Documents published on Monday to reveal what ministers knew about Peter Mandelson's links to Jeffrey Epstein have instead exposed deep rifts within the Labour government. The release of over 1,000 pages related to Mandelson's appointment as ambassador to Washington shows senior figures criticising each other, with Mandelson himself delivering some of the harshest assessments.
In a letter to Foreign Secretary David Lammy on 18 November 2024, Mandelson promised: 'If you were minded to appoint me, I would make sure you never regret it.' However, the documents reveal that Mandelson had previously written to Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden last May, saying: 'Keir [Starmer] is not leading from the front and Morgan [McSweeney, his chief of staff] is not organising the centre as it needs to be.' He added: 'It stems from the top and Keir lacks verve as does the cabinet as a whole.'
Mandelson also described No 10 as 'beleaguered and bereft', and criticised Health Secretary Wes Streeting as 'hysterical' and 'experiencing an early mid-life crisis' over Gaza. He called Energy Secretary Ed Miliband's criticism of Tony Blair 'personal and stupid', and said Chancellor Rachel Reeves was 'on a growth mission but without an argument about where the growth will come from or how'.
Other officials were equally critical. McFadden said of Labour MPs: 'Every meeting I have is: “Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?” They’re asking the wrong questions.' Pensions Minister Torsten Bell noted: 'Everyone [in government] seems to think it’s someone else’s job to get the policy right … which is very odd.'
The documents also reveal time spent on minor matters, such as procuring a ministerial-style red box as a gift for US President Donald Trump, which Mandelson likened to the BBC satire The Thick of It. However, they provide limited information on the security vetting process, with Mandelson appearing dismissive of requests to declare foreign contacts. One junior official told him: 'I suggest you send over the handful of names you mentioned, even though you don’t consider them “close contacts”. That will reassure the vetting team that you’ve been comprehensive, even if it’s all quite artificial.'
