Euan McColm: It is fantasy to think Sir Keir Starmer can survive Peter Mandelson outrage

Former Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson summed up the situation well on her Electoral Dysfunction podcast on Friday. The Prime Minister is, she said, beleaguered. “And once you’re beleaguered, you’re f***ed.”

There has been a barrage of spin from “sources” and “allies” and “friends of”, all of whom wish us to believe that Starmer enjoys the confidence of colleagues and that he can weather the storm caused by revelations about the links between former Labour minister Peter Mandelson and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

But Starmer cannot hide from his catastrophic error of judgement in appointing Mandelson ambassador to the USA, a position from which he was sacked last year as new details of his relationship with the financier emerged.

Police are now investigating allegations against Mandelson, one of the architects of the New Labour project, of misconduct in public office. It is claimed that, while he was serving as business secretary under Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2008, he passed market-sensitive government information to Epstein, who was found dead in a New York jail cell while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges in 2019.

Sympathy for Mandelson is, unsurprisingly, thin on the ground. Emails released by the US Department of Justice show that, even after Epstein was convicted of procuring a child for prostitution, Mandelson remained one of his closest friends.

Police raids on two properties linked to the former ambassador – who stepped down from the House of Lords in the wake of publication of those damning emails – are the beginning of a new chapter in a crisis that Starmer cannot escape.

Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, the Prime Minister apologised to victims of Epstein for his decision to appoint Mandelson US ambassador. Starmer said had been misled about the extent of the relationship between the two men; he was sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies.

Writing in the Guardian, Gordon Brown said he deeply regretted his decision to appoint Mandelson to his Government, 18 years ago.

“As I digest the details of what has emerged,” wrote Brown, “I also find it hard to find words to express my revulsion at what has been uncovered about Epstein and his impact on our politics.”

Those details are grim, indeed.

Messages from 2008 appear to show Mandelson discussing Treasury plans for a one-off tax on bankers’ bonuses with Epstein.

Other emails suggest Mandelson gave the paedophile advance notice of a €500 billion bailout from the EU to save the Euro.

At best, revelations of recent days show Starmer to be a man of desperately poor political judgment.

A number of senior Scottish Labour politicians want the Prime Minister to step down, now. They reason that his continued presence in Downing Street will do nothing but damage the party’s prospects in May’s Holyrood election.

Speaking on Times Radio on Friday, former Labour First Minister Jack McConnell said the time had come for a member of Starmer’s cabinet to “step up”. There had, said McConnell, been “far too many mistakes” at the top of government.

Some Labour politicians have been agitating for the dismissal of Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney over this scandal. It was, they say, McSweeney’s fault that Mandelson was appointed ambassador.

Jack McConnell was having none of that on Friday. Using advisers as a shield was “wrong” he said. The Prime Minister and chancellor Rachel Reeves were responsible for the blunders that had plunged Labour into crisis.

McConnell is correct. Morgan McSweeney may be a deeply divisive figure (this comes with the territory for any senior political adviser, regardless of party) but the suggestion that he, and not Starmer, is responsible for Mandelson’s appointment is the most cynical deflection.

There is a buck and its stops with the Prime Minister.

Were this matter purely about money, it would be bad but – perhaps – survivable for Starmer. The Prime Minister had, after all, no way of knowing that Mandelson was benefiting financially from his relationship with Epstein.

But this is not simply a financial scandal. Rather, it brings into focus – yet again – the misogyny that saturates politics and, indeed, wider society.

Keir Starmer knew that Mandelson had been a friend of Epstein’s when he made him ambassador to the USA. He knew there were entirely legitimate concerns about Mandelson’s integrity.

But the Prime Minister decided that it was worth the risk of going ahead with the appointment.

I’m afraid I do not accept that Starmer didn’t understand the offence promoting an ally of Epstein’s would cause. How could he not have realised what message that would send to victims of sexual violence?

The emails contained in the Epstein Files remind us – should this be required – that a great many men despise women, viewing them as objects to be used and abused. This scandal reminds us that these men often get away with their indefensible actions thanks to the support of fellow members of the boys’ club.

Jeffrey Epstein was supported by Peter Mandelson, who was supported by Keir Starmer. The dots join to create a picture of a culture that continues to see women as, somehow, lesser.

We will never erase misogyny or violence against women but we can, surely, do more to hold men responsible for our actions, wherever they fall short.

Sir Keir Starmer’s downfall is necessary not because of a mere political misjudgement. It is necessary because he failed to care about the damage caused by Jeffrey Epstein and his powerful enablers.