Trouble has been brewing for UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer over his appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador - despite Mandelson's well-known past associations with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Mandelson, a senior New Labour figure and former EU Trade Commissioner, has long faced questions over his friendship with sex-offender Epstein, and these ties were public knowledge when Starmer nominated him for the prestigious Washington role.

While Starmer admitted he was aware of the relationship, he says Mandelson "lied repeatedly" about the extent - leading to Mandelson's ouster in September of last year after emails revealed much closer ties - including allegations of sharing sensitive information. 

On Tuesday, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, is expected to allow a debate and vote on whether to refer Starmer to the privileges committee over claims that he lied to MPs - with conservatives and other opposition parties claiming that Starmer insisted that "due process" had been followed in Mandelson's appointment, and that there was "no pressure whatsoever." 

Last week, Sir Olly Robbins - who Starmer sacked as permanent secretary at the Foreign Office - said Starmer is full of shit, and that there was in fact "constant pressure" regarding Mandelson's appointment. 

According to The Times, Hoyle is expected to allow the request for a debate and vote because the bar for doing so is "relatively low." For example, Boris Johnson had to waive through his referral over the Downing Street lockdown parties scandal to the privileges committee because of outrage on his benches - an episode which ended his career in frontline politics. 

Starmer is expected to whip his MPs to oppose any attempt to refer him to a parliamentary investigation. However, an attempt to compel Labour MPs to prevent scrutiny of his conduct could risk a similar backlash, and some rebels are likely to refuse to oppose the referral.

Alan Johnson and Lord Blunkett, the former Labour cabinet ministers, issued a joint statement opposing a vote. They called it “a nakedly political stunt with no substance ahead of the May elections”. -The Times

Johnson and Blunkett said in a joint statement that the comparison to Johnson is "absurd" and a "waste of public money and a diversion from the major challenges this country faces." 

Environment secretary Emma Reynolds says Starmer "doesn't need" to go before the committee because he "hasn't lied to parliament" - telling Times Radio: "It was proven categorically last week that [he] didn’t know that Sir Olly Robbins had gone against the advice of security vetting and passed Peter Mandelson through that process when he shouldn’t have been passed through."

Labour, meanwhile, wants Starmer gone - but one MP told the Times that it's "a very different matter from people choosing to go through the lobby with Tories on a vote of confidence in the prime minister."

Slight reaction in 10Y gilts.