As I was writing last week’s post on the US’s busy January, the US Department of Justice-for-some released the newest batch of Epstein-related material, a three million-document collection of emails, photographs, witness testimonies, draft indictments, and so on. Of course, nothing particularly incriminating of Trump has caught the attention of the mainstream media, though the files do include serious but uncorroborated allegations of rape and sexual assault by Trump against girls who were children. Like the previous releases, the pages and pages of files are littered with redactions, consistently obscuring names and email addresses of obvious perpetrators and repeatedly exposing the identities of victims. The haphazard and inconsistent redactions have caused some to suggest the DoJ might be using computer programs or AI to redact parts of the documents. Indeed, the word ‘don’t’ appears to be redacted in one page of email correspondence. I wonder what three later name one could ask AI to find and redact that might cause it to slip up and redact such a word? Democratic congresspeople (and Thomas Massie) slammed the release for these redactions or lack thereof, and once again reiterated that such redactions are illegal; the bill ordering the release of the files makes it utterly clear that only victims names could (and should) be redacted.
They should do something about it. It is well within the power of the house of representatives to hold the DoJ or its attorney general Pam Bondi in contempt. They could even do it under house rules, and make it legally untouchable, the legislative branch being separate as it is from the judicial branch, and completely sovereign in how it conducts its business. This would likewise avoid the need for a cooperative senate. Such a manoeuvre would need a majority of course, but the Democrats are awfully close right now. They managed to get enough Republicans to cave on the initial bill. And this time, if Massie votes with them, and all Democrats vote together, they would need just two more red representatives to pass a resolution 217-215 (D 214-218 R with vacancies D 1-2 R). Even if it failed, it would once again force Republicans to vote on record against demanding transparency. (Since writing this, the Democrats have demanded wide-ranging restrictions on ICE in exchange for their funding to avoid a partial shutdown, so are busy making good trouble at the moment.)
What the files lacked in coverage of major American political figures, they more than made up for this side of the Atlantic in their inclusion of new and revelatory materials regarding soon-to-be former Lord, Peter Mandelson and already former Prince, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. The most embarrassing and incriminating documents of the latter are a trio of photographs of the man, on all fours, crouching over an unknown woman, whose face is redacted. (It beggars belief that these men allowed such ridiculously disgusting photographs to be taken. Such were the untouchable positions these men found themselves.) Correspondence also suggests Andrew invited Epstein to Buckingham Palace, asking him to “come with whomever,” and assuring “lots of privacy.”
But Mandelson’s is the biggest story of the week. Not only did his friendship with Epstein continue long after his 2008 conviction for procuring a child for prostitution (which was already known, and for which he was sacked as British ambassador to the US last year), but extended to the former disclosing market-sensitive (and therefore classified) information to the latter, while he was Labour’s Business Secretary under Gordon Brown, for which the Metropolitan Police have opened an investigation, and raided his house.
The outcry from Labour MPs was immediate and immense, and was not lessened on Wednesday, when Starmer admitted to the commons to much disturbance, that “yes, [the official security vetting] did” reveal Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, and that Starmer appointed him as ambassador anyway, having received assurances on the nature of the relationship from Mandelson, to whom questions were put. The Conservatives are pushing for a ‘humble address’ to force the disclosure of government material related to Mandelson, though Starmer is hoping to pre-empt this by releasing such information, sans such material that would harm national security (as is standard), or would prejudice international relations. Many Labour MPs (or altenratively, a few loud ones) anonymously suggested to media outlets that MPs were only a challenger away from a confidence vote, but that no member ‘pulled the trigger.’ For the moment, Starmer is focussing on the documents, which he hopes will affirm to MPs and voters alike that Mandelson lied to the government. That they weren’t to know.
This is what Beth Rigby, political editor for Sky News, and Duncan Robinson, political editor for the Economist, refer to when they pose the question that is this piece’s title. Not the decades-long involvement of US and UK politicians in the sphere of Epstein’s influence; not the distinct possibility that Epstein may have trafficked underage girls to very important and influential men, including politicians, for decades both before and after his imprisonment; not that Trump administration officials may have perjured themselves before the US congress in denying there was any evidence to support such a conclusion, presumably in order to protect the president; not that justice continues to elude the victims as they are further subjected to danger and trauma, their names released in incompetently handled documents; not even Mandelson’s possible criminal conduct, for which he could face jail time. No. That Starmer appointed him as US ambassador. It was an extraordinary misjudgement. Disgraceful, given what was known about Epstein. But the biggest political scandal of the century? If this is to be the biggest political scandal of the century, it will only be because they will make it so.
(Even giving them credit that they probably mean ‘UK political scandal,’ perhaps they should recall the events that led to Johnson’s resignation as prime minister. His government lied to the commons that they had not known about allegations made against Chris Pincher, who had been appointed Deputy Chief Whip, of two instances of sexual assault. In fact, it was revealed that Johnson had joked about the allegations in text messages sent before the appointment. This certainly bears similarities to current events, except that the appointee was the one to engage in the sexual offence, rather than a friend (granted, offences of different orders of magnitude); Johnson lied to the commons, which there is not yet evidence to suggest Starmer has; and the controversy (and the various previous ones, like Partygate) actually toppled the government, rather than provoking a media fervour that the government might. Oh, and the war in Iraq was this century too.)
I propose instead that the following is at least as scandalous. Mandelson’s post-conviction relationship with Epstein was already known. In 2023, the financial times reported findings of an internal JPMorgan report that revealed Mandelson had stayed at Epstein’s luxurious residence in New York during Epstein’s incarceration. And when Starmer appointed him in 2025, did the Conservatives say anything about such connections? If they did, they were damn quiet about it. Did Labour MPs? Ditto. Did Sky News report on his appointment? Yes! And they called it controversial. But not because of his Epstein connections. No, they made no appearance. The government, Starmer, his party, the opposition, and the press didn’t care. It’s not like Epstein (or his partner Ghislaine Maxwell) weren’t convicted sex offenders this time last year.
But, then again, what is the point of Starmer anymore? Indeed, this is the title the Economist article original used. The Labour party under Starmer ran on a promise: they would follow the rules. Unlike previous governments, they would be squeaky clean. And Starmer, uncharismatic and dull as he is, was seen to typify such good, boring governance. However significant the incursion may be, he has failed in this task. So why keep him on? A new government could revitalise the party. The current government is economically centre left, but their technocratic vibes and centrist personnel allow left-wing Labour factions and the Greens to obfuscate this. A new government could give the current economic policy a chance to chime with left-wing voters, while finding space to espouse socially progressive views, rather than chasing a socially conservative, economically centre-left voter that hardly exists.
On Sunday, Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's Chief of Staff, resigned and took full responsibility for the decision to appoint Mandelson as US ambassador, a decision he indeed took a major part in. Will it steady the ship? Or was it too little too late? Starmer has elevated his two deputy chiefs to acting chiefs, positions they could well hold for a while as the leadership decides on the direction in which it wants to go. McSweeney fell squarely on the right of the party and was a bit of a bogeyman to those on the other side, who will be pleased with his exit, no matter the manner in which it has come about. Starmer will have to decide whether he wants more of the same, or whether he needs to shake things up. I think there's only one option, but whether he sees the writing on the wall before walking into it, we'll have to wait and see.
And Starmer has apologised. But a real apology needs action. And if Starmer is to survive, he certainly needs to act. (Whatever pressure was applied to McSweeney, he resigned, and was not sacked.) One promise may not have held together as it should have, but another might. If elected, it said, Labour would halve violence against women and girls in the UK in a decade. To do so, they need to commit far more funding than they already have to programmes which aim to tackle this violence. They have raised taxes by £70 bn in the last two budgets, called the most left-wing budgets in the last 50 years, and yet they keep haemorrhaging support to the left. This suggests there is still space to raise such taxes further: they have to convince left-wing voters they really are a centre-left government (economically). It's not like current polling suggests they have much to lose. The government will continue to act to try to improve people’s lives in the three-and-a-bit years before the next election, but they will eventually run out of time to change the narrative in the face of a ‘all politicians are equally bad’ media landscape, whatever changes in living standards materialise. They could still do so much more to improve the lives of many facing violence and abuse. This ought to be a wake-up call, whatever happens.
And all the while, the US looks on. A prime minister, not at all implicated in the files, facing enormous pressure from his own party! Trump remains unscathed and the Republicans in congress remain compliant and complicit. When the truth of the files out, then we should have the biggest political scandal of the century on our hands. Equally bad. Sure.

On Sunday, a whole three countries will head to the polls! A trio of national elections certainly makes an exciting Monday morning, though each has a clear likely outcome. Still – you never know. We’ll start closest to home, in Portugal, where voters will head to the polls for the second and final round of the presidential election, covering Japan next and Thailand next week. As is common in many European parliamentary systems, the presidency has far less power than presidential systems like France or the ultimate presidential system that is the US. However, the presidency is more than just a ceremonial role, with the power to veto legislation and force an absolute or supermajority vote in the Portuguese Assembly, depending on the type of legislation. The president has final say on military affairs, and most significantly, can dissolve the legislature at will, as the current president, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa did eleven months ago (read here: 17/03/25). That election returned a victory to the incumbent liberal conservative Social Democratic Party (SDP) administration, who once again formed a minority government. The social democratic Socialist Party (PS) fell to a disappointing third place, falling two seats behind the far-right Chega! (Enough!), who became the official opposition for the first time.
In fashion typical of such a populist platform, Andre Ventura, the Chega! party leader, once again ran for the presidency himself, while the SDP and PS nominated former party leaders Luis Marques Mendes and Antonio Jose Seguro, respectively. Both figures ran on the stability their experience would provide, their slogans ‘the value of experience’ and a play on the latter’s surname ‘safe future’ (‘futuro seguro’), contrasting Ventura’s immigration policy driven campaign. Ventura didn’t help himself in facing off the view espoused by his opponents, that he is extreme and/or unreliable, finding himself ordered by a Lisbon court to remove discriminatory anti-Romani campaign posters or face significant fines. Mendes faced his own issues, questioned on opaque business links, and ended up claiming a mere fifth place in the standings of the first round. Independent former Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Gouveia e Melo placed fourth with 12.3% of the vote, former Liberal Initiative party leader Cotrim de Figueiredo, third with 16.0%, Ventura in second with 23.5%, and Seguro first with 31.1%. Without any majority candidate, Seguro and Ventura battled it out in the run-off.
Or not really, in the end. The pair participated in just the one debate, on the 27th of January, where Seguro came out on top, according to subsequent polls. The next day’s devastating Storm Kristin, which with winds reaching 129.7 mph, is one of the most powerful storms ever recorded in Europe, caused several deaths and hundreds of injuries in Portugal and Spain, and has seen the subsequent campaigning period largely dominated instead by response to the damage caused, which included power outage to almost a million homes.
With the endorsement of the of three major candidates eliminated in the first round, the official support of all the major left-wing parties, and the tacit support of most of the centre-right or right-wing parties, Seguro is expected to come out on top, with current polling suggesting a 2:1 vote split between the two candidates. Seguro will hail a win for democracy, if he succeeds, while an upset by Ventura would rock Portuguese and European politics, it being so unlikely. In 2025, Chega! and the SDP got a combined 54.6% of the vote, so a win or close loss would signify the strong support of those who are his party’s most likely allies. Instead, Ventura may have to face the fact that there is simply a ceiling on the number of voters willing to support his far-right politics.

Update And find that out, he did! With 99% of the vote counted, Seguro is certain to win comfortably, with an impressive 66.8% of the vote. He won every region of Portugal and lost just the catch-all overseas consitutency, by a margin of only 3.8 percentage points.

Election Results: Antonio Jose Seguro, PS, 66.8%; Andre Ventura, Chega! 33.2%.

In Japan, voters too turned out to the polls, to vote in the snap election following the dissolution of the House of Representatives just over a fortnight before. It was a gamble by the incumbent prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, for her governing coalition, but it paid off, big time.
Takaichi is the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), a conservative nationalist party despite the name, which has governed Japan for all but six years since 1955. Following the 2024 general election, in which they lost support following a corruption and campaign financing scandal, they held 191 seats, short by 42 of a majority, and led a minority coalition with their long time allies Komeito, a smaller centrist party. Since that election, this coalition has broke down, and the LDP has had to instead rely on Ishin, the Japan Innovation Party, a right-wing populist group.
A big tent, Takaichi falls far to the right of the LDP, and is part of its ultraconservative ultranationalist faction, Nippon Kaigi. In keeping with this, she is a steadfast revisionist of Japanese history, denying or downplaying atrocities sanctioned and ordered by the Japanese government and military that killed at least 10 million during the first half of the 20th century. This has included support for the revisionist history textbooks, fairly controversial in Japan, and highly controversial in China and Korea, in eliding or glossing over the widespread state-orchestrated enslavement of up to 200 000 women, mostly from Korea, for rape by Japanese soldiers, the forced labour of millions of prisoners in China, that resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands, and the description of Japanese invasions in East Asia of the period simply as ‘advances.’
She uses this position to more easily call for amendments to the Japanese constitution, in particular the reframing of the Japanese Defence Force as a ‘national army,’ currently prohibited by the 1947 document. Imposed on Japan by the US during its post-war occupation, the document relinquishes Japan’s sovereign ‘right of belligerency,’ its right to go to war. On the other hand, economically, she hardly represents a change at all, following the playbook of Shinzo Abe, the party's longest serving prime minister, who governed from 2012 to 2020.
She remains personally very popular. And in framing yesterday’s election to maximise this support, she has provided her party the best performance by any political party in Japanese history, returning a two-thirds supermajority of 316 seats. Seats held by the major opposition coalition, the Centrist Reform Alliance (CRA), fell by two thirds, as Ishin and the centrist populist Democratic Party for the People (DPP) made moderate gains. Two fairly young parties, the far-right monoculturalist Sanseito, and the technocratic ‘E-democratic’ Team Mirai, had strong showings too, but their success will be rather eclipsed by a majority who will need no support in governing.
Unfortunately, a big part in this stunning victory, was down to the electoral system. Japan has a semi-proportionally representative system, by which 289 of representatives are elected in single-member constituencies, first-past-the-post, and 176 in 16-member constituencies, to which seats are allocated to parties proportionally. A whole 269 of the individual constituency seats were claimed by LDP or Ishin, leaving only 20 to the opposition. In part due to a dearth of candidates, the LDP claimed 49% of this vote. They contested all but 5 seats, while the CRA contested just 202, the DPP one hundred fewer. In the party-list votes, the LDP received just 37%, beating their closest competitors by far, but falling well below the 67% of seats with which they find themselves returned to the National Diet.
Regardless, many voters clearly have strong faith in their ‘Iron Lady.’ Takaichi campaigned on promises to both increase spending, and decrease taxes, a magic combination on the campaign-trail, but a ball-and-chain in government. Will her party manage it? Maybe. With such a majority, they’ll certainly be able to do whatever they want.

On Friday, top Russian military official, Lt Gen Vladimir Alexeyev, was shot three times at close range by an assailant inside his own apartment block. Two suspects have been apprehended, but their identities remain unknown as they face questioning by Russian authorities.
Of course, the Russian government were quick to blame Kyiv, but the Ukrainian government has so far denied involvement. Inflammatory as it is (albeit unsuccessful: Alexeyev has regained consciousness after operations to save his life), Ukraine would surely admit to such a coup, as they have in the past. A home infiltration by Kyiv operatives would embarrass Russia and project strength as the war extends into its fifth year at the end of this month. Perhaps Ukraine doesn’t want to disrupt the ongoing US-brokered peace negotiations; after all, Trump wants the war over by June (conveniently before the US midterms in November, as Zelenskyy has pointed out). But then, why would they carry out such an attack at this time?
Alexeyev is certainly not a man without enemies. In addition to his role in the ongoing invasion of Ukraine and his orchestration of the poisoning of Russian double agent for the UK, Sergei Skripal, Alexeyev was involved in the Russian intervention in Syria, during their decade long civil war, and no doubt in part responsible for the widespread indiscriminate and targeted bombing of civilians, aid workers, and civilian infrastructure, including hospitals. But the Syrian opposition, who now find themselves in government, would surely not provoke Russia in such a way. Al-Qaeda or Islamic State operatives instead perhaps? Though not allied with the Syrian opposition, they opposed the Assad regime and fought against Russia throughout the war: indeed, Russia’s stated aim was to fight these terror groups. But they haven’t claimed it. (And it doesn’t strike me as likely to have been MI6 either!)
Alexeyev was involved with the negotiations with the Wagner group of mercenaries, shortly after their rebellion in 2023 and shortly before their leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, died conveniently when his plane crashed, an onboard bomb being the likely cause. Maybe an ally or Wagner member took it upon themselves to avenge Prigozhin’s death and found Alexeyev to be the most suitable target.
Alexeyev will have opponents in the Russian oligarchy, and such are the machinations of the country’s elite to go to such lengths. Maybe it was apolitical entirely. A personal enemy Alexeyev had wronged. That would be a boring outcome. The world as it is at the moment, perhaps that would be the biggest surprise.

Since writing this on Saturday, Russian authorities have announced the extradition of a Ukrainian-born Russian citizen from the UAE, whom they allege carried out the attack with the two previously arrested people as his accomplices. Ukraine continue to deny any involvement, despite Russian accusations, suggesting it is an internal affair.

It took months of negotiations, but he’s managed it. On Tuesday, embattled prime minister Sebastien Lecornu succeeded in the seemingly impossible task President Emmanuel Macron had set him when he twice appointed the former minister to the premiership in October: to pass a budget.
The previous government, led by Bayrou, the leader of the Democratic Movement, a party within Macron’s centre to centre-right Ensemble coalition, collapsed after he tried to pass an uncompromising budget, unpopular with both the New Popular Front to his left, and the National Rally on his right. He lost a confidence vote by a considerable 364-194 margin, and Macron was back to the drawing board.
It can’t really be said that he came up with a new idea. On the right-wing of Macron’s Renaissance party, Lecornu was seen as a rather safe pick, able to command the support of the other side of Macron’s coalition, but not further to the left. At 39, younger by far than his two predecessors, who were the two oldest French prime ministers at appointment since the establishment of the Fifth Republic, he was at least a fresher face, and being a former Republican, he could attract the support of his former allies, but it would hardly be enough to counter the split opposition's majority. He announced a cabinet on the 6th of October and faced such backlash that he resigned later that day, before being reappointed by Macron to try again just four days later. This time, by advocating for the suspension of Macron’s controversial pension reforms until after the presidential election next year, he gained the support of the social democratic Socialist Party, in a split from their allies in the New Popular Front.
After long negotiations, the Socialist Party managed to extract concessions, including €1 meals for university students, in exchange for their support. Or indeed, their confidence, as Lecornu decided to renege on previous statements to avoid using Article 49.3 of the French constitution. Such a move allows the government to pass legislation without a vote on the specific legislation in the National Assembly, but exposes the government to confidence votes, which collapsed both of the previous two.
So, both the democratic socialist France Unbowed (the largest party of the New Popular Front) and National Rally introduced confidence motions. The latter’s came nowhere near, the left-wing parties refusing to engage with the far-right nationalists, but France Unbowed's came close. With the support of National Rally, the Greens, the Union of the Right for the Republic, the Communists, several members of the Socialist group, some other minor parties, and one member of the Republicans, it fell just 18 votes short of the 289 it needed for an absolute majority. Lecornu survives for now.