Talk:Peter Mandelson

Close Relationship With Murdoch Whilst Head of New Labour's Media and Communications

Was Mr. Mandelson involved in intercepting voicemails and email messages during his time as New Labours Press Baron? Can anyone recall the names of the journalists he arranged to have sacked shortly after they filed negative copy about him? 212.139.107.102 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)twl212.139.107.102 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Mushy peas

So what's all this about this dude mistaking mushy peas for guacamole, and why is it not in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugyug (talk • contribs) 19:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Great Story but I think this was put about by Neil Kinnock as a bit of a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.234.2 (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Digital Economy Bill

As the Digital Economy Bill is about to destroy our ability to post an honest Wiki page, why are you bothering to Edit it anymore?

The bill gives the government power to demand the blocking of any website Under clause 11, which can be to (a) limit the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber; (b) prevent a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limit such use; (c) suspend the service provided to a subscriber; or (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.

This means they can effectively order your internet service provider to block access to certain websites and/or limit your internet speed

You think its' about stopping illegal internet downloads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.57.214 (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll start to worry when someone explains VPNs to the politicians... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.37.17 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Lord

With regards this nickname, I reference a Guardian blog on the election which shows a picture of a newspaper which the man himself has signed as 'the Dark Lord'. I'd take it that this is pretty irrefutable evidence for it's inclusion.[]

We have Mandy in the article, which is perhaps his best known nickname, perhaps if someone had reliable citations and some content to add with it and could show the notability of the nickname there could be a case for inclusion, but no way not ever in the lede like you just inserted it. He has had so many nicknames, the comeback kid, the prince of darkness and so on that we could have a long list of them. Mostly they are just partisan political posturing and press attempts to sell their chip wrappers. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Missed this before I put it in the lede. If you read the references I cited, Mandelson is widely referred to in the press now as the Dark Lord. Indeed, he signed a newspaper as The Dark Lord earlier today while campaigning, which is what two of the references refer to. This is pretty strong grounds for inclusion. As to it's position in the article, there is nothing uncommon about a person of public interest having their nickname(s) in the opening paragraph.

As I said, never ever in the lede. Yes I have looked at the references, all a bit, Mandelson jokingly signed as the dark lord when asked to by a passenger on a train, doesn't make the nickname any more notable than the one that preceded it, which has been around a long time and is also not in the article , the prince of darkness, it is all a bit valueless, but lets wait and see what other editors think. What is the rational that has been presented behind this upgraded nickname? Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me it is okay to put it in the article seeing as it is referenced, but it needs to be deftly handled. Perhaps something like, "Due to his reputation as a 'wily political operator in the shadows of Westminster', Mandelson is sometimes referred to in the press as the Prince of Darkness or the Dark Lord. He has maintained a sense of humour about the nicknames, having said after joining the House of Lords, 'I used to be the prince of darkness. But being a peer of the realm I suppose I am the dark lord.' The reference for the quote also supports being a 'wily political operator' as the reason for the nickname. In any event, the nickname should no more be in the lead than Mandy is. The end of the first paragraph of the "Member of Parliament" section might make the most sense. -Rrius (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher was widely known by the public as “Maggie”. Her article does not mention that nickname (although some of the referenced article titles do). I would suggest the use of the Dark Lord as a nickname is used by an extremely small minority, typically those in politics or the political media. It may therefore be invalid per WP:UNDUE. Leaky Caldron 15:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it should be included at all. If there is support to include multiple press given nicknames, then far down (very far) with the other nickname, I think in the old days before the article was cleaned up and improved there was even a nickname section. I would also point out that an IP in this range has been repeatedly attempting to add this dark lord to the lede for months now. Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The nickname is already mentioned in the "Media relations" section in relation to his being a spin doctor, so the additional mention is wholly unnecessary. I think it has existed for a while without detracting from the article, so perhaps we should leave it there? In any event, Rob is right that it should absolutely not be in the lead. -Rrius (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, there it is, it sits pretty well there. I don't think it needs to be updated as it would perhaps move into undue weight territory. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Prince of Darkness mandy is mentioned here but not Dark Lord. Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Heres the News of the World attempting to give him two jags mandelson according to them "Angry government drivers have given Lord Mandelson the nickname after he fixed it so he has use of a pair of the flash motors". 25/10/2009 Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Lord Rumba of Rio, was popular for a while. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy Hamilton told a good story about meeting Peter Mandelson. Mandelson was telling him how all this "Lord of Darkness" stuff was rubbish, when Mandelson's phone rang. He answered it, listened for a while, and then (and you'll have imagine Hamilton's impression of Mandelson here) said "This.. must be.. suppressed." and hung up. David (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Article focus

The Dark Lord debate has brought into focus what has bothered me about this article for some time. Mandelson is known as an expert in the art of politics who was a key player in Blair's political successes and in holding back the coups against Brown. Instead of discussing that, the article spends quite a lot of words on the Deripaska, Mandelson's EU pension, and the copyright-law allegations. Reading this article, one would come away with this basic story: Mandelson was involved in some lefty causes as a young man, that was intermittently involved in Labour politics until the mid-1980s, and that he ran the 1987 and 1997 general election campaigns. Mandelson held various cabinet posts, but kept getting himself into ethics troubles. He then went to the EU Commission, bringing his penchant for ethical lapses with him, and squabbled with Pres. Sarkozy. Then, for no apparent reason, Mandelson returned to Cabinet, being given a life peerage, and where he was heavily involved in Cabinet business, became more popular with the Labour rank-and-file than the Deputy Leader of the party, and accumulated portfolios and status as time went on. Along the way, he managed to continued his habit of sparking controversies over his ethics.

That just does not seem like a fair summary of his life, yet I think it is a fair summary of the article. -Rrius (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There are issues with the article but it is hard to get an acceptable balance, LC improved it mostly to what we have now. Perhps after the election we could work on a rewrite as there could well be a few major changes. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of balance as it is that an entire part of what he is has to this point been left out of the article. Striking a balance will be difficult because talking about his political contributions invites all sorts of normative judgements about those contributions. It is still a thing worth doing, however. Since much of what Mandelson did during the Blair years (including siding with Blair over Brown for the leadership and the effects that had on his relationship with the latter) happened before 2001, it's not clear what effect the election will have on that. Also, an explanation of why Mandelson was invited back to the Cabinet in 2008 and how he helped stave off plots to defenestrate Brown during the last year and a half won't likely change much after the election. I could work up the 2008-to-present aspects, but I would need some serious help with the Blair-years info. -Rrius (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't support what would be a lot of changes at this time, please wait a week until after the election. The article is getting close to 3000 views a day, rising from around 1000 a day and the rise in page views is a likely affect of the imminent election, for this reason I don't support major work on the article until after the election. I also think all of that how he helped to defend brown from plots and stuff could be given a lot of weight, this could be said of all the ministers or most of them and is a normal part of their job. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if others support your view, we should still discuss the situation. Waiting until 7 May to edit the article does not mean waiting until that date to start discussing changes. It was never my intention to elbow in and make huge changes to the article without consensus, as should be evident from the very fact that I brought this up on the talk page rather than just adding information and from the fact that I said I don't think I'm equipped to do it on my own. In any event, there is no reason why we must wait until the election to talk about the contours of any additions or even to begin gathering sources and drafting language to be added later, let alone discussing in the first instance the advisability of what I propose. -Rrius (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say about his involvement in killing plots, but reliable sources verify that he was integral in seeing off plots, and some even detailed his role in killing the June 2009 plot. I'm also not sure what you think I want to do here, but I'm not talking about turning this into an article about his political machinations. Rather, I think his involvement in early New Labour politics should involve more than a list of Cabinet offices he held and the tidbit about the Dome. His return to Cabinet should reflect the essentially universal understanding that brining him back was meant to mollify Blairites and take advantage of Mandelson's political skills to secure Brown's leadership. It would make sense, in that context, to mention that he is in fact widely credited with helping put down revolts since his return. In the end, we're probably talking about a few hundred words for each period, not earth-shattering changes. -Rrius (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You see, we are in disagreement already, what is this killing plots issue? Do you want to add a lot of stuff about that? Look as I said, why not wait a week? Are you wanting to add that Brown has been kept in power by mandelson? I think you should need to be a bit careful asserting too much weight to that claim. It is also a bit opinionated, as I said all cabinet ministers are in that business. After the last attempted coup "Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, also issued a muted statement of support" here "Lord Mandelson shrugs off reports of rift with Gordon Brown" Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As to plot killing, you said, "I also think all of that how he helped to defend brown from plots and stuff could be given a lot of weight, this could be said of all the ministers or most of them and is a normal part of their job." I have no idea what that means. The best interpretation I can come up with is that you somehow think I want to dedicate a whole section to this, which is now what you are directly asking about. I don't know how you could read the last two sentences of my last contribution and have that question. Of course I don't. I think it is worth mentioning that he is widely regarded as having helped put down plots since he joined the Cabinet. I have no idea where you get the idea that I want the article to say that Mandelson kept Brown in power. That is a ridiculous overstatement, and I'm confused as to why you would attribute POV pushing to me when I made clear from the very start of this that my goal is to add to it a critical part of who he is: a deft political operator. Nowhere in any of what I've said have I given any indication that I think Mandelson single-handedly saved Brown. As to whether all Cabinet minsiters are in the job of saving the PM, that is plainly wrong. When Mandelson was on the phone trying to strangle a coup in his crib, he was on the phone with Cabinet ministers like David Miliband, whose resignation, call for Brown to resign, or silence would have been key to ending Brown's premiership. What's more, this is not "a bit opinionated"—it is well documented in the press, and in any event, it would be a cinch to provide scads of sources for "Since rejoining Cabinet in 2008, Mandelson is widely credited with helping stave off challenges to Brown's leadership." If there are sufficient sources to say he was lukewarm when the most recent one happened, that's fine, but it doesn't undo what happened before. Finally, why do you think it is necessary to hold off a discussion until after the election? I can see an argument for not making changes until then (I don't agree that readers should get a skewed portrait until then), but I cannot find a reason not to discuss and prepare. -Rrius (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for resignations

I added to the opening "due to actions of his which were subject to intense media criticism" re his 2 cabinet resignations. What must not happen is this doesnt get mentioned in the opening. Its called whitewashing and is in clear violation of our NPOV policy. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree totally with this addition, it clarifies and makes clear that both resignations were surrounded with controversy and in some respects scandalous. More importantly however it lays blame where due in an unbiased manner which is very much in fitting with wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.65.73 (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

How scandalous is his relations to Rupert Murdoch and the telephone hacking transcripts which most probably pass through his PR desk? Its up for valid discussion, is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.122.39.254 (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Whitewashing Sleaze Allegations

Why has this page repeatedly failed to give full depth to the reasons this man was forced to resign from UK Government so often, and failed to even mention his recent involvement in a failed libel action against the Daily Mail in connection with totally compromising his role as EU Commissioner by accepting hospitality from Russian billionaire? In their absence, the entire article looks suspiciously like it is being edited by someone who is in his employ.80.42.236.65 (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)twl80.42.236.65 (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, tone it down. If you want to discuss problems you see with the article, please do so without assuming that the article was written by conspiracy of people seeking to promote Mandelson. As to the substance, it seems to me that the article provides sufficient weight to his resignations. As for the libel action, he was a side player at best. In an article that mentioned Mandelson and the Russian oligarch, Rothschild was called a puppet master. He sued; he lost. Mandelson's part in that story is incidental. Mandelson's relationship with Deripaska itself is already dealt with in a long paragraph under "European commissioner"; if anything, that story is given undue weight. -Rrius (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Butler

The article claims that "Mandelson was able to secure close friendships within the Labour Party because of uncle Alexander Butler, who had worked alongside many important Labour politicians during the 1960s". I can find no reference to an Alexander Butler in Paul Routledge's biography of Mandelson, nor through searching on Google (except two remarks that seem to be based on a reading of this article). Can anyone provide a citation? Routledge is fairly clear that it was Mandelson's father who had close friendships with Labour people in the 60s (and Mandelson himself visited 10 Downing Street as a boy).--86.178.142.209 (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that such a person as Alexander Butler existed in this relation to Peter Mandelson? I feel inclined to delete, unless the statement is reposted with a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyuey (talk • contribs) 23:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

International Monetary Fund

I was interested to see that it was China that approached Baron Mandelson to lead the International Monetary Fund. Could anyone please explain the connection? Thank you.91.194.221.231 (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point, IP user. The allegation is unsourced, and from what I can tell, via BBC, China endorsed Christine LaGarde for the IMF lead position, as of 28 June 2011. Mandelson was active in trade representation for many years, which perhaps is why 'The International Business Times UK' states this China: Peter Mandelson for next IMF chief? (20 May 2011) prior to China's official endorsement:

China could approve of Mr Mandelson because he showed solidarity with China over problems involving Chinese milk. Wen Jiabao, Chinese Premier said he was "deeply moved" at the time... Mr Mandelson has solid experience from his time as European Commissioner where he was responsible for the trade portfolio.

and quotes 'The Telegraph':

Benedict Brogan... suggests Mandelson could be a strong candidate: "Objectively, Lord Mandelson is strong where Mr Brown is weak: he can be collegiate, he is superb at running complex bureaucracies, he delegates, is decisive and there is no one quite like him when it comes to the international greasing relationship building that the job demands." ... Brogan continues: "That the Chinese are interested suggests that even if this idea is a non-starter Mandy has a lot more mileage in him than people give him credit for."

The source of the allegation seems to be this article in 'The Guardian', (19 May 2011) by Martin Kettle, An outsider like Peter Mandelson could be perfect for the IMF: "China has asked if the former business secretary and EU trade commissioner would take the job." I will use the IBT as a secondary source in the article.

There are quite a few other unsourced allegations in the article (especially in that paragraph). Most are true, but sources are needed.--FeralOink (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

His political evolution

This article has a lot on how he used to be a Communist or something close to it. The question this lead me to, as a reader, is how did he turn into a New Labourite? For a Communist, that's nearly as much of an about-face as if he were to endorse Margaret Thatcher, at least if you take typical left wing rhetoric at face value. But there's little in here on how he evolved politically. It's almost as if his radical background is included merely for the sake of "opposition research". 117.199.189.97 (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Peter Mandelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151017094626/http://publicaffairsasia.com/publicaffairsasia/FeatureView.do?id=97 to http://www.publicaffairsasia.com/publicaffairsasia/FeatureView.do?id=97
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140506075723/http://www.policy-network.net:80/content/350/socialdemocracyobservatory to http://www.policy-network.net/content/350/socialdemocracyobservatory

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Date of election to Lambeth Borough Council

A small edit war is brewing over this. The Guardian gives the date as September 1979, but an IP editor insists that it was December, because he was there. The only other source I've been able to find is this, which does suggest that it was December. Given the disagreement between two reliable sources, and the relative irrelevance of the actual month, I'm therefore removing the month unless and until someone can find either further or more authoritative sources. ninety:one 12:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Post Office Horizon scandal

I've just searched the article and this talk page for Anything about Mandelson's involvement in this very important (and current) topic. As far as I can see, his and Tony Blair's involvement in Post Office Horizon and Fujitsu UK has been neglected ! I am not confident in editing the main article, but I am sure it should be included. Keith T. 09:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kit344 (talk • contribs)

Reallocating Controversy section content

A controversy section is deprecated by some WP:CSECTION as it can tend towards bias and fails to situate material to the relevant background and associated material or to label it appropriately. I propose it is broken up and the content retained but reallocated within the article. 15:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC) Jontel (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I do not think it is ideal to dump the negatives together at the end. It does focus on his character but takes matters out of context. Thus the 'inappropriate links' are inappropriate because he was an EU commissioner so moving them to the Commissioner section would make that clearer. Similarly, the EU Commissioner pension was seen as an issue because he was a UK cabinet minister so should go in that section, in my view. Jontel (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Page too long

According to WP:SIZE , if an article is over 15,000 words, it should almost certainly should be divided or trimmed. This is approaching that; perhaps the association with Epstein section should have its own page, especially as it seems mainly about Starmer. Jontel (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I second this. There's also precedent with Angela Rayner and Angela Rayner tax scandal, Chris Pincher and Chris Pincher scandal, etc. It's clear that the Epstein section is notable enough to merit its own article and splitting it off would go a great way to trimming down the page. TheHarveyWallbanger (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree the relationship section should have its own page, per above reasons in addition to the fact Relationship of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein and Relationship of Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein are existing sub-articles. --209.93.85.118 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree, and have created a draft article titled Draft:Relationship of Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. --209.93.85.118 (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Current event notice

I presume the event has happened and the notice can now be removed. Jontel (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Just like him, it's been removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

He isn't of high importance to Socialism

I would change it myself but since I'm not involved in that WikiProject, I am hesitant to do it. --FeralOink (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Took care of it as well as adjusting a few others.--FeralOink (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn

His response to the selection of Jeremy Corbyn as party leader is dealt with in detail. His role in ensuring the presence of Jeremy Corbyn on the internal ballot for party leader is bizarrely overlooked.Optymystic (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Judaism?

As his mother appears to have been non-Jewish, and there is no mention of him practising any religion, he is not Jewish under religious law, although he is of part Polish-Jewish background. PatGallacher (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Lord Mandelson

Someone has edited his entry to say he has resigned his peerage. He has not, because he cannot. He has resigned from the House of Lords, which is a different thing. He remains a peer, but not a member of the House. ~2026-76471-0 (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. The only way a peerage may be formally removed is by Act of Parliament. It has been reported that suitable legislation is being drafted to do this. It will be interesting to see how this is done. The only recent precedent for this is the Titles Deprivation Act 1917. However this involved hereditary peerages that were effectively suspended, with the proviso that any future heirs may petition the Sovereign for their reinstatement. In the current case the peerage is for life only, so the terms of suspension or complete removal may be more straight forward. There may also be a general clause allowing the King to remove other peerage titles in future cases. The final Bill presented to Parliament will make for interesting reading.Ds1994 (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 only allows someone to be stripped of their title for backing an enemy power in wartime, which Mandelson, for all his considerable faults, is not accused of doing. PatGallacher (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps also worth noting the infobox provides a termination for the peerage of 4th February 2026. This should be removed but the infobox appears to be semi-protected.Ds1994 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Removal from Privy Council

I don't think this has actually happened yet. The most recent meeting of the council was yesterday and his removal is not mentioned anywhere in the orders or the agenda. He is also still included in the list of members.

I will put the "PC" back in the infobox until we get confirmation. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

His removal was effected on 10th March. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Article about Paid Editors cleaning up this Wiki-Page

Should we mention somewhere that there were paid editors that tried to remove the Epstein links from this wikipage, as per: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2026-02-11/epstein-details-scrubbed-from-mandelsons-wikipedia-page-by-shady-paid-editor helohe (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2026

Change the title from The Lord Mandelson as he has left the House of Lords and therefore is no longer a lord. It should be Peter Mandelson only. ~2026-10732-36 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: See the discussion above on the talk page. Although he has resigned from the House of Lords, he retains his title and style as a life peer. Day Creature (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Bibliography

Currently this is divided into two sections, both of which are books/tracts Mandelson's written: The Third Man appears twice. What should we do about this? Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Arrest

He's been arrested ~2026-11754-67 (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United Kingdom

Add this category. Mandelson has just been arrested. ~2026-11754-67 (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Add arrest to lead, per Andrew

Per Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, Mandelson's arrest is notable for inclusion. ~2026-11754-67 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Controversies/Allegations or Legal issues section

This is the way the Epstein related information is listed on Andrew's page, and it may make sense to do the same for Mandelson's page. A majority of this scandal has occurred after Mandelson resigned from his most recent office.

The "commentary" section is also extremely short and would fit better in a "political views" section. ~2026-11754-67 (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I want to know if the "pending further investigation" remark by Metropolitan Police indicated a special, non standard condition for his bail

If non standard, then it couldn't be more unique than what is noted on Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's page. I do not want to come across as being bigoted towards someone who is not only gay, but also Jewish, which is what Mendelson is. I included the text as "However, London Metropolitan Police noted that Mendelson was in fact released on bail "pending further investigation." " because I thought the statement may have indicated a more conditional release for Mendelson than it was for Andrew. I could be wrong though.MyGosh789 (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Removal of off-topic newspaper detail

user:TRCRF22 asks why his recent re-addition, that I had removed, is not "absolutely relevant". The notable story is that the MET disclosed the name of an informant, the House Speaker. The person being informed on, in this case Mandelson, is not directly relevant - it could have been anyone. The other story is that the MET arrested Mandelson following advice from an informant. The name of the informant is not directly relevant, it could have been anyone. The sentence added to this article linked a non-relevant person from one story with a different non-relevant person from another story. There is no connection between the two non-relevant persons. See WP:SYNTH. Much of this article is full of this sort of newspaper chatter that changes daily but IMO it must be dissected and rearranged to make it suitable for an encyclopedia, and if that can't be done then simply leave it out. If that isn't done, we end up with an smorgasbord of referenced but irrelevant and out of date detail that detracts from the article's subject. There might also be WP:BLP issues. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Reinaldo Avila da Silva

Does Lord Mandelson' husband have a title ? ~2026-16697-86 (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Leathersellers

I'm trying to follow a lead that Mandelson may be a member. Partly because it is known that Olly Robbins is a member. I'm told, so far without references, that:

"The connection between Peter Mandelson and the Worshipful Company of Leathersellers is primarily based on his status as a Liveryman of the company.

While Mandelson is best known as a high-profile political figure (a key architect of "New Labour" and former First Secretary of State), he also holds a traditional role within the City of London’s ancient guild system.

Key Aspects of the Connection Livery Membership: Lord Mandelson is a member of the Worshipful Company of Leathersellers, one of the "Great Twelve" livery companies of London (historically ranked 15th). Membership in such companies is often sought by influential figures in British public life for networking and charitable involvement. ' Freedom of the City: By virtue of being a Liveryman in the Leathersellers, Mandelson also holds the Freedom of the City of London. This is a prerequisite for becoming a Liveryman and a common honor for prominent UK politicians.

Governance and Events: As a member, he is eligible to vote in the election of the Lord Mayor of London and the Sheriffs at Common Hall. He has also been noted in various City of London records as attending formal dinners and functions hosted at Leathersellers' Hall."

https://leathersellers.org/our-heritage/resources/ may be a source but nothing that I can add to the main article yet. I could be wrong. I add this to the Talk page in case someone better resourced than me can pin this mystery down... Amble123 (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Is he even a Lord still?

As he has resigned from the house, does he still have the title? He's not dead either so it's not like savile where they "can't remove it" ~2026-24712-25 (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Since the House of Lords Act 1999, most of the British hereditary peers don't have a right of membership to the House of Lords. Life peers (like Mandelson) are typically excluded from the House of Lords "upon conviction for treason", and there are several current life peers who have no active right of membership for various reasons:

• • "there are about 70 life peers who have retired from the House of Lords since 2010, as well as several who have been removed for non-attendance. There are currently 24 life peers who are members but ineligible to sit, either because of temporary suspension, a requested leave of absence, or holding of certain judicial offices." Dimadick (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

he is still Baron Mandelson as the peerage cannot be resigned. However, by convention, he ceases to be The Right Honourable, after his removal from the Privy Council TechyLox (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

So do we remove the title in the headline or not? ~2026-24712-25 (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Specifically the "right honourable" part ~2026-24712-25 (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

All barons, viscounts and earls are "The Right Honourable" irrespective of Privy Council membership. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

This source from the Bangor University, says: "Unlike membership of the House of Lords, a peerage title cannot be relinquished. Not even the Crown has the power to cancel one once created by “letters patent” – a legal document issued by the sovereign and adorned with the Great Seal. .... He remains Lord Peter Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool, even though the prime minister has said he does not think it right that he should use the title." Additionally of course, unlike Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of Woking, he'll also always be a Prince. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Urinationgate

Is this really WP:DUE, especially in the lead section? Should we not wait until it has been reported that he has accepted the penalty and has paid up. Or are we just "pissing in the wind", as it were? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Ha! I agree that it should be removed from the lead, that's just taking the piss...

In all honesty, this feels like classic recentism fodder. It probably wouldn't pass the 10-month test, never mind 10-year test.

If editors want to let it mellow, then go for it... but I suspect we'll be quietly flushing it in a few weeks, anyhow. – GnocchiFan (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

**groan**. 10 years a long time when you're bursting to release such details. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I see it has now been removed from the lead here (although as per WP:LEADCITE it is fully sourced in the text main body) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)