Once again, Keir Starmer’s government has ended up talking about scandal, rather than policy: something the Prime Minister once levelled as an accusation at the Tories. Health ministers had hoped to spend today talking about improving cancer treatment, but instead we are settling into an entire week dominated by Peter Mandelson.
The Met have now announced they are launching a criminal investigation over allegations that Mandelson leaked sensitive information to Epstein
Starmer has been rushing to remove any trace of the ex-Labourite, passing to the Metropolitan Police a ‘dossier’ of evidence suggesting Mandelson could have leaked market sensitive information on the 2008 banking crash, and asking his officials to draft legislation to remove Mandelson’s peerage ‘as quickly as possible’.
Mandelson then obliged by stepping down from the Lords, something No. 10 described as ‘right’ – and presumably also convenient – though he will retain his peerage and his right to style himself Lord Mandelson.
Yet the Met have now announced they are launching a criminal investigation over allegations that Mandelson leaked sensitive information to Epstein. Officers are expected to interview the former business secretary, and to take statements from other senior Labour figures who were witnesses, including Gordon Brown.
The Prime Minister has also told the Cabinet that his former ally had ‘let the country down’, and that he was ‘not reassured that the totality of the information’ about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein had ‘yet emerged’. That is a damning assertion but – given how information has emerged over the past few months – it is also entirely rational.
The reason this story has so much longevity is that it is not just about the tarnish it puts over the New Labour years. It is also about the judgment of Keir Starmer in appointing Mandelson as ambassador to Washington.
And, perhaps more importantly for Starmer’s enemies, it also brings Morgan McSweeney back into the firing line, as the key figure who repeatedly argued Mandelson’s case. It is a gift to those Labour MPs who want to weaken Starmer fatally by shooting for McSweeney.
It is also, of course, a gift to the Conservatives, who have accepted it gladly. They are using their opposition day debate tomorrow to demand full disclosure of how Mandelson was vetted for the appointment.
The suspicion is that McSweeney was closely involved, and that disclosure could spell the end of his tenure in Downing Street. Of course, it is not just Tory MPs who want that, which makes tomorrow’s vote particularly potent.
Not only will Labour MPs find it near-impossible to vote in any way that appears to protect Mandelson, many of them actively want to vote in a way that removes the protection from McSweeney.
So it is not simply a case of embarrassing Labour MPs: it also provides some of them with an opportunity that they will want to seize. It could be a vote that is impossible to whip – though governments frequently encounter this problem and end up putting MPs on a one-line whip, encouraging them to stay away from the Commons and instead catch up on dental appointments, next year’s tax return and so on.
Starmer is now facing something worse than a dental appointment in the form of Prime Minister’s Questions tomorrow, where he will undoubtedly face a Kemi Badenoch delighted that he is not overseas as he was last week.
The Tory leader had a great session the last time Mandelson was under threat in September, when she worried Starmer like a dog with a bone over why he wouldn’t sack his ambassador to Washington. This week, she will want to zero in on McSweeney and increase Starmer’s woes further.
But to whose advantage will these attacks end up being? If Badenoch performs well, she may further consolidate her position with her own party, but the chances are that the stench of yet another Establishment scandal won’t help the Tories’ popularity.
The main beneficiaries are likely to be Reform, currently hoping to win the Gorton and Denton by-election – and profiting every time the political discourse turns to scandal, talk of how to get rid of unelected peers and the weakness of the main political leaders.
Isabel’s article originally appeared in The Spectator’s Evening Blend email
