“Just beyond parody at this point."
If there is one iron law of politics, it’s that the archive never forgets. And sometimes, old words don’t merely linger, they return with a vengeance.
Mail columnist Dan Hodges has been accused of “grotesque hypocrisy” after launching a furious attack over Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador, an appointment he himself once enthusiastically endorsed.
When Mandelson was appointed in December 2024, Hodges penned a column headlined: “Ruthless, cynical and cunning – why Mandy is the perfect choice as US ambassador.”
“Peter Mandelson is cynical, manipulative, ruthless, calculating, cunning and ambitious – and the perfect choice to be Britain’s new ambassador to Washington,” Hodges wrote in the introduction.
Far from expressing concern, Hodges argued that the very traits critics found troubling were precisely what made Mandelson suited to the role. He dismissed objections from the Labour left, quoting “Corbynite former Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell,” who warned that the decision showed Keir Starmer had “lost all sense of political judgment.”
Diane Abbott’s terse reaction, “Ugh!,” was also cited, along with her criticism of Mandelson being repeatedly described as a “big hitter” or “big beast,” labels she noted are rarely applied to women in politics with comparable experience.
For Hodges, however, such criticisms only strengthened the case. “Howls of Leftist anguish simply serve to underline the wisdom of the decision,” he wrote, arguing that Mandelson had the experience required for one of the most demanding roles in British diplomacy, “fostering an unlikely alliance between the socialist son of a toolmaker and the populist godfather of the global MAGA movement.”
It was a full-throated defence. Which makes what followed all the more cringeworthy.
Last Saturday, he headlined his Daily Mail column: “From the Russians to the Americans, and from our own spies to the Civil Service, everyone knew the truth about Mandelson – everyone, that is, except Keir Starmer.”
In the article, he claimed that Peter Mandelson had been targeted by Russian intelligent services, and dismissed Keir Starmer’s insistence that he had been kept in the dark about Mandelson’s links to Jeffrey Epstein and the “whole squalid saga” as “utterly preposterous.”
Over the same weekend, Hodges told his 202,000 X followers: “This is how parties die…. It starts with noble intentions. Then ends in the grotesque spectacle of Labour MPs claiming hordes of people are joining their party to support a PM who claims he got hoodwinked into appointing the best mate of a notorious paedophile [sic] as his ambassador.”
The sheer hypocrisy didn’t go unnoticed. Critics were quick to point out the contradiction of a man once described as “the perfect choice,” now invoked as evidence of terminal political decay.
“Just beyond parody at this point,” wrote Byline Times editor Adam Bienkov.
The New World’s ‘Rats in a Sack’ column, dedicated to exposing the media’s most absurd contortions, called out the “grotesque hypocrisy of Mail man Dan Hodges.” The column simply reproduced excerpts from Hodges’ 2024 article before delivering the conclusion: “In the extremely unlikely event you’ve not already worked it out by now, that article appeared in the Mail on Sunday – and the man pouring praise on the best mate of a notorious paedophile was one Dan Hodges.”
But sigh, the Mail columnist is no stranger to criticism. In early 2025, he argued that no British taxpayer money should be used for the reconstruction of Gaza “until every Hamas terrorist is either dead or in jail.” When pressed about whether the consequences for civilians, including “hundreds of thousands of children”, would be that they would “go to hell”, he replied: “Yes, basically.”
Critics accused him of endorsing collective punishment. Guardian columnist Owen Jones dismissed him as “a glorified internet troll” and criticised what he described as the insular culture of parts of the British media.
But back to the Mandelson hypocrisy. Changing one’s mind is not inherently disreputable. But when a commentator shifts from unambiguous praise to moral outrage without acknowledging the pivot, charges of hypocrisy are inevitable.
The internet may be unforgiving. But it’s rarely wrong about what was said.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.