In the United States, the scandal of the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking network has not led to a single resignation in either the private sector or the government. However, in the United Kingdom, it could cause the downfall of the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, this week.
The Prime Minister presented his last line of defense today, Sunday, by forcing the resignation of his chief of staff and close confidant, Morgan McSweeney, who took "full responsibility" for the appointment of former minister under Tony Blair and close associate of Epstein, Peter Mandelson, as ambassador to Washington.
McSweeney's departure from the Prime Minister's team, however, does not guarantee that the storm has passed. Many Labour members, especially from the left wing of the party, want the Prime Minister to resign, and they are not even willing to wait for the looming electoral disaster in the May local elections to push him out. The potential successors have various motivations, ranging from personal to ideological.
The frontrunner is former Deputy Prime Minister under Starmer, Angela Rayner, who had to step down in September due to a financial scandal. Rayner is more left-leaning than Starmer, and her desire to replace him is largely fueled by the resentment caused by the lack of support the Prime Minister - whose qualities do not include empathy - showed her during her political downfall. Rayner's strongest asset is her control over a significant portion of the Labour Party in the House of Commons.
Another viable candidate is the Health Minister, Wes Streeting, who enjoys a positive public image, although convincing some Labour MPs to vote for him will be challenging, as he aligns, along with Starmer, with the more conservative wing of the party. Ed Miliband, the Environment Minister, also has reasons to be hopeful, despite his catastrophic defeat as a prime ministerial candidate in 2015. Other candidates - such as the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, a left-wing 'star', and the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, known for her tough stance on immigration - have very slim chances.
Mandelson was never involved as a client or guest in Epstein's sex trafficking ring, along with his British associate Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the late businessman - and, according to some, Mossad spy - Robert Maxwell, who in the 1980s competed with Rupert Murdoch for control of the British tabloid press. However, revelations about his ties to Epstein have put Starmer in a politically precarious position.
Either he had to admit that Mandelson had deceived him and concealed his connections to Epstein, or confess that, even with that knowledge, he had decided to send him to Washington because 'the prince of darkness' - as the former diplomat and minister is colloquially known for his conspiratorial skills - was the necessary man to deal with the Donald Trump administration.
With the first response, Starmer appears incompetent. With the second, corrupt. Therefore, he has logically resorted to the argument that Mandelson deceived him. The problem is that, during his year and a half in office, the Prime Minister has shown enough arrogance, coldness, disregard for his own party, and to a large extent, for his own voters, as well as the ability to throw his collaborators under the bus, that it doesn't elicit sympathy from anyone. The Labour Party has been in a state of semi-rebellion for months due to the historic collapse of the party. Many believe that now is the time to seek revenge by targeting the Prime Minister's political head.