When the first tranche of the Peter Mandelson files was released yesterday, I, probably much like you, was expecting to be surprised. Perhaps there would be damning correspondence between Mandelson and colleagues criticising Maga officials or Donald Trump himself, I thought. What will that do to the already strained US-UK relationship? Or will there be fresh revelations about Starmer or Mandelson’s private views of cabinet ministers?
That may all be yet to come. But upon reading the files yesterday I realised there was very little I didn’t already know – and likely little new for regular New Statesman readers. All of those details around what Keir Starmer knew and when, what the vetting documents said, what the process involved, were all in the cover feature of our magazine on 4 February. Of course, it’s great that this information has been put in the public domain for scrutiny. It’s also a great moment to reflect that good old-fashioned public interest journalism got there first, sharing the important facts around Mandelson’s appointment and allowing you to scrutinise it without parliament compelling the government to release it. Compare and contrast the files with our account and we hope you’ll find ours has been proven to be entirely accurate and fair. We don’t often toot our own horn, but we think that’s something we’re proud of.
There were only two pieces of key information released yesterday that weren’t already in the public domain. The first was that Jonathan Powell, the Prime Minister’s national security adviser and top foreign policy adviser, found the appointment of Mandelson (whom he knew of old, of course) “weirdly rushed”, a quietly damning analysis that will haunt Starmer forever. Patrick Wintour at the Guardian had already reported that Powell had expressed misgivings – now those are confirmed. Powell has been utterly vindicated by the Mandelson fallout, but the fact it is now publicly known that his warnings weren’t heeded also undermines his authority. We have long been told Powell is Starmer’s most trusted, indispensable adviser – why was his opinion overlooked?
The second piece of new information was that Mandelson received a £75,000 pay-off after his dismissal, having asked for £500,000. The fact he received a penny after resigning in disgrace will enrage many readers, especially so when I inform you that Mandelson’s contract – also included in the files – shows the Foreign Office reserved the right to dismiss him without notice at any time. In other words, he was owed precisely £0. It’s also worth taking a moment to question why these details were included in this batch of the file release. A cynic might wonder if rage over Mandelson’s entitlement, asking to receive half a million, is a more convenient headline for the Prime Minister than one stating he knew about Mandelson’s Epstein links, appointed him anyway, and “rushed” the process.
The missing piece of the puzzle is the correspondence that took place between Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s former chief of staff, and Mandelson, after the due diligence report was sent to the Prime Minister flagging his Epstein, Russian and Chinese business links, and the general “reputational risk”. We know McSweeney asked Mandelson three questions, in response to which Mandelson says he was truthful, and No 10 says he lied. That exchange has been withheld for the Metropolitan Police investigation into his Epstein association. No 10 is keen to point this gap out, hoping to suggest the further information would paint Starmer in a better light. Others may well ask, given everything else we can see Starmer knew from the documents, whether it makes any difference.
[Further reading: Civil servants feared Mandelson could risk special relationship]
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentOn Jonathan Powell, my impression is that he expressed his concerns to the PM’S Chief of staff, who said his concerns had been addressed. Yet that can’t have been the case as the Chief of Staff was actively pushing for his mentor to be appointed as US Ambass. Did Powell go to the PM directly? Morgan McSweeney’s resignation statement reads differently now, doesn’t it?