The Tentacles of Power

I wouldn’t be overly interested in the contents of the Epstein files, nor is this the forum to discuss such sordid matters.  What is, however, of interest to note is just how far an individual whom seemed primarily driven by self-interest and personal enrichment was able to entwine their tentacles throughout governments and industry… and even reach deep inside the halls of power and influence within the UK.  

One can only wonder whether the actions of Jeffrey Epstein are rare, or simply that it is rare for a person in such a position, with such wealth, and with such an expansive network of associates to get exposed?  Given the “release” of the Epstein files was forced (and laboured), then it would appear the latter is seemingly the more likely; especially when it comes to the historical revelations towards one former Labour Party power broker… a person who seemingly wielded significant influence over past and present UK governments and Prime Ministers.

One could question why so many known occurrences and acts from this and other individuals within sitting (and previous) UK governments and the House of Lords prompted no response, no action, nor any investigation from UK authorities over the last twenty (20) years?  I would make no claim of any wrongdoing; however, it would seem curious as to what attracted/attracts those in the UK political spectrum and industrial sphere to a person in the USA so driven by self-interest and of no obvious benefit to the UK as a whole?  What “was in it” for such power-brokers in the UK?  What do influential people who set and influence UK legislation and government policy (policy that directly impacts out working lives and the companies we work among) have with a self-serving Financier based in the USA?  

Does not appointing someone said to be a liar (Sir Keir Starmer’s words, not mine), someone twice (!?!?) previously forced to resign from office, and someone known as the “Prince of Darkness” ring alarm bells? (Reference: The New York Times, Feb10 The Ties That Bound the UK’s ‘Prince of Darkness’ Peter Mandelson to Jeffrey Epstein – The New York Times).  It is a question to the sitting UK government as to why it took the courage and tenacity of Epstein’s victims to drag this into the light? Shame on you Keir Starmer and shame on your party.

Wealth and Influence

Forbes reported (How Jeffrey Epstein Got So Rich) of Epstein’s wealth:

Epstein described himself as “an experienced and successful financier and businessman,” an “entrepreneur who has built several highly profitable companies” and “one of the pioneers of derivative and option-based investing.” 

As also noted by CBS News (How did Jeffrey Epstein make all his money? – CBS News), that it is unclear how Epstein acquired and accumulated his vast wealth is telling.

What is however telling is how many politicians and public officials make vast sums of money from their property portfolios, venture capital entities, and hedge funds.  Often, their stunning successes could have one believe that they somehow had foreknowledge of events.  Most do seem to have successful portfolios, given humble beginnings before engaging in politics.

For example;

• Nancy Pelosi (USA) and her husband, venture capitalist Paul Pelosi, have an estimated net worth of over $275 million to $280 million. This wealth has grown significantly from an estimated $121 million in 2015, largely due to a high-performing investment portfolio focused on major technology stocks and real estate. (Nancy Pelosi to Retire in 2027: A Look at the Former Speaker’s Net Worth )
  
  
• “The Honourable” Peter Dutton (Former Australia Liberal Party leader) $30 Million Property Portfolio (Peter Dutton's $30million property portfolio: 26 properties in 35 years | Daily Mail Online)
  
  
• Former Labour deputy leader Angela Reyna (UK). How does a career politician and union representative with a lifetime (thus far) average taxable earning of less than what most senior engineers get paid afford a £800,000 trust-property (whilst most of us are getting crushed under the cost of living)?  I believe that this question has already been asked by the rappers “Crewkerne Gazette” and their catchy tune (“How Many Homes Can Rayner Buy?” – Angela Rayner’s fresh new track from The Crewkerne Gazette | The Crewkerne Gazette | Facebook).

Whilst none of this is an indication of wrongdoing, and no claims of links to Epstein are made, it is none the less curious and prompts the question as to whom our elected officials set government policy to benefit?   

Energy Policy and the UK Oil & Gas Sector

One only has to look at the crippling UK government policies towards the UK Oil and Gas sector to have serious concerns about how these policies are in any way beneficial to the UK, or in any way aid the fight against climate change.  By extending the Energy Profits Levy (ELP) on oil and gas producers (Changes to the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy – GOV.UK) and bringing the headline rate of tax on upstream oil and gas activities to 78%, the sitting UK government is stifling capital investment and putting many of the remaining jobs in the North Sea sector at risk (Labour’s new windfall tax plan sparks job loss warning | Offshore Energies UK (OEUK)).

• The ELP doesn’t stop Russia ramping up Oil and Gas production and selling this same oil back into the EU via India.  (How India plans to continue buying Russian oil despite sanctions | Energy News | Al Jazeera_).  It is noteworthy that Russian produced oil is characterised by high intensity methane emissions, land contamination and a significantly higher environmental burden than UKCS produced oil (Over-polluting and under-reporting: A look inside Russia’s dirty fossil fuel industry – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists).   I don’t see environmentalists protesting about any of that?!?!
  
  A question to those ministers setting policy is: “how is replacing UKCS produced oil with Russian oil in any way environmentally of financially beneficial for the UK”? It would be an obvious question to ask current Greens Leader, Zack Polanski.   The ELP seems to benefit Russia far more than it benefits the UK and it’s citizens.  According to Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard, the double hypocrisy here is that the EU spends more on importing Russian oil, than it gives to Ukraine in aid intended to fend of Russian military aggression!  (Reference: Fact check: Does the EU import more from Russia than it gives Ukraine in aid? | Euronews).
  
  
• The ELP on the UK’s estimated 700,000 barrel-per-day production has no impact on oil production in the USA, Venezuela, Middle Eastern, etc. that accounts for over 100 million barrels per day.  UK production isn’t even a single figure percentage of global daily oil production, so it unlikely to have any influence over climate change.

• If the current (for the time being) UK PM in Sir Keir Starmer really cared that much for the environment, then would he be such frequent user of private jets?  That hypocrisy sinks in even deeper when one considers that beyond use of a private jet when at COP28 (Keir Starmer used Qatar-funded private jet for Emir trip), Sir Keir even flew private jet when attending an environmental event in Scotland (as reported in the Guardian, May 2024, Reference: Starmer admits he flew by private jet to clean energy jobs rally in Scotland | Labour | The Guardian).

Private Jets and Political Optics

“Keir Starmer has admitted he used a private jet to travel to a campaign rally in Scotland where he promised to create “tens of thousands” of clean energy jobs with a new publicly owned energy company in the country.

Responding to media questions after speaking to activists in Greenock, Inverclyde, Starmer said: “We did use a private jet because we did need to get very quickly to Scotland from Wales yesterday and it was the most efficient form of transport in the middle of a very busy general election campaign.” Guardian May, 2024:

Perhaps private jet use is a socialist thing given fellow socialist and former Unite Union boss Len McCluskey also seems to have made (like Sir Keir Starmer) frequent use of private jet flights (Reference: The Standard – July 2025: Former Unite union boss Len McCluskey took private jet flights organised by building firm, report finds | The Standard)?  Is it coincidence that the Unite Union is one of the UK Labour parties largest doners (Reference: www.parliament.uk – House of Lords – Report – Select Committee on Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding), and somehow these allegations of serious corruption have faded from public view? It isn’t as if the Unite Union hasn’t previously been reported to have been associated with corruption and fraud?!? (Reference: Sky News, November 2022 – Trade union Unite severs ties with long-term supplier over criminality concerns | Politics News | Sky News). 

Credit should go to current Unite General Secretary, Sharon Graham for driving “Project Clean Up” (Reference: interim-report.pdf).  Whilst “Project Clean Up” aims to address corruption within the Unite Union, it probably will not address whom (if anyone) at the Labour party turned a blind-eye as they accepted party donations?!?  One can only speculate if, or how often Sir Keir Starmer and Len McClusky crossed over in the Airport’s Executive Lounge as they jetted off on private jet flights?

A Final Question

It makes one wonder if more self-interest driven people with influence like Epstein are common within the chambers of power and government, or just uncommon that they are caught out? If not, then whom is reaping the benefits from the current UK government’s current NET ZERO policies? Certainly not UK tax payers and diminishing oil and gas workers. Certainly not the environment. Then who?

I believe it was Mark Twain who was quoted as saying “We have the best government that money can buy.”  I do wonder how we should consider that quote? Perhaps the disgraceful actions of Epstein give us context as to how we should?  I expect that this is a question best directed to those who make use of private jets given this seems to be a common theme?