Peter Mandelson's menace was staring us in the face across the pond. Your PM is in global trouble - Lee Cohen

The core failing rests squarely with Starmer's judgment. Public records had long detailed Mandelson's continued association with Epstein after the financier's 2008 conviction for procuring a child for prostitution.

Starmer himself conceded in Parliament that he knew of this ongoing connection yet proceeded with the appointment. Emails later surfaced showing Epstein transferred $75,000 to Mandelson across 2003 and 2004, alongside regular monthly payments of $4,000 to his husband.

As Gordon Brown's business secretary, Mandelson forwarded sensitive details to Epstein, including draft plans for a multibillion-pound EU bailout, the timing of Brown's resignation, and prospective disposals of government land and property.

Recent releases from the US Department of Justice added compromising images from the Epstein files, raising questions of potential blackmail vulnerability.

Poland's Donald Tusk has now ordered scrutiny of Epstein's possible Russian intelligence links. Warnings poured in — Lord Glasman conveyed both private reservations and explicit White House unease — but No 10 ignored them.

Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, credited with championing the nomination, now faces mounting calls for his dismissal from Labour MPs including Karl Turner and Paula Barker.

This is not mere oversight; it is the hallmark of atrocious political incompetence. Starmer's administration has turned blame-shifting into an art form.

The Prime Minister points to Mandelson's supposed "lies" about barely knowing Epstein, faults inadequate security vetting, and implies everyone around him failed — everyone, that is, except himself. Yet the Epstein connection was hardly concealed; it had circulated in public view for years.

Downing Street announced the appointment before vetting reportedly even commenced, rendering any post-hoc security critique self-defeating.

When the only defence offered is that the leader was hoodwinked, credibility collapses. The scandal has already forced concessions: a backbench revolt compelled the transfer of related document releases to Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee, another retreat in a string of them. Such evasions expose a governing class more skilled at deflection than accountability.

Labour's progressive instincts cloak themselves as pragmatism, yet consistently yield weakness and sovereignty erosion.

Starmer expresses deep regret to Epstein's victims, acknowledging their "trauma that most of us can barely comprehend" and the repeated failures of those in power to deliver justice.

The words are solemn, but the selectivity jars. Where is comparable contrition for British grooming-gang victims whose suffering — documented exhaustively in court records — has too often met institutional silence or delay?

This double standard underscores a broader pattern: international scandals elicit public sorrow, while domestic outrages invite equivocation.

The Prime Minister's assertion that "no one, however senior, should hold public office if they cannot pass the basic test of honesty" lands with staggering irony, given his role in elevating a figure whose entanglements demanded disqualification on publicly available evidence alone.

Geopolitically, the damage compounds. The Special Relationship requires uncompromised envoys capable of projecting strength, not figures shadowed by scandal and foreign ties.

Mandelson's China connections, flagged by Rubio, risked diluting Britain's stance against rising authoritarian influence. Contrast this with America's sharper focus under recent leadership on secure borders, energy autonomy, and resolute defence.

Labour's record shows the opposite: porous frontiers enabling unchecked migration, energy strategies fostering external dependence, and lingering deference to EU frameworks that Brexit voters rejected.

Rebellions over budgets, NGO sway in policy, and repeated U-turns signal a government lacking authority at home and leverage abroad.

A functionally paralysed Downing Street, mired in police inquiries and committee scrutiny, cannot command deterrence or alliances effectively.

Britain stands at a clear fork. Persist with leadership that puts national interest last and endures managed decline. Or demand governance rooted in unflinching realism, where judgment serves the country first.

Starmer's determination to install Mandelson was no isolated lapse; it was emblematic of a regime that courts global networks while mistrusting its own electorate.

Such structures carry the seeds of their own collapse—honesty abandoned, responsibility evaded, authority hollowed out.

The Prince of Darkness is gone, but the deeper shadows in No. 10 persist. National resolve will eventually dispel them, not through pleas, but through inevitability.