The latest appalling revelations surrounding Peter Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein present Keir Starmer with a gigantic diplomatic dilemma.
By rights, he should sack Lord Mandelson, the UK’s envoy in Washington. Mandelson’s gushing “my best pal” and “we love you Jeffrey” birthday note and preening photos in a bathrobe with Epstein were bad enough.
The disclosure that he secretly brokered a banking deal with him while a member of the British Cabinet was worse.
The latest revelations: that Mandelson “coached” Epstein to try to cut his jail term after he was imprisoned for sex with underage girls, and astonishingly, urged Tony Blair to meet Epstein when he was Prime Minister, cap it all.
They are beyond the pale. Public figures have been drummed out of office for misdemeanours one hundredth as serious.
Starmer has stood by powerful Mandelson so far, but with fresh allegations by the day, how long he can hold the line is unclear. And Starmer’s predicament is about to get a whole lot more complicated.
The British aspect of this scandal is about to go global with Donald Trump’s state visit next week. As our man in Washington, Mandelson is due to be in London to help make this most delicate diplomatic event a triumph.
If Starmer does not sack him beforehand, the controversy over the envoy, intensified by participating in a high-profile royal and political event scrutinised by the whole world, could disrupt the President’s visit. Not to mention embarrassing King Charles.
The moment Mandelson, always happier operating in the shadows, is spotted, the camera lights will be on him, not the two intended stars of the show. He will be assailed with questions from the media about what else he got up to with Epstein, such as what exactly are the “more embarrassing” disclosures to come that he alluded to in an interview with The Sun?
On the other hand, if Starmer does fire Mandelson, who, let’s not forget, was forced to resign twice from Tony Blair’s government after other political scandals, it will create an even bigger problem. If the Labour peer is deemed unfit for public office because of his close association and reckless antics with Jeffrey Epstein, surely the same judgment must apply to Trump, it will be argued.
Surely, Starmer would be saying, by implication at least, that Trump, not just Mandelson, is unfit to govern. Wouldn’t he? Not exactly the message he is hoping to convey to the President. Never mind Trump’s reaction: the Prime Minister would be accused of hypocrisy. How could he dismiss one of Britain’s most prominent officials for being a crony of Epstein, while happily breaking bread with the President, who was also a crony?
In his dealings with Trump so far, Starmer has used huge quantities of flattery – critics might call it fawning – to keep Anglo-US relations on track. The Prime Minister has gone to very considerable lengths to win Trump’s confidence.
The state visit itself, announced personally by a smiling Starmer live on TV when he met Trump at the White House earlier this year, was supposed to be the crowning glory of his unlikely, yet so far it is only fair to say, stable version of the US-UK “special relationship.”
My reckoning is that if ruthless Starmer calculates that the best way to stay on Trump’s good side is to keep Mandelson, the envoy is safe – for now.
If he makes the opposite calculation, Mandelson could be on the way out. Again.
