The Red Box and Future Implications

From the Times and the Sunday Times, this is the story. I'm Man Vin Ranna In november twenty twenty four, the labour 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 Lamy, he promised that the government would never regret appointing him Little more than a year later, Prime Minister was kicking himself I regret appointing him If I knew then what I knowew now He would never have been anywhere near g After details emerged about Mandelson's links to the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, he experienced yet another spectacular fall from grace. sacked and still the subject of the police investigation Lord Mandelsen is once more at the heart of a Westminster scandal. The documents we are publishing today are one of the largest government publications ever laid before this House Yesterday, the government was forced to publish more than one thousand five hundred pages, showing Peter Mandelsen's communications with ministers before and during his tenure as ammbassador Sthven Swinford, the Times political editor, has been digging through the documents. What you have here is the entirety of number ten, senior cabinet ministers, all corresponding, all closely associated with Mamson, falling to congratulate him when he's appointed, know communicating with him in very indiscreet terms on a daily basis. Fawning admiration will now be a source of excruciating embarrassment But it's not just the ministers who are regularly contacting Mandelsen Wh will be shamed by the exchangers Prime Minister doesn't come out of them well either Mandelson says that Kirstarmer lacks verve. He lacks authority. He needs to behave in a more trrumpian, daredevil way. So what do the files tell us about Peter Mandelsen and how he extended his influence across Westminster And what will it all mean Kiss Stlma The story today The Mandelen files released In this frontter, you've got these huge documents, which are one thousand pages plus. you've got one hundred and sixty pages of WhatsApps and text messages alone. It's a hell of a lot to go through That's Stehen Swimford, political editor for the Times and one of the hosts of our sister podcast, The State of it. 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 indiscrete 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 ten What's the mood like in Westminster as these nuggets are dropping? Are a lot of people looking quite sheepish? I think we knew it would be humiliating. We knew it would be excruciating people. 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 it's hugely damaging for his administration. And lots of people in government are going to be very embarrassed by this, particularly some cabinet ministers Just remind us why this huge tranche of documents was released today. How did we get here Originally, 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 Mandelon were very good friends. And when these messages emerged when Bloomberg got a hold of them, what emerged was that they had continued to be friends after he was convicted for child sex offences and that Manderson had defended him on repeated occasions, offered him advice. and in these circumstances 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 Oice fired off to Mandelon, a list of questions about what are he links with Mandelsen? 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. Uness less than twenty four 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 adddress. Now some listeners may be familiar with this from the Brexit years, but it's a 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 a US ambassad, but not just at all electrcrent 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 Madelson, because Kir Stahmer, for his original sin of appointing Madelson 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, a thousand pages worth of material has come out. Darren Jones, the chief seecretary of the Prime Minister, has just stood up in the Cons and said that these documents cost the government one millionllars ps to produce. That's just the cabinet office' costs alone And there's a million quid on these documents thousandousands of manad hours, it's epic That really is remarkable and it seems to be ac cross government effort to get these documents out. Stehen, you mentioned that this is the second tranch of documents that have been released. Just remind us what came out in the first So the first one went back to the judgment and decision to appoint Mandelsen in the first place, particularly issues around the vetting on that. And it subsequently emerged that Mandelsen had been appointed and given the job without vetting actually havingt 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 veting did eventually take place, officials that look at security called the UK security veting 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 Kir Stama sacking the permanent seecretary at the foreign Office because he felt he had been misled Oie Robbins, who was the Pliament seecretary, has defended his decision and said at the time we were under huge political pressure to appoint Mandelson And even this time, in the second tranch, we've got more than one thousand five hundred pages of documents. proroportion of those are about appointment of Peter Mandelson. I mean justust give us a breakdown of what's in those documents. It's a very small proportion is about the actual appointment. That was largely covered off in the first trunch. 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 Madelson 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 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. And Stephen, you've pointed out the problems of disappearing messages with WhatsApps. We've also learnted that Peter Mandeleston wasn't very forthcoming with his own phone when it came to this investigation The messages that we have today are from those that have been provided by ministers and officials and they are also from Mandel's his phone that he had while he was US Abassador, 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 thirty first, a 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 one million pounds of taxpayers money that has been spent on this. but nonetheless, I'm sure it's enough to keep the historians happy for some time And there are some redactions too There were loads of reductions, and there was some there were some really Damaging suggestions indicate cover up There is a very senior official in number ten 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 Peerce, the former ammbassador. Not clear what these emails are about, but Mandelson echoes that. So they're both saying, deelete the messages basically And I think there are a couple of further references to deleting messages. so 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 center, you have this phrase, which is very common in docents. party. So you'll be reading a sentence and suddenly it will just say and third party said this. We don't know whose third party is, they don't disclose it. They've redacted their names deliberately. We're not clear the basis those redactions possibly on grounds that they are deemed to be a private citizen and not relevant. but I can tell you, a lot of the ones I have seen are from Mansson's lobbying outfit, which is an organisation called Global Council, which he set up and was 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 cououncil. 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 And Stephven, despite the redactions, 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 watchatchers, it's not often you get to see the private conversations of people like Peter Mandelson and mininisters and their genuine opinions of what's happening. For you, what have the best bits of the communication' been so far I think it's more than gossip, I'd say, it's far stronger than that. I think I think some of the most remarkable conversations with a guy called Pat McFadden Pat McFadden is the work and Pension Secretary and Mandleston 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 seems a really significant moment for this government and will kind of be as a piece of evidence when we look at it in hindsight. Last year, it was one of the biggest moments in Kst Aarmmer's preremership. The thing that undermined it more than any other was welfare. He tried to reform welfare, but more than a hundred 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 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, whoo can we tax in order to pay benefits to others? I can easily see both reform and the Tories sticking out on a load of t shirtshead 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 Streeting, 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 walght 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 Stalmin needs to take a much tougher position on this, which Stalin eventually did, by the way, but Stalmin 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. Mandelson doesn't say it in his WhatsApp exchanges with Streeting, but privately, he is absolutely withering about that. Less than twenty four hours later, he is messaging Mcfadden, Pat McFadden again and saying to him that this is pathetic what West 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 Stara and number ten, which is brutal and consistent throughout these files. So he says number ten 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 Stalmer's leadership is essentially weak He argues that the government should become more trrumpian. He says Crusading, panashhing verve. This is what we need and way implication what star aaxs. Behave in a more trumpy and risk taking a daredevil way. The weakness stems from the top And then lastly has this particularly pithy assessment of Starmer's approach to government, which I think we're all familiar with after fifteen or U turns in 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 B from some miniss. West Streeting isn't complimentary either says there's no plan for growth and also from Madelson himself Coming out What have we learnnt about the process that led to Mandelsen being appointed in the first place And where will these latest revelations leave Kir Starmmer? That's in just a moment. Stephven, you've been talking us through that the trove of documents that have been released including Peter Mandelsen's private WhatsApps, his emails to various ministers It doesn't reflect very well on Stari. you 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 I think it reflects very badly and I think What this platform 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 ten, senior cabinet ministers, all corresponding, all closely associated with Melson, fawning to congratulate him when he's appointed, know communicating with him in very discrete 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 ten 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? know We know that during part of this period, he's campaigning to be the ammbassador in Washington, then he becomes the ammbassador in Washington. And yet he seems to be the person a lot of ministers turn to for advice on all sorts of policy I think it's worth remembering who Mandelson is So Mandelson is seen as a very successful, cananny strategist advisor and has been for many times. And there's one point during the exchange with McFadden in the wake of some disastrous local election results, where they actually wall game what the prrime mininister's response should be. know And they say McFadden says we could go on, we need to go kind of faster and harder The problem is that's a bit bland and abstract. they goes through all the opposite. The reason they're having these conversations is because Mandelon was so embedded within new labour. 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 indiscrete conversations Pat MacFaden and cabinet M 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 Mandelon, the Arch networker. reaching out, trying to speak to as many MPs as he humanly can, including members of the twenty twenty four 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 for the general election where Mandelerson says he's been out in Berry. this is what he's heard and Stahmer in a kind of very mechanical way says, Thank you very much you know, we will deliver the change, all that kind of stuff. But either way It reaches across the whole Labour Party and bear in mind that Stalmer had little or nothing to do with Mandelom prior to his appointment as Prime Minister. They knew each other a bit, and obviously there are some messages that attest to that. 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 McSweeny, his then chief of staff, notably Matthew Doyle, his then director of communications. There was a long list of people in number ten that thought Madelson was the solution. and that's why they went with him as ammbassador. And boy will Stalmer regret that now 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 learnt about that? How much more have we learnnt about the vetting that took place before he was appointed as the ambassador to America? You get um An insight into the veting process that you didn't have to such a clear extent before Mandelson has been sacked set it' around septtember the eventh of last year and the press are asking questions about We're hearing something about the vetting, there are issues around the veting. 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 ten and sets out the process. And what he says is Well There was the group UK security veting and they came to a final recommendation regarding Lord Madelson at the end of January of twenty twenty five. That was passed to the foreign Office as the decision maker, we now know that was to Oie Robbins and he made the decision to grant him develop veting, therefore enabling him to take up the role. That is fine But what is not said in that and what is You know, not mention and this is why Stalmer was so livid about it. At no point was it mentioned that actually UK security veting had advised against Mandelson's appointment. They had said that he represed 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 whichich in hindsight is really significant because what it meant was even more damage coming down the tracks for Stahmer when it emerged, officials had recommended against giving Mandelson a develop veting. And Stephven, it wasn't long ago that the whole of Westminster gped 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 Robins, or are there questions for the Prime Minister and Downing Street for throwing him under a bus 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 prrime Minister of the day, accusing Ollie Robbins of having kept him in the dark, failed to give him information about the fact that Mandelson, official recommended against his veting. And you've got Robbins in turnn saying We were under immense political pressure And it was my decision and I am the pen holder on this process. and therefore I was entitled to do what I did. The problem is a political one Ultimately, it doesn't really matter who's to blame. just once again highlights that catastrophic misjudgment to appoint Mandelson in the first place and put Starm in a very difficult position. We do also learn a little bit more about how Peter Mandelsen conducted the role of ammbassador in Washington. What are the details that you've seen so far? We should talk about the tale of the reed 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 It became a massive political issue in number ten for occupied for several days, the minds of the most senior people in number ten. You have this cache of emails, which is delightful involving Morgan McSweeney, other senior people in number ten, where they' 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 the high fast in number ten, 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 file. So there are elements of these documents, which are just great fun And just finally, Steve, there is so much detail there. Do you think this is the sort of detail though that cuts through to the rest of the country? I mean, will this make it impossible for Kirst Starma to hang on Not that it makes it impossible for him to hang on. I think like if we're being very candid Banvin, that time has probably passast. Kir Starmer is not going to be Pime Minister in the run up to the next election. He 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 Star with 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 Madison and it infuriates them One of the reasons he lost the authority of MPs and we are there now, right? We've got What is it? ninety old 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 Mandelon saga and these files have consistently everoded his authority with the parliamentary Labour Party and his judgment in appointing Mandson in the first place. That's the problem, and that is ultimately being a key part of his downfall. And when the history books are written, it will be a critical part of that This was the biggest tranche of Mandelsen files to be released quuite the last. As we mentioned, some documents have been withheld so that they won't 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 Stephven 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 Producers today were Michaela Arnerson and Sophie McNulty The executive producer was Kate Lambll. Sound design and theme composition were by Maralaerto If you can, do leave us a review wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.