Mandelson is finished. Who else is going with him?

Mandelson has always had an uncomfortable response when it comes to questions around his association with Jeffrey Epstein. Most famously, when Mandelson was about to start his role as US ambassador, he was interviewed with the Financial Times. Talking to the paper while on a train to northern England, he was gently asked about his relationship with Epstein. “I’m not going to go into this,” he responded. “It’s an FT obsession and frankly you can all fuck off. OK?”

This is an old trick of Mandelson’s – he is known among journalists for responding to inquiries he dislikes with extreme hostility and almost as extremely carefully-worded denials, which often don’t quite get to the core of the matter. With hindsight, Mandelson’s especially snippy response here should have been a hint: this was a topic he really didn’t want journalists to look into very deeply.

The cascade of revelations in recent days seems to offer a very compelling explanation as to why. First came reports, once again from the Financial Times, that Mandelson’s husband had accepted tens of thousands of dollars in payments from Epstein, to help fund a course in osteopathy. The FT had reportedly been aware of this allegation since September, but Mandelson had flatly denied it – until it appeared in multiple emails released last Friday.

There was more. Mandelson appeared to ask Epstein for financial advice in structuring a deal to buy a property in Brazil worth a little over £2 million. In emails found by tax lawyer Dan Neidle, the man who was then the business secretary and deputy prime minister appeared to share internal government emails concerning bailout plans during the financial crisis.

Neidle also discovered a cryptic email exchange in which Epstein asks Mandelson “new york? brown? cuban-american, have you made any decisions”, to which Mandelson replied “desp for CuAm but can only get to NY at a time when people feel G won’t have some kind of breakdown”.

Suggested Reading

The Epstein scandal shakes Slovakia

Branislav Ondrášik

A further 2009 email exchange seen by The New World and not previously reported elsewhere, shows Mandelson, while still a minister, proposing to Epstein that he stay at his New York apartment during a weekend visit. Epstein asks if he’d prefer a separate apartment given “press issues”, to which Mandelson replies “I am in NY peivately [sic]. Sd be ok. Better ‘facilities’ at yours..”

These exchanges raise questions about Mandelson’s conduct and integrity in every aspect of his life. Several relate to his personal finances, while others relate to his conduct in his official capacity as a minister. Some relate to his personal conduct. Mandelson continues to deny all wrongdoing, but even the nature of his denials causes him more problems.

Mandelson repeatedly claimed to have “no record and no recollection” of these sums and that he did “not know if the documents are authentic”. This might strike Mandelson as a clever line of defence – but if it does, that only shows how out of touch he has become. 

If someone suggested that I’d received tens of thousands of dollars from anyone – let alone the world’s most notorious paedophile – 15 years ago, I could tell them instantly whether it was true or not. The chances of me forgetting would be less than zero. 

Similarly, Mandelson has decided to resign from the Labour Party because he does “not wish to cause further embarrassment”, adding that the allegations need “further investigation by me”. Almost anyone would agree the allegations need “further investigation”, but it takes a special kind of chutzpah to suggest that the best man for the job is Mandelson himself.

A cynic might wonder whether Mandelson was, in reality, leaving Labour before the party could announce an investigation into him, which might lead to his expulsion or suspension. By quitting, he has made sure the party has no standing to conduct its own investigation. For the moment, too, he seems content to hold on to his peerage.

Mandelson’s reliance on not recalling any of these matters is particularly puzzling given he took a prominent public job – for which he required enhanced security vetting – just a year ago. Surely Mandelson was required to go over his financial history and personal associations during that process? Is his argument that these issues were never raised during that process, or that everyone concerned was content with him answering that he didn’t remember anything?

Inevitably, tough questions are heading directly towards No 10. Keir Starmer was warned of the risks of hiring Mandelson, but decided to make the controversial political appointment anyway, reportedly on the recommendation of chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.

Media reports have suggested Downing Street had to overrule MI6’s vetting recommendations to make the appointment. That process will now surely come under the spotlight, as either possibility seems like a scandal. 

Either MI6 and the UK’s intelligence agencies managed to miss everything that has now come to light, or else they found it and No 10 made the decision to ignore it. People will surely want answers on that front. The future security of the UK may rely on them – surely these are not mistakes the country can afford to repeat.

The consensus seems to be universal: Peter Mandelson is really, truly, finished this time. The question is who else might be taken down with him.