Is the Mandelson scandal the beginning of the end for Keir Starmer?

For a government which promised seriousness, stability and moral clarity, the past week has felt like a brutal collision with political reality.

The release of new material connected to Jeffrey Epstein has reignited scrutiny of Peter Mandelson, the grandee appointed by Keir Starmer as Britain’s ambassador to the United States. The revelations, including evidence that Mandelson shared sensitive government information while Business Secretary in 2008-10, have raised key questions about judgement, vetting and accountability, triggering the most acute crisis of Starmer’s still brief premiership.

Starmer has apologised, saying he “believed Mandelson’s lies” about the nature of his relationship with Epstein. Yet that explanation has landed badly, as critics question why the PM was fool enough to ever get that far in considering him for the job.

Senior figures have warned Starmer risks being seen as “weak, naïve and gullible”, and could be toppled unless he takes decisive action. Many are calling for the entire operation in Number 10 to be re-examined.

As the crisis deepens, attention has turned to Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s influential chief of staff and a key architect of Labour’s rise to power. There are growing calls for his removal, with Labour MPs arguing that his role in Mandelson’s appointment has become politically untenable. But removing McSweeney would be more than a personnel change. It would represent a fundamental break with the inner circle that has shaped Starmerism itself.

The prime minister now faces an agonising dilemma: sacrifice his closest ally to stabilise his leadership, or risk appearing indecisive once again.

It is still too early to declare the end of Starmer’s premiership. Labour is historically gun shy when faced with removing leaders and the procedural bar is much higher than under Tory rules.  But this crisis is qualitatively different to rows over policy U-turns or tax raising budgets. It is not just about Mandelson. It is about competence, judgement and the promise of a new kind of politics. If Starmer cannot convincingly explain how such an appointment was made, and why his leadership should still be trusted, the damage may prove irreversible. For the first time, it is possible to see the end of the road for Starmer.

For now, the prime minister clings on. But in politics, as in life, leaders are judged less by who lied to them than by why they believed the lie in the first place.