The political storm centers on revelations that Prime Minister Keir Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the United States despite ongoing contacts between Mandelson and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In February 2026, Starmer admitted he knew about some level of that relationship before appointing him, though he insists he did not grasp how deep it was. What follows is a satirical take on that narrative.
Keir Starmer and the Question That’s Too Delicious to Ignore
What Did Starmer Know?
According to the official line, Starmer knew Mandelson had a pre-existing relationship with Epstein — but was utterly blindsided by the “depth and darkness” of that connection, akin to claiming he knew someone liked mayonnaise but was shocked to discover they also put it on their porridge.
In the Starmer Tell-All version, this means:
- Starmer had some knowledge — akin to knowing someone had a brother-in-law who once shook hands with a cat whisperer.
- But he was apparently blissfully unaware that it was … a Kafkaesque web of horrors and email forwarding to convicted sexual predators.
The official explanation resembles a made-up excuse your dad gave when he returned home three hours late: “I knew he was in a band … I just didn’t know they were a death-metal polka ensemble.”
And When Did He Know It?
Starmer has claimed he learned of the ongoing relationship during vetting, but that he was misled about its extent by Mandelson and his loyal staff. Thus we have the “I knew something bad might be brewing, but not that bad” defence — the political equivalent of seeing smoke from a neighbour’s BBQ and assuming they’re grilling burgers, not barbecuing classified documents and moral authority.
The Fall of a Prime Minister: A Satirical Narrative
Act One: The Appointment of Doom
In a grand gesture of unity and brilliance, Starmer appoints Mandelson, the political varnish enthusiast who once hosted a dinner party with Epstein — a dinner that included not just hors d’oeuvres, but leaked government memos mixed with salad.
At the press conference, Starmer insists none of them knew just how deep and dark the relationship was — a phrase that sounds like the title of a goth opera starring accounting spreadsheets and soggy Yorkshire puddings.
Act Two: The Whispers Grow Louder
Opposition parties and even some of Starmer’s own MPs begin to whisper (loudly) that this was not a “blink-and-you-missed-it” oversight but rather the political equivalent of forgetting to check whether Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a secret operative in an alien invasion.
Cool-headed analysts demand the publication of vetting documents, which Starmer almost releases but then cites a police request that’s ever so convenient — much like someone citing “doctor’s orders” whenever they’re asked to explain why they ate a whole cake.
Act Three: The Dramatic Resignation
Mandelson resigns in a dramatic flourish worthy of a daytime soap, announcing that he is leaving “to spend more time with his memoirs and the ghost of midnight regret.”
Starmer then gives an apology speech that mixes humility with baffling ambiguity — he’s sorry for appointing Mandelson, sorry for believing him, and sorry that everyone now has to watch this slow-motion political train wreck. This apology is so sincere it could win a Sad Opera Grammy — but not necessarily a vote of confidence.
Comic Evidence, Expert Opinions, and Ridiculous Inferences
Expert Opinion on the Vetting Fiasco
Some political commentators point out that Starmer’s vetting process was, shall we say, enthusiastically optimistic. They argue that basic due diligence could have avoided the entire mess — much like checking whether a parachute actually opens before the plane door swings open for fun.
Professor of Political Common Sense (fictional but highly quoted):
“Nothing says ‘leadership fail’ like appointing someone who might have been sending weekly newsletters to a known predator. One hopes the vetting file was not left behind a geodesic dome in Area 51.”
Public Opinion: Confused and Baffled
A hastily constructed poll reported that 81% of Britons have heard of star fruit but only 19% understand how Starmer didn’t understand the depth of this relationship — a statistic that makes perfect sense in precisely three dimensions.
Deductive Logic for the Logically Inclined
If Mandelson was known to have contact with Epstein, and Epstein was widely known to be notorious, then Starmer’s claim of ignorance strains logic like a cotton shirt in a toddler’s sock dryer.
Logically:
- Epstein = bad.
- Mandelson + Epstein = bad.
- Starmer appointed Mandelson anyway = ?
Common sense says the answer should contain the phrase “not a good idea,” but political dramas prefer arcs involving “internal memos mysteriously lost under a pile of stale scones.”
The Grand Satirical Conclusion
At this stage, calls from opposition lawmakers — and some within Labour — for Starmer to resign are growing louder than a toddler demanding dessert. Whether he steps down, clings to office like a cat refusing a bath, or simply evaporates into a grey fog of public apologies remains to be seen.
But this episode, in satirical terms, reads like:
- A tragedy crossed with a farce.
- A historical curiosity that will be taught in schools next to “How Not to Vet Your Friends.”
- A story that could be subtitled “The Prime Minister Who Thought He Knew the Depth — But Maybe He Just Didn’t Look.”
Satirical Remark
If Starmer’s political career were a theatrical performance, this would be the scene where the orchestra stops, everyone looks confused, and the script calls for an exit stage left that no one has rehearsed.
Disclaimer: This story is entirely a human collaboration between sentient beings — one being the world’s oldest tenured professor and the other a philosophy major turned dairy farmer — and is not to be blamed on AI. Cultural commentary and imaginative exaggeration are our sole intellectual offspring.
Auf Wiedersehen, amigo!
Alan Nafzger was born in Lubbock, Texas, the son Swiss immigrants. He grew up on a dairy in Windthorst, north central Texas. He earned degrees from Midwestern State University (B.A. 1985) and Texas State University (M.A. 1987). University College Dublin (Ph.D. 1991). Dr. Nafzger has entertained and educated young people in Texas colleges for 37 years. Nafzger is best known for his dark novels and experimental screenwriting. His best know scripts to date are Lenin’s Body, produced in Russia by A-Media and Sea and Sky produced in The Philippines in the Tagalog language. In 1986, Nafzger wrote the iconic feminist western novel, Gina of Quitaque. Contact: editor@prat.uk
