Impact on Keir Starmer's Leadership

This is The Guardian . I'm Pippa Kareera and I'm Kieran Stacey. You're listening to Politics Weekly for The Guardian . Kevin, we've spent the last few hours trawling through thousands of pages of documents. Thank God for the Guardians, amazing tech folk who have set up all sorts of search engines for us to make it slightly easier. As the latest release of the Peter Manderson files, that second trunch of documents that we've been waiting for finally was made public. And there's a lot in there, isn't there? Yeah, a huge amount. I mean when it first dropped, it dropped in three separate files from the cabinet office. Uh and you couldn't easily tell which file related to which issue. And they're not grouped in any easy way, as you say, Pippa, thank goodness for clever people back at Guardian headquarters who were able to to break it all down. But you've got a complete mishmash of stuff in there. You've got emails, quite formal emails to do with government business, you've got personal WhatsApps, you've got invitations to meetings , you've got records of phone calls. Handwritten notes. Handwritten notes, which I actually wasn't expecting one, which we can discuss, but one particularly interesting letter to David Lamy You've also got stuff from before Peter It's probably just worth saying that a lot of what we do know about the security vetting process we know because of Guardian journalism, myself, Paul Lewis and Henry Dyer from our investigations team, and indeed you, Kieran as well, have written stories that first big one revealing that Peter Manderson was appointed the UK's ambassador to Washington even though the UK security vetting had recommended that he be denied clearance. And last week we published some of the answer as to why that was the case, revealing links with individuals in China, in Israel and in Russia as well, which were of concern to those security officials. And then uh we've had several other stories, some of which we'll get into later. But in this tranche of documents, and one of the jobs I had was to go through it all and to try and find out as much as I could about about the vetting process. And one of the first things which leapt out to us was that Peter Mans on was receiving s sensitive security briefings about the Foreign Office's work and was in discussions with the head of MI six before he'd completed that developed vetting processor, before that decision was actually made. And some of the declassified emails in were in this trunche of documents showed that he and Richard Moore, who was C, as he's known, the former head of MI6, had agreed to meet in early January before uh Mandelson actually went to Washington, as we know, he went in um in time for Donald Trump's inauguration in February twenty twenty five. So the fact that he was getting security briefings at that level . Yeah. Um, including on the foreign officers' work in places like China and Russia Ukraine, should have raised alarm bells given what we now know about the vetting process. Yeah, and and another thing that I think was really interesting about what we discovered today is that, well, in fact, Guardian readers would have discovered this on Monday morning because we published details about this in the paper this morning. But there is no reference to any security mitig ations that Peter Mandelson took to be given his clearance. Now, foreign office officials had flagged particular security concerns, as you say Pippa, thanks to your reporting we now know exactly what they were. And we were told by people, including Ollie Robbins, the former head civil servant of the Foreign Office, that mitigations were put in place to deal with these. It seems from what we've learnt today, no mitigations were put in place to deal with those security concerns. What there were were mitigations to do with his commercial conflicts of interest. So he wouldn't have to deal with clients that he'd represented on a commercial basis. That is very different from the kind of don't have contacts with these particular governments that we thought might be there. Yeah, and actually that's a key point, isn't it? That it is almost as interesting what is not in this tranche of documents as what is. Now you mentioned the mitigations. Um, the mitigations that we were told were in place and we can't find any evidence of them. There also weren't any documents to back up the claim by Ollie Robbins that um the vetting body had considered Mandelson to be a borderline case. Nothing in there on that. And then there was a few documents which we understand the police have asked the Cabinet Office to withhold in case they want to use them in any future prosecution. They include that nine page summary document, which uh we we revealed some of the details of last week, um, but also the emails between Morgan McSweeney and Peter Manderson over Manderson's links to Jeffrey Epstein, which was used by Downing Street for the original due diligence process that they went through, and I understand messages to Starmer's former chief of staff from Peter Manderson on the day of the reshuffle, just weeks before Peter Manderson was sacked. So there's lots in there which um we were looking for that isn't there and I think that actually is really important to mention. Should be mentioned as well that Peter Manderson declined to comply, is the way they very politely put it, with the request to hand over his personal phone and allow the government to publish his own WhatsApp messages. And as you and I know, lots of government business, which should be done through official channels, is often done on personal phones, uh, meaning that those messages are lost forever in the ether and we're unlikely to ever come across them. There's just one other thing I'd quickly mention, Kieran, from uh my trawl of the documents was that Peter Manderson was quite surprised, I think, to be asked, in during the vetting process before he officially was on the Foreign Office's books, for the names of all the contacts, both professional, personal, business, with foreign individu als that he had. And he responded and said, Well look, over the course of my career, um, including his career in British politics, obviously I've met, you know, loads, probably thousands of individuals, and do you really want me to name them all ? And then there was this to and fro with foreign office officials. And the conclusion of which was that he was advised to submit a handful of names of foreign contacts, including some close ones during the vetting process to reassure the vetting team that he'd been comprehensive. Even the official added, if it's all quite artificial. In terms of the vetting, this is one of the most interesting things that has come out is this occasionally dismissive attitude, not only from Peter Mandelson, but other senior members of the government, to the whole process. And the idea that Peter Mandelson could turn around and say, Oh, I've met so many people I couldn't possibly list them all to you and then a senior official just said, Oh, don't worry, just do a few years. Yeah, and he tried to argue that this as a privy councillor, a role which he was appointed to when he became a cabinet minister under Tony Blair back in nineteen ninety seven. He could have access to security documents and didn't need to go through the vetting process, and obviously Yeah. But if Kemi Badenok's aim in this was to shine a light on the vetting processes and how much the government knew about Peter Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein before he was appointed. She's had a kind of limited success in that. Where she's complet ely struck political gold is in showing that this government is not only kind of riven by divides but plagued by worries about whether the Prime Minister is up to the job and seems incapable of doing anything without infighting, without being rude about each other. Now, this is probably, let's be fair, true of lots of governments. It's just that we don't always see the internal messages that fly around the place. No, and Peter Manson has a reputation for being particularly pointed, shall we say, in some of his criticisms. He doesn't hold back. Yep. Um but it and it's not just Peter Mandelson though. One of the most interesting things that comes through is Peter Mandelson being rude about the government and about Keirstarman about Downing Street in in various places, but also other people kind of sometimes egging him on, sometimes sharing his criticisms. Um you know a couple of senior ministers in this government don't necessarily come out too well from what we've learnt today. Some of the most interesting exchanges are with Pat McFadion, who was then the Cabinet Office Minister, now of course is work and pension secretary. And they have exchanges, quite extensive discussions about the party's political strategy, and bear in mind that these two men have known each other for a very long time. Pat McFadden was Tony Blair's political secretary in Downing Street in the noughties, and um at a time when Peter Mandelson was at the heart of government as well and they also work together as as ministers. I mean it must be said that most of the criticism comes from Peter Mandelson, but Pat McFadden doesn't leap in and give a wholesome defence of of Keir Starmer. And for example, Manson said to McFadden that the cycle for Starmer was one of advance, buckle, advance, buckle. Obviously taps into what a lot of people feel about Keir Starmer flip flopping or or certainly having a few talking about what he thought Morgan McSwe eney's view of Keir Stummer was at that point. So I presumably Mandelson shares it, but also you would assume, as long as he's not misrepresenting Morgan McSweeney here too, that uh the Prime Minister's own chief of staff felt that the Pres Yeah, and he says, Peter Manson says, uh criticized Keir Starmer's lack of verve. Yep. Um, suggested that Prime Minister should have behaved in a more Trumpian fashion. He said that number ten was beleaguered and bereft and the public were crying out for leadership . I mean none of it sort of particularly supportive of Keir Starmer. And then a few sort of interesting asides as well, suggesting that Gordon Brown was trying to undermine Starmer to the advantage of then Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner suggesting that uh a former health secretary was treating was hysterical over Gaza and having a midlife crisis. I mean like we're saying not holding back, venting his annoyance about Ed Miliband and net zero. So a lot of sort of quote personal attacks really on some of the cabinet. And then in a quote which the Conservatives are already quoting widely, Pac McFadden says to Peter Mandelson that a lot of his meetings with Labour MPs are about who can we tax in order to pay for benefits to others. I saw somebody saying that this was the Liam Byrne letter of this government and it does seem like that will be used over and over again as a criticism against this government. Well and McFadden subsequently has been on the radio and said that he often said in interviews um and in the department we have to change the question the system asks from what benefits are you entitled to to how do we help you change your life? I mean slightly different not quite the same as slaggy off uh large parts of the parliamentary Labour Party. Also not quite the same as telling Peter Mandelson that uh Pat McFadden thought that Tony Blair was entirely right when he criticised Ed Miliband's net zero policies, which I thought was another little uh biting aside there from the cabinet minister. Also another little catty aside from Tolston Bell, the pensions minister, who said in one message to Peter Mandelson, everybody in this government seems to think that policy is someone else's job. I mean again, these are things you can imagine any colleagues in any workplace trading with each other about you know their bosses or uh you know colleagues. And even uh Morgan McSweeney, Star mer's former chief of staff, seemed to have had some of these concerns. One of the revelations in the files is that is that McSweeney was considering setting up an external number ten unit to circumvent existing staff because presumably he didn't think that they were all up to the job. So there's a lot of criticism of the way that that Downing Street operation operated and Can I mention two things that jumped out at me which really don't have anything to do with this but just made me chuckle quite a lot today. One, as I mentioned before, before he got into office, Peter Manderson was going for not one but two jobs. One of course was ambassador in Washington, the other was Chancellor of Oxford University. And from these messages, it seems that he spent more time campaigning to be Chancellor of Oxford University than he did trying to be Washington . He was messaging every minister he could think of that went to Oxford and MP, asking them to back his campaign and to get his message out there to uh Oxford students. He agonised at one point that William Haig, his main competitor for the role who did actually get it in the end, had a much better operation than he did. I mean if he was concentrating his political efforts anywhere, it was on that job, not on this one. The other thing that jumped out to me, again, it doesn't necessarily have much to do with his job as Washington ambassador, any of these security concerns, but was how much government time was spent procuring a ministerial red box for Donald Trump. This was a gift given to the US President when he came on his state visit to London and it bore a presidential seal on it. Now, for some reason, I can't quite tell from looking at these documents, for some reason they couldn't find the right supplier to do the right kind of job. And this just seemed to occupy so much of senior officials' time. At one point someone said this is my main priority for today to get this sorted. Do you just think maybe this is a sign of what it's like doing business with Trump's White House? Maybe it's also a sign of what h appens when you encounter the whitehole machinery and you're trying to get stuff done. And Peter Mandelson actually said this is reminiscent of a of an episode of the thick of it. So Yeah. Don't blame him. No. Um there there were quite a lot of slightly cringe worthy moments in those documents, weren't there? I mean for me the sort of the standouts were the series of junior ministers who messaged him uh when he became Washington ambassador, presumably didn't really know him very well. Um and we tr'yingre to sort of get in with him and it just was a bit I mean I know I can understand why they want to further their careers but it was a bit embarrassing. But yeah but Peppa how many times have you or I messaged a minister who's just been promoted. Maybe we've met them a couple of times for lunch. We just want to say congratulations on their mutual. Would we have a release of all of our WhatsApp messages ever and see us sucking up to people? Not what we really mean. No, I mean or it is, I'm not sure what I should say now. Um the there was one other standout moment for me though in it which um I think actually if we step back a little bit from what these messages actually mean and why they're important, why they matter and and the impact they'll have on Keir Starmer. And that was a letter, a handwritten letter from Peter Mandelson, after he didn't get the Oxford Chancellorship ahead of his appointment as UK ambassador to Washing ton. And um it was a handwritten letter to David Lamy, then the Foreign Secretary, and there's a line in it which he says, the bottom of the first page, he says, I just wanted you to know that if you were ever minded to appoint me, and bear in mind he's saying this in November 2024, appointed a month later, I would make sure you never regret it. Now those words must haunt Keir Starmer, who of course has admitted he does bitterly regret appointing Peter Manderson, the original sin, if you like, which at the same which at the time so many people thought was the smartest, most genius idea ever because you needed somebody that could handle the vagaries of Donald Trump. But he's now apologised, Stum has now apologised for the appointment and admits that it was a huge, huge mistake because it reminds people repeatedly every time Well that's a good point to pause there because I think we should talk about that more when we come back. Really, what this all means is further worries for the Prime Minister Keir Star mer. So let's get into a bit of that after the break. This is your business. This is your business supercharts with the help of zero accounting software. This is managing cash flow. This is managing your cash flow with the help of zero accounting software. These are your customers paying you. These are your customers having more ways to pay you with the help of zero accounting software. This is your business supercharged with the help of Zero. Helping you sold your cash flow by giving your customers more ways to pay so now you can focus on making your business boom! Supercharge your business today with the help of zero. Welcome back. Pippa before the break we were talking about what all of this information about Peter Mandelson's appointment as Washington Ambassador really means for Keir Starmer. My view is actually the writing's already on the wall, this probably doesn't move the dial, but it does at least give us more of an insight into what was going on in his government over the last couple of years. Yeah, it gives us more of an insight, albeit from one very particular perspective. And I think it's fair to say that Peter Manderson's take isn't necessarily everyone's, in fact it's probably far from everyone's. But I also think it only gives us a snapshot, not least because of some of the documents that have been withheld, but also and I know some MPs feel this, that there's a whole load of messages out there which haven't been published and those are because those are messages on people's personal phones, on uh if they've got their WhatsApp messages set up to disappearing, for whatever other reason they haven't divulged them. Um but I think you're right on Keir Starmer. I think that uh out there, many of our audience probably will be thinking, okay, so there's some new nuggets of information here, but it doesn't tell us anything we didn't really know on the fundamentals. I think that's probably fair. Um and certainly in terms of what it means for Kirstarmer , this judgment point is just sort of sort in the wound at this point, really. We already know from events over the last few weeks that many in his party um want him to stand down sooner rather than later and possibly a majority in his party, the Parliamentary Labour Party, don't think that he'll be taking it on to fight the next general election. We've got this weird sort of shadow leadership campaign going on where Wes Streeting and Andy Burnham in particular are kind of fighting out a contest for a job which for which there's no vacancy yet, but which everyone assumes would be We've got both of those men, of course, uh involved in different ways in in in today's tran che documents. Andy Burnham only in terms of his response, he issued a statement saying that he believes the revelations will further damage people's confidence in our political system and ultimately that's the that's the sort of lasting damage this was doing. Kirst Dahmer won't be around forever. Some of the other characters in this won't be around forever, but it is yet another notch in that disengagement, that almost disillusionment that people have with the political system that Andy Burnham is trying to address. Uh where Street and we should just quickly mention was of course already we knew lots of his exchanges because he released them um much to the anger of some of his cabinet colleagues, um, way back because there was a suggestion that he had a close friendship with Peter Manderson, he wanted to sort of prove that that actually the extent of that was not as as profound as people thought. They'd suggested it might be a problem for him in any leadership contest he were to fight. And actually I think the documents today I actually think he's come off out of relatively well. He's been showing himself willing on Gaza and other issues to argue the toss with Peter Manderson, not to sort of come in behind him, showing an independence of mind on issues that many Labour voters really care about. So um I think he'll be feeling probably slightly vindicated Well, here's a thought politically at least, was it a good idea for Westreating to release his messages in advance? Has he actually tripped himself up there? If he'd have waited until today, I suspect West Streeting wouldn't have been the main story and that we'd have been talking just as we are more about the messages with Pat McFadden. Uh in fact, West reating might have come out of it relatively well. But we did spend a couple of days just talking about West Streeting's relationship with Peter Manderson when you know there was a way to manage that which maybe might have mitigated a little bit. Anyway, this kind of counterfactual history, but um for Wistreating I do just wonder whether he thinks he did the right thing with that. Well look, I mean I said earlier on that this is not going to be the last we hear of these documents. There will be a parliamentary debate on Wednesday. We will keep trawling through them, as I'm sure will many others. And eventually, Pippa, there's going to be another round of these documents, right? Because the police are sitting on a lot of documents which might be used for a prosecution. If they are and that prosecution is over or if they are not, at some point we would expect to see that as well. But yeah, some point could be years away though. Yeah. Right. And by that time, Kirstamer might not be Prime Minister anymore and the sting might have been taken out of these revelations entirely. Who knows? And we might not be here. We might be we might be we might be We will be in this room Still talking about Peter Mandelson's appointment as Washington ambassador in the year twenty thirty five. I promise that. Well that's all from us. Thanks for listening. If you haven't already, please like and follow Politics Weekly UK to make sure you keep getting our episodes in your feed