-tempered refusal to give straight answers on a serious issue. Time is up!"

Another agreed: "What a horrible man. One of the poorest politicians I have ever seen. To be that angry and aggressive during a national scandal is indefensible. They know it's just a matter of hours left in office, and being a member of the worst government in history will be their legacy."

A third chimed in with: "Of course, they knew about Mandelson's relationship with Epstein. Starmer blatantly ignored his security services' advice. How much more damning does it need to be?"