London – Prime Minister Keir Starmer may face further political fallout as additional WhatsApp messages and communications related to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador are set to be released in the coming weeks. Senior government sources indicate the forthcoming tranche of the “Mandelson files” could contain damaging information prompting further resignations, adding to the ongoing turmoil surrounding the former Labour peer’s controversial tenure and subsequent arrest.
The potential for further departures comes after Starmer apologized again on Thursday for his handling of Mandelson’s appointment, stating, “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 are being released after a parliamentary motion passed by the Conservatives compelled the government to publish the documents following Mandelson’s dismissal from the ambassadorial post after just nine months, triggered by revelations about his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The release of these files has already sparked scrutiny and prompted a police investigation into Mandelson, who was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The investigation centers on emails from the US Department of Justice’s Epstein files, which reportedly show Mandelson forwarding confidential information to Epstein while serving as Business Secretary under Gordon Brown. Mandelson has denied any wrongdoing, and his legal team has stated he will not be issuing further comments at this time.
Vetting Concerns and Internal Scrutiny
Officials bracing for the next release of materials believe some of the exchanges will be damaging enough to trigger further resignations. A widespread review of communications is underway, with all senior ministers, civil servants, and special advisors – including those who have left government, such as former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, and former Downing Street staffers Morgan McSweeney and Matthew Doyle – asked to submit their phone messages for examination.
The initial files revealed a “back and forth” between McSweeney and Doyle regarding Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein. Doyle had previously expressed being “satisfied” with Mandelson’s explanation of his association with Epstein, even after the financier’s 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Both McSweeney and Doyle have since left their positions at No. 10.
Ministers are reportedly being advised by legal counsel to avoid overly critical public statements about Mandelson, fearing it could prejudice any future trial. The Metropolitan Police are currently withholding queries sent to Mandelson regarding his relationship with Epstein, as well as his responses, and emails from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) permanent secretary, Oliver Robbins, have also not been disclosed.
Questions of Transparency and Redaction
The handling of the document releases has also drawn criticism. On Monday, Downing Street refuted accusations from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats that Starmer had misled Parliament regarding the vetting process or attempted to cover up his own responses to the released documents.
Concerns have been raised about potential redactions within the released documents. Kemi Badenoch, a Conservative leader, claimed Starmer’s comments appeared to have been removed, stating, “They have been removed… We need the full details of what the prime minister did. There is still a cover-up going on.” No. 10 officials maintain that no redactions were made and that the released documents represent the final versions. However, it is believed Starmer may have verbally communicated his views to officials, bypassing the standard protocol of formally recording such decisions in writing.
The Conservatives have formally requested an investigation by Laurie Magnus, Starmer’s independent advisor on ethics, to determine whether omissions in the released files constitute an attempted cover-up. The letter to Magnus highlighted the absence of any direct input from Starmer or his advisors, as well as other perceived omissions.
Vetting Processes Under Review
Documents released on Wednesday included official advice provided to Starmer outlining the potential risks associated with appointing a political figure as ambassador, and specifically detailing the risks linked to approving Mandelson, including his ties to Epstein. Notably, both pieces of advice lacked any formal comments from the Prime Minister, despite protocol requiring a recorded decision. Jonathan Powell, Starmer’s national security advisor, reportedly described Mandelson’s appointment as “weirdly rushed.”
While acknowledging the expedited vetting process, No. 10 officials stated that standard rules allow for a limited number of expedited requests each year. Starmer and his ministers have acknowledged that the events surrounding Mandelson’s appointment have exposed deficiencies in current vetting and due diligence procedures, necessitating reforms.
Despite the ongoing scrutiny, Starmer has taken responsibility for Mandelson’s appointment, admitting it was a mistake and offering an apology. The Prime Minister’s spokesperson reiterated this stance, stating that Starmer “has taken responsibility for Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States, he has acknowledged it was a mistake, and he has apologised.”
The next several weeks will be critical as the remaining tranche of Mandelson files is collated and reviewed by the intelligence and security committee, determining what information can be released to the public without compromising national security. The outcome of this review, and the potential for further revelations, will undoubtedly shape the political landscape in the coming months.
Share your thoughts on this developing story in the comments below.
