Mandy, McFadden, and more messaging gone wrong

The latest set of files relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as UK ambassador to the US were published yesterday, yet little about the original appointment itself has made it into the news cycle. 

Instead, the dominant story has quickly become one of internal disillusionment with Keir Starmer’s leadership, with several others now caught up in the increasingly tangled knot of alliances. 

Despite this political cliff edge, this still may not be enough to tip Labour into losing the upcoming Makerfield by-election. As Andy Burnham seeks to distance himself, it remains to be seen whether he can shake off some of the quotes, which are likely to resurface in the weeks ahead. 

Five takeaways to note: 

1. No ‘smoking gun’, but deeper problems  

The documents may not contain a single explosive revelation and, as several have commented, there is no clear ‘smoking gun’ across 1,500 pages. This might be what makes the impact more difficult for Labour to contain. Rather than a single moment of crisis, the papers show a steady erosion of confidence in Starmer’s leadership, which potentially lacked authority to start with. 
This ‘death by a thousand cuts’ is hard to come back from. Without a single allegation, it becomes far more difficult to show what has changed. Also, as criticism in the documents extends to the party more broadly, a leadership change might not be enough to reset the narrative. 

2. A telling timeline   

The timeline is revealing. Messages dating back to early 2025 show that doubts about Labour’s direction have been simmering for over a year. Mandelson’s comment in May 2025 that Starmer “lacked verve” reinforces this point. These are not new criticisms born of recent pressure; they have been present internally for some time, shifting the problem from the short term to wider structure.  

3. McFadden’s moment  

Pat McFadden’s unexpected moment has emerged as one of the stickiest and potentially most damaging with the public. His reported comment that Labour MPs are too focused on asking “who can we tax?” is likely to stick for some time.   

Whether it matches what he’s said publicly or not, it feeds into the opposition narratives of Labour frivolously spending taxpayers’ money. In an increasingly shortened news cycle, these four words will land. It might not be long until they’re across blue and turquoise backdrops.  

4. Wider implications for Wes  

While much attention has focused on whether this could affect Andy Burnham’s prospects, the impact is more direct for Wes Streeting. Reports of a “wild, long, hysterical message” risk reinforcing doubts among critics about his readiness; the accusation that he may be experiencing an “early mid-life crisis” is more uncomplimentary.

5. Government by WhatsApp  

A broader takeaway sits behind the immediate politics: the growing role of informal communication in government. We’ve seen how WhatsApp has become central to quick discussions, but MPs are increasingly aware of the risks. Lessons from Covid-era inquiries appear to have landed, with some conversations now noticeably absent from the record as disappearing messages become the option of choice.  

Where does this leave us?

Some, including SEC Newgate Senior Counsel, Dafydd Rees speaking on BBC Wales last night, have described this as a “final nail in the coffin” for Starmer underlining the significance of what has emerged. 

In the near term, the idea of Labour as the party asking “who can we tax to pay for benefits” risks cutting through in a way that is both clear and concise. At a moment when there is no shortage of competing political noise, only the most resonant messages endure. This is one that could linger longest with voters.