Even with the most dismal of revelations spewing out of the Epstein files, Peter Mandelson still seems unable to face up to the enormity of the allegations surrounding his conduct.
He has resigned from the Labour Party – the party he did so much to rebuild – a traumatic break in itself. Yet the reason he has given for this decision remains unsatisfactory. Lord Mandelson’s statement makes clear that, in essence, he does not believe he did anything wrong.
The released documents appear to show some $75,000 sent to him in 2003 by Jeffrey Epstein in three instalments, with one payment apparently for the benefit of Lord Mandelson’s partner, and now husband, Reinaldo Avila da Silva. At the time, Lord Mandelson was an MP, and the payments were not declared, as is required.
All of this is flatly denied by a spokesperson, who said: “Allegations, which I believe to be false, that he made financial payments to me 20 years ago, and of which I have no record or recollection, need investigating by me. While doing this, I do not wish to cause further embarrassment to the Labour Party, and I am therefore stepping down from membership of the party.”
It will be interesting to see what Lord Mandelson’s investigations eventually reveal. Meanwhile, he maintains complete innocence regarding his relationship with his former friend, sex offender Epstein. He has said that he simply wishes he had never met the man.
Indeed, he told Laura Kuenssberg last month that he continued his friendship with the then convicted paedophile after 2008 only because he had been deceived: “I’m afraid I believed a story, I believed a friend, I placed mistaken loyalty in place of the scepticism that I should have shown, and I deeply, deeply regret.” He has maintained throughout – including during his questioning by Ms Kuenssberg – that he saw and heard nothing untoward about Epstein in all the time he knew him.
Lord Mandelson has also denied that, as a serving minister, he advised, via Epstein, JPMorgan on how to change the then Labour government’s policy of taxing bankers’ bonuses. While this was broadly in line with what banks were demanding publicly, his lobbying and advice to “mildly threaten” his colleague, the chancellor, appears real. He also stands accused of leaking government documents to Epstein in 2009. The Metropolitan Police has said it will review reports into alleged misconduct in public office in light of the newly released Epstein files.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this affair, from the prime minister’s point of view, is how seemingly little Sir Keir Starmer was told by Lord Mandelson about his past association with Epstein, and the reputational risks that would inevitably follow if he were appointed to the highly prestigious post of HM ambassador to Washington.
While no one can reasonably be expected to recall every email from decades ago, they can fairly be asked to remember some of their more significant actions and relationships – such as informing Epstein about confidential government policy. Or how Lord Mandelson secured an extremely lucrative role with Deutsche Bank (in the emails, Mandelson purportedly says that he would be offered $1m per year as base salary, plus a bonus in excess of $3m or more) after leaving office in 2010 – a job that, the newly released tranche of emails suggest, he sought advice on securing from Epstein.
These were not the routine, forgettable details of political life. Unless forged, the correspondence in the Epstein files released by the US Department of Justice strongly suggests that Epstein was indeed Lord Mandelson’s “life adviser”, as he described him – and rather more than a convenient holiday host.
It is therefore no surprise that the prime minister has urged Lord Mandelson to stop using his title and to testify before Congress about Epstein’s crimes. He should do so. However, the prime minister also has questions of his own to answer about the lack of proper vetting undertaken when Lord Mandelson was given the ambassadorial role a year ago. Even based solely on what was already known publicly about his previous resignations, his association with Epstein and his habit of living dangerously, Lord Mandelson was, by February 2025, a problematic candidate.
For such a sensitive post, it was plainly an error – and not merely with the benefit of hindsight – to givethe peer the benefit of the doubt.
As for turning Lord Mandelson back into Mr Mandelson, as surely seems right, it is a proposal that would command near-universal support. A one-paragraph bill could pass all stages in parliament in a single day and help restore a measure of public confidence in the political system. Sir Keir need not be shy or sentimental about such a move, and it would be far quicker than attempting to rewrite the Lords’ rulebook, as Downing Street has suggested.
In his interview with Ms Kuenssberg, Lord Mandelson declared: “I am absolutely determined to be transparent about what happened, and I have been, and I will continue to be.” If so – and the claim sounds increasingly hollow – he now has many, many more questions to answer.
