Keir Starmer could face further resignations when ministerial WhatsApp messages are published in the next tranche of the Peter Mandelson files, senior government sources have told the Guardian. Officials are bracing for subsequent releases, expected to include informal communications alongside formal messages like those in the first batch.
Starmer apologised again on Thursday over his handling of Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador, saying: “It was me that made a mistake, and it’s me that makes the apology to the victims of [Jeffrey] Epstein, and I do that.” The disclosures, forced by a Conservative parliamentary motion after Mandelson was sacked nine months into his role, are not expected for several weeks and will be examined by the intelligence and security committee for national security concerns.
Mandelson has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office after emails appeared to show he forwarded confidential information to Epstein while business secretary. He denies wrongdoing. Officials believe some exchanges in the next tranche will be damaging enough to lead to further departures.
All senior ministers, civil servants and special advisers have been asked to have their phone messages examined, including former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney and former communications director Matthew Doyle. McSweeney and Doyle had a “back and forth” over Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, according to the files.
Ministers may argue that personal messages should be excluded, but some officials believe this could lead to accusations of a cover-up. Health secretary Wes Streeting has already released his own messages, which included criticism of the government’s growth strategy. The Metropolitan police are withholding queries sent to Mandelson about Epstein and his responses.
Mandelson has told friends he believes the responses will show he did not intentionally mislead the prime minister, but No 10 insists they were lied to. Ministers have been warned not to be too critical of Mandelson in the media to avoid prejudicing a future trial.
