Pat McFadden sparks GMB outrage as he refuses to answer simple question six times

Pat McFadden left Good Morning Britain viewers furious as he repeatedly avoided answering whether he would have chosen to appoint Peter Mandelson. The work and pensions secretary was grilled by presenters Ed Balls and Susanna Reid as pressure continues to mount on the Prime Minister Keir Starmer over the appointment of Mandelson and whether he knew the former business secretary had failed the vetting process before becoming the UK’s ambassador to the US.

The discussion began with Balls questioning how the “catastrophic mistake” was made to appoint Mandelson and whether McFadden would have made the same decision. The politician didn’t answer the part about if he would have gone ahead with appointing Mandelson, but admitted he understood why the decision was made due to rationale.

He said: “This was a political appointment. Trade and business were going to be at the heart of this relationship and you had a former business secretary and trade commissioner, thought to have done well at both of his jobs.

“It’s not to say the appointment was right. It turned out not to be right, but there was a rationale for it at the time.”

Balls repeated his claim that he does not believe McFadden would have made the same “reckless” decision if he was in Starmer’s position.

McFadden declined to say whether he agreed with the statement, instead steering the discussion toward questions about whether there had been pressure to clear Mandelson despite his failure to pass the vetting process.

Wanting a direct answer to the question, Reid stepped in and asked him once again.

“What this really boils down to is the catastrophic mistake that Keir Starmer made when he had the due diligence report and originally appointed Peter Mandelson.

“The original question that Ed asked you was, had you been in charge back then, would you have appointed Peter Mandelson, a walking red, reputational risk, conflict of interest, friends with Jeffrey Epstein?”

As McFadden began to respond by saying that he had set out the rationale for the appointment, Reid interjected: “You have, but do you think that’s justified?”

He avoided the question once again, instead responding to the presenter’s comment about Mandelson being a red flag.

Interjecting once again, Reid asked: “But would you have appointed him?”

McFadden replied: “I can see the rationale for the appointment,” leading Reid to assume that he meant yes and would also have “fallen into this trap” like Starmer as the due diligence report highlighted the majority of the issues surrounding Mandelson.

The Labour minister once again said he could understand the rationale, but didn’t confirm nor deny whether he would have made the appointment himself.