Here is the complete news article in markdown format.

---

Chris Mason: Starmer can ill afford any more days like these

LONDON – A political storm is gathering around Labour leader Keir Starmer, threatening to derail his carefully crafted image of stability and sound judgment just as the country enters a critical election year. The unsealing of court documents related to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein has thrust the past associations of key Labour grandee Lord Peter Mandelson back into the spotlight, raising serious questions for the Opposition Leader's office about foresight, risk assessment, and the company it keeps.

For a leader who has staked his reputation on being the antithesis of past turmoil, the controversy represents a significant and unwelcome test. It is not the historical association itself that is causing the most damage, but the present-day questions it raises about the political calculus within Starmer's inner circle. Critics and allies alike are now watching intently to see how he navigates a crisis that strikes at the very heart of his "changed Labour" project.

The Catalyst: A Name in Unsealed Files

The immediate trigger for the controversy was the court-ordered release of documents from a 2015 lawsuit involving Jeffrey Epstein. Within the thousands of pages, a reference emerged detailing a 2009 phone call made by one of Epstein's victims to Lord Mandelson.

While the documents contain no allegations of wrongdoing by Mandelson, the official confirmation of his connection within a legal filing has reignited scrutiny of a friendship that was already public knowledge. This has provided fresh ammunition for political opponents and created a severe headache for a Labour leadership team focused on maintaining a disciplined, forward-looking message.

The timing could not be worse, coming as the party seeks to solidify its position as a government-in-waiting. The episode has shifted the narrative from Conservative government challenges to questions about Labour's own internal judgment.

A Question of Judgment

The core of the issue for Starmer extends beyond Mandelson's past. It centres on the wisdom of allowing a figure with such a well-documented and controversial history to return to a position of influence, however informal, within the party's strategic operations. The revelation has given credence to a potent line of attack: that Starmer's team failed to anticipate a predictable political risk.

The argument, now being made forcefully by critics, is that the known facts of Mandelson's association with Epstein should have precluded any consideration of him for a senior advisory or representative role. This has been compounded by past speculation that Mandelson was once considered a potential candidate for a high-profile post, such as UK Ambassador to Washington.

Key arguments against the leadership's judgment include:

• Public Record: Lord Mandelson's friendship with Epstein was not a secret. He had previously stayed at Epstein's New York residence and attended parties hosted by the financier long after initial allegations against Epstein had surfaced. This history was a known liability.

• Foreseeable Risk: The prospect of further legal proceedings or the unsealing of documents related to the Epstein case was always a possibility. Political strategists argue that a competent, risk-averse leadership team should have factored in this eventuality when determining Mandelson's role.

• Reputational Contagion: In the post-#MeToo era, any association with figures like Epstein is politically toxic. For a party leader promising a clean break and higher standards, the proximity of such a controversy, even by association, undermines the central message.

Context: The 'New Labour' Architect and the 'New, New Labour' Project

Understanding the current crisis requires understanding Lord Mandelson's unique position in British politics. As one of the primary architects of "New Labour" in the 1990s, he was instrumental in transforming the party into an election-winning machine under Tony Blair. Known for his strategic acumen, he has recently re-emerged as a key informal advisor and influential voice for Keir Starmer.

His return was seen as a signal of Starmer's intent to move the party back to the political centre and recapture the professional, pro-business ethos of the Blair years. However, Mandelson also brings a history of controversy, earning him the moniker "The Prince of Darkness" for his mastery of political machinations.

This revival of a "New Labour" figurehead directly intersects with Starmer's core political project:

• A Break with the Past: Starmer's primary goal has been to draw a definitive line under the Jeremy Corbyn era, which was marked by internal factionalism, electoral defeat, and allegations of institutional incompetence.

• Projecting Competence: The Labour leader has worked to present his party as a credible, sober, and reliable alternative to a Conservative government beset by instability. The mantra is one of a "government-in-waiting" ready to take charge.

• A 'Small Target' Strategy: Until now, Starmer's team has run a highly disciplined, risk-averse campaign, seeking to avoid unforced errors and allow the focus to remain on the government's perceived failings. This episode is a textbook unforced error.

Implications and The Path Forward

The political fallout has been immediate. The Conservative Party has seized the opportunity to label Starmer's Labour as no different from the "sleaze" of the past, attempting to blur the lines and neutralise Labour's attacks on government ethics. Internally, the Labour left, already wary of Mandelson's influence, is using the moment to question Starmer's strategic direction.

For a leader preparing for a general election, the situation presents a critical test of leadership. The key challenge is no longer about Lord Mandelson's past, but about Keir Starmer's present and future. He must now demonstrate the very judgment that is being called into question.

The coming days will be crucial. The leadership team will be under immense pressure to control the narrative, clarify Mandelson's role, and reassure the public that their decision-making processes are robust. How Starmer responds will be seen as a measure of his ability to handle a crisis and his fitness for the highest office. In a year where every move is scrutinized, this is a political headache he, and his party, can ill afford.