More than 1,500 pages relating to Peter Mandelson’s controversial appointment as US ambassador were released yesterday, reports BritPanorama.
Extraordinary exchanges, including texts, emails and official papers, were forced into the open amid the scandal surrounding the government. The files revealed Mandelson’s desperate lobbying and Cabinet ministers’ explosive secret messages questioning Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership.
Despite the revelations unearthed in the documents, No10 is facing “cover up” allegations from rival parties over missing information. Some documents remain withheld due to an ongoing police probe, while others have been redacted on national security grounds.
Questions remain following yesterday’s tranche of files, raising concerns about the Prime Minister’s future amid calls for transparency regarding the scandal.
What files are missing?
The Government has insisted the publication represents unprecedented transparency involving every Whitehall department. However, large portions are filled with redactions made by the Cabinet Office due to national security and diplomatic relations.
As MPs studied the documents yesterday, questions arose in Parliament about whether all relevant material had been disclosed. Shadow Minister Alex Burghart criticized the lack of evidence regarding the Prime Minister’s involvement in Mandelson’s appointment, suggesting it “beggars belief” that so little was documented.
Burghart questioned if there truly were no WhatsApp messages between the Prime Minister and the Labour peer relating to the appointment. He stated, “In all of these documents the Prime Minister’s presence is almost non-existent. Despite the fact he was appointing a man to be head of our most senior mission, we have almost nothing in his name.”
Why wasn’t vetting summary released?
The files were released after MPs demanded publication of documents related to Lord Mandelson’s appointment. One specific document withheld is the summary of the vetting process he underwent. Mandelson was arrested and questioned by Metropolitan Police in February as part of a probe into misconduct in public office.
Scotland Yard requested that No10 withhold some of the file due to concerns that its release could interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation. The Intelligence and Security Committee has been reviewing the files to ensure no violation of national security or foreign relations occurs, potentially meaning the public may never gain insight into the warnings issued by security officials about Mandelson’s appointment.
Can the PM survive this?
Documents revealed shocking messages that called into question Sir Keir’s leadership from within Labour’s top ranks. Among the most damaging were secret messages discussing a “mutinous” Parliamentary Labour Party. Concerns about a growing “anti-Keir tide” were highlighted, alongside fears that the Prime Minister’s authority could be undermined by humiliating U-turns.
In one exchange during Labour’s winter fuel payments crisis, then-Cabinet Office Minister Pat McFadden expressed concern for Keir, mentioning “a lot of manoeuvring” involving senior figures like Angela Rayner and Ed Miliband. Lord Mandelson commented that Sir Keir was “not leading from the front,” noting that Labour MPs were in a “mutinous state.”
Why was there a scramble to get Mandelson in position?
Files show that prior to his appointment, Mandelson personally lobbied then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy, noting that managing relations with Donald Trump’s administration demanded “super-human skills and luck.” A hand-written note from Mandelson to Lammy stated he would ensure the government would “never regret” appointing him as US ambassador.
However, Sir Keir Starmer’s national security adviser previously described the appointment process as “weirdly rushed.” Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair’s former Chief of Staff, raised concerns about Mandelson’s suitability before his December 2024 appointment. Sir Philip Barton, the Foreign Office’s top civil servant at the time, indicated the normal procedural process was altered, with Mandelson’s appointment announced before full vetting had been completed.
Why did Mandy refuse to share his texts?
Among the files, it was revealed that Mandelson had declined to provide WhatsApp messages from his personal phone, declining requests for access to material linked to his appointment. Officials sought this information as part of the disclosure process, but Mandelson reportedly “declined to comply with this request,” which has left the government with no further recourse to search his personal devices.
The documents also do not include any messages from McSweeney, whose phone was reported stolen last year.
The ongoing fallout from Mandelson’s appointment continues to raise pertinent questions regarding government transparency and accountability, alongside significant implications for Labour’s leadership amid growing internal dissent.
