Four years ago, the Conservative government began to unravel. It has been obscured by everything that came after, but the Owen Patterson scandal set the ball rolling. It dragged Johnson and those around him into a pattern of cronyism and crisis. It saw the Tories lose a by-election by a historic margin, the sort of margins that were only eclipsed by their subsequent decline. The imbroglio set the blueprint for those that came after.
A party that had lost its moral centre struggled to maintain and impose propriety, led by a PM who had no interest in it. The parliamentary party failed to police itself and treated the public with contempt for being outraged by their indiscretions. Through Partygate and Pincher, and on to the betting scandal, the Conservatives failed to stem the tide of issues, but also were unable to respond appropriately, stringing them out and worsening the damage.
This record remained a key driver of the party’s electoral collapse. On the campaign trail last summer, it was easy to find voters, formerly solid Conservative voters who had been alienated from the party by these disgraces. These were people who had long histories of voting Conservative and had been well-served by the policy agenda over the past 14 years. But they were people to whom the rules and conduct mattered, and they were furious about these failings, and stayed home on polling day accordingly.
Through the last years in Opposition, Keir Stamer exploited this ruthlessly. It was a political gift to him to see the government drag itself through the mud. The sleaze powered Starmer through PMQs and gave him high ground to attack from. It suited him. He always appeared like someone genuinely bothered by such misconduct and determined to right it. Yet now, all that makes this Mandelson scandal so damaging for the government.
When the Labour Party came to power, there was a lot on their plate that was hard. The fiscal situation they inherited narrowed their options significantly. Public services were struggling. The economic picture had been grim for many years. Brexit was damaging and unpopular, yet unpicking it would be a political quagmire. A war was continuing in Europe, and America was set to commit electoral insanity once again. Yet there was one thing that Labour could do easily, which was to be better on standards.
Doing ethics right costs no real public money. It shouldn’t really conflict with your policy or political objectives. Having a sense of appropriate behaviour is about culture and systems. Getting it right is about making conscious choices about the standards you hold yourself to and how you inculcate them in your organisation. For politics, it centres on making morality more important than expediency. The new Mandy scandal indicates that Labour has failed to grasp this.
Now, of course, Mandelson has gone. And he has seemingly been pushed rather than being given (or taking) the opportunity to bow out. It has happened quicker than many of those other Tory scandals that dragged for weeks before succumbing to the inevitable. Yet Starmer still battled through a PMQs for him, even when, by the man’s own admission, there was more damaging stuff to come out. More than that, for an ambassador to be undone by indiscretions that were so knowable and foreseeable at the outset raises serious questions of why he was appointed in the first place.
It is one thing for PM to be let down by someone they appoint, another for the scandal to lie in something in the past that just gets noticed. All of this should have been discernible at the outset. Mandelson must have known the details of his connections with the world’s most famous sex trafficker. It is not the sort of thing your “best pal” turns out to be the central player in one of the most high-profile and horrifying elite crimes in history.
Mandelson was, of course, not the worst offender in that mix. He has an ironclad excuse for why he was “present but not involved”. His sin was pride, rather than lust. Mandelson was (and is) enamoured with palling around with the global rich, being part of the exalted coterie. He enjoyed this to the extent that he turned off his critical faculties, failed to notice what as obviously around him, and failed to question Epstein’s paltry pleadings when justice caught up with him. It is in many ways remarkably similar to the other times he has disgraced himself. The scandal is not, however, simply guilt by association. Not is it only the political implications that matter.
Mandelson cleaved towards the financier when he was already convicted of horrid offences. This is not just a failure of judgment, but of morality. It says, quite simply, that proximity to power is more important than propriety. It suggests that the testimony and suffering of victims can be put to one side or dismissed if there is enough of an incentive to do so. The whole thing is grubby – and that is what should matter, not how it polls. Quite simply, it should not be acceptable to be mates with a known paedophile after they have been exposed.
That plays into the broader issue here for Starmer. This was a scandal of his making. He and his team picked Mandelson over other candidates. This was done despite knowing the public information about his connections with Epstein, which clearly continued after the 2008 conviction. Starmer clearly decided this didn’t matter, and either didn’t push Mandelson on further details, or got them and deemed that they didn’t matter. This was poor judgment politically but also morally.
For the Prime Minister, this is a real problem. Sleaze sticks best when it plays into preconceptions that people already have about politicians. For Starmer, this is the charge of insincerity. It has dogged him on the left as he moved from the leadership contest towards power. It has also been a routine cry on the right – that he stands for nothing beyond political expediency. Whether there is truth in this or not, the Mandelson scandal gives succour to the allegation.
After all, Starmer is supposed to be committed to the ethics of parliament and politics. He swung in so heavily on this when it was a sword against Johnson. Yet now that starts to look hollow. Not only did he appoint Mandy, knowing that this could pop up, but he stuck with him and battled through an attention-filled 24 hours before political pressure became too much. It makes the PM look like he doesn’t care about these things unless and until they are politically advantageous. It makes his previous position look like posturing, and reinforces the idea that he really stands for nothing.
In the broader political battle between the status quo and disruption, it favours the latter and plays back into populism. While Reform have a problematic track record to defend when it comes to the standards of their candidates and supporters, they may still benefit from Labour sleaze. These scandals play into the idea that the major parties are all the same, and the only chance for future success is disruption. This gives succour to those leaning towards Reform, or flirting with leftist populism. Either way, it further discredits the political system when neither party can seem to dig itself out of sleaze.
Labour came to power last summer as the antidote to what the Conservatives had become: chaotic and incompetent. Their political malaise stems from a failure to live up to this and deliver both probity and effective governance. The latter perhaps deserves more forgiveness. Fiscal opportunities are tight, and other changes take time to come through. The ethical bit should have been the easy, low-cost option.
The Mandelson scandal shows a failure on this. It calls into question Starmer’s judgment and how he actually values doing the right thing. Sacking him today may have brought this chapter to an end, but it will only really be respite if it also means they get ahead of the next potential scandal and close it down appropriately. If the government falls into the same trap of the last one, of rolling scandals followed by weak responses, it will be very hard to recover from. If Labour allows itself to sink into the same mire, then the sorts of voters who deserted the Conservatives over sleaze will soon wonder why they should remain with Starmer either.
And now something else…
My picks from around the web this week:
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Joxley Writes to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.