Mandelson files: It’s difficult to see how Starmer can put this right
The Mandelson Files’ Key Revelations
The initial release of the Mandelson files offered no definitive proof or shocking revelations. Instead, the focus lay on the surprising high sums involved in the ex-US ambassador’s dismissal and the national security adviser Jonathan Powell’s remarks about the process being “unusual” and “weirdly rushed.”
A Payoff and Concerns Over Reputation
Among the 147-page document’s highlights was a £75,000 payment to Peter Mandelson for his termination, despite his earlier request for nearly £550,000. Powell’s two-page due diligence report highlighted potential issues, noting Mandelson’s close ties to Epstein and his stay at the financier’s residence during June 2009.
It also warned of reputational risks linked to Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, which had persisted even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for underage sex. The report emphasized that a political appointment, rather than a diplomatic one, posed greater scrutiny: “If anything goes wrong, you could be more exposed as the individual is more connected to you personally.”
Starmer’s Knowledge of the Relationship
Earlier, the Prime Minister had confessed in the House of Commons to being aware of Mandelson’s ongoing bond with Jeffrey Epstein. Now, the files confirm that Starmer was informed of the “particularly close” connection between the two men, which continued post-conviction.
Minutes from a September 2025 call reveal Powell raised concerns about Mandelson’s background to Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff. McSweeney reportedly assured that the issues had been resolved, though the documents remain under investigation by the Metropolitan Police.
Epstein Files and Subsequent Arrest
The full extent of Mandelson’s ties to Epstein only emerged after the US Department of Justice released additional files. These documents led to his arrest on suspicion of misusing public office, as he was alleged to have shared confidential information with Epstein while in Gordon Brown’s cabinet.
Mandelson has denied any wrongdoing, but the Prime Minister claims he was misled by the former Labour peer. Downing Street argues that follow-up questions were raised during the vetting process, supporting Starmer’s version of events.
Political Backlash and Unanswered Questions
Alex Burghart, shadow chancellor to the Duchy of Lancaster, criticized the situation in the House of Commons, stating:
“Now the prime minister claims he was lied to. He wasn’t lied to by this due diligence document. And it may be that Mandelson denied these claims. And if so, maybe the prime minister was lied to, but he was lied to by an inveterate liar who had been fired twice before.”
With only a fraction of the tens-of-thousands-of-page documents published, the investigation continues. Ministers and MPs are preparing for more releases, which could further complicate the narrative surrounding Starmer’s decisions.
👉 Listen to This Is Why on your podcast app 👈
Google users can explore additional sources in search results—click here to customize your Sky News experience.
