The Fall of the 'Prince of Darkness'

“Perhaps the most concerning finding for anyone in politics: voters trust no one. ‘Most politicians are corrupt’. They’re ‘cowards’ who are ‘in it for themselves’ and ‘just tell you what you want to hear’. Multiple participants said that they ‘don’t know what truth is anymore.’”

So concluded a report published by lobbying group Charlesbye. And after the revelations of the last week, who can blame them?

18 months after being elected with the promise “Labour will restore confidence in government and ensure ministers are held to the highest standards,” Keir Starmer’s government finds itself engrossed in a scandal of such epic proportions that the endgame seems nigh.

Having lambasted the Conservatives for handing lucrative contracts to friends and donors, as well as failing to expel those caught breaking the rules, and the SNP for failing to address sexual harassment, financial mismanagement and the inappropriate use of public expenses, the Labour government now finds itself in the public dock for its own sleaze and scandal.

And so it is that the former Labour grandee and so-called “Prince of Darkness”, Peter Mandelson, finds himself in abject disgrace after the release of further documents in the Epstein files.

Having been sacked as Ambassador to the US in September, Mandelson sought to downplay wrongdoing and the extent of his relationship with disgraced paedophile and sex trafficking financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The latest tranche of files released put paid to that, revealing Mandelson had remained cosy with Epstein even after Epstein’s conviction in 2009 for soliciting prostitution (including that of a minor). Mandelson even went as far to urge Epstein to seek “early release” and stayed in Epstein’s flat whilst he was imprisoned.

Epstein appears to have been a close friend, and one from whom Mandelson profited greatly with Mandelson and his husband seemingly receiving at least $75,000 in a series of payments from him. Yet Epstein too, seems to have profited from the relationship.

The New Statesman explains: “One email suggests Mandelson, when he was business secretary, forwarded highly sensitive UK government tax plans addressed to the then prime minister Gordon Brown to Epstein. There is also evidence suggesting he advised Epstein on how the head of the investment bank JP Morgan might ‘mildly threaten’ the British Chancellor to water down plans for a super-tax on bankers’ bonuses.”

And that is not all, Mandelson repeatedly shared insider information with Epstein which he was privileged to have access to as a senior member of the New Labour government. He allegedly informed Epstein that Gordon Brown would be resigning as Prime Minister before it was public knowledge, and gave him a heads up that a €500bn bailout to save the Euro was incoming. It is not hard to imagine how such information could be used by Epstein for financial gain.

As one writer put it: “At the same time as [Mandelson] was blaming the American bankers for the financial crisis, it appears he was secretly lobbying on behalf of those same American bankers seeking to escape planned taxes Alistair Darling wanted to raise to help pay for the damage they had caused… Mandelson betrayed his country”.

Mandelson had a history of being at the centre of political scandals, having been forced to resign from government in both 1998 and again in 2001. In 1998 he stepped down as trade and industry secretary after receiving several hundred thousand pounds from a Labour colleague who was being investigated for his business dealings. In 2001, he stood accused of securing a British passport for an Indian billionaire who pledged to give £1million to the Millenium Dome project, of which Mandelson was the chair.

Despite all this, Mandelson remained at the heart of British politics with a powerful influence over the Labour party, and was appointed as British Ambassador to the US (the most esteemed of all Britain’s diplomatic roles) in December 2024.

It is a story of utter darkness. One in which a notorious paedophile and sex trafficker abused and ruined the lives of hundreds of people and yet was protected by figures of great wealth and power, for whom it was more convenient to look the other way (and in some cases, were knee deep in Epstein’s crimes themselves).

Some of those implicated are attracting more scrutiny than others; in light of the fresh revelations this week, Mandelson has resigned his membership from the Labour Party as well as the House of Lords, and the Metropolitan Police have opened a criminal investigation into him. He stands accused of misconduct in public office. Victims of Epstein, as well as those betrayed by Mandelson’s conduct in office, await further details as to what, if any, further action will be taken against him.

And yet as light is cast onto the actions of the ‘Prince of Darkness’, some of the most visceral anger is reserved for the Labour government that appointed him to such an influential position.

Sir Keir Starmer is once again having to defend his judgement and leadership. In a speech given yesterday, Starmer apologised to Epstein’s victims: “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. I’m sorry that even now you’re forced to watch this story unfold in public once again.” By his account, Mandelson “portrayed Epstein as someone he barely knew” when he was first questioned on the connection.

He was adamant during scrutiny in PMQs that “Mandelson betrayed our country, our parliament and my party” and “He lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.”

Nevertheless, MPs have called into question what exactly Starmer knew and when. Labour MP Rachael Maskell told BBC Radio York “He kept from the House [of Commons] for several months the fact that he knew of the associations between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein at the point of appointment." As Ailbhe Rea of the New Statesman reports, the Prime Minister and his aides received a report from the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics team which set out Mandelson’s links to Epstein as well as concerns around other conflicts of interest concerning the lobbying firm he founded, Global Counsel.

MPs are furious. Labour MPs have split into groups, torn between those calling for Starmer’s resignation and those calling for his most senior aide Morgan McSweeney (who was intimately tied to the Ambassadorial appointment) to go. Few have come out publicly, but the sense that the end is drawing near for Starmer is only growing. Opposition parties have already called for a vote of no confidence in the government and only time will tell who will be left standing when the dust settles.

At the time of writing there remains uncertainty and doubt as to quite how much Starmer and his government knew about the nature of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein. Yet what is not in doubt is the sort of man they were appointing. Mandelson was well known for his apparent mastery of the dark arts of politics. Some would say that two previous scandals from time in Ministerial office ought to have been evidence enough.

Nevertheless, Mandelson was elevated to the House of Lords, gained a prominent negotiating position with the EU, advised Starmer’s government, and latterly secured the US Ambassador role. Why? Because he was seen as a rare talent. He could get things done. He knew how things worked. And he could more than hold his own in the ring with the political reality that is Donald Trump.

Yet what is lacking from those justifications is a sense of moral vision or personal integrity.

Aaron Bastani describes Mandelson’s worldview like this: “Rather than politics being an instrument to achieve a particular good, such as social democracy, national renewal or a flourishing free market, it became an end in itself. That would, in time, give rise to some of the ugliest pathologies in public life: if politics was about technique, and not morality, then how one behaved didn’t matter — and one certainly shouldn’t be concerned about the consequences.”

Political leadership needs to include competency and acumen for the role, but it is never only about those things. Who are you serving? Where is your heart? How will you steward your talents, networks, and gifts?

Anoosh Chakelian argues: “The abandonment of… the ethic of conviction plonks you without a compass in a maze of realpolitik. It leaves you justifying the means for what turn out to be dead-ends”.

When David was anointed as the next king of Israel, he did so in the place of his more outwardly impressive brothers. The reason? “The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.’” (1 Samuel 16:7)

The Bible suggests that there is a pattern of natural justice: “A man reaps what he sows” (Galatians 6:7). The Book of Proverbs issues us with multiple such warnings: “the evil deeds of the wicked ensnare them; the cords of their sin hold them fast” (Proverbs 5:22). “The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity” (Proverbs 11:3). “The righteousness of the blameless makes their paths straight, but the wicked are brought down by their own wickedness” (Proverbs 11:6).

We read in Proverbs 6:12-15 that “a troublemaker and a villain, who goes about with a corrupt mouth, who winks maliciously with his eye, signals with his feet and motions with his fingers, who plots evil with deceit in his heart – he always stirs up conflict. Therefore disaster will overtake him in an instant; he will suddenly be destroyed – without remedy".

Are we not watching this unfurl before our eyes? A man reaps what he sows.

The Bible is realistic about the pervasiveness and reality of sin. G.K. Chesterton once observed that original sin is the only Christian doctrine “which can really be proved”.

That might sound deeply pessimistic, but it makes sense of the world we live in. Some people claim that humans are inherently good, but this is undermined when we see the corruption and idolatry that lie at the heart of the human condition. Bastani writes: “Of course corruption is inherent to political life. We all desire status, and mostly want money. Inevitably some people will pursue such things to the detriment of the public good.”

What we need is accountability and transparency: checks and balances that prevent abuse and exploitation; institutions and structures that give even the most insignificant a voice and enable justice against the wealthy and powerful. Yet at every point of the Epstein and Mandelson saga, it seems that the inverse has been true.

Proverbs tell us “When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy. Through the blessing of the upright a city is exalted, but by the mouth of the wicked it is destroyed” (Proverbs 11:10-11).

Does it not seem as though the wicked have prospered and been elevated? A city is destroyed when the wicked are elevated and it thrives when the upright flourish. The Mandelson story does not simply represent a problem of process, but a moral failing.

But as Christians we believe in a better story: we might live for now in a fallen kingdom, but it will not always be like this. One day, evil will be judged.

This week, a friend of mine pointed me towards Psalm 49: it’s a harrowing tale for those who trust in their pride and their wealth. The Psalmist asks: “Why should I fear when evil days come, when wicked deceivers surround me – those who trust in their wealth and boast of their great riches?” “People despite their wealth, do not endure”, “they will take nothing with them when they die”. “They are like sheep and are destined to die; death will be their shepherd… Their forms will decay in the grave, far from their princely mansions.”

To anyone who feels outrage or despair this week, or who has experienced evil, exploitation or injustice, here are the words of comfort: those who build their position upon wickedness shall fall. Their evil will be exposed. Even if they escape justice in life, not one of them can escape it in death.

Then their money, their power, their influence, and their prestige will be of no value to them, for they will (as we all shall) have to give an account to their Creator. Jesus says in Luke 8:18: “For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.”

For now, we long that the wicked might perish, and for justice to be done. But above all, we trust in “him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23), in the knowledge that he will not turn a blind eye to the plight of the oppressed.