In a tumultuous week for British politics, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government found itself at the center of two converging storms: a deepening scandal over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to Washington, and a massive far-right march in London that drew sharp criticism for its divisive rhetoric and violence. Both crises have tested Starmer’s leadership, exposed rifts within his party, and raised urgent questions about national security, transparency, and the country’s struggle against rising extremism.
The first of these controversies erupted over the government’s handling of Lord Mandelson’s appointment to the coveted ambassadorial post in Washington. As The Independent reported, the foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper, was forced to admit during a heated emergency debate in the House of Commons on September 16, 2025, that Mandelson had not undergone national security vetting before his appointment was announced on December 20, 2024. Instead, Cooper revealed, "The propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office conducted a due diligence process prior to the announcement of Peter Mandelson’s appointment... This was not a security check. After Peter Mandelson’s appointment was announced, [the FCDO] started the ambassadorial appointment process, including national security vetting, in advance of him taking up his post."
This revelation came as the government faced mounting pressure to explain not only the vetting process but also what it knew about Mandelson’s links to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Starmer was compelled to sack Mandelson last week after the publication of emails showing Mandelson had sent supportive messages to Epstein even as the American faced jail for sex offences. According to The Sun and Bloomberg, these emails included Mandelson urging Epstein to "fight for early release" shortly before Epstein was sentenced to 18 months in prison, and telling him, "I think the world of you" the day before Epstein began his sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor in June 2008.
The fallout was immediate and fierce. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called on the prime minister to apologize to Epstein’s victims and to "publish the Mandelson-Epstein files in full." She accused Starmer of trying to "cover for him" by sending out junior ministers rather than coming clean about what he knew and when. Veteran Tory MP Sir David Davis went further, insisting that Mandelson’s links to Epstein had been "crystal clear" before Starmer defended him at Prime Minister’s Questions the previous week. Davis argued that security agencies would have recognized "a clear possibility of kompromat"—compromising material that could be used for blackmail—if proper vetting had occurred.
Labour’s own ranks were not immune to the controversy. MP Richard Burgon criticized what he saw as "unfair" treatment of certain Labour MPs, such as Diane Abbott and those who opposed cuts to disability benefits, who had been suspended from the party, while Mandelson remained a Labour peer in the House of Lords. Allies of Mandelson, who has now been forced to leave Labour governments three times, maintained that he had been forthright about his ongoing relationship with Epstein during his vetting interview. Still, the damage to the government’s credibility was palpable.
As the Commons debate raged, the story took an unexpected turn when tech billionaire Elon Musk weighed in from afar. Musk, owner of X (formerly Twitter), reposted an old tweet from Starmer to Boris Johnson stating "The party is over ... Resign," and added the word "Yes"—a thinly veiled call for Starmer himself to step down. The intervention underscored the international attention and political stakes swirling around the scandal.
Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty tried to steady the ship, emphasizing that Starmer had been "explicitly clear that the new information is and was not compatible with the duty that we owe the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s horrendous crimes against women and girls." Yet for many, the question remained: how could such a high-profile appointment have slipped through the cracks of national security vetting, and what does it say about the government’s judgment at a time of rising political volatility?
That volatility was on full display just days earlier, when approximately 110,000 people took to the streets in what may have been the largest far-right protest in UK history. The march, led by Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), a convicted criminal with a history of assault, fraud, and anti-Muslim activism, saw a surge of anti-Islam rhetoric and racist conspiracy theories. According to The Guardian, the event was further inflamed by a video message from Elon Musk, who told the crowd, "violence is coming" and urged them to "fight back or you die." The march ended with 26 police officers injured—a sobering testament to the tensions simmering beneath the surface of British society.
Starmer’s response, delivered at a cabinet meeting on September 16, 2025, was unequivocal: the UK faces "the fight of our times" against the kind of division embodied by the march. Downing Street extended its criticism to Musk, noting that many Britons, especially those from minority backgrounds, would have felt "intimidated by calls to violence from foreign billionaire." Starmer told his ministers that the scenes of police officers being attacked and a march led by a convicted criminal "were not just shocking but sent a chill through the spines of people around the country, and particularly many ethnic minority Britons." He urged the government to "heed the patriotic call of national renewal" and insisted that "this was a fight that has to be won."
Yet the government’s messaging was not always consistent. Business secretary Peter Kyle initially downplayed the scale and rhetoric of the event, telling reporters on September 14, 2025, that the march was "proof that we live in a country where free speech, free association, is alive and well." His comments drew criticism from Labour MPs and prompted a swift clarification from Starmer’s spokesperson, who stated, "Obviously, freedom of speech, freedom to march, is a core part of this country’s values. But what he’s saying is, when some people see a convicted criminal egged on by foreign billionaire calling for violence, some people are going to legitimately feel scared and intimidated. Some of that will be because of their background or the colour of their skin."
Starmer’s team stopped short of labeling the march outright as a far-right event, but the implications were clear: the rise of extremism, emboldened by high-profile figures and unchecked rhetoric, poses a real threat to social cohesion and public safety. The events of the past week have left many Britons anxious about the direction of their country and skeptical of their leaders’ ability to navigate these treacherous waters.
As the dust settles, the government faces a daunting task: restoring trust, ensuring transparency in its own ranks, and confronting the forces of division with clarity and resolve. Whether it can do so remains to be seen, but the stakes—both political and moral—have rarely felt higher.
