Undoubtedly Keir Starmer’s appointment of Peter Mandelson raises serious questions about his judgement and the role of strategists in a parliamentary democracy.

At one point it seemed inevitable that the endorsement of a man dubbed the “Prince of Darkness” would bring the prime minister down.

He should be held to account for this grave error, but he should not be forced to resign over it.

It is widely accepted that Morgan McSweeney pushed for the Washington appointment and Starmer signed it off.

They were well aware of Mandelson’s transgressions and gave him the posting because of, not despite, his lack of scruples.

He was apparently the ideal candidate to shmooze an unpredictable, unstable president.

Mandelson moved in the same circle of billionaires surrounding Trump and Epstein.

He could charm the Maga faithful and would be in his element riding the winds of political uncertainty.

A political heavyweight who could navigate the choppy waters and develop a strong relationship with the Trump administration.

The “attributes” of Mandelson, a key figure in the Labour party for decades, meant that it was possible to skim over the fact that he had been forced to resign twice and had close ties with a man who trafficked children and young women for the rich and powerful.

A swamp dweller was appointed to navigate the swamp.

In September 2025, Starmer sacked Mandelson after a batch of emails were published showing that he had remained friends with the late Epstein after his conviction for sex offences involving children.

Following the release of documents by the US Department of Justice early this month, the relationship between the pair was back in the spotlight.

There was widespread anger and outrage that the prime minister had appointed Mandelson to such an important and high-profile post.

McSweeney took responsibility for the appointment and resigned.

However, the ensuing media feeding frenzy raises serious questions about the role of the mainstream media in a parliamentary democracy.

The fallout from the Epstein files meant that many high-profile politicians were named and implicated, but the focus was almost entirely on whether or not Keir Starmer should fall on his sword.

Starmer has been a disappointment, a flawed politician who has never fully recovered from being a lawyer.

He lacks coherent politician vision and has been slow to adapt to economic and social realities.

Some of his decisions since becoming prime minister, such as cutting winter fuel payments, his stance on Gaza, demonising welfare recipients, and referring to an ‘island of strangers’, have been appalling.

His policy decisions were designed to appease those who would never vote for him, whilst outraging those who might.

That said, watching the pile-on from the UK media has been grim.

The man probably least likely to appear in the Epstein files became the focus of attention.

No attempt to put the victims front and centre of any narrative.

As each day passed, the voices of survivors seem to grow a little more distant from the coverage. Drowned out by a political feeding frenzy.

No assessment or analysis of how this network of wealthy, entitled elites were allowed to act with impunity.

Epstein was at the centre of a global network of powerful figures from all sides of the political divide, yet how he financed his lavish lifestyle remains a mystery.

Instead, the fourth estate served up a tsunami of breathless media speculation swamping us with every perceived failure of the prime minister.

Addicted to the drama and madness of the Tory years, they appeared desperate for Starmer to resign.

Apoplectic at the sight of Anas Sarwar calling on Starmer to resign.

This comical intervention, over-hyped as a “game changer” was in the end a dismal self-own by a foolish opportunist.

Much of the right-wing media who were gushing with praise at the astuteness of the appointment of Mandelson are now baying for Starmer’s blood.

The same outlets who ignored the Epstein connection when he was appointed. With the notable exception of the Financial Times, there was barely an inch of negative commentary on Mandelson’s appointment.

Predictably, the same sources have been virtually silent on Nigel Farage.

The leader of Reform UK condemned the prime minister’s decision to appoint Mandelson as “seriously wrong” and insisted that Starmer should step down immediately.

Interesting given that when Mandelson was appointed, he had a very different response, suggesting that you have to be pragmatic, and he was a “good choice” for the job.

One of Nigel’s colleagues, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, Nathan Gill, was recently sentenced for 10 years for taking pro-Russia bribes. Yet this story gained very little traction.

Move on swiftly, nothing to see here. Another free pass.

The mass hysteria and relentless, frenetic reporting about the prime minister’s future is yet another example of why people have become disillusioned with politics and political media.

Westminster journalists are hugely invested in hyperbole, driving clicks and views on social media.

The focus is firmly on amplified ‘gotcha’ moments rather than adding value and insights into the national discourse. Policy appears to be an irrelevance.

This level of personal hostility and thinly disguised glee at Starmer’s woes is eroding political norms.

Politics as a psychodrama is a dangerous development.

If you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article and would like to submit a Letter to the Editor to be considered for publication, please click here.

Letters to the Editor are invited on any subject. They should be authenticated with a full name, address and a daytime telephone number. Pen names are not allowed.

© The Irish News