On Peter Mandelson

There is no point pretending otherwise: the last few days have been bruising. The name on everyone’s lips is Peter Mandelson. Among many others from the New Labour era, he has had a long association with Progress, and for that reason alone it would be dishonest to dodge the issue or speak cryptically. But the truth is this: in my two and a half years in this role, my direct contact with Peter Mandelson amounts to a single brief hello, when I introduced myself. There has been no meaningful involvement, no role in our work, no influence over our direction and no funding.

That context matters. But it does not change the central fact. What has come out is deeply serious. Peter Mandelson has betrayed the trust of friends, colleagues and our party, but more than that, he has betrayed the country. At the height of the global financial crisis, whilst Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling were working around the clock to save the British economy and protect the livelihoods of tens of millions of people, Peter Mandelson was potentially providing information to a foreign banker operating in a world where he stood to gain by betting against our economy, our currency and our country. Information that, if misused, could have caused real harm to Britain’s economic stability at the worst possible moment.
Jobs, pensions, businesses and public confidence were at stake. When the national interest demanded absolute discretion and collective discipline, that trust appears to have been broken. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that these actions were motivated by personal interest. To place ego, influence or personal relationships above the interests of the then British government in such circumstances is not just a disgrace – it is an unforgivable failure of duty.

There is no doubting Peter Mandelson’s brilliant mind. Precisely because of that, there is no defence for what appears to have taken place. This was not naivety, ignorance or inexperience. It was a conscious failure to meet the basic standards demanded by that moment of national crisis, and brilliance only sharpens that indictment.

It is also essential to be crystal clear about something else. The deepest injustice in this story is not the reputational damage suffered by powerful or well-connected people. It is the harm done to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Girls were trafficked, abused and exploited. Their suffering is not a footnote to a political scandal; it is the central moral fact. Any discussion that centres access, embarrassment or political fallout while relegating those victims to the margins gets this fundamentally wrong.

The ordeal endured by those girls dwarfs any discomfort now felt by those whose names appear in the same story. That must not be blurred or minimised.

The vast majority of people who have served, and continue to serve, our party in government (and I should add other parties too) do so for the right reasons. They act in good faith, under immense pressure, with a genuine sense of responsibility to the country. Their work and integrity risk being unfairly tarnished by the totally reckless actions of one individual.

Two things, however, need to be said clearly.

First, the questions being asked of the Prime Minister are fair questions. They deserve answers, not irritation or evasion. But fairness cuts both ways, and so does context. Peter Mandelson was appointed to senior roles by two former Labour Prime Ministers (including after previous scandals). He served as a senior European Commissioner. The Times recruited him for a podcast as recently as two years ago when his association with Epstein was already public. He was, for better or worse, an accepted figure within the political establishment long before this government came into being.
That is not an excuse. But it reflects a political culture that has developed over time, in which long service and experience have sometimes been treated as sufficient reassurance, even when questions lingered. That context was inherited, not created anew. That instinct has corroded trust and weakened us all. Gordon Brown and Keir Starmer were both absolutely right to refer this to the police.

Second, there is Morgan McSweeney.

Morgan is an adviser and cannot answer publicly for himself. I have not spoken to him about this, and I am not seeking to speak on his behalf. What I can do is speak about the Morgan McSweeney I know.

I knew Morgan long before Peter Mandelson did. The idea, widely repeated in parts of the media, that he is Mandelson’s “protégé” reflects a lack of curiosity rather than insight. My strong suspicion is that prior to 2019, Peter Mandelson neither knew nor cared who Morgan McSweeney was. He certainly didn’t when Morgan was in charge of the photocopier in Labour HQ in 2001.

As Labour began to look like a credible party of government, Morgan, like any serious person in a position like his sought advice from people who had been there before. From Peter Mandelson, yes, but also from others. Seeking counsel is not patronage. It does not erase a career, a set of values, or a political judgement formed over many years. It does not make someone a protégé. It makes them serious about learning, winning and governing. Morgan’s politics were shaped out of defeating the BNP, winning back Lambeth and ultimately winning the battle against the far left and antisemitism in the Labour Party – not by Peter Mandelson.

This moment is uncomfortable. It should be. We should be unflinching about wrongdoing, absolutely clear about where the gravest harm lies, and fair to those who have acted with integrity. That is the standard Progress should exist to uphold, and it is the standard we must apply now, especially when it would be easier not to.

The post On Peter Mandelson appeared first on Progress.