Chris Mason: Some nuggets but no huge revelations in first batch of Mandelson files

This first digital document drop about Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's decision to appoint Lord Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington is interesting, but not explosive.

There are noteworthy nuggets, as we set out here, and the revelations about his payoff will be, to many, enraging.

Government, like any other institution, likes to present its public self as carefully packaged, shiny and ready for the shop window.

The administrative factory floor, from which those public-facing decisions emerge, is rarely exposed to such sunlight.

The central political argument here, where the prime minister and Lord Mandelson are at odds, is whether the former ambassador lied to Downing Street about the nature and extent of his friendship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Yes he did, says Sir Keir. No I didn't, says the peer.

To be clear, they were never likely to as the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, had warned last month that a "subset of this first tranche of documents is subject to an ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation. That includes correspondence between No. 10 and Lord Peter Mandelson, in which a number of follow-up questions were asked".

It is these documents, ministers believe, that could verify their disputed claim that Lord Mandelson lied to them.

But the police, we're told, reckon these papers could prejudice any legal proceedings that may follow the criminal investigation into Lord Mandelson and so they are not being published yet.

Lord Mandelson has repeatedly let it be known that he believes he has not acted criminally, did not act for personal gain and is co-operating with the police.

It is my understanding that Lord Mandelson remains of the view that he did not lie to the prime minister, does not recall being asked questions about Epstein face to face during vetting interviews and answered written questions about his contact with the sex offender after his conviction truthfully and fully.

So on this claim and counter-claim, we are none the wiser.

What other nuggets have we spotted tucked away in the documents?

After his sacking, Lord Mandelson explains to a Foreign Office official when he will be returning to the UK, explaining that there has been a "delay in obtaining Jock's veterinary certification". Jock is his dog.

In the same email, on page 98 of the documents, he pleads for help in ensuring his departure from America and arrival back in Britain happen with "the maximum dignity and minimum media intrusion which I think is to the advantage of all concerned, not least because I remain a crown/civil servant and expect to be treated as such".

This as the government is plunged into turmoil following the Epstein revelations about Lord Mandelson and him being fired.

And such are the pressure and attention on the departing former ambassador after his high-profile removal from the job in Washington, on page 135 we learn that government officials are keeping an eye on him. They say they are planning to do a "welfare check and to do one each day… for a while".

But these are details, rather than the big picture.

The key wider point is there is more of this to come and that, so far at least, there hasn't been a knock-out blow delivered by either side in this, round one, of these document deluges.

The chief secretary to the prime minister has said there will be a second and final tranche of documents. For now, the government says it will tighten up the vetting process in appointments like this and Lord Mandelson lets it be known that the prime minister's central charge against him remains unproven.

The publication of the next batch of papers is expected within weeks, I'm told.

At some point too, there are those exchanges the police don't yet want to see published. When they appear is likely to be determined by the length of the police investigation and any potential legal proceedings.

So, for now at least, the circus of what amounts to a public slanging match between the prime minister and the government on the one hand, and the man they appointed just over a year ago to one of their marquee roles on the other, continues. It is the prime minister's judgement which his critics circle back to again and again, every time the story returns.

In short, carefully packaged and shiny this is not: at best it is a distraction for ministers, at worst a gushing torrent of awkwardness and embarrassment - and it is far from over yet.