Jonathan Freedland: There’s one argument Starmer could make to save his skin – but he won’t dare do it

He could say that what has enraged so many, including among his own MPs, was his admission on Wednesday that he had known, when he appointed him, that Mandelson had continued his relationship with Epstein. But, Starmer could say, pointing his finger at the benches in front of and behind him, so did all of you. It had all been laid out, in detail, two years before Mandelson was posted to the US, in a JP Morgan report covered in the Financial Times. Why did so few of you protest at the time? Why, on the contrary, did the Westminster village, including Farage by the way, along with most of the media, support the appointment, declaring it a masterstroke?

Did anybody in opposition support the appointment and declare it a masterstroke?

I'm finding that hard to believe. Opposition rarely tend to praise the current powers, especially for something as minor as the appointment of an individual person.

FTA:

He can encourage his allies to scare Labour MPs thinking of toppling him by urging them to contemplate the alternatives. Wes Streeting, longtime mentee of Peter Mandelson? Angela Rayner, driven out as deputy PM by financial scandal? Miliband, rejected by the voters more than a decade ago?

Notice he doesn't mention Burnham?