New Mandelson files: how embarrassing are they?

The latest tranche of the Peter Mandelson files has exposed a web of political intrigue, security oversights, and personal animosity that casts a harsh light on Keir Starmer's leadership. Most damning is the revelation that Mandelson received high-level security briefings—including on China, Russia, and Ukraine—before his vetting process was complete, despite UK security officials recommending he be denied clearance due to ties with individuals in those countries. Shockingly, no security mitigations were documented to address these concerns, only commercial conflict-of-interest safeguards. The documents also reveal Mandelson's dismissive attitude toward the vetting process, his intense lobbying for the Oxford chancellorship (which he lost), and his scathing critiques of Starmer, including calling for more 'Trumpian' leadership and mocking the Prime Minister's lack of verve. A handwritten letter to David Lammy, in which Mandelson boasts he'd 'never regret' being appointed, now haunts Starmer, who has publicly admitted the appointment was a 'huge mistake.' While some of the criticism comes from a single, self-serving perspective, the sheer volume of internal dissent—especially from figures like Pat McFadden and Torsten Bell—suggests deep institutional unease within the Labour government. The fallout could accelerate calls for Starmer to step down, even as the full picture remains obscured by withheld police documents and lost personal messages.