A Daily Mail column published Thursday by Richard Littlejohn mounted a sustained attack on Lord Peter Mandelson, repeating a series of longstanding criticisms and alleging a pattern of self‑interest and impropriety in the former Labour minister's career.
Littlejohn's piece, framed as a personal rebuttal of what he called the "Prince of Darkness" label sometimes applied to Mandelson, catalogued past scandals and questioned the judgement of politicians who have promoted him. The column cited earlier reporting that linked Mandelson to controversies over a home purchase, a mortgage that involved a loan from a party donor, and other episodes that have previously prompted intense media scrutiny.
The column also recalled Mandelson's two high‑profile departures from government and his subsequent careers in Brussels, business and consulting. Littlejohn criticised recent decisions by Labour figures to draw on Mandelson's experience in public roles, arguing that his past controversies should have disqualified him from renewed prominence. The piece referenced reported ties between Mandelson and wealthy individuals and organisations, and invoked the late US financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted of sex offences; Littlejohn wrote that Mandelson had socialised with Epstein and other wealthy backers.
Mandelson — a Labour peer who rose to prominence as a close aide to Tony Blair and was often described as a key architect of New Labour — has long been a polarising figure in British politics. He served in Cabinet posts in the Blair government, later became European Commissioner and has worked in the private sector, including the consultancy Global Counsel. His career has been marked by both praise for his political acumen and repeated controversies that attracted tabloid and broadsheet coverage.
Some of the episodes Littlejohn cited have been widely reported in the past. In the late 1990s, Mandelson resigned from government after criticism over an undeclared loan from a wealthy associate; he later resigned again over separate allegations that generated intense press and political scrutiny. He was subsequently appointed to roles in Brussels and returned to public life, attracting both supporters who emphasised his experience and critics who pointed to his history of resignations and close ties with wealthy donors and business figures.
The Mail column mixed personal anecdote, historical narrative and renewed invective. Littlejohn described encounters with Mandelson going back decades and criticised what he characterised as a pattern of flattery toward rich benefactors and an appetite for lucrative private sector work. He asserted that some contemporaries had been naive in elevating Mandelson to high‑profile roles.
The piece is an opinion column and mixes documented reporting with the columnist's own judgments. It did not present new documentary evidence about alleged wrongdoing and did not quote any fresh investigations or official findings. News organisations have previously reported many of the episodes Littlejohn revisited; in some cases those reports led to enquiries, public resignations or sustained media attention.
Labour figures and others who have defended Mandelson in the past have pointed to his political skills and experience, noting his role in reshaping the party's messaging and organisation during the 1990s. Supporters have also said that his record of public service and expertise on trade and international affairs justified later appointments. The column did not include a response from Mandelson.
The debate over Mandelson's legacy and suitability for public roles has recurred for decades and continues to divide commentators. Littlejohn's column is the latest high‑profile intervention in a long‑running dispute about the boundaries between politics, patronage and private sector engagement for former ministers.