The release of millions of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents by the U.S. Department of Justice has cast a harsh new light on one of the most controversial relationships in recent British political history—the complex and politically damaging connection between Prime Minister Keir Starmer and former Labour grandee Peter Mandelson. What began as a strategic alliance has evolved into what critics call a “perverse relationship” of mutual dependence and growing liability.
Starmer’s High-Risk Gamble
When Sir Keir Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson as Britain’s Ambassador to Washington in December 2024, it was widely seen as a calculated political move. Mandelson, the veteran strategist known as the “Prince of Darkness” for his behind-the-scenes influence, offered Starmer connections and experience during a critical period in UK-US relations.
Despite apparent warnings, Starmer proceeded with the appointment. Downing Street insiders acknowledged at the time that making Mandelson U.S. ambassador was a “high-risk, high-reward strategy,” though they “could not have envisaged such a swift fall from grace”. What they did know was troubling enough: Mandelson’s longstanding friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein had been public knowledge for years, and questions had been raised about its appropriateness given Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.
The Escalating Epstein Revelations
The recent document releases have exposed the shocking depth and nature of the Mandelson-Epstein relationship:
· Financial transactions: Bank statements suggest Epstein sent $75,000 in three separate payments to accounts connected to Mandelson between 2003 and 2004. Mandelson claims he has “no record or recollection” of these payments.
· Policy influence: As Business Secretary in Gordon Brown’s government, Mandelson assured Epstein in December 2009 he was “trying hard” to change government policy on bankers’ bonuses at Epstein’s request. He wrote: “Trying hard to amend as I explained to Jes last night. Treasury digging in but I am on case”.
· Confidential leaks: Mandelson forwarded an economic briefing intended for then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown to Epstein in June 2009 with the note: “Interesting note that’s gone to the PM”.
· Personal payments: Epstein sent £10,000 to Mandelson’s husband, Reinaldo Avila da Silva, in September 2009 to fund an osteopathy course after being asked for financial help.
· Continued support: Perhaps most damagingly, emails show Mandelson expressed support for Epstein even after his 2008 conviction, telling him in 2008: “I think the world of you and I feel hopeless and furious about what has happened”.
Political Fallout and Starmer’s Shifting Position
The steady drip of revelations created an impossible situation for Starmer. In September 2025, after “materially different” information emerged about Mandelson’s post-conviction support for Epstein, Starmer dismissed him as ambassador. But this was only the beginning of the political damage.
Facing increasing pressure, Starmer has now taken a harder public line. His official spokesperson stated this week: “The prime minister believes that Peter Mandelson should not be a member of the House of Lords or use the title”. However, Starmer lacks the direct power to remove a peerage—a process that hasn’t been successfully used since World War I.
Instead, Starmer has called for modernization of Lords disciplinary procedures and asked Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald to investigate Mandelson’s contacts with Epstein during his time as a minister.
The “Perverse” Dynamic
The relationship between Starmer and Mandelson reveals several troubling aspects of modern political culture:
- Convenience over scrutiny: Starmer appointed Mandelson despite known red flags about his Epstein connections, valuing political experience over ethical considerations.
- Reactive rather than proactive leadership: Starmer’s actions have consistently followed rather than anticipated scandal, creating an impression of damage control rather than principled leadership.
- The limits of political distancing: Despite Mandelson’s resignation from the Labour Party on Sunday—which he said was to avoid causing “further embarrassment”—the scandal continues to haunt Starmer’s government.
- Institutional powerlessness: The inability to easily remove a peer even in cases of serious reputational damage highlights archaic aspects of Britain’s political system that politicians exploit.
The Unanswered Questions
As pressure mounts for Mandelson to testify before the U.S. Congress about his Epstein links, several critical questions remain unanswered:
· What did Starmer know about Mandelson’s Epstein connections before appointing him as ambassador?
· Why wasn’t Mandelson properly vetted given the long-standing public knowledge of his Epstein friendship?
· Will the Cabinet Office investigation lead to meaningful consequences or simply act as political cover?
· How will this scandal affect public trust in political appointments and accountability?
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has called for a “full Cabinet Office investigation” into whether Mandelson and his husband accepted money from Epstein during Mandelson’s time as a minister. She accused Starmer of lacking “the backbone” to properly address the issue.
A Test of Political Judgment
The Mandelson-Epstein scandal represents more than just another political controversy—it serves as a critical test of Starmer’s judgment and leadership. The Prime Minister’s initial decision to embrace Mandelson’s experience, followed by his slow and incremental response to escalating revelations, reveals the difficult balancing act between political pragmatism and ethical governance.
As more Epstein documents may yet emerge, the relationship between Starmer and Mandelson continues to evolve from political alliance to liability. How Starmer handles the coming weeks—whether he pushes for genuine accountability or settles for superficial damage control—will define not only his government’s approach to ethical standards but also his own political legacy. The victims of Epstein’s crimes, whom Mandelson has belatedly apologized to “unequivocally,” deserve more than political calculation. They deserve transparency and accountability from all who enabled Epstein’s network, directly or indirectly.
The “perverse relationship” between Starmer and Mandelson thus becomes a case study in how political expediency can collide with moral responsibility—and how delayed accountability often proves more damaging than immediate, principled action.