Mandelson documents raise questions about Starmer’s decision-making | Keir Starmer

Four months after he was sacked as the UK’s ambassador to Washington over his links to Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Mandelson sat down for his first BBC interview. A less arrogant individual would have long since retreated into the shadows.

But despite all the condemnation and humiliation surrounding his departure, Mandelson seemed determined to attract public attention. “Who knows what will happen next?” he told Laura Kuenssberg. “I don’t know what’s going to happen next. I’m not going to disappear and hide; this isn’t me.”

For some in Downing Street, these words sounded like a warning, even a threat. Peter Mandelson still knows where the bodies are buried and this could cause big trouble for the government, especially Keir Starmer. A man scorned and all that.

But even with his vow of silence – and he appears to be attracting less attention at least since police launched the investigation – the prime minister’s decision to appoint Mandelson in the first place still causes problems that could escalate into another political storm.

The release of the first part of the Mandelson papers – only accepted after the Conservatives forced the government’s hand – was always going to be a risky moment for Starmer, as it once again brought attention to his decisions.

Mandelson didn’t come out of this situation very well. One of the most notable – but perhaps unsurprising – revelations was that the former ambassador was offered a severance pay of £75,000 after demanding the Foreign Office pay him more than £500,000.

There is little about Mandelson in the documents other than his request that he be allowed to return to the UK “with maximum dignity and minimum media interference”. 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 that the focus will once again be on his own decisions. The Cabinet Office’s due diligence report was full of red flags about the risks of the appointment.

A JP Morgan report published significant details about Mandelson’s “particularly close relationship” with Epstein, and the prime minister knew their friendship continued after his conviction.

Starmer had also been warned about possible conflicts of interest arising from his role at lobbying firm Global Counsel, knowing that he was seen as the “closer advocate of UK-China relations” and had also been fired from governments twice in the past.

But even more damaging for the prime minister was the rejection of the appointment, even though Jonathan Powell, Starmer’s national security adviser and who had known Mandelson well from his time as Tony Blair’s chief of staff, had reservations about the appointment.

Powell raised concerns about Mandelson’s reputation directly to Morgan McSweeney, the former No 10 chief of staff and a close friend of the former ambassador, who told her “the issues are being addressed.”

Matthew Doyle, Starmer’s former communications director and another friend of Mandelson, also said he was “delighted” with the answers to his questions about his connection to Epstein, according to the documents.

Starmer said Mandelson lied throughout the process about the extent of his relationship with Epstein, but his former Labor colleague is understood to dispute this. Police withheld important documents for the criminal investigation, so details will remain in dispute until released. Mandelson is understood to have denied committing a crime or acting for personal gain.

Powell later said he found the appointment process “unusual” and “oddly rushed.” He noted that Philip Barton, who was permanent secretary at the foreign ministry at the time, also had his own concerns. Many will wonder why they did not rest at that time.

The documents also revealed alarming details about the vetting system: Mandelson had been offered a highly classified State Department briefing as U.S. ambassador before completing the formal vetting process.

Starmer has called for a review of the national security investigation as a result, but some of his own MPs fear this appears to be too little, too late.

For Labor, the Mandelson papers are like puncturing a wound. While the first tranche does not in itself put Starmer’s position at risk, any subsequent development risks further undermining his authority and reminding MPs of their doubts about his judgment.

Every time there is a new development in the Met police’s investigation, every time another section of documentation is released, the bruise is punctured again. The danger for the prime minister is that eventually his party’s pain will be too much.