In the end, it was a scandal too far, even for Peter Mandelson.
The latest Epstein revelations have finally forced one of Labour’s most controversial figures to resign from the party he once claimed to embody. Mandelson says he stepped aside to spare Labour “further embarrassment”, but it is hard to imagine what could be more embarrassing than alleged payments from Jeffrey Epstein to his partner, claims of lobbying on tax policy, and photographs of a senior public figure dressed in little more than a T-shirt and underpants.
Yet Mandelson’s resignation does not close this affair. It widens it. Because the central question is no longer why Peter Mandelson has gone, but why Keir Starmer allowed him to remain for so long and why the Prime Minister’s judgement is now under scrutiny.
Jumped or was finally pushed?
Announcing his resignation on Sunday evening, Mandelson challenged key allegations in the Epstein files, insisting he had “no record or recollection” of payments allegedly made to his now-husband. He confirmed he had written to Labour’s general secretary to formally step down from party membership.
But this was no act of conscience freely chosen. Mandelson is one of the shrewdest political operators of his generation. He would have understood that his position was no longer tenable and that resignation was the only escape left.
In his letter, he wrote that he felt “regretful and sorry” about being “further linked” to Epstein, adding that allegations he believes to be false “need investigating by me”. He insisted he was stepping down only to protect Labour from further embarrassment, repeating an apology to victims and reaffirming his lifelong devotion to the party.
That devotion, however, did not stop the damage, nor does it absolve those who kept him in power.
Starmer’s failure of judgement
Mandelson’s resignation came just hours after Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch publicly called on Keir Starmer to suspend his party membership and launch a full investigation into the financial allegations.
The Conservative response after Mandelson stepped down was brutal and revealing. They accused Starmer of lacking the backbone to act, allowing Mandelson to resign rather than expelling him, and questioned why he was ever appointed ambassador to Washington despite his known links to Epstein.
This is where the scandal stops being about Mandelson and starts being about Starmer.
Starmer and his senior team knew Mandelson’s history. They knew his association with Epstein was already a matter of public record. They knew his career was littered with ethical controversies. Yet they elevated him to the most prestigious diplomatic post Britain has, handing him the keys to Washington and placing him at the heart of UK-US relations.
That decision now looks indefensible.
A career built on proximity to power
Peter Mandelson was born into Labour royalty. His grandfather, Herbert Morrison, was a titan of Attlee’s post-war government. From the start, politics was not just a career for Mandelson; it was an inheritance.
But his downfall was equally inherited: a lifelong attraction to wealth, status and the powerful. From his infamous declaration that Labour was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” to undeclared loans, lobbying scandals and luxury hospitality from oligarchs and tycoons, Mandelson’s career was repeatedly scarred by the same pattern.
He resigned from Tony Blair’s cabinet twice. He survived rows involving yachts, jets and billionaires. He was a master networker and a ruthless operator, admired by insiders and despised by many outside Westminster.
That is precisely why his appointment as ambassador was seen by critics as cronyism, not competence.
The Epstein line that should never have been crossed
The Epstein revelations should have been a red line long before this weekend. Mandelson’s friendship with a convicted sex offender was not new information. It was known, documented, and troubling.
Starmer initially sacked Mandelson from the ambassadorial role only months ago, but even that came far too late. And now, with Mandelson gone from Labour altogether, the prime minister is left exposed.
If Mandelson’s conduct was serious enough to warrant resignation, then Starmer’s judgement in promoting and protecting him must also be questioned. You cannot outsource accountability to a disgraced aide and pretend the problem ends there.
This doesn’t end with Mandelson
Mandelson’s career is over. There will be no comeback this time. Calls are already growing for him to be stripped of his peerage, and he has indicated he does not plan to return to the House of Lords.
What will hurt him most, by his own admission, is being severed from the Labour Party he served all his life.
But Labour’s problem is not sentimental. It is political and moral.
If Keir Starmer wants to convince the public that his Labour Party represents a clean break from the culture of indulgence, elitism and impunity, then Mandelson’s resignation cannot be the final act. It must be the beginning of accountability, not the end of it.
Because if Mandelson had to go, the question voters will now ask is simple:
Why did Starmer ever put him there in the first place?
