In a striking scene at the British ambassador's residence in Washington DC on 26 February 2025, Peter Mandelson and Keir Starmer stood together, a moment captured by photographer Carl Court for AFP/Getty Images. This image now symbolises a deepening political crisis for the Labour government, as Starmer faces intense scrutiny over his decision to appoint Mandelson to the key diplomatic role.
The Trump Connection and a Bitter Irony
It is often overlooked that Donald Trump's influence played a pivotal role in this appointment. Starmer reportedly believed that navigating the complex backchannels of the new Trump administration required a figure with Mandelson's particular skills, viewing him as a strategic choice to handle serpentine political dynamics. The result is an irony so potent it induces discomfort. The Epstein files, which contain over 38,000 references to Trump and his Mar-a-Lago estate, threaten to undermine a national leader who is not mentioned by Epstein at all. This situation highlights a related, equally bitter irony: Starmer rose to power as the squeaky-clean alternative to the sleaze associated with Boris Johnson, yet now finds himself entangled in the netherworld of Jeffrey Epstein and its vile abusers.
The Erosion of Trust and Political Fallout
Starmer's chief claim to leadership—his reputation as a trustworthy former prosecutor free from scandal—is now in jeopardy. As The Economist recently questioned, if this can happen, what is the point of Sir Keir staying in office? This sentiment is echoed by Labour MPs, many of whom anonymously describe the prime minister as a dead man walking, debating only the timing of his potential downfall. The crisis has sparked a wave of cynicism, with some arguing that all politicians are inherently self-serving, a view that Starmer himself acknowledges is widely held among the public.
However, this blanket cynicism must be resisted. While many politicians are driven by ambition, few would engage in the extreme behaviour associated with Mandelson, such as maintaining ties with a convicted child abuser during a global financial crisis. Allowing such cynicism to flourish risks empowering figures like Nigel Farage and Reform UK, who thrive on the notion that all politics is corrupt. This could pave the way for authoritarian governance, influenced by leaders like Trump and Vladimir Putin.
Internal Labour Divisions and Strategic Moves
Within Labour, a factional argument suggests that Mandelson typifies the New Labour tendency, characterised by a fascination with wealth and a disregard for vulnerable populations. Yet this is a caricature that overlooks figures like Gordon Brown, who was deeply committed to poverty alleviation. Discrediting New Labour does little to endear voters to the party as a whole; it merely tarnishes Labour's broader reputation.
For Starmer, the immediate concerns are tactical. He might encourage allies to warn Labour MPs about the alternatives to his leadership, such as Wes Streeting or Angela Rayner, both of whom have their own controversies. Alternatively, he could hope that parliamentary committees delay their reviews of relevant documents, allowing current fury to subside into mere discontent. Another option is to demand the resignation of his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who advocated for Mandelson's appointment. However, these measures only postpone an inevitable reckoning.
A Defence Starmer Cannot Make
There is one argument Starmer could theoretically offer in his defence, though it is one he likely dares not make. He could point out that many of those now outraged, including his own MPs, were aware of Mandelson's continued relationship with Epstein at the time of the appointment. This information was detailed in a JP Morgan report covered by the Financial Times two years prior, yet few protested. Indeed, much of the Westminster village, including Nigel Farage and much of the media, supported the move, hailing it as a masterstroke.
This raises profound and darker questions beyond Starmer's political survival. Why did the pain endured by women and girls at the hands of powerful men like Epstein register only fleetingly in public consciousness? What makes such suffering so forgettable? These issues underscore a societal failure that extends far beyond the current political scandal, challenging us to reflect on accountability and memory in the face of injustice.
