Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, delivered a speech in East Sussex on 5 February 2026, an event captured by photographer Peter Nicholls for Reuters. This appearance comes amid a growing political storm that draws unsettling parallels between the current Labour administration and the notorious Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
A Continuum of Contempt
What connects Jeffrey Epstein's email exchanges to the controversial appointment of Peter Mandelson? A profound and pervasive contempt. This disdain radiates through institutions, targeting women and girls, undermining the law, and disregarding the public. From Epstein's network to Britain's political establishment, a continuum of scorn exists, fuelled by an insatiable pursuit of power.
Contempt is not merely a byproduct of this power; it is its very essence. For those already possessing wealth, status, and respect, the ultimate demonstration of potency lies in procuring, trading, objectifying, and violating women and girls. To subordinate another human being to one's urges, to diminish her entirely, is an initiation into a club of super-predators who believe themselves above legal and moral constraints.
The Language of Power and Misogyny
The Epstein emails reveal how misogyny operates as a currency, lavishly spent to flaunt influence. The gut-wrenching casual references to body parts in correspondence form a coded language of signalling. Referring to women as "pussy" or simply "P" acts as a flash of an exclusive club membership card, a badge of honour among those who trade in degradation.
This behaviour thrives within a broader climate of scorn and impunity. A value system persists that, even after Epstein's conviction, did not disqualify him from friendships with powerful figures, nor prevent those associates from securing prestigious roles, such as the British ambassadorship to the United States. When exposed, the standard excuses emerge: ignorance, deception, or claims of incomplete knowledge.
Regret and Resignation in Downing Street
Now, with the scandal fully exposed, regret abounds. Morgan McSweeney, in his resignation letter as Keir Starmer's chief of staff, stated, "The decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was wrong." Yet, regret often implies an unfortunate accident, a momentary lapse in judgement. The deeper regret may stem from a failure to anticipate that abuse against women and girls would ever be taken seriously by the public or the press.
The worlds of corruption and high-level politics share distinct rules, norms, and codes. Both Epstein and Mandelson operated as favour merchants, fixers, and facilitators, trading in networks, tribal connections, and fraternal flattery. Their dynamic included unwritten gentlemen's agreements, evident in emails where Epstein accused Mandelson of taking without giving. In this sphere, the cardinal sin is failing to appreciate that favours must be reciprocated.
Shielding Power from Accountability
Female victims, the legal system, and the public are perceived as remote, potentially treacherous entities that must be kept at bay to preserve a vast, self-contained system of reciprocal power. Understanding the Epstein network as a mechanism designed to circumvent rules and shield members through mutual reinforcement clarifies the true nature of Mandelson's appointment in Downing Street.
This decision was not about placing a trustworthy individual in a key role; it was about deploying a player skilled in networking, trading favours, and bolstering a closed circle. Mandelson's aptitude for cultivating connections across influential domains, without qualms or scruples, was his primary asset. Euphemisms like "The Prince of Darkness" or "master of the dark arts" signal that media and political circles respect those unafraid to use any means to achieve their ends.
Starmer's Calculated Choice
Within a Labour Party characterised by relentless internal purges and the hounding of dissenters, such a figure finds a natural home among a cohort for whom power is not merely to be attained but hoarded, monopolised, and leveraged. Mandelson's appointment, despite private and public questioning, echoes a contempt for those outside the inner circle and asserts the leadership's prerogative to act solely based on political utility, not integrity.
This brings us to Keir Starmer. Repeatedly described as a "decent man" who genuinely cares about victims, the Prime Minister now faces overwhelming shame over this affair. Alternatively, he may be viewed as a politician who outsourced too much and was betrayed by untrustworthy advisors. However, Mandelson's appointment could not have occurred without Starmer consciously downplaying the seriousness of Mandelson's associations.
Excuses for Starmer imply that such political decisions exist in a complex sphere, operating above the naive morality of the outside world. Yet, some moral issues remain black and white. While one might call Starmer's decision shortsighted or unwise, it cannot be deemed uncalculated. Mandelson's value to the party leadership evidently outweighed his associations with the world's most infamous child sex offender and, by extension, mattered more than the victims themselves.
The Bitter Harvest of Pragmatism
The radius of Epstein's influence is populated by individuals who deemed the benefits of association greater than the seriousness of his crimes. Those now experiencing a dark night of the soul, including the Prime Minister, ultimately could not resist this calculus. To speak of thwarted "decency" in this context implausibly separates action from intention and character. As the saying goes, decent is as decent does.
Now, Starmer blinks in the glare of a crisis meant to remain manageable. The putrid horror spreads across millions of documents, littered with references to "pussies" and "bitches" and young victims. The public, suddenly too informed for comfort, demands accountability—arriving too late for many, but better than never. As political turmoil engulfs the government, a wider reckoning looms: the utter decoupling of principle from politics, a chronic devotion to "grown-up" ruthlessness in power pursuit, yielding this bitter harvest.
