The Mandelson-Epstein Scandal: A Political Psychodrama Unraveled
The release of the Epstein files has exposed not merely a catastrophic breach of trust, but the final act in a prolonged political psychodrama. The revelations surrounding Peter Mandelson's covert and corrupt association with the disgraced sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein have sent shockwaves through Westminster, leaving both allies and adversaries alike questioning how a man so adept at managing risk could take one capable of destroying a government and his own career.
A Fatal Attraction to Wealth and Influence
The monumental consequences of Mandelson's actions—foremost among them the potential destabilization of Keir Starmer's premiership—have prompted widespread disbelief. Few imagined that even the so-called Prince of Darkness could act with such treachery as detailed in the documents released last week. What has proven equally baffling is Mandelson's decision to cling to his role as UK ambassador to the United States, despite knowing his cover could be blown at any moment. Even when exposed, he fought to retain the position until it became utterly unsustainable, mirroring his stubborn retention of the Epstein friendship.
So what was he thinking? While only a psychologist could provide a definitive diagnosis, as his biographer, I can identify clear patterns: a lifelong tendency to live beyond his means and a proclivity for taking dangerous personal and political risks. The clues to understanding this behavior lie deep in his pre-Epstein history.
A Sense of Entitlement Forged in Childhood
Unlike Starmer, Mandelson arrived on the political stage with an established pedigree. Born into the Labour Party as the grandson of Herbert Morrison, a former deputy leader, he was immersed in politics from childhood. His parents were neighbors and acquaintances of Harold and Mary Wilson in Hampstead Garden Suburb. One of his most vivid early memories was watching Wilson depart for Downing Street after the 1964 election. Soon after, he would sit at the cabinet table during a family reception with the newly elected prime minister.
Mandelson's mother recalled him being "political from the age of five," with Morrison serving as a particular fascination. This upbringing instilled a tribal Labour identity but, crucially, connected the party with tangible political power from an early age. On the surface, until his early forties, Mandelson appeared ambitious rather than overtly greedy. His career path was earnest: VSO volunteer work in Tanzania, a junior role at the TUC, researcher for Labour minister Albert Booth, Lambeth councillor, television producer, and finally Labour's director of communications under Neil Kinnock.
The Rise of a Political Architect
As a presentational master, Mandelson became Kinnock's ultra-loyal right-hand man, helping ditch voter-alienating policies. He later promoted Gordon Brown and Tony Blair as modernizers who could secure electoral victory. As a core architect of New Labour, he helped lay the groundwork for what followed John Smith's untimely death in 1994. However, Mandelson grew weary of being a backroom operator. After toiling as communications director, playing a key role in Blair's leadership campaign (where he was codenamed "Bobby" to avoid alienating supporters), and serving as Blair's ministerial eyes and ears post-1997, he yearned for a cabinet position.
His appointment as trade and industry secretary in 1998 finally delivered the power he craved. Yet, this ascent contained the seeds of future downfall, marked by risk-taking and ethical compromises.
Power, Influence, and the Epstein Entanglement
The Epstein files have closed the final chapter on one of British politics' great psychodramas: the turbulent relationship between Mandelson and Brown, which proved deeper and more volatile than the Brown-Blair dynamic. When Brown demanded a government inquiry into Mandelson's leaks to Epstein, describing them as "inexcusable and unpatriotic," personal animosity was not the sole driver. As a son of the manse, Brown possessed a far greater sense of governmental propriety than his de facto deputy during 2008-2010.
At that critical juncture, Brown and Chancellor Alistair Darling were battling to stabilize the economy post-financial crash and manage public anger. Mandelson's leaks of market-sensitive data to a super-rich networker connected to global finance endangered economic recovery and attempted to sabotage government efforts. Mandelson must have recognized, on some level, that sharing real-time leaks and contemptuous views of Brown with Epstein constituted a profound betrayal of his former mentor, who had brought him back to government's top tier.
A Pattern of Dangerous Risks
This speaks to another aspect of Mandelson's psychology: his attraction to perilous risks that repeatedly threatened to explode. The first evidence emerged in 1996 with a £373,000 loan from fellow Labour MP Geoffrey Robinson to buy a Notting Hill house. After Labour entered government in 1997, this secret loan—unknown even to Blair and close friends—highlighted the contrast between Mandelson's role as Blair's political radar and his chronic inability to foresee dangers to his own career.
As trade secretary, he committed a serious breach of protocol by not disclosing the loan to his permanent secretary, despite Robinson being under investigation by his department. A rough parallel exists with his Epstein association: though known when appointed ambassador, Mandelson lied about its depth when questioned. However, key differences exist. The Robinson entanglement was largely victimless, unlike any friendship with Epstein. Mandelson was far from alone in consorting with Epstein post-conviction; a queue of presidents, prime ministers, and CEOs did the same, a horrifying fact of 21st-century life.
The Epstein Allure: Money and Ambition
None of this fully explains why Mandelson willingly fell into Epstein's clutches. True, as Blair's business secretary, he tasted the super-rich high life, enjoying free transatlantic flights on lingerie magnate Linda Wachner's private jet and stays at her Long Island home. But why Epstein specifically? Money played a huge role. Epstein paid £10,000 for his partner's osteopathy course in 2009, plus an alleged £75,000 payment in 2003-04 that Mandelson claims not to recall. By then, Mandelson earned £104,000 and reportedly awaited a £1 million payoff from his EU commissioner role.
Epstein clearly expected returns, complaining in a 2012 email: "I am disappointed by what appears to be a one-way street." Mandelson's reply—"I have never left your side"—was justified given the stream of confidential information he supplied. Commentator David Aaronovitch highlights another trait: Mandelson's lifelong desire to impress those with more power. This shines through in emails, like his market-moving message to Epstein in May 2010 announcing "I finally got him to go" hours before Brown's resignation, and in their sexually charged banter.
Seeking Refuge in "Moneyland"
More pertinently, Mandelson was clearly pursuing a job with JPMorgan. After Labour's 2010 election defeat, he told Epstein, "I am getting very anxious about how I am going to earn my living from August 13!" Despite being able to choose decent UK jobs, he sought entry into what Epstein termed "moneyland"—the realm of very big bucks. This reveals Mandelson's core weakness. While comfortable with elites in ways Starmer never could be, this brought problems. In 1998, Mandelson famously said, "I am relaxed about people getting filthy rich, as long as they pay their taxes," signaling New Labour's pro-enterprise stance.
Starmer's blind spot in appointing him ambassador may partly stem from a desire not to appear "old Labour" to the Trump administration. Mandelson seems drawn to wealth because it signifies success beyond politics and permanence beyond public office. In a post-sacking interview with The Times' Katy Balls, before the full Epstein horror emerged, he still believed he had a future, quoting a friend: "Remember, tough times don't last. Tough people do." Wealthy circles provided a shield against public life's vulnerabilities, where normal rules don't apply.
Betrayal and Consequences
Another psychological factor may explain his betrayal of Brown. Their rupture since Blair's 1994 leadership was interrupted only by sporadic reconciliations. While in Brussels, Mandelson cast subtle aspersions on Brown's leadership. Did he fantasize that Brown's decision to bring him back meant he had finally "won" their long battle? Would he have shown such disloyalty under Blair? Brown's fury is understandable: despite outward loyalty, Mandelson acted as Epstein's government mole for dubious motives, actions perilously close to espionage.
The consequences are twofold. First, a further blow to public trust in politics—the feeling that "they're all in it for themselves" (which they aren't)—grows harder to shake. This gifts ammunition to Reform UK, though a Nigel Farage government would likely be worse. Second, damage to the Labour Party Mandelson was born into. While Starmer miscalculated badly in appointing him ambassador—Mandelson's post-conviction Epstein relationship should have ruled him out—the man who helped make Labour electable in the 80s and 90s now centralizes a saga threatening to render it unelectable once more.
