Why Won’t Keir Starmer Sack Morgan McSweeney Over Mandelsongate?

To err is human. And who amongst us can claim to be a better man than Keir Starmer? Yesterday the prime minister apologised to Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, as the scandal around his appointment of the convicted paedophile’s “best pal” continued to thunder around his ears. 

“I am sorry,” said Starmer, “sorry for what was done to you, sorry that so many people with power failed, sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointed him, and sorry that even now you’re forced to watch this story unfold in public once again.” 

Poor Keir. His only sin was seeing the best in a man forced to resign from government in disgrace not once, but twice, who toted the moniker “Prince of Darkness”, and told a journalist pressing his Epstein connections to “fuck off”. Alas. A prime minister who loved not wisely, but too well.

Why is Starmer in so much bother? In case you’ve been in a coma since 2025: despite Peter Mandelson’s continued friendship with Epstein after the latter’s conviction for child sex offences already being in the public domain, Starmer went ahead and gave him the post as ambassador to the US. 

Then, last September, embarrassing details came to light about the two men’s friendship. As somebody (*cough cough*) pointed out at the time, the toe-curling compliments lavished by Mandelson in Epstein’s sleazy birthday book didn’t really tell us anything new – but they did add some nauseating colour. It was too much for the government to withstand, and Mandelson was ignominiously removed from post.

But it doesn’t end there. Last weekend’s infodump of more of Epstein’s correspondence contained genuinely shocking revelations. Documents in the files seem to show that Mandelson, when he was business secretary under Gordon Brown’s premiership, leaked market-sensitive information to the Wall Street insider. 

What’s more, Mandelson allegedly used Epstein as an intermediary to tell JP Morgan boss Jamie Dimon to “mildly threaten” then-chancellor Alistair Darling to try and get the government to back down on taxing bankers’ bonuses.

On top of possible insider trading and working against the government of which he was a part, the most recent cache of emails also show Mandelson’s blasé attitude towards Epstein’s criminal offences. He dubbed Epstein’s release from prison “Liberation Day”, and branded the convicted sex offender a “naughty boy” when he joked about celebrating his freedom with “two strippers”. 

Just last month, Mandelson claimed to have been kept “separate” from the sexual side of Epstein’s life on account of being gay. 

Mandelson is now being investigated by the police for allegedly leaking confidential information, and though he has demonstrated an aptitude for political resurrection in the past, it’s difficult to see a way back into public life for the New Labour apparatchik. 

Focus has shifted, as well it should, onto why Starmer appointed him ambassador to the US in the first place.

At the time, most of the mainstream media were in raptures over the decision – praising Mandelson as shrewd, cunning and just the right man to look out for Britain’s interests in Washington. The London press pack operates on a herd mentality: though individual journalists tried to question Mandelson on his well-documented links to Epstein, their colleagues didn’t join the chase. Ultimately, the buddy-buddy relationship between one of the most powerful men in the Labour party, and a highly-networked paedophile financier, was consigned to the pile marked ‘stuff that doesn’t really matter’. 

Now, obviously, the climate is very different. Just as Mandelson blamed the deceased Epstein for pulling the wool over his eyes, Starmer casts himself as a victim of Mandelson’s lies. The PM claimed yesterday that the (now former) Labour peer misled him over just how close he was with Epstein, and about staying at Epstein’s apartment while he was in jail. 

The trouble for Starmer is that in 2023 – before Mandelson was appointed as ambassador to the US – courtesy of an internal JP Morgan memo, it was reported that then-business secretary Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse when Epstein was imprisoned for soliciting a minor. 

The memo described repeated meetings and portrayed Mandelson as one of Epstein’s closest political contacts. Was Starmer a victim of manipulation? Or did he just ignore relevant information until it was no longer convenient to do so?

We all know the real reason why Mandelson was appointed US ambassador. The once Prince of Darkness was mentor to Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, and according to one journalist, it was McSweeney who advised the PM to “ignore concerns, and press ahead with the appointment”. 

With anger mounting on the Labour benches, and the pressure on Starmer showing no signs of abating, you’d think he’d take the opportunity to chuck McSweeney overboard and save himself. But, as of yesterday, McSweeney retains Starmer’s confidence – leaving us with a PM who more closely resembles the walking dead than a head of state.