The recent release of the Mandelson Files has unveiled intriguing communications involving Lord Mandelson and various government officials. These files consist of over 160 pages of messages and WhatsApps. However, they notably lack data from Lord Mandelson’s personal phone, as he declined to share it with officials.
Key Communications Revealed
Among the released messages, six exchanges between Lord Mandelson and Sir Keir Starmer stand out. They discuss campaign strategies in Bury ahead of the upcoming general election and express admiration for former Conservative Prime Minister John Major.
Prime Minister’s Messaging Practices
In related news, Downing Street disclosed that the Prime Minister employs a disappearing messages feature on his phone. Officials did not confirm whether Sir Keir Starmer had deleted messages that might have been included in the recent disclosure. A spokesperson stated that using this function is acceptable as long as it does not hinder record-keeping or transparency. According to the spokesperson, Sir Keir has submitted all relevant communications at his disposal.
Missing Communications from Chief of Staff
Notably absent from the released files are messages from Morgan McSweeney, the former Chief of Staff to Sir Keir Starmer. He resigned following Lord Mandelson’s dismissal amidst criticisms regarding his role in the peer’s appointment. McSweeney reported that his government phone was stolen last year, a device that has yet to be recovered by police, hindering his ability to provide all communications.
Further Missing Messages
Furthermore, Cabinet Office Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds disclosed that his personal phone was also stolen last year. This device would likely have contained messages exchanged with Lord Mandelson. An ally of Thomas-Symonds indicated that he has shared details from the messages he can recall.
Redactions and National Security
It’s important to note that some messages made public have been redacted. These redactions were implemented due to concerns regarding national security and the protection of the UK’s diplomatic relations. As such, the full context of these messages remains unclear.
