Four months after Peter Mandelson was sacked as UK ambassador to Washington over his links to Jeffrey Epstein, he sat down for a BBC primetime interview. A less arrogant individual would have long since hidden in the shadows.
But despite all the condemnation and humiliation surrounding his departure, Mandelson seemed determined to maintain a public profile. “Who knows what’s next?” he told Laura Kuenssberg. “I don’t know what’s next. I’m not going to disappear and hide, that’s not me.”
To some inside Downing Street, those words sounded like a warning, or even a threat. Peter Mandelson still knows where the bodies are buried and could cause a lot of problems for the government (and Keir Starmer in particular). A despised man and all that.
But even if he were to take a vow of silence – and at least he appears to be keeping a lower profile since the police began their investigation – the prime minister’s decision to appoint Mandelson in the first place continues to cause problems that could still turn into another political storm.
The publication of the first tranche of Mandelson documents – agreed only after the Conservatives forced the government – was always going to be a risky moment for Starmer, as he once again turned the spotlight on his decisions.
Mandelson does not come out of this well. One of the most striking (but perhaps not surprising) revelations was that the former ambassador was offered £75,000 compensation, after initially asking the Foreign Office to pay him more than £500,000.
There is little from Mandelson himself in the documents beyond his request that he be allowed to return to the UK “with maximum dignity and minimum media intrusion”. Again, not surprising for a man so focused on his own reputation.
The real danger for Starmer is not how Mandelson emerges from the documents, but rather that the focus is once again on his own decisions. The Cabinet Office due diligence report was riddled with red flags about the risks of the appointment.
There were significant details about the “particularly close relationship” Mandelson had with Epstein, published in a JP Morgan report, and the prime minister knew their friendship continued after his conviction.
Starmer was also warned about potential conflicts of interest arising from his role at lobbying firm Global Counsel, and was aware that he was seen as an “advocate for closer relations between the UK and China”, and had twice been sacked by governments in the past.
But even more damaging for the prime minister was that Jonathan Powell, Starmer’s national security adviser who knew Mandelson well from his time as Tony Blair’s chief of staff, had reservations about the appointment, and they were still overturned.
Powell raised concerns about Mandelson’s reputation directly to Morgan McSweeney, No. 10’s former chief of staff and a close friend of the former ambassador, who told him the “issues had been addressed.”
Matthew Doyle, Starmer’s former communications director and another friend of Mandelson, also said he was “satisfied” with the answers to his questions about his contact with Epstein, according to the documents.
Starmer has said Mandelson lied during the trial about the extent of his relationship with Epstein, but the former Labor colleague is understood to dispute this. Police have withheld key documents for their criminal investigation, so details will continue to be disputed until they are released. Mandelson is understood to maintain that he denies any wrongdoing or acting for personal gain.
Powell later said he had found the appointment process “unusual” and “strangely rushed.” He noted that Philip Barton, permanent secretary at the Foreign Office at the time, also had his own concerns. Many will wonder why they were not listened to at the time.
The documents also revealed worrying details about the vetting system: that Mandelson was offered a highly classified Foreign Office briefing as US ambassador before the formal vetting process was finished.
As a result, Starmer has called for a review of the national security inquiry, but some of his own MPs fear this may seem too little, too late.
For the Labor Party, the Mandelson documents are like a punch to a bruise. While the first tranche does not (by itself) put Starmer’s position at risk, each subsequent development risks further undermining his authority and reminding his MPs of their doubts about his judgement.
Every time there is a new development in the Metropolitan Police investigation, every time another batch of documents is published, the bruise is hit again. The danger for the prime minister is that eventually the pain will become too much for his party.
