The Mandelson files released

Summary

---

Podcast Summary:

The Story – "The Mandelson Files Released"

Date: June 2, 2026
Host: Manveen Rana
Guest: Stephen Swinford, Political Editor, The Times

---

Overview

This episode dives deeply into the dramatic release of over 1,500 pages of government documents – known as "the Mandelson files" – that illuminate the inner workings of British government during the appointment and abrupt downfall of Lord Peter Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the United States. The files detail Mandelson's communications, the dysfunction at the heart of government, and provide previously unseen candid views of ministers and advisers. The episode explores what these revelations mean for the Labour government under Keir Starmer, whose authority is left in tatters in the wake of the scandal.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Scope and Impact of the Document Release

• Volume and Content:
  • Over 1,500 pages released, including 160 pages of WhatsApp and text messages.
  • “It’s frantic... It’s a hell of a lot to go through.” (Stephen Swinford, 03:21)
• Governmental Cost:
  • The Cabinet Office spent £1 million preparing these documents, representing thousands of man hours (05:12).
• Embarrassment and Fallout:
  • Many ministers are exposed for “fawning admiration” of Mandelson, now a source of excruciating embarrassment (02:26).

2. Origins of the Scandal

• Epstein Connection:
  • Initial scandal broke when emails revealed Mandelson continued his close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein after Epstein’s conviction for child sex offenses (04:31).
  • Mandelson defended Epstein on repeated occasions and offered him advice, sparking panic at the highest levels.
• Political Mechanisms:
  • The Conservative opposition used a “humble address” (an archaic parliamentary tool) to force the government to release all relevant documents (05:01).

3. Vetting Controversy and Starmer’s Role

• Lack of Proper Vetting:
  • Mandelson appointed US Ambassador before security vetting was completed, then received the sensitive briefings regardless (06:47).
  • Security vetting later warned against his appointment due to national security risks – a warning not fully communicated to Starmer before Mandelson took up the role (07:10, 20:16).
• Permanent Secretary Sacked:
  • Keir Starmer fired Ollie Robbins, Foreign Office Permanent Secretary, accusing him of withholding information about the vetting process (21:39).

4. Massive Redactions and Missing Material

• Disappearing Messages:
  • Gaps in the files due to officials using WhatsApp’s disappearing messages feature (07:57).
  • Notable absence of communications from people like Morgan McSweeney (Starmer’s former chief of staff).
• Incomplete Evidence:
  • Mandelson denied access to his private phone; only “official” messages from his ambassadorial phone are included (08:47).
• Apparent Cover-Ups:
  • Instances found of senior officials instructing colleagues to “delete all traffic on this” (09:27).

5. Unvarnished Ministerial Opinions & Notable Revelations

• Pat McFadden’s Candid Confession:
  • When welfare reforms unraveled, McFadden reflected,
    • “Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?”
    • A phrase likely to be used against Labour by the opposition (11:16).
• Westminster ‘Gossip’ and Criticism:
  • Wes Streeting, former Health Secretary, denounces,
    • “Israel is committing war crimes before our eyes,”
      urging Starmer to react strongly (11:16).
  • Mandelson privately called Streeting’s position “pathetic... a kind of early midlife crisis.”
• Mandelson's Brutal Assessment of Starmer:
  • Consistently described Number 10 as "beleaguered and bereft."
  • “It requires a complete revamp and an infusion of purpose and confidence… The weakness stems from the top.”
  • Argued Starmer needed to behave “in a more Trumpian, risk-taking, daredevil way” (13:25).
  • Summing up Starmer’s leadership: “Advance buckle. Advance buckle.”
    • (A reference to Starmer’s repeated U-turns and lack of clear direction.)

6. Mandelson’s Influence and the Dysfunction of Government

• Ministers Looked to Mandelson for Counsel:
  • Senior and junior ministers, including Pat McFadden and Torsten Bell, turned to Mandelson for advice, reflecting his lingering reputation as a political mastermind (17:40).
  • “He is reaching out, trying to speak to as many MPs as he humanly can, including members of the 2024 intake” (18:30).
• Starmer’s Distance and Regret:
  • Starmer was not personally close to Mandelson but appointed him under pressure from key advisers (19:20).
  • “Boy, will Starmer regret that now.” (19:50)

7. High Farce and Human Anecdotes

• The Tale of the Red Box for Trump:
  • Donald Trump requested a “red box” (a ministerial box with the presidential seal), leading UK officials into a scramble to source one in time for Trump’s state visit (22:51).
  • “It’s like something out of The Thick of It. I’m going tonto over this. We need the red box.” (Stephen quoting the emails)

8. Political Consequences for Starmer and Labour

• Starmer’s Authority Destroyed:
  • The Mandelson scandal continuously undermined Starmer’s leadership within the Parliamentary Labour Party (24:31).
  • Over 90 Labour MPs called for his resignation, with more than half the Cabinet privately urging him to set a timeline for departure (24:31).
  • Swinford: “We are at that point in part because the Mandelson saga and these files have consistently eroded his authority… that is ultimately been a key part of his downfall.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.”
  — Prime Minister, quoted by Stephen Swinford (01:18)
• “Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?”
  — Pat McFadden, in a WhatsApp to Mandelson (11:16)
• “Israel is committing war crimes before our eyes.”
  — Wes Streeting, in messages to Mandelson (11:16)
• “Number 10 is beleaguered and bereft. ... It requires a complete revamp and an infusion of purpose and confidence to get us anywhere. ... The weakness stems from the top.”
  — Peter Mandelson (13:25)
• “Advance buckle. Advance buckle.”
  — Mandelson’s pithy description of Starmer’s governing style (13:50)
• “There is a very senior official in number 10 telling colleagues to delete all traffic on this at one point.”
  — Stephen Swinford on evidence of cover-ups (09:27)
• “It’s like something out of The Thick of It. I’m going tonto over this. We need this red box.”
  — Mandelson emailing about the Trump “red box” request (22:51)
• “Keir Starmer is not going to be prime minister in the run up to the next election. It is a question of when, not if.”
  — Stephen Swinford (24:31)

---

Important Timestamps

• [00:42] – Introduction; the Mandelson scandal context
• [01:18] – Prime Minister’s regret over Mandelson
• [03:21] – Swinford on the sheer scale of the files
• [04:31] – Backstory: Epstein emails and initial fallout
• [05:01] – How the document release was forced
• [06:47] – Vetting neglected in Mandelson’s appointment
• [08:47] – Revealed gaps due to WhatsApp and Mandelson’s private phone absence
• [09:27] – Evidence of deletion and cover-ups
• [11:16] – Key ministerial quotes (McFadden, Streeting, and Mandelson’s verdicts)
• [13:25] – Mandelson’s critique of Starmer and Number 10
• [17:40] – The extent of Mandelson’s ministerial influence
• [20:16] – Details of the botched vetting process
• [21:39] – Discussion of Ollie Robbins’ sacking
• [22:51] – The red box anecdote
• [24:31] – The political consequence: Starmer’s lost authority

---

Conclusion

The Mandelson files have delivered a deeply embarrassing, highly revealing blow to the current government, exposing not just the poor judgment and questionable decision-making behind Peter Mandelson’s appointment and downfall, but also chronic dysfunction and candid pessimism at the heart of Number 10. For Keir Starmer, these revelations have proven fatal to his authority and are likely to be a defining chapter in his premiership. The episode provides a rare, unfiltered glimpse into government in crisis and the high-profile personalities caught in its wake.

---

Transcript

[Stephen Swinford]

Then I thought, what if I've scaled businesses? What if I scaled my philanthropy? What if I did as much in one year as I've done in my whole life? See how your wealth could have even Greater [e-mail] Impact from globalization to innovation, sustainability to market volatility, there's always more than one side to a story. Explore different perspectives on today's most important business and economic issues with the Flipside podcast from Barclays Investment Bank. Hear two research analysts in a lively debate and get insights from every angle to further inform your view. Listen to the flip side on your favorite platform.

[Manveen Rana]

From the Times and the Sunday Times. This is the story. I'm manveen Rana. In November 2024, the labor grandee and veteran of many a political scandal, Peter Mandelson, was angling to become the British ambassador in Washington. In a pleading letter to the then foreign secretary, David Lammy, he promised that the government would never regret appointing him. Little more than a year later, the prime minister was kicking himself.

[Stephen Swinford]

I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.

[Manveen Rana]

After details emerged about Mandelson's links to the convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, he experienced yet another spectacular fall from grace. Sacked and still the subject of a police investigation, Lord Mandelson is once more at the heart of a Westminster scandal.

[Stephen Swinford]

The documents we are publishing today are one of the largest government publications ever laid before this House.

[Manveen Rana]

Yesterday, the government was full of forced to publish more than 1,500 pages showing Peter Mandelson's communications with ministers before and during his tenure as ambassador. Stephen Swinford, the Times political editor, has been digging through the documents.

[Stephen Swinford]

What you have here is the entirety of number 10 senior cabinet ministers, all corresponding, all closely associated with Mandelson, fawning to congratulate him when he's appointed, you know, communicating with him in very indiscreet terms on a daily basis.

[Manveen Rana]

That fawning admiration will now be a source of excruciating embarrassment. But it's not just the ministers who are regularly contacting Mandelson who will be shamed by the exchanges. The prime minister doesn't come out of them well either.

[Stephen Swinford]

Mandelson says that Keir Starmer lacks verve, he lacks authority. He needs to behave in a more Trumpian, daredevil way.

[Manveen Rana]

So what do the files tell us about Peter Mandelson and how he extended his influence across Westminster? And what will it all mean for Kia Starmer? The story today the Mandelson files released.

[Stephen Swinford]

It's frantic. You've got these huge documents which are 1000 pages plus. You've got 160 pages of WhatsApps and text messages alone. It's a hell of a lot to go through.

[Manveen Rana]

That's Stephen Swinford, political editor for the Times and one of the hosts of our sister podcast, the State of It.

[Stephen Swinford]

But it is absolutely fascinating because what it does is put you inside the world of Lord Mandelson and the highest levels of government and these very indiscreet messages in which they're all communicating with each other and in which they are highly critical of the Prime Minister and the functioning of number 10.

[Manveen Rana]

What's the mood like in Westminster as these nuggets are dropping? Are a lot of people looking quite sheepish?

[Stephen Swinford]

I think we knew it would be humiliating, we knew it would be excruciating. I think it's probably within expectations at the moment. There is no smoking gun at the moment which is standing out. But clearly it's hugely damaging for the Prime Minister and hugely damaging for his administration. And lots of people in Government are going to be very embarrassed by this, particularly some Cabinet ministers.

[Manveen Rana]

Just remind us why this huge tranche of documents was released today. How did we get here originally?

[Stephen Swinford]

Back in September, a cache of emails started to emerge from what we now know as the Epstein Files. Jeffrey Epstein, who's a convicted sex offender and he's also a US financier, and he and Mandelson were very good friends. And when these messages emerged, when Bloomberg got hold of them, what emerged was that they had continued to be friends after he was convicted for child sex offenses, and that Mandelson had defended him on repeated occasions, offered him advice, and in these circumstances there, and we see some of it in the files, there was this kind of panic that gripped Whitehall at the heart of this, and Ollie Robbins, who was the then Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office, found fired off to Mandelson. A list of questions about what are your links with Mandelson? Have you accepted hospitality from him? Have you accepted payments? Tell us about the Bloomberg emails. Well, it's fair to say that those answers were not satisfactory unless 24 hours later, Mandelson was sacked. So that is where we kind of left it there. But the story has kept coming back again and again. We got here because the Tories used an archaic parliamentary device called a humble address. Now, some listeners may be familiar with this from the Brexit years, but it's an mechanism which you can use to force the government to publish information. And the Tories, they said we want everything pertaining to the appointment of U.S. ambassador, but not just that. All electronic communications, kind of going back before it, after it, and some things that have nothing to do with it. Because the government was in such a weak position over Mandelson, because Keir Starmer, for his original sin of appointing Mandelson in the first place, had paid such a heavy price, he had no choice but to kind of back down and accept. And it is extraordinary. We've had two of these humble address releases. The first one earlier this year, the second one today, like I say, 1,000 pages worth of material has come out. Darren Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, has just stood up in the Commons and said that these documents cost the government £1 million to produce. That's just the Cabinet Officer's costs alone. And so there's a million quid on these documents. Thousands of man hours. It's epic.

[Manveen Rana]

That really is remarkable. And it seems to be across government effort to get these documents out. Stephen, you mentioned that this is the second tranche of documents that have been released. Just remind us what came out in the first.

[Stephen Swinford]

So the first one went back to the judgment and decision to appoint Mandelson in the first place, particularly issues around the vetting on that. And it subsequently emerged that Mandelson had been appointed and given the job without vetting actually having taken place. They subsequently did that post announcing the appointment, but he was still given secretive briefings. We had this kind of bombshell, which was that when the vetting did eventually take place, officials that look at security called the UK Security vetting. They looked at it and said he shouldn't be allowed to do this role because the national security concerns are so huge, there's nothing we can do about it. And that culminated in Keir Starmer sacking the Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office because he felt he had been misled. Ollie Robbins, who was the Permanent Secretary, has defended his decision and said at the time we were under huge political pressure to appoint Mandelson.

[Manveen Rana]

And, Stephen, this time in the second tranche, we've got more than 1,500 pages of documents. What proportion of those are about the appointment of Peter Mandelson? I mean, just give us a breakdown of what. What's in those documents.

[Stephen Swinford]

It's a very small proportion is about the actual appointment that was largely covered off in the first tranche. These are mostly just all electronic communications, so all electronic communications he's got with anyone in government. And there are gaping holes here. There are no Messages from Morgan McSweeney Starmer's former chief of staff to Mandelson at all. There are nil returns from lots of different cabinet ministers and that's because in this government, as in the previous government, government is being conducted by WhatsApp and people are turning on their disappearing messages function. I'm sure all listeners are familiar with that and that means that there are just huge holes in these files.

[Manveen Rana]

And Stephen, you've pointed out the problems of disappearing messages with WhatsApps. We've also learned that Peter Mandelson wasn't very forthcoming with his own phone when it came to this investigation.

[Stephen Swinford]

So the messages that we have today are from those that have been provided by ministers and officials and they are also from Mandelson's U.S. his phone that he had while he was U.S. ambassador, his official phone. So two different sources of information. What we don't have is Mandelson's private phone. So he has a private number. On March 31 the Cabinet Office wrote to him and asked could he provide the private phone. And it will shock you to hear that he said no. And that has emerged in this kind of these documents. So we have only got a small fraction of the story for the £1 million of taxpayers money that has been spent on this. But nonetheless I'm sure it's enough to keep historians happy for some time.

[Manveen Rana]

And there are some redactions too.

[Stephen Swinford]

There are loads of reductions and there are some really damaging suggestions that indicate cover up. There is a very senior official in number 10 telling colleagues to delete all traffic on this at one point. We don't know what's being discussed. It sounds sensitive. It relates to Karen Pearce, the former ambassador. Not clear what these emails are about. But Mandelson echoes that. So they're both saying delete the messages basically. And I think there are a couple of further references to deleting messages. So look, we'll unpick that in coming days, but it's very clear we're not getting a full picture here. And then left, right and centre you have this phrase which is very common in documents, third party. So you'll be reading a sentence and suddenly it will just say and third party said this. We don't know who third party is. They don't disclose it. They've redacted their names deliberately. We're not clear the basis of those redactions possibly grounds that they are deemed to be a private citizen and not relevant. But I can tell you a lot of ones I have seen are from Mandelson's lobbying outfit, which is an organization called Global Council, which he set up and subsequently went bankrupt in the wake of the scandal. But there are loads of people that seem to be meeting quite senior people in government from Global Council and there's a whole period where he's operating as a potential candidate for US ambassador whilst also having business interests. And that is potentially a clear conflict of interest that we will be looking at in coming days.

[Manveen Rana]

Yeah. And Stephen, despite the redactions, you know, there are, as you say, clear issues to look at where there are conflicts of interest that Peter Mandelson didn't declare, didn't sort of do enough to avoid. There's also a hell of a lot of amazing gossip, you know, for Westminster watchers. It's not often you get to see the private conversations of people like Peter Mandelson and ministers and their genuine opinions of what's happening for you. What have the best bits of the communication's been so far?

[Stephen Swinford]

I think it's more than gossip. I'd say it's far stronger than that. I think some of the most remarkable conversations are with a guy called Pat McFadden. Now, Pat McFadden is the work and pension secretary. He and Mandelson have got a very long standing relationship. They know each other from New Labour days and he's really indiscreet in some of these messages. And there's a particular message that stands out and that will be, I think, seen as a really significant moment for this government and will kind of be, as a piece of evidence when we look at it in hindsight. So, last year, one of the biggest moments in Keir Starmer's premiership, the thing that undermined it more than any other was welfare. He tried to reform welfare, but more than 100 Labour MPs rebelled and said, no, you can't do that, and it collapsed his authority. And McFadden is very candid about that. He says that the message he had been getting from the Parliamentary Labour Party is this. Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others? He's clearly exasperated about it and he acknowledges that it risks destroying Starmer's authority in the process. But that phrase, who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others? I can easily see both reform and the Tories sticking that on a load of T shirts ahead of the next election is a withering assessment of the state of the Labour Party. That is a real moment for me. The other one that jumped out at me was Wes Streating, the former Health Secretary, who resigned in a kind of blaze of not glory. I'm not sure what you call it the other week, but nearly brought the government down with him. He has a series of messages with Mandelson in which he says Israel is committing war crimes before our eyes. He says that Starmer needs to take a much tougher position on this, which Starmer eventually did, by the way, but Starme needs to take a much stronger position, like Emmanuel Macron, the French president. It's kind of this long series of messages and he feels it very strongly. Clearly Streeting. Now, Mandelson doesn't say it in his WhatsApp exchanges with streeting, but privately he is absolutely withering about that. Less than 24 hours later, he is messaging McFadden, Pat McFadden again and saying to him that this is pathetic. What Wes Streeting has been telling him, it's a kind of like early midlife crisis and utterly withering on it. The other thing, the third thing that is worth pulling on and looking at is Mandelson's assessment of starmer and number 10, which is brutal and consistent throughout these files. So he says number 10 is beleaguered and bereft. I'll give you a quote. It requires a complete revamp and an infusion of purpose and confidence to get us anywhere. And crucially, he says that this comes from the top, that Starmer's leadership is essentially weak. He argues that the government should become more Trumpian. He says, crusading panache and verve. This is what we need. Our implication? What Starmer lacks, behave in a more Trumpy and risk taking and daredevil way. The weakness stems from the top. And then lastly, he has this particularly pithy assessment of Starmer's approach to government, which I think we're all familiar with. After 15 odd U turns and counting. Advance buckle. Advance buckle. That is his assessment in one damning message that he's written. So lots and lots of withering assessments about the government, both from some ministers. West Reading isn't complimentary either. He says there's no plan for growth and also from Mandelson himself.

[Manveen Rana]

Coming up, what have we learned about the process that led to Mandelson being appointed in the first place? And where will these latest revelations leave Kia Starmer? That's in just a moment.

[Stephen Swinford]

Then I thought, what if I've scaled businesses? What if I scaled my philanthropy? What if I did as much in one year as I've done in my whole life? See how your wealth could have even Greater [e-mail] Impact Healthcare can feel complicated.

[Manveen Rana]

That's why Optum uses technology to connect the people and processes that make healthcare easier, more affordable and more effective. We're making it clearer for you to know exactly what your benefits cover and to help you better manage your health. We're coordinating care between your doctors and your technology. We believe better, simpler healthcare is always possible. That's healthy optimism. That's Optum. Visit optum.com to learn more.

[Stephen Swinford]

Okay, caller one wins courtside seats to tonight's game. What? I won floor seats. You did? I've been calling for 13 months. Wait, Chris. Yes. I finally did it. What are you gonna wear? Men's Wearhouse. They've got today's looks for any occasion and I need to look like a celebrity. Don't want to stick out. It's exactly. They've got Chill Flex by Kenneth Cole, Joseph Abboud and a tailor at every store for the perfect fit. Congrats. You can stop calling now. Not a chance. Get any look for every occasion at Men's Wearhouse. Love the way you look.

[Manveen Rana]

Stephen, you've been talking us through the trove of documents that have been released, including Peter Mandelson's private whatsapps, his emails to various ministers. It doesn't reflect very well on Starmer. You do start to get a sense of just the dysfunction around the Cabinet table when Cabinet ministers are being honest about their assessments of his performance. How does it reflect on them? How does it reflect on the government at large and the way it's doing business?

[Stephen Swinford]

I think it reflects very badly. And I think what this, perhaps more than anything else serves to do is it serves to remind voters again of the Mandelson scandal, an unpopular government and an unpopular decision to make him the ambassador, which has had huge consequences. What you have here is the entirety of number 10 senior cabinet ministers, all corresponding, all closely associated with Mandelson, fawning to congratulate him when he's appointed, you know, communicating with him in very indiscreet terms on a daily basis. And I think that message that there needs to be change, I think that is going to ring very loudly and clearly with Labour members. And I think it probably hastens Starmer's departure from number 10.

[Manveen Rana]

And in terms of the dysfunction of government at large, I mean, do we get a sense of just how much influence Peter Mandelson had? You know, we know that during part of this period, he's campaigning to be the ambassador in Washington, then he becomes the ambassador in Washington, and yet he seems to be the person a lot of ministers turn to for advice on all sorts of policy.

[Stephen Swinford]

I think it's worth remembering who Mandelson is. So Mandelson is seen as a very successful canny strategist adviser and has been for many times. And there's one point during the exchanges with McFadden, in the wake of some disastrous local election results, where they actually war game what the Prime Minister's response should be. You know, and they say, McFadden says, we could go on. We need to go kind of faster and harder. Problem is that's a bit bland and abstract and they go through all the options together. The reason they're having these conversations is because Mandelson was so embedded within New labor and he was viewed as a kind of political brain, a political mastermind. And so people in a time of crisis are turning to him, to advice and having these indiscreet conversations. It's not just Pat McFadden and cabinet ministers. There are junior ministers, a guy called Torsten Bell, who is a rising or seen as a rising star, the Pensions minister. At the time, he was kind of candidly saying, government is messy. Everyone seems to think it's someone else's job to get policy right. And you also get an insight into Mandelson, the arch networker. He is reaching out, trying to speak to as many MPs as he humanly can, including members of the 2024 intake. So there is across the Labour Party, as much as some mistrust him and dislike him, people are going to him for advice and counsel, including the Prime Minister himself. There are exchanges in the run up to the general election where Mandelson says he's been out in Bury, this is what he's heard. And Starmer, in a kind of very mechanical way, says, thank you very much and you know, we will deliver the change, all that kind of stuff. But e. Either way, it reaches across the whole Labour Party. And bear in mind that Starmer had little or nothing to do with Mandelson prior to his appointment as prime minister. They knew each other a bit, and obviously there are some messages that attest to that. But he went and appointed him as his ambassador on the advice of others and against probably. What were his instincts at the time, if he had such instincts? He didn't like him. He wasn't politically close to him, but lots of people around him were, notably Morgan McSweeney, his then chief of staff, notably Matthew Doyle, his then director of communications. There was a long list of people in number 10 that thought Mandelson was the solution, and that's why they went with him as ambassador and Boy, will Starmer regret that now?

[Manveen Rana]

And, of course, all of this has come out because of the way he had to leave his position in Washington. How much more have we learned about that? How much more have we learned about the vetting that took place before he was appointed as the ambassador, Ambassador to America?

[Stephen Swinford]

You get an insight into the vetting process that you didn't have to such a clear extent before. So Mandelson has been sacked. It's around September 11th of last year, and press are asking questions about. We're hearing something about the vetting. There are issues around the vetting and a guy called Ian Collard, who is then a very senior guy in the Foreign Office that deals with security, he writes to number 10 and sets out the process and what he says is, well, there was the group UK Security Vetting, and they came to a final recommendation regarding Lord Mandelson at the end of January of 2025. That was passed to the Foreign Office as the decision maker. We now know that was to Ollie Robbins and he made the decision to grant him developed vetting, therefore enabling him to take up the role. That is fine. But what is not said in that and what is, you know, not mentioned, and this is why Starmore was so livid about it, at no point was it mentioned that actually UK Security Vetting had advised against Mandelson's appointment. They had said that he represented a clear national security risk, and that is just completely absent. It's two sentences in this file and there is this ellipsis at the heart of it, which in hindsight is really significant, because what it meant was even more damage coming down the tracks of Starmer. When it emerged officials had recommended against giving Mandelson developed Vetti.

[Manveen Rana]

Stephen, it wasn't long ago that the whole of Westminster gawped at the proceedings around Ollie Robbins, his being sacked. Effectively. Does this cast any new light on that? I mean, does it feel like that was justified? Are there questions for Ollie Robbins or are there questions for the Prime Minister in Downing street for throwing him under a bus?

[Stephen Swinford]

I don't think it casts a great deal of new light because essentially it's a he said, she said situation. So you have the Government, the Prime Minister of the day, accusing Ollie Robbins of having kept him in the dark, failed to give him information about the fact that Mandelson, an official, to recommended against his vetting. And you got Robbins in turn, saying, we were under immense political pressure and it was my decision and I am the penholder on this process and therefore I was entitled to do What I did, the problem is that a political one, that ultimately it doesn't really matter who's to blame. It just once again highlights that catastrophic misjudgment to appoint Mandelson in the first place and put Starmer in a very difficult position.

[Manveen Rana]

We do also learn a little bit more about how Peter Mandelson conducted the role of ambassador in Washington. What are the details that you've seen so far?

[Stephen Swinford]

We should talk about the tale of the red box, which is an extraordinary thing. So Donald Trump wanted a red box. Now, what is a red box? Our listeners will know, but the red boxes are the boxes that are carried by ministers and they are obviously red. They have a gold crest on them. They're very nice things. Donald Trump wanted one with President embossed on it in gold under a crown of some form. And so this became a massive political issue in number 10 that occupied for several days the minds of the most senior people in number 10. You have this cache of emails, which is delightful, involving Morgan McSweeney, other senior people in number 10, where they are trying to find someone to make this box and make it in time because Trump wants one. It's ahead of the state visit. And so they go through this extraordinary process of speaking to different contractors, trying to engage people. And, you know, Madison himself says it's like something out of the thick of it. I'm going tonto over this. We need this red box. Eventually they clearly get there. We know that subsequently he was given this red box. But what's entertaining about it is the high farce in number 10 that the people charged with making the big decisions are all tying themselves up in knots, speaking to potential contractors who can make this red box in time and trying to get permission from the US and the White House to use the presidential seal. The whole thing is a spectacular and very enjoyable high fast. So there are elements of these documents which are just great fun and just

[Manveen Rana]

finally, Steve, there is so much detail there. Do you think this is a sort of detail, though, that cuts through to the rest of the country? I mean, will this make it impossible for Keir Starmer to hang on?

[Stephen Swinford]

Not that it makes it impossible for him to hang on. I think, if we're being very candid, Van Veen, that time has probably passed. Keir Starmer is not going to be prime minister in the run up to the next election. It is a question of when, not if. I don't think it helps with voters. But look, voters are voting on things like the cost of living. They're voting on migration, they're voting on the nhs, they're not voting on Mandelson. I'm sure they're probably aware of it in some degree, but those are the main things in front of them. By far the bigger issue. For Starmoy, this consistently has been what it means to Labour MPs, because time and again it reminds them of his bad judgment and bad decision in appointing Mandelson. And it infuriates them. And one of the reasons he lost the authority of MPs. And we are there now. Right, we've got, what is it? 90 odd MPs have called for him publicly to go, many more privately. Over half the Cabinet has been to see him and suggested he needs to set out a timeline for his departure. We are at that point in part because the Mandelson saga and these files have consistently eroded his authority with the Parliamentary Labour Party and his judgment in appointing Madison in the first place. That's the problem and that is ultimately been a key part of his downfall. And when the history books are written, it will be a critical part of that.

[Manveen Rana]

This was the biggest tranche of Mandelson files to be released, but not quite the last. As we mentioned, some documents have been withheld so that they will prejudice any ongoing investigation into Lord Mandelson. The government plans to release these documents once the investigation is complete, or whenever they cease to be prejudicial to the police's investigation. That was Stephen Swinford, political editor at the Times. You can hear more from him on our sister podcast, the State of It, which will be released later this afternoon. The producers today were Michaela arneson and Sophie McNulty. The executive producer was Kate Lamble. Sound design and theme composition were by Malicetto. If you can do, leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.

[Stephen Swinford]

Then I thought, what if I've scaled businesses? What if I scaled my philanthropy? What if I did as much in one year as I've done in my whole life? See how your wealth could have even Greater [e-mail] impact Tired of overpaying with DirecTV? Dish offers a reliable low price every month without surprises. Get the TV you love and start watching live sports news and the latest movies, plus your favorite streaming apps, all in one place. Switch to Dish today and lock in the lowest price in satellite TV, starting at $89.99 a month month with our two year price guarantee. Call 888-add-D dish or visit Dish.