Mandelson files reveal Labour party riddled with doubts and infighting

Newly published documents related to Peter Mandelson's appointment as ambassador to Washington have exposed deep-seated doubts and infighting within the Labour party. The trove of over 1,000 pages reveals candid, often scathing, private assessments of Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his government by senior figures, including Mandelson himself.

“

If you were minded to appoint me [as ambassador to Washington], I would make sure you never regret it.

Mandelson, who promised Foreign Secretary David Lammy he would never regret appointing him, appears to have given his colleagues ample reason to do so. In messages to Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden, Mandelson described Starmer as "not leading from the front" and lacking "verve." He also characterized No. 10 as "beleaguered and bereft" and suggested that while "people's heads are broadly in the right place," there's a need for more individuals capable of execution.

“

Keir is not leading from the front and Morgan [McSweeney, his chief of staff] is not organising the centre as it needs to be.

The documents also capture Mandelson's critical views on other prominent figures. He described Wes Streeting as "hysterical" and "experiencing an early mid-life crisis" regarding Gaza. Criticism of former Prime Minister Tony Blair by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband was dismissed as "personal and stupid," while Rachel Reeves was seen as being "on a growth mission but without an argument about where the growth will come from or how."

“

It stems from the top and Keir lacks verve as does the Cabinet as a whole.

Beyond Mandelson's sharp critiques, the files reveal broader discontent. McFadden expressed frustration with Labour MPs focused on "who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others," deeming their questions misguided. He also appeared to agree with Tony Blair's criticisms of the government's net zero strategy. Pensions minister Torsten Bell lamented that "everyone [in government] seems to think it's someone else's job to get the policy right," highlighting a perceived lack of accountability and strategic clarity within the administration.

“

People’s heads are broadly in the right place but you need more people who can execute.