The latest tranche of documents released in the Peter Mandelson scandal has been described by government sources as 'embarrassing', 'excruciating', 'sycophantic', and 'cringeworthy'. Yet even these adjectives fall short of capturing the full absurdity of the contents. Among the roughly one thousand pages, we find Peter Mandelson assuring then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy that if appointed ambassador to Washington, 'he would never regret it'—a remark dripping with unintentional irony. Other communications are self-parodic, preening, arrogant, and frankly depressing. One particularly bizarre suggestion involves presenting Donald Trump with a specially inscribed British ministerial 'red box', a move that underscores the lengths to which the UK went to ingratiate itself with a superpower.
Entertainment Without Substance
While the gossip is entertaining, it does little to answer the serious question of whether Lord Mandelson was ever a suitable candidate for HM ambassador to the United States. This second volume of the Mandelson files is frustratingly incomplete. The statement from Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones to the Commons was notably uninformative. He acknowledged that possibly crucial digital WhatsApp messages have been lost or destroyed, with lessons to be learned—a familiar refrain.
Mandelson's Overreach
A striking feature of the released files is Lord Mandelson's tendency to interfere across the entire government, from criticising Wes Streeting's views on Palestine to sympathising with Louise Haigh over her dismissal as transport secretary, and exchanging with Pat McFadden about the prime minister lacking 'verve'. Nothing was outside his remit. He acted more like an unelected de facto prime minister than a prospective ambassador. Whether this would have added wisdom or stability to the government is unknown, but his previous attempt during Gordon Brown's administration had mixed success.
Central Questions Unanswered
These glimpses into 'government by WhatsApp' are largely irrelevant to the core issue: why was Mandelson ever considered appropriate for the Washington post? Parliament demanded these files to answer that very question. Instead, they merely confirm that Peter Benjamin Mandelson is conceited, scheming, and prone to trouble—facts already well known. The files tell us next to nothing about his suitability as ambassador.
A critical error was allowing Mandelson's candidature to proceed when he declined to release his own WhatsApp messages. These were private but would have been treated as highly confidential within the vetting procedure. His refusal should have prompted a rethink among those who considered him 'a risk worth taking'.
Incomplete Disclosures
The disclosures demanded by the Commons remain glaringly incomplete. We do not even know which documents have been withheld. While deference to a Metropolitan Police investigation may explain the withholding of the UK Security Vetting report, there is no excuse for the absence of documentation regarding 'mitigations' put in place by Sir Olly Robbins, former head of the diplomatic service, after clearing Mandelson for the ambassador role. Sir Olly told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that he had 'many discussions with Mandelson about his Global Counsel stake and how we manage it—not just the shares but the relationships'. We remain none the wiser about these conversations or whether they were actioned. Recent leaks suggest they may involve Russian, Chinese, and Israeli interests. The question for the prime minister is what he or his colleagues knew about these potentially problematic relationships, and when. Mandelson has denied any wrongdoing.
Ongoing Distraction
The Mandelson affair is far from over. It will drag on, distracting the government for weeks or months. This is debilitating even if Sir Keir were basking in public adoration; at present, it adds to a whiff of decay. The episode continues to question the prime minister's judgement, even though it is now clear he did not lie to parliament about overriding the Foreign Office's security clearance decision. For a party that promised 'Change' and to clean up politics, these revelations suggest an unhealthy, hypocritical streak of cynicism and unprofessionalism. Those who placed faith in Sir Keir Starmer two years ago will find this deeply disappointing.
