Starmer's Mandelson Appointment Echoes Epstein's Contempt for Victims
In a stark revelation from East Sussex on 5 February 2026, Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government faces intense scrutiny over its moral compass. The appointment of Peter Mandelson, a figure with controversial ties, has drawn parallels to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, exposing a pervasive culture of contempt within the political establishment.
A Continuum of Disdain
Contempt radiates from the email exchanges of Jeffrey Epstein to the scandalous appointment of Peter Mandelson by Keir Starmer's administration. This disdain targets women and girls, the law, and the public, forming a continuum that links predatory elites to the highest echelons of power. The relentless pursuit of authority is not merely a goal but a mechanism for subjugation, where procuring and violating vulnerable individuals becomes a symbol of ultimate potency.
For those already endowed with wealth, status, and respect, reducing another human being to an object of desire initiates them into a club of super-predators who operate above legal constraints. The Epstein emails starkly illustrate how misogyny serves as a currency, lavishly expended to flaunt power. Casual references to body parts in correspondence, such as labeling women as "pussy" or simply "P," function as coded signals of exclusive membership in this corrupt network.
Impunity and Political Convenience
This environment of scorn and impunity facilitated Epstein's continued associations even after his conviction, with figures like Mandelson benefiting from similar leniency. Excuses of ignorance or deception, such as claims of being misled or unaware of the full extent of abuses, are routinely deployed by those entangled in these revelations. Morgan McSweeney, in his resignation letter as Starmer's chief of staff, admitted, "The decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was wrong," yet this regret often masks a deeper failure to prioritize the seriousness of abuse against women and girls.
The world of corruption operates under its own norms and codes, where favour merchants like Epstein and Mandelson thrive. They excel as fixers and facilitators, trading in networks and fraternal flattery while upholding gentlemen's agreements. An email from Epstein accusing Mandelson of taking without giving underscores that the only sin in this realm is failing to reciprocate favours, sidelining female victims, legal standards, and public accountability as remote threats to their self-contained power system.
Mandelson's Dubious Asset
Mandelson's appointment was not about ensuring trustworthiness in diplomatic roles but about leveraging his aptitude for networking and trading favours. Euphemisms like "The Prince of Darkness" or "master of the dark arts" reveal that his dubious character was viewed as an asset rather than a liability. In a Labour party marked by purges and internal dissent, such figures are celebrated for their ruthlessness in hoarding and monopolising power, aligning with a leadership that prioritises political utility over integrity.
Despite private and public questioning, Starmer's decision to appoint Mandelson echoes a contempt for those outside the inner circle, asserting the leadership's prerogative to serve political agendas devoid of moral considerations. The prime minister, often described as a "decent man" who cares about victims, now faces accusations of outsourcing responsibility and being let down by untrustworthy associates. However, this narrative implies that political decisions exist in a complex sphere above ordinary morality, a notion challenged by the black-and-white nature of some ethical issues.
Accountability and Reckoning
Starmer's conscious choice to downplay Mandelson's associations with Epstein suggests that the party leadership valued political benefits over the welfare of victims. This mirrors the Epstein network, where individuals prioritised personal gains despite the severity of abuses. As the scandal unfolds, with millions of documents exposing vulgar language and young victims, the public is thrust into an uncomfortable proximity to the truth.
Accountability, though delayed, is emerging as a political crisis grips the government, prompting a broader reckoning with the decoupling of principle from politics. The admiration for "grown-ups" and their ruthless pursuit of power has yielded a bitter harvest, highlighting the urgent need for transparency and ethical governance in Westminster.
