What’s missing from ‘embarrassing’ Mandelson files? – The Latest

Summary

Podcast Summary: “What’s missing from ‘embarrassing’ Mandelson files?” – Today in Focus (The Latest)

Date: June 2, 2026
Host: Lucy Hough
Guest: Archie Bland, Head of National News, The Guardian

---

Episode Overview

This episode of “The Latest” dives into the newly released “Mandelson files”—over 1,500 pages of internal government communications relating to Peter Mandelson’s controversial appointment as US Ambassador and the inner workings of the current Labour government. Host Lucy Hough and Archie Bland (The Guardian) discuss the revelations, key omissions, and what these documents reveal—and don’t—about government culture, power networks, and the ongoing political fallout.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Mandelson Files: Scope and Initial Reactions

• Volume & Accessibility: The files comprise approximately 1,500 pages, with only a portion digested so far.
  • Archie Bland: “I'm going to put it at 35%.” (02:05)
• Nature of Revelations: These documents aren’t about one “smoking gun” on Mandelson’s appointment but are a revealing, sometimes painful, window into the government’s behind-the-scenes operations.
  • Lucy Hough: “It's less a smoking gun...and more just this very excruciating peek behind the curtain on how this government operates.” (02:09)

2. Absence of Key Evidence and Mitigations

• Missing Documentation: Notably, there is a lack of documented “mitigations”—security measures or protocols presumably established following concerns raised during Mandelson’s vetting process.
  • Archie Bland: “There is no reference to the mitigations that were supposedly made on the Mandelson appointment in them. So some of the smoking guns, as it were, are things that are not present as well as the things that are.” (02:31)
• Implication: Raises questions about the government’s formality and seriousness in handling potential risks and conflicts of interest.

3. Uncomfortable Glimpses of Government Functioning

• Machiavellian Dynamics: Mandelson is portrayed operating at his “peak...Machiavellian powers,” orchestrating influence, and holding frank, sometimes scathing, discussions about key political figures.
  • Archie Bland: “You see Peter Mandelson...manipulating just about everybody he can be in touch with, and having some extremely disobliging conversations about Keir Starmer...with Pat McFadden.” (03:08–03:48)
• Power Networks: The files demonstrate a “network of powerful, influential men talking to other powerful, influential men,” drawing parallels (in tone, not content) to the Epstein files.
  • Lucy Hough: “It’s like I know a guy...who can help with this, or I have this contact in a way that feels ... similar to the Epstein files in terms of these networks of power.” (06:58)
  • Archie Bland: “It's incredibly similar...the way that women only appear...when they're being asked to do something on behalf of a man for another man.” (07:23)

4. Fallout for Key Individuals

• Pat McFadden: Caught out by not using disappearing WhatsApp messages, he is under fire for remarks about welfare policy.
  • Archie Bland: “Pat McFadden will now have hung around his neck [the line], ‘every meeting I have is, who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?’” (04:10)
• Keir Starmer’s Leadership: Mandelson’s messages depict Starmer as lacking presence and drive, with his agenda seemingly absent from government communications.
  • Lucy Hough: “There is just this real sense that Starmer is more or less absent from these correspondences.” (05:15)
  • Archie Bland: “You would expect [the PM's] agenda to be written through the government like a stick of rock…It doesn't feel like that at all.” (05:28)
• Wes Streeting: Former Mandelson ally, described dismissively by Mandelson in the files. Ironically, this public insult seems to have bolstered Streeting’s standing.
  • Archie Bland: “He talks about Wes Streeting...as being pathetic...that was evidence that Streeting was having a midlife crisis.” (08:22)
  • Lucy Hough: “I think it's safe to say that Wes Streeting has come out pretty well, surprisingly, from these files...” (08:36)

5. Vetting Process and Security Concerns

• Fuzzy Boundaries and Attitudes: The files show Mandelson meeting with intelligence contacts even before passing full security vetting—treated somewhat unseriously by those involved.
  • Archie Bland: “[Mandelson] appeared to have been setting up meetings with senior people at MI6 even when he had not completed the vetting process...the protest is really all a bit artificial and...that couldn't have been further from the truth.” (09:27)
• Foreign Ties & Briefings: Concerns from the vetting process arose over Mandelson’s links with Russia, China, and Israel; the files contain evidence he received “major briefings from intelligence agencies.” (09:00)

6. Redactions, Omissions, and Remaining Questions

• Excessive Redactions: Large portions of the files remain concealed for reasons cited as national security or ongoing legal proceedings.
  • Archie Bland: “Big gaps still in what we know, and I’m sure there is a lot more still to find out.” (10:46)
• Missing Links: Key documents, such as Mandelson’s Declaration of Interest and references to ongoing concerns during his vetting (“borderline case”), are seemingly absent.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “It feels like the obituary for this government was already being written—kind of within six months of it being in place, and by some of the people at the very center of it.”
  — Archie Bland (05:49)
• “There is just this real sense that Starmer is more or less absent from these correspondences in terms of citations to him or, you know, this is what he's asking for.”
  — Lucy Hough (05:15)
• “It's a lot of powerful, influential men talking to other powerful, influential men about putting them in touch with other powerful, influential men.”
  — Lucy Hough (06:58)
• “What’s really striking about Mandelson's role is that he sees himself as the person who can provide the person you need...He talks a lot about how you want a grown-up for this.”
  — Archie Bland (07:23)
• “There is no reference to the mitigations that were supposedly made on the Mandelson appointment...some of the smoking guns...are things that are not present.”
  — Archie Bland (02:31)

---

Important Timestamps

• [02:00–02:10] – Acknowledgement of scope: Only 35% of the files reviewed
• [02:31–03:08] – Discussion of missing ‘mitigations’ and government informality
• [03:48–04:10] – On Pat McFadden’s WhatsApp misstep and the welfare quote
• [05:15–05:49] – Mandelson’s critiques of Starmer and absence of PM leadership
• [06:58–07:23] – Observations about power networks and the “I know a guy” culture
• [08:22–08:36] – Mandelson’s disparaging remarks about Wes Streeting
• [09:27–10:10] – Security concerns, MI6 meetings, and the unserious vetting
• [10:46–11:22] – Redactions and persistent gaps in the released documents

---

Conclusion

The newly published Mandelson files reveal an unvarnished, sometimes “embarrassing” look at the culture and machinery of the current Labour government—emphasizing what’s missing as much as what’s present. The lack of key documentation, the candid character sketches, and the depiction of entrenched male-dominated power networks have already sparked controversy and are likely to drive both political and media scrutiny in the weeks ahead.

To follow ongoing coverage, visit theguardian.com.

Transcript

[A]

This is the Guardian.

[B]

Most people don't realize how much of their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the Internet, then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, science spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where Aura comes in. Aura actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But Aura goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a vpn, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance. All backed by 24, 7 US based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring or just a vpn. Aura gives you all of it together at the same price. Competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial [e-mail] safety. Protect yourself now. @aura.com safety.

[C]

You see Peter Mandelson operating at the peak of his kind of Machiavellian powers. This has some really uncomfortable material in it. There is no doubt that we are going to be hearing about it again and again and again. It feels like the obituary for this government was already being written. There are big gaps still in what we know and I'm sure there is a lot more still to find out

[A]

from the Guardians today. In Focus. This is the latest with me, Lucy Half. Well, Archie Bland, our head of national news, we've had now a few more hours to go through the 1500 pages of Mandelson files that dropped yesterday. Have you read them all in full?

[B]

No.

[C]

So it's impressive. It's quite a lot, though.

[A]

What percentage would you say you've read?

[C]

I'm going to put it at 35%.

[A]

So I think it's safe to say from what we have been able to get across, I mean, obviously there is much more that will come out as journalists have an opportunity to read them in their fullest capacity. But this sense that it's less a smoking gun on the appointment of Mandelson, Peter Mandelson, as US Ambassador, and more just this very excruciating peek behind the curtain on how this government operates.

[C]

I think that's right. That's partly because the Guardian's excellent reporting means that many of the smoking guns are already in the open. And indeed, the morning of the publication of this tranche of documents we reported there is no reference to the mitigations that were supposedly made on the Mandelson appointment in them. So some of the smoking guns, as it were, are things that are not present as well as the things that are.

[A]

So these mitigations being the fact that the security vesting process has said, actually this is a borderline case. There is some stuff that's been thrown up and we're going to need to put some mitigations in place to ensure that there's no risk to national security or potential conflicts of interest. It seems there's no evidence of those existing.

[C]

That's right. And even the fact that they haven't been recorded, even if they were made, suggests perhaps a less formal than you might hope for approach to how those things are handled. What we do get, as you said, is a really granular look at how the business of government is conducted. We've had these kind of glances in the past with past administrations. They're never a great look when you see how the sausage is made. But this has some really uncomfortable material in it. And you see Peter Mandelson operating, writing at the peak of his kind of Machiavellian powers, manipulating just about everybody he can be in touch with, and having some extremely disobliging conversations about Keir Starmer and the direction of the government with in particular, Pat McFadden.

[A]

Yes, not a good day for Pat McFadden. I do feel sorry for him because he seems to be one of the few people who didn't know understand the disappearing message. Toggle on WhatsApp. I feel like there's a sort of age discriminatory factor at play there. But he sadly is really in the doghouse for comments that he's made about welfare that I think is going to be a tack line for opposition parties for some time to come.

[C]

Yeah, people might remember that Liam Byrne had hung around his neck during the last Labour government. The note that he left saying, I'm afraid there is no money left and Pat McFadden will now have hung around his neck. The expression, every meeting I have is, who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others? The thing about this is that, interestingly enough, this is not actually the direction of the government he's talking about. He's talking about the Labour Party more generally. There might be people who think that Labour should be thinking about which taxes it needs to raise in order to make sure that the welfare state is working properly. But if anything, this is an indication of the fact that the government was firmly pressing against that direction of travel. So I'm not sure that it is really the smoking gun on the kind of agenda of the Labour government that it is cracked up to be. But there is no doubt that we are going to be hearing about it again and again and again.

[A]

Yeah. And I think similarly we will be hearing about Mandelson's criticism of Starmer at a very early stage in his premiership as someone that lacked verve, that he'd made a visit to number 10 and he found it bereft. Bereft and beleaguered, and that there were some good people there, but they didn't seem to know what the Prime Minister wants. And I think there is just this real sense that Starmer is more or less absent from these correspondences in terms of citations to him or, you know, this is what he's asking for. This is what he's asking for to be delivered. Do you think that's fair to say?

[C]

Yeah. You wouldn't expect the Prime Minister to be constantly in touch with Peter Mandelson, but what you would expect is his agenda to be written through the government like a stick of rock for everybody there to know. This is what the Prime Minister wants. How are we working towards what the Prime Minister wants? It doesn't feel like that at all. It's also worth bearing in mind that this is really quite early in the SAMA government that we're talking about.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

And already last year it's really clear that people feel like things are going awry. One thing about all of this that is, in a kind of a perverse way, consolation for at least Labour MPs, is that the Starmer government is sort of priced in as being in this position now. And it looks very likely that he isn't going to be Prime Minister for that much longer. If all of this had emerged six months ago, it would have been much more consequential. But instead it feels like the obituary for this government was already being written kind of within six months of it being in place, and by some of the people at the very center of it.

[A]

The other thing that was notable is not only is that scant reference to what the Prime Minister thinks, but very scant evidence of exchanges between him and Peter Mandelson, who he had chosen to be US ambassador. There are just nine messages included in this file, which seems slightly implausible somehow, and that's something that the Tories are going in on quite hard today.

[C]

Well, we might not expect a Prime Minister to be in close contact with his ambassador to the us, especially if, as we think, with Starmer and Mandelson, they aren't particularly close, but what is clear is that Starmer is absent from these messages in quite a fundamental way.

[A]

I suppose there's one thing that really jumped out to me, which is just that it's a lot of powerful, influential men talking to other powerful, influential men about putting them in touch with other powerful, influential men. It's like I know a guy can. Who can help with this, or I have this contact in a way that feels sort of has similarities with the Epstein files in terms of these networks of power.

[C]

It's incredibly similar, I think, in terms of tone to the Epstein files. It's obviously not about alleged criminal activity on a massive scale in the way that the Epstein files are, but there is something about the kind of networking effect here and the way that women only appear and kind of walk on parts a lot of the time when they're being asked to do something on behalf of a man for another man. But what's really striking about Mandelson's role in particular is that he sees himself very much as the person who can provide the person that you need, usually the man that you need to get the thing that you want done. And he has a kind of a vocabulary about who those people are, which is very striking and telling, I think, of the kind of politics that he emblematizes. He talks a lot about how you want to grow an up for this. There is always this sense that he is endorsing people by his long association with them as being one of the people you can rely on here.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Whereas there are other people who don't meet necessarily those criteria and they are dismissed sometimes as being immature or not serious. He talks about Wes Streeting, actually a former acolyte of his.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

As being pathetic because he distributed to other members of the Cabinet a dossier based on testimony that doctors had given about what they had seen in Gaza. And according to Peter Mandelson, that was evidence that Streeting was having a midlife crisis.

[A]

Yeah. I think it's safe to say that Wes treating has come out pretty well, surprisingly, from these files, given that he did have a close ish relationship with Mandelson and had previously released his correspondence with Mandelson to sort of get ahead of the story, but definitely a good

[C]

move on his part. And I don't think he could have expected that he was going to be further vindicated by Mandelson insulting him, but that has probably helped him out as well.

[A]

So we've spoken about this idea that there was. There's no paper trail of the mitigations we had at this point. Big Guardian exclusive last week about the concerns, what the specific concerns were that were thrown up by the vetting process in terms of links of Mandelson to Russia, China and Israel. We know from this correspondence that he was receiving quite major briefings from intelligence agencies. There is some information that we've learned from that.

[C]

Yeah, we've seen that he appeared to have been setting up meetings with senior people at MI6 even when he had not completed the vetting process. We've seen that he believes that he would be entitled to that information on the basis of being on the Privy Council. And we've seen really interesting insights into what feels like a quite unserious way that the vetting process was treated by him and by the people around him. There is a suggestion that he just knew too many people and how on earth was he going to distinguish between the contacts that mattered and the contacts that didn't? And there's a suggestion that the protest is really all a bit artificial and that you just need to get through it. And as we've seen more recently, that couldn't have been further from the truth. Actually. It was a very serious process and the fact that it wasn't taken sufficiently seriously is one of the main major issues that has caused this crisis.

[A]

Yeah. And another note, a handwritten note, I think, from Mandelson to the then Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, saying, you will not regret my appointment. That has not aged well. Just lastly, Archie, I mean, there is. There is a huge number of redactions, as we were expecting. The government would say that this is to protect national security, but also international relations. But there are certain things, like, for example, the correspondence about Trump's tariffs introduced last year that it feels like are reductions excessive and will there be pressure for the government to release more?

[C]

Yeah. So there are really significant things that aren't there. And in some cases they will have been excluded for serious reasons to do with national security and the national interests. In other cases they will have been excluded because the police have said that they should be excluded because of the ongoing court case. But whether it's Mandelson's direct Declaration of Interest form, which we don't have sight of, or just the things that don't seem to have been written, like any reference to the fact that Ollie Robbins, then the Civil Serv charge of Mandelson, said at the time that his case was borderline. We can't find any reference to that in these documents. There are big gaps still in what we know and I'm sure there is a lot more still to find out.

[A]

Yeah. Well, Archie, thank you so much. Lots more questions to be answered and we'll see you soon.

[C]

Thank you.

[A]

That's it for today. My huge thanks again to Archie Bland, the Guardian's head of national news. You can keep up with all our reporting on this story [e-mail] and don't miss yesterday's episode of Our New Sister, a podcast, Stateside with Kai and Carter. They'll be looking at whether data centers can be stopped and what they mean for local residents in the U.S. that's it for today. Thanks for listening to this episode of the latest Today in Focus will be back in your feeds as usual tomorrow morning. The latest will be back tomorrow night. This episode was presented by me, Lucy Hoff. It was produced by Annie Levesper. The senior producer was Ryan Ramgobin. The lead producer was Zoe Hitch. This is the Guardian.

[B]

Most people don't realize how much of their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions pulling details about you from public records and the Internet, then packaging and selling it it usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where Aura comes in. Aura actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But Aura goes beyond data protection. With one app you get a vpn, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance. All backed by 24. 7 US based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring or just a vpn. Aura gives you all of it together at the same price. Competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial [e-mail] safety. Protect yourself [e-mail] safety.