Chris Mason: Mandelson revelations a scandal on another level

15 minutes agoChris MasonPolitical editor

Getty Images

These latest revelations about Lord Mandelson leave many Labour figures seething with disappointment and boiling with betrayal.

The gravity of what is alleged points to an emerging political scandal building to perhaps one of the biggest for a generation.

Plenty knew Lord Mandelson was a big character, a risky pick, a man with a biography scattered with previous examples of departing high office under a cloud.

As I wrote here in September, Peter Mandelson twice lost his job in the cabinet two decades ago over his dealings with rich men.

Firstly, in 1998, he resigned as trade and industry secretary after a row about borrowing a third of a million pounds from a ministerial colleague.

Then in 2001 he resigned as Northern Ireland secretary after a row about a passport application from an Indian billionaire.

And, yes, lightning did strike a third time last year when he was given the boot, months into the job, as the UK’s ambassador to the United States.

The revelations of the last few days would have been significant in any context, but what has turbocharged their significance is they cannot be dismissed as historic.

The investigation by the Metropolitan Police will focus principally, we expect, on allegations from more than a decade and a half ago.

But what gives the row political salience now is Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to send Lord Mandelson to Washington a year ago.

I recall one moment keenly: I flew with the prime minister to Washington last February when he headed to the White House to meet President Trump for the first time since his election victory.

Shortly after we landed, in the early hours UK time but still mid-evening in Washington, we headed to the British Embassy.

In a packed ballroom, full of supporters of Donald Trump and members of his administration, Sir Keir cracked a gag at his newly-arrived ambassador’s expense, which was both well written and well delivered.

The warmth and bonhomie was clear and so was the strategy from No 10: Lord Mandelson was the best person to be Sir Keir’s man in Washington, managing a tricky relationship with a wildly unpredictable president.

And plenty agree he did a good job in the time he was there.

But then this explosion of revelations and no end of questions about whether the prime minister and his team asked anywhere near enough questions of Lord Mandelson before they gave him the job.

After this latest deluge of details to drop in the last few days, Downing Street has sought to be on the front foot: volunteering on the record statements marking each new development, and now seeking to pre-empt a Conservative attempt to squeeze from ministers details of the vetting process prior to Lord Mandelson’s appointment to the Washington job.

The Tories plan to use their opposition day debate on Wednesday in the Commons to try to force these disclosures and Labour MPs showed little appetite for appearing resistant.

Now the government is making it clear it is willing to publish information, providing it doesn’t jeopardise national security or damage the government’s international relations – in other words, in this instance, the relationship with the White House.

But do not expect the information to be published immediately.

As for Lord Mandelson, he has not commented publicly.

I understand he maintains that he has not acted criminally, did not act for personal gain and will cooperate with the police.

I am told he argues that while confronting, in the late noughties, the biggest financial crisis since the 1930s, he sought Epstein’s expertise in the national interest.

There’s an overwhelming sense at Westminster that this explanation does not wash.

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.