Keir Starmer apologises to Epstein victims for believing Mandelson's 'lies'

LONDON – Labour leader Keir Starmer has issued an unprecedented and direct apology to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, expressing profound regret for his decision to appoint Lord Peter Mandelson to an advisory role and for having "believed Mandelson's lies" regarding his connections to the disgraced financier.

The statement marks a dramatic attempt by the opposition leader to cauterise a politically damaging wound and distance his party from the toxic legacy of the Epstein scandal. In a move laden with risk, Starmer not only admitted a significant error in judgment but publicly rebuked one of the principal architects of the "New Labour" era, signalling a definitive break with a controversial chapter of his party's past.

The Anatomy of an Apology

In a statement released by the Labour Party, Starmer addressed Epstein's victims with stark and personal language, a departure from typical guarded political communication.

"I am sorry, sorry for what was done to you, sorry that so many people with power failed you," Starmer said. "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."

The apology is notable for three distinct admissions: a personal failing in judgment, an accusation of deception against a party grandee, and an acknowledgment of the ongoing trauma experienced by victims.

• Direct Accountability: By apologising for his own decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, Starmer takes personal ownership of the controversy, a high-stakes gamble for a leader positioning himself as the next Prime Minister.
• Public Censure: The explicit accusation that Lord Mandelson "lied" is a severe public condemnation. It effectively severs any remaining formal or informal ties between the current Labour leadership and the influential peer, a move that will reverberate throughout the party's establishment.
• Victim-Centred Focus: The statement's primary focus on the victims aims to reframe the narrative away from internal party politics and towards a question of moral leadership and institutional responsibility.

Context: The Mandelson-Epstein Connection

The controversy stems from Lord Mandelson's long-documented association with Jeffrey Epstein, which has been a source of scrutiny for over a decade. Understanding this background is critical to grasping the weight of Starmer's apology.

Lord Mandelson, a former European Commissioner and cabinet minister under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, was a central figure in British politics for two decades. His connections to Epstein, however, have repeatedly threatened to overshadow his political legacy.

• Reported Meetings: Public records and investigative journalism have detailed multiple interactions between Mandelson and Epstein, including visits to Epstein's notorious private island and his New York residence.
• Downplaying the Relationship: Lord Mandelson has consistently sought to downplay the extent and nature of his relationship with Epstein, often characterising it as peripheral and professional. Starmer's accusation of "lies" directly challenges this long-held public position.
• Starmer's Initial Judgment: When Starmer brought Lord Mandelson back into the fold in an informal advisory capacity after becoming leader, he faced immediate criticism. At the time, Starmer's office defended the move as leveraging the experience of a successful political strategist. This apology is a direct reversal of that initial judgment.

Political and Reputational Fallout

Starmer's statement is a calculated risk designed to neutralise a potent line of attack ahead of a potential general election. The implications, however, are far-reaching for the party, its key figures, and the wider political landscape.

This move is clearly intended to project an image of a "new" Labour party under decisive leadership, one willing to confront uncomfortable truths and make difficult decisions. For a party seeking to present a stable and trustworthy alternative government, demonstrating such accountability is paramount.

• For the Labour Party: The apology is a double-edged sword. It demonstrates Starmer's authority but also highlights a significant lapse in judgment. It re-opens a damaging story, but on Starmer's own terms, potentially inoculating him against future attacks from political opponents who would have inevitably used the Mandelson link as evidence of poor character.
• For Lord Mandelson: His position as a respected elder statesman is now severely compromised. Being publicly branded a liar by the leader of his own party effectively exiles him from the corridors of power and influence he has inhabited for decades. It raises questions about his future role in public life and his corporate advisory work.
• For UK Governance: The episode underscores the lingering stain of the Epstein scandal on the British establishment. For a potential prime minister to admit he was misled by a senior figure about such a toxic association raises broader questions about vetting, transparency, and the judgment of those at the very top of UK politics.

What Comes Next

The immediate aftermath of Starmer's apology will be closely watched by investors, political analysts, and the public for signs of how this high-risk strategy will play out.

The Conservative Party is likely to seize on the admission as a sign of Starmer's initial flawed judgment rather than his current decisiveness. The key variable is whether voters will see this as a mark of strength and integrity or one of weakness and poor foresight.

• Mandelson's Response: All eyes will be on Lord Mandelson to see if he issues a public response to Starmer's accusation. His silence or denial will shape the next phase of this story.
• Party Cohesion: Starmer's decisive and public break with a figure like Mandelson will test his authority within the Labour Party. While many will welcome the move, it may alienate some in the "New Labour" wing who remain loyal to its architects.
• The Election Narrative: Ultimately, Labour hopes this apology closes a damaging chapter. The party's leadership is betting that by confronting the issue head-on, they can define it as a past mistake that has been rectified, allowing them to focus their campaign on the economy, public services, and their vision for the future. The success of this gambit may not be known until polling day.