Partygate and Mandelson/Epstein: A tale of two scandals

Ben Worthy offers his reflections on the impact of the Mandelson / Epstein scandal on British politics and how it compares to previous political scandals such as the Partygate scandal.

A number of journalists have pointed to the similarities between Boris Johnson’s Partygate and the Mandelson / Epstein scandal. Like Johnson in 2021, Starmer is no longer in control of the disclosure. It is likely that leaks, briefings and publications will keep the issue, and the Prime Minister’s role, in the headlines.

Starmer promised probity and morality against Johnson’s legacy of lying, secrecy and dishonesty. Yet, like Partygate, the Mandelson scandal, as Kemi Badenoch put it, cuts to the ‘very heart of this Prime Minister’s judgment’. Both connected the prime minister to a toxic and deeply disturbing set of behaviours: Johnson’s ignorance of the suffering of Covid, and Starmer’s apparent ignoring of the suffering of Epstein’s many victims.

This is not to say the two scandals are the same. Partygate was a revelation of a personal moral failing, a deeply buried secret was let out only by a leak in late 2021. Johnson continued to claim in his memoirs that it was ‘over-blown’, and revenge by disgruntled Remainers (though it appears it was appalled Brexiters).

By contrast, Starmer’s scandal was an ‘open secret’, with a trail going back years. The horrors of Epstein’s abuses have been known for decades. Knowledge of Mandelson’s close links with Epstein after his jailing have been in the public domain at least since 2023, after years of reporting by the FT and Daily Mail. Back in January 2025 Starmer was ‘lukewarm’ about appointing him and as recently as February 2025 Mandelson swore at FT journalists for mentioning it. The most recent trigger flowed from the Epstein Transparency Act and diligent and painstaking matching of documents after a leak.

The focus is now on a first ‘due diligence stage’ when Mandelson was appointed, when, as the Guardian explained a ‘document’ was given ‘to No 10 with outstanding questions before his appointment in late 2024’. Three questions were asked and reassurances apparently given. Starmer’s future now hinges on answer to a very specific question ‘When he made that appointment, was he aware that Mandelson had continued his friendship even after Epstein’s conviction?’

Starmer replied at PMQs that Mandelson had ‘lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein, before and during his tenure as ambassador’ and explained how

What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years. New information was published in September, showing that the relationship was materially different from what we had been led to believe.

Starmer’s future may depend on if the evidence convincingly shows the ‘sheer depth and the extent of the relationship’ and that the ‘new information was materially different’.

Rather like Johnson’s ignorance of the parties, opponents have questioned how Starmer did not know. Badenoch mocked Starmer’s ignorance ‘He did know, it was on Google…If the Conservative research department could find this information out, why couldn’t No. 10?’ Voters were left unconvinced and 64% of voters ‘believe Starmer had enough information about their relationship to know it was bad idea to appoint Mandelson’ and only 21% felt he didn’t.

Starmer wanted to ‘release the documents as quickly as possible’  but events have proven otherwise. The danger for Starmer is that, like with Partygate, the government has now lost control of the disclosure process. As David Allen Green explains here, others will now control the flow of information, and it is almost certain that more information means more problems and revelations.

Just like Partygate, this scandal has triggered inquiries, and now arrests by the police, and a rather unusual role for The Intelligence and Security Committee, which has promised ‘maximum transparency’ and has asserted control over what will be released, with apparent agreement from the police.  It is even possible that Starmer could be investigated by his own Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, a post he strengthened because of Boris Johnson’s neglect of it.

There will now be continued pressure from Parliament and the media. Partygate triggered a series of forensic questions, especially from one Keir Starmer and a rolling series of leaks, briefings and tips, which drove more questions and scrutiny between MPs and the press.

The questions are already building for Starmer. The media are focusing on a key subset of emails held back by the police. Wes Streeting, a possible leadership candidate against Keir Starmer, has published some really quite convenient, if not downright Potemkin style, WhatsApp messages. In another potential avenue, before his arrest the US Congress has formally asked Mandelson to testify. The row, speculation and subsequent admission over who tipped off the Met may be the shape of things to come.

Another parallel is that this scandal comes amid worsening, if not broken, relations between the two most important groups in British politics: government and their own backbenchers. Partygate came just after a huge rebellion against Johnson, and his extremely questionable defence of an MP who breached the rules on lobbying.

Even before this, Labour MPs were deeply unhappy. The relationship between Labour MPs and the Labour Frontbench had deteriorated extraordinarily quickly, partly because of fragility of MPs majorities, partly because of inexperience, and partly because of an extraordinary series of missteps by the government. To worsen the situation, the public don’t believe Starmer’s defences, and a majority of voters now believe he should resign.  Both events deepen the crisis of trust in politics. Partygate worsened an already bleak picture, bringing it to a record low. Mandelson’s scandal undercuts all Starmer’s claims that he wants to restore and repair it.

It is unlikely one  piece of evidence or a document that will exonerate Starmer, rather than muddy the waters or making it worse. Even the formal investigations into Partygate, and the famous Gray reports, which seemed on the surface to clear Johnson, provided damning evidence in the small print and photos. Most importantly, it seems unlikely that this is the last of the revelations, with more buried deep in the Epstein Files or in the government’s own estimated 100,000 documents.

By Dr Ben Worthy, Lecturer in Politics, Birkbeck, University of London.