A wide majority in numbers, but incredibly shallow
Two years after leading Labour to its largest parliamentary majority in a generation, Sir Keir Starmer finds himself at the edge of a political precipice — not for his own transgressions, but for the trust he placed in a man whose past has now become a matter for police. The appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, a choice made in December 2024, has unravelled spectacularly following the release of Epstein documents that revealed the true depth of their relationship. In the long arc of political life, it is often not the scandal itself but the judgment that preceded it which proves fatal — and Starmer's apology to Epstein's victims, however sincere, has done little to still the calls for his departure.
- UK police raided two properties linked to Peter Mandelson on Friday, opening a formal investigation into misconduct in public office — transforming a political embarrassment into a criminal matter.
- Photographs, financial transfers, and market-sensitive correspondence buried in three million US Department of Justice documents have reframed Mandelson's Epstein ties from a known association into something far more damaging.
- Starmer's public apology to Epstein's victims — acknowledging he was deceived by Mandelson — has not calmed his own party, with Labour MP Rachael Maskell and opposition leader Kemi Badenoch both declaring his position untenable.
- The scandal lands on already cracked ground: Starmer holds the lowest approval rating of any sitting prime minister on record, with Labour squeezed by economic criticism and the rising pressure of Nigel Farage's Reform party.
- No clear successor has emerged — with Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting floated but unconvincing — meaning Starmer may remain in office not through strength, but through the absence of an agreed alternative.
Two years ago, Sir Keir Starmer delivered Labour its largest parliamentary majority in a quarter-century. Last week, that foundation began to crack — not because Starmer appeared in the Epstein files, but because of who he chose to appoint as British ambassador to the United States.
Peter Mandelson, long known in Westminster as the "Prince of Darkness," was a central architect of New Labour under Tony Blair — a brilliant and controversial fixer whose career had already survived two resignations from government. When Starmer appointed him to Washington in December 2024, Mandelson's friendship with Jeffrey Epstein was known, but its depth was not. That changed when Mandelson was stripped of his ambassadorship after documents emerged showing he had sent supportive messages to Epstein in 2008, following Epstein's guilty plea to sex offences. The real damage came later, when the US Department of Justice released three million Epstein-related documents containing photographs of Mandelson with Epstein, financial transfers to Mandelson's partner, and correspondence suggesting he had shared market-sensitive information. None of it has been independently verified — but UK police have now opened a misconduct investigation and raided two properties linked to Mandelson.
Starmer's crisis is one of judgment. He appointed the man at the centre of the scandal, then claimed Mandelson had lied to him about the relationship's true extent. His apology to Epstein's victims — "I am sorry for having believed Mandelson's lies and appointed him" — has not quieted the storm. Labour MP Rachael Maskell told the BBC he had "no choice" but to resign. Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch called his position "clearly untenable."
The scandal did not emerge from a vacuum. Starmer already held the lowest approval rating of any prime minister on record. Labour faces economic criticism and pressure from the rise of Nigel Farage's Reform party. Despite its landslide in seats, Labour won on a reduced share of the overall vote — a majority described as wide but "incredibly shallow." The Epstein revelations have exposed just how fragile that foundation always was.
Political experts now predict Starmer's tenure is limited, but no obvious successor has emerged. Names like Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting have been floated without conviction. That uncertainty may paradoxically keep Starmer in place — clinging to office while his party quietly calculates whether the risk of removing him outweighs the risk of what might come next.
Two years ago, Sir Keir Starmer delivered Labour to a landslide victory—the party's largest parliamentary majority in a quarter-century. Last week, that foundation began to crack. The immediate cause was not Starmer himself appearing in the Epstein files, but rather his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as British ambassador to the United States, a choice that has now become politically toxic.
Mandelson, long known in Westminster as the "Prince of Darkness" for his mastery of backroom politics, was a central architect of New Labour's transformation under Tony Blair. He was the fixer, the strategist who moved the party toward the centre and built much of what Labour became. But his career had always been marked by controversy. He resigned from government in 1998 after accepting a secret loan from a colleague, returned a year later, then resigned again in 2001 over allegations he had helped secure passports for the Hinduja brothers in exchange for a donation—though a subsequent inquiry cleared him. When Starmer appointed him to Washington in December 2024, Mandelson's friendship with Jeffrey Epstein was already known, but its true depth remained hidden.
That changed in September when Mandelson was stripped of his ambassadorship after documents emerged showing he had sent supportive messages to Epstein in 2008, after Epstein pleaded guilty to sex offences. But the real damage came later, when the US Department of Justice released three million Epstein-related documents. Among them were photographs of Mandelson in his underwear, images of him with Epstein, and emails showing Epstein had transferred thousands of dollars to Mandelson's partner in 2009. The files also contained correspondence suggesting Mandelson had shared market-sensitive information with Epstein. None of this has been independently verified. What matters politically is that UK police have now opened an investigation into misconduct in public office, raiding two properties linked to Mandelson on Friday.
Starmer's problem is not that he was implicated in Epstein's crimes. His problem is that he appointed the man at the centre of this scandal, and then claimed Mandelson had lied to him about the extent of their relationship. This week, Starmer apologised to Epstein's victims: "I am sorry. Sorry for what was done to you. Sorry that so many people with power failed you. Sorry for having believed Mandelson's lies and appointed him." The apology has not quieted the storm. Labour MP Rachael Maskell told the BBC that Starmer had "no choice" but to resign. Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch called his position "clearly untenable."
But the Mandelson scandal did not emerge from a vacuum. Starmer's government was already struggling. He holds the lowest approval rating of any prime minister on record, according to polling. Labour faces criticism over economic policy and the perception that it is failing on issues voters care about. The party is also being squeezed by the rise of Nigel Farage's Reform party. And while Labour won a landslide in terms of seats, it did so on a reduced share of the overall vote—what one analyst described as "a wide majority in the sense of numbers, but incredibly shallow." The Epstein revelations have exposed just how fragile that foundation is.
Political experts now predict Starmer's tenure is limited. But there is a complication: no obvious successor has emerged. Names like Angela Rayner, the former deputy prime minister, and Wes Streeting, the health secretary, have been floated, but neither represents a clear consensus choice. That uncertainty may paradoxically keep Starmer in place longer, clinging to office in an increasingly insecure position while his own party calculates whether removing him is worth the risk of what comes next.
Notable Quotes
I am sorry. Sorry for what was done to you. Sorry that so many people with power failed you. Sorry for having believed Mandelson's lies and appointed him.— Sir Keir Starmer, apologising to Epstein's victims
Starmer's time as prime minister is limited— Clement Macintyre, British politics expert, University of Adelaide
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Mandelson's relationship with Epstein matter so much to Starmer's survival? Starmer wasn't the one sending money or taking photographs.
Because Starmer appointed him. As prime minister, you own your appointments. When those appointments blow up, you own that too. Starmer claimed Mandelson lied to him about the relationship, but that's a credibility problem for Starmer, not a solution.
But Mandelson's friendship with Epstein was public knowledge when he was appointed. What changed?
The scale of it. Everyone knew they were friends. What nobody knew was the photographs, the financial transfers, the market-sensitive information. The Epstein files made it real in a way that abstract knowledge never does. It moved from "they knew each other" to "look at these images, look at these emails."
Is this really about Mandelson, or is Starmer just a convenient target for deeper problems?
Both. Starmer was already in trouble—lowest approval ratings on record, economic criticism, the Reform party rising. Labour won huge in seats but on a shrinking share of the vote. The foundation was already cracking. Mandelson just gave people permission to push.
So he could survive this if his government were popular?
Possibly. But it's not. His own MPs are calling for his resignation. When your own party starts seeing you as a liability, timing becomes everything. The question isn't whether he'll go, but when, and who replaces him.
And nobody knows who that would be?
That's the trap. Rayner, Streeting—they're possibilities, but there's no obvious consensus. So Labour members might want him gone, but they're hesitant to move without knowing what comes next. That uncertainty could keep him in office longer, but in a much weaker position.
How long does "a bit longer" actually mean?
That's the real question. Days, weeks, months—nobody's saying. But the momentum is against him. The police investigation into Mandelson will keep the story alive. Every new development becomes another reason to ask whether Starmer should still be there.