Good old Mandy! There is so much to unpick and enjoy in the Epstein revelations – from the state of Mandy’s underwear to potential criminality: breaches of the Official Secrets Act, the Nolan Principles of Public Life (largely ignored by people in public life), passing on of confidential information, possibly also unpublished price sensitive information and, who knows, insider dealing on the back of it, corruption, misconduct in public office, tax shenanigans and so on.

The commentators and journalists will have a field day. Along with politicians busy throwing chaff to distract from their own role. Not just Starmer but one G Brown – quick to say that he asked for a Cabinet Office inquiry last autumn doubtless hoping that we’ll forget that it was he who brought Mandelson back into government in 2008. It was this which gave Mandelson value, value which Epstein exploited and Mandelson traded for his own (and others?) benefit. Poor judgment about Mandelson seems to afflict Labour Prime Ministers. He was brought back not just to be Business Secretary but to help Brown win the 2010 election. He nearly succeeded. If he had, the Labour Party would not have cared less about his Epstein links. 

What the Epstein files show is not just appalling sexual misconduct and criminality. They give us an illuminating look at how the elite, the political, business and governing establishment works, at how easily its behaviour can resemble – and on occasion turn into – behaviour indistinguishable from that of an international crime syndicate. Epstein and those around him (mostly men) behaved like the rich and powerful have always behaved: they established networks, cultivated contacts, nurtured political connections, traded favours and information, made deals, with scarcely any regard for the laws other than as inconveniences to be circumvented, to ensure the flow of money.

They lobbied and threatened; they donated generously to prestigious institutions and used this philanthropy to launder their reputations, to make people dependant on their largesse, more willing to stay silent and switch off whatever moral compass they had. The girls – many children – were simply one of the mechanisms used to provide favours, an unspeakably cruel, sordid one which Epstein calculated, correctly, that no-one would really care about, or not enough to take any effective action against the male abusers, every single one of them, apart from Epstein, yet to be held to account for their actions. 

Will they ever? Bet on “no“.

These establishments are the ones which for decades have created and run our politics and public life, which have set the terms for public discourse and  assumptions about how economies and polities should be structured and work. They haven’t been noticeably successful at creating a politics that works for those not in this elite. Here it has led to a state which – far too often – has forgotten what public service is meant to be, which has treated those it is meant to serve with indifference, contempt and dismissiveness. It has led to a state which has created – or allowed to develop – a climate in which far too many companies and individuals have put their own personal financial, commercial or other interests first, have disregarded the rules and laws and standards of professionalism, integrity, honour and decency, even at the expense of others’ lives. It has led to a state which too often has itself used every possible avenue to avoid accepting any sort of responsibility or accountability for its actions and has made it acceptable for others (both companies and individuals) to do the same. It has led to a state which takes advantage of the hard work and professionalism of many of its employees while failing to give them the support, leadership or effective management they need. It has led to a degradation of professional and personal conduct, a tolerance of lies and deception and serious damage to the trust we should have in our public institutions.

Starting to correct this should have been the golden thread running through everything the current government did. Instead it has added its own version of dishonesty and disingenuousness, topped up by illiberal authoritarianism.

In his recent Davos speech, Carney talked about taking the sign out of the window. He was referring to the international security based order of treaties and alliances. What he and his ilk perhaps don’t appreciate is that the non-Davos population view many of the establishment as those who treated the sign in the window as including a whole load of other things people did not much care for, who were happy with a system benefiting them and didn’t care about anyone else, no matter what voters said. People might well want other change, rather more fundamental change, than just that offered by Carney.

I’m not optimistic about this. Why? I’ve seen up close what happened in Italy.

Tangentopoli – a nationwide set of multiple connected investigations by Italian magistrates into bribery in public contracts, involving all the main political parties – started in 1992 when a Milanese politician, arrested for corruption and promptly dropped by his party’s leaders, started speaking up about the extent of corruption involving politicians and businessmen across the country. Those who got caught were abandoned by their former allies, talked, pointed the finger at others, yet more were arrested and on it went. At its height, as many as 5,000 public figures fell under suspicion. Many of them were part of those who would in Italy be described as members of the “salotto buono” – literally a fine drawing room – but in reality describing the members of the companies with cross-shareholdings in each other, common directors and directors moving from one to another, set up as a way of protecting the industrial north (based in and around Milan) from what was seen as the corrupt crime ridden South. It is one of the ironies of Tangentopoli that the corruption investigations started in Milan and involved precisely the political and industrial establishment the salotto buono was meant to protect. It also turned out, unsurprisingly, that the North was quite as enmeshed with organised crime as the South (which led to some justified schadenfreude amongst the Southern Italian establishment).

So many apparently respectable businessmen and others were collared by magistrates that not being arrested or interrogated was a sign that you were either too unimportant to be worth bribing or not rich enough to do so. More than half of the members of the Italian Parliament were under investigation at one point; over 400 city and town councils were dissolved because of corruption charges. The estimated value of bribes paid annually in the 1980s by Italian and foreign companies bidding for large government contracts reached US$4 billion. 

It led to widespread outrage when the stench of corruption which everyone knew about and accommodated, became too much to bear, even for Italians. The political establishment in power since WW2 disappeared. 

What did Italy get instead? Berlusconi: a man up to his neck in precisely the same rotten system who made it worse but was successful presenting himself as someone who understood the little people. It was a big fat lie, of course. He went into politics to protect his own interests. Even his party’s name – Forza Italia – was spin.

Something like that has happened in the US. It may happen here. Labour has not been the change that was needed. Farage certainly won’t be. There is a rottenness in the establishment which has frayed and is close to destroying trust in the state and the people in charge. It would be wrong to pin this on one man. When Mandelson – a Labour politician, remember – wrote to Epstein “I do not want to live by salary alone.” he described an attitude encapsulating both the entitled greed of an elite focused on gaining and hoarding more power and wealth to itself and a contempt for the majority who do, in fact, have to live by salary alone, salaries which have stagnated or fallen as a result of the very system and politics so praised and supported by the elite.

Will we see any effective change? Or will it be the usual process of outrage, finger-pointing, selective memory, tearful interviews, insincere apologies, inquiry, ‘insufficient evidence’, ignored recommendations and furious brushing under carpets? Bet on “yes“.

Cyclefree