Starmer’s Chief of Staff Resigns, Citing Role in Hiring Friend of Epstein
The Epstein files name men around the world. Ehud Barak, Israel’s former prime minister, stayed at Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan apartment multiple times. A close associate of the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, exchanged messages with Epstein about “opening so many legs.”
In some places, embarrassment has turned into political scandal: An adviser to the prime minister of Slovakia has resigned. So has a former French education minister who led the Arab World Institute in Paris. But the biggest fallout has been in Britain, where the prime minister, Keir Starmer, is now under pressure.
Today I’m writing about his Epstein troubles.
Keir Starmer’s Epstein problem
As far as we know, Keir Starmer never met Jeffrey Epstein. He never went to Epstein’s island and never sent him raunchy emails. He might be brought down by the Epstein files anyway.
The first signs of trouble came in September, after Peter Mandelson, Starmer’s ambassador to the United States, was shown to have had close ties with Epstein, even after his 2008 conviction for having sex with a minor. Mandelson was fired.
But that wasn’t the end of it. On Sunday, Starmer’s chief of staff, a Mandelson protégé who had lobbied for his appointment, resigned after even worse emails emerged between Mandelson and Epstein. Starmer’s communications chief resigned yesterday. A senior Labour politician openly called for Starmer to step down.
There seems to be little doubt that the Epstein scandal has damaged the Starmer government. He won decisively in 2024. Now, few analysts see him lasting until the 2029 elections.
It’s a striking outcome. At their origin, the Epstein files are an American scandal. Why have they become a crisis for Starmer — but not for President Trump, who was a close friend of Epstein’s.
“Prince of Darkness”
Mandelson, the man at the center of this, has held multiple cabinet positions in the British government. He was appointed ambassador to the U.S. in December 2024.
It was known at the time that he’d had contact with Epstein. Red flags were raised in the news media. Starmer said the Mandelson vetting process had included questions about his dealings with Epstein; in the end, he chose to appoint him anyway. “Sorry for having believed this man’s lies and appointed him,” Starmer said last week.
Mandelson, nicknamed “The Prince of Darkness,” was known as an operator, which was seen as a virtue in some corners: “Ruthless, cynical and cunning — why Mandy is the perfect choice as U.S. ambassador,” ran one headline in the conservative Daily Mail at the time.
As one British journalist, Lewis Goodall, noted this week, the same qualities that led some to view him as a good ambassador in Trump’s Washington — his comfort level with the rich and powerful, for instance — were those that brought him into Epstein’s orbit.
Newly released files suggest an even closer friendship between the two men than previously known. They include emails in which Mandelson jokes about strippers with Epstein. In another email, Mandelson sends Epstein a confidential document intended for the prime minister at the time, Gordon Brown.
Starmer and Mandelson weren’t known to be close friends. But critics argue that Starmer should step down for making a serious error of judgment. By appointing an associate of a notorious sex offender, they say, he did what many close to Epstein have done: chose political expediency over doing the right thing.
Pre-populist politics
Still, it’s impossible to understand the scale of the response to this latest batch of Epstein emails without understanding the state of British politics.
I spoke to Esther Bintliff, our U.K. editor. She told me that Starmer had been seen as a weak leader for a long time. “There were already a lot of people worried that he’s just not the right leader to take Labour into the future,” she said.
His critics had been waiting for something to seize on, Esther said. Mandelson’s Epstein emails were just the thing.
As of late Monday, it seemed unlikely that Starmer would step down imminently. There is no clear successor in place, and there will be local elections in May in which Labour is expected to perform badly. It wouldn’t make much sense for Starmer to step down now and let his successor take the hit, Esther said.
But the Epstein saga seems to be shaping his political fate in a way that Trump has so far avoided.
Starmer has billed himself as a centrist, a decent man, the one holding populist forces at bay. There is nothing connecting him directly to Jeffrey Epstein.
But Starmer still represents mainstream elites — the very forces Epstein has become linked with, and that Trump campaigned against. When viewed through that lens, an outcome that at first seems paradoxical instead fits in this political moment.
(source: nytimes.com)
TANIKO Madagascar 