From messaging ‘best pal’ Jeffrey Epstein after his paedophilia conviction, to his partner taking a £10,000 gift from the financier, to lobbying from within government at Epstein’s behest – it is quite the rap list for Peter Mandelson. The full extent is shocking and will leave the Prince of Darkness lucky to escape with only his peerage stripped.
Mandelson could yet face a police inquiry after MPs reported him to the authorities and, under mounting pressure, Sir Keir Starmer has ordered a probe by the Cabinet Secretary into possible misconduct.
This follows the Epstein files revealing, not only a grim photo of the former US ambassador in nothing but a t-shirt and underpants with an undisclosed young woman, but the scandalous information that, while business secretary, he was forwarding the prime minister’s emails to the paedophile financier – with Epstein seemingly having sought to try to change policy on bankers’ bonuses after the chancellor had introduced a “super-tax” following the financial crash. And yes, Mandelson did know, Epstein had already pleaded guilty to procuring a minor for prostitution.
It is more than an embarrassment for Labour as a whole, it is a scandal that goes to the heart of this Prime Minister’s judgement and the judgement of those closest to him.
Mandelson’s third coming, appointed as US ambassador under Sir Keir Starmer, has ended with a thud. With each drop of Epstein files he is further trapped in issues of his own making.
In an interview with The Times’ Katy Balls, both pre and post the latest release, the Prince of Darkness complained that Epstein was like “dog muck” and that the “smell won’t go away”, but there is a reason why the stench has stuck to him, because he rolled around in it.
“I don’t think I am drawn towards rich people so much as rich people have big personalities, a lot of knowledge and a lot of experience to share. I hoover that up, but not because they’re wealthy. It’s because of what they do and what they’ve learnt and the responsibilities they’ve exercised, not the size of their bank accounts.”
“Hiding under a rock would be a disproportionate response to a handful of misguided historical emails, which I deeply regret sending,” he told The Times, showing barely a glimpse of remorse, rather a bucket of self pity.
But it was Starmer as Prime Minister who chose to resurrect him, brushing aside advice to the contrary, breaking all precedents in his appointment of one of Britian’s most important diplomatic roles.
Why was that? The questions grow more insistent by the day. Mandelson is so close to Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, he effectively mentored Labour’s operation. McSweeney reportedly pleaded with Starmer not to sack Mandelson – who once said of the still chief of staff: “I don’t know who and how and when he was invented, but whoever it was…they will find their place inheaven.”
What does it say about Starmer’s judgement that he allowed Mandelson another foray into the public light, baggage and all? This was what he said at the time: “You can sense that there is a new leader in town. That he is a true one off. A pioneer in business and in politics. Many people love him, others love to hate him. But to us, he’s just Peter.”
The Prime Minister was briefed on Mandelson’s Epstein links before appointing him, according to civil servants who spoke to The Guardian – Starmer was given a “summary of reputational risks” and yet they were dismissed.
Even Gordon Brown was ahead of Starmer this time around in acknowledging the issues around Mandelson. As far back as September he contacted the cabinet secretary to investigate disclosure of “confidential and market sensitive information” allegedly from Mandelson to Epstein.
What does it show about Starmer’s operation that Brown raised it internally but No10 couldn’t recognise the issues? Starmer, McSweeney and co were too slow to act.
When challenged by Kemi Badenoch at PMQs back in September last year, when the key facts were already clear, Starmer maintained his support for Mandelson: “I have confidence in him.” If you look back at the exchange the Prime Minister is so clearly deeply uncomfortable.
How much more badly wrong could someone handle it?
Starmer was swift enough to urge Prince Andrew to tell US authorities “everything he knows” about Epstein. When scrutiny turned to Mandelson, the urgency evaporated. As late as yesterday morning, Labour figures were still arguing against an investigation and batting away suggestions that Mandelson should lose his peerage. Neither position survived the day.
Mandelson resigned his own membership of the Labour party and said : “I want to take this opportunity to repeat my apology to the women and girls whose voices should have been heard long before now.” He is right to apologise. Starmer, with the remaining questions still looming over this appalling appointment, should do the same too.
