The firing of Peter Mandelson has exposed, and intensified, debates about who really holds power inside Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration, a Daily Mail column reported Saturday, citing ministers close to government circles.
In a piece by columnist Dan Hodges, ministers are quoted saying that a network of former advisers to Tony Blair — including Mandelson himself, along with figures such as Jonathan Powell, Liz Lloyd and Pat McFadden — has been placed in key roles touching foreign policy, national security, policy development and Whitehall delivery. The column casts Mandelson’s removal as a catalyst for a wider crisis inside the government and quotes ministers who describe the Blairite cohort as dominant.
Hodges writes that Mandelson, who had been serving as the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States, maintained close contact with Starmer’s senior aide Morgan McSweeney and was perceived by some officials as exerting major influence over foreign policy. The column reports that internal speculation considered Mandelson for a formal appointment as foreign secretary prior to the election but that then-chief of staff Sue Gray raised security-vetting concerns.
The column lists several appointments it describes as part of the Blairite network: Jonathan Powell was reportedly brought in to lead the national security apparatus, replacing Sir Tim Barrow as national security adviser; Liz Lloyd was named responsible for directing policy development and implementation; Pat McFadden was placed in charge of the Cabinet Office; and Tim Allan was recruited as Downing Street director of communications. Hodges also notes that ministers point to appointments or alleged influence over business and health portfolios, and to Peter Kyle’s selection as business secretary and the rise of Wes Streeting as a potential leadership contender.
Unidentified ministers quoted in the column told Hodges that the three most important people in the government were “Morgan McSweeney, Rachel Reeves and Pat McFadden,” and added that those figures ranked ahead of the prime minister in practical influence. One minister is quoted as asking rhetorically whether they meant Starmer and then answering, "No."
The Daily Mail column also cites accounts that Mandelson visited Downing Street on the day of Angela Rayner’s resignation; according to the piece, officials said the visit was publicly described as a pre-arranged meeting about a potential state visit by former US president Donald Trump but was in reality linked to reshuffle preparations. Hodges writes that some ministers fear Mandelson could seek reprisals after his sacking, though the column frames that as the view of those ministers.
Hodges draws on ministers’ comments to offer wider judgements about the government's direction, arguing that Starmer lacked a coherent governing vision and had depended on experienced Blairite hands to operationalise his agenda. The column attributes a host of strategic and personnel decisions to that cohort and says the Mandelson affair has widened divides between the prime minister and his senior aide McSweeney.
The piece raises questions reported by ministers about the vetting process that led to Mandelson’s appointment and whether the full nature of his past associations, including references to Jeffrey Epstein in public discourse, were disclosed at the time. These points are presented as outstanding questions cited by Hodges’s sources rather than as established findings.
The column treats the deputy leadership election triggered by Rayner’s resignation as a de facto referendum on Starmer’s premiership, again attributing that characterisation to ministers and commentators. It also quotes a minister expressing dismay at the prime minister’s handling of the episode: “How can he not see how disastrous this is?”
Labour and Downing Street communications teams did not provide comment for Hodges’s column; Hodges frames much of his narrative as relay of ministers’ and insiders’ perspectives. Independent verification of the full extent of the influence attributed to individual advisers is not presented in the column, which appears in the opinion pages of the Daily Mail.
The reporting comes amid intensified scrutiny of appointments and governance in the year since Labour returned to power. Several of the named figures were senior advisers to Mr. Blair in the late 1990s and 2000s, and their presence in Whitehall roles has prompted debate among MPs, ministers and commentators about institutional memory, factional influence and the balance between political advisers and ministerial accountability.
Ministers and MPs quoted by Hodges portrayed the developments as a structural problem for the prime minister; outside commentators and rivals have used the episode to argue for sharper lines of accountability within government. The full political consequences of Mandelson’s dismissal and the claims of a Blairite network remain to be seen as the government responds to internal dissent, questions about appointments and the deputy leadership contest.
The Daily Mail column is the latest contribution to an open debate over the nature of power within the government. It compiles accounts from unnamed ministers and insiders that, if substantiated by public records or direct statements, would provide a clearer picture of decision-making inside the premiership. Until such verification is available, the assertions in Hodges’s column should be read as reporting of sources’ perspectives rather than settled fact.