Mandelson, Epstein, Trump and Starmer.

 It is surely obvious to anyone who has given  this more than a fraction of a second's thought that Mandelson was appointed not in spite of his relationship with Epstein but because of it. This is the kind of guy who hangs out in these circles, who is comfortable in them, an environment that Donald Trump - mentioned in the Epstein files more than almost anyone else - is comfortable in too.

And Mandelson is slippery; we knew as much  even before the allegations of misconduct, which he denies, turned the perception into a legitimate sense of collective outrage. We knew about the Hindujas, the Geoffrey Robinson affair; Starmer knew too. He knew about the lobbying company that the honey-tongued lord used to parlay his way into social connections and lucrative opportunities. Again, isn't that why he was hired in the first place? Trump and his clan are all about an eye on the main chance, enriching themselves at any opportunity, albeit in a rather more brazen way than Mandy appears to have done...

Idealogical Conflict
Anthony Pilbro (b. 1954)
Herbert Art Gallery & Museum

Leading articles commended the appointment. Michael Gove said he was "the best choice to handle Trump". Times readers felt the same way. Under an article in August the most popular comment was: "Mandelson appears to be proving a very effective ambassador acting in the UK's interest."...

I suspect he [Keith Starmer] made the appointment reluctantly; perhaps agonisingly. In the end, though, he felt that the hurt felt by victims was outweighed by his perception of the national interest. We need the American president on side given our dependence on the US for defence...

Yet did we get an examination of any of this last week? No, we got something else. An anti-debate. A fake debate. Starmer couldn't admit the reason he had given Mandelson the job. Indeed he pretended he had given it for the opposite reason... It wasn't just Starmer: every MP who stood up in the debate indulged in the same pretence, all speaking of their concerns for victims but none discussing whether it could ever be outweighed by larger concerns...

All decisions require trade-offs. Indeed politics might be described as the arena of trade-offs.They are difficult, messy, often invidious...

The PM was not seeking to enrich himself with this appointment or rip-off the public. No, he hired a snake in Mandelson because he perceived that Trump's Washington is a snake-pit. And on that, at least, he was right.

(Matthew Syed, The Sunday Times, 2026)

An interesting article outlining the difficulties politicians face when they take decisions. According to Syed there are no moral absolutes. The world is a messy place that requires flexible solutions.