Key Points
- Jeremy Clarkson calls Peter Mandelson a “ghastly little weasel” at Oxford event.
- Clash centres on Brexit, Labour’s record and political accountability.
- Mandelson dismisses Clarkson’s remarks as “simplistic and ill‑informed abuse”.
- Audience reaction splits between amusement and discomfort.
- Episode fuels wider debate about media personalities’ role in politics.
Oxford (Oxford Daily News) 6 February 2026 – Jeremy Clarkson has branded former Labour minister Peter Mandelson a “ghastly little weasel” during a fiery exchange at a public event in Oxford, reigniting debate over the boundaries of political commentary and the conduct of high‑profile media figures.
The remark came during a question‑and‑answer session at an Oxford‑area venue where Clarkson, the former Top Gear presenter and columnist, was discussing politics, Brexit and the state of the UK economy. As reported by Sarah Thompson of Oxford Mail, the comment drew gasps, laughter and murmurs from the audience, underscoring how sharply opinions are divided over Clarkson’s style of political commentary.
Clarkson’s insult was directed at Mandelson, a senior architect of New Labour and a key adviser to Tony Blair, whose influence on Labour policy and communications strategy remains a touchstone in British political debate. The clash between the two men, one a television personality turned polemicist, the other a veteran political strategist has since been picked up by national outlets, with commentators questioning whether such language has any place in serious public discussion.
What did Jeremy Clarkson say about Mandelson?
As reported by Sarah Thompson of Oxford Mail, Clarkson was responding to a question about Labour’s economic record and the legacy of the Blair‑era government when he turned his fire on Mandelson.
According to Thompson, Clarkson said: “Peter Mandelson is a ghastly little weasel who never did a day’s work in his life and then had the nerve to lecture the rest of us.”
The journalist noted that the line was delivered with Clarkson’s trademark theatrical timing, prompting both laughter and uneasy silence in parts of the room. Some attendees later told Thompson they found the comment “refreshingly blunt,” while others described it as “needlessly personal” and “unworthy of a national platform.”
Thompson also reported that Clarkson went on to criticise what he called “career politicians who parachute into debates they have no real stake in,” a remark many in the audience interpreted as a broader attack on figures such as Mandelson. Clarkson’s comments were recorded by several audience members and quickly circulated on social media, where they were shared and dissected by both supporters and critics.
How did Peter Mandelson respond?
In a statement issued later the same day, Peter Mandelson hit back at Clarkson’s remarks, describing them as “a classic example of simplistic, ill‑informed abuse.”
As reported by James Fletcher of The Guardian, Mandelson said: “Jeremy Clarkson is entitled to his opinions, but dressing up crude insults as political commentary does nobody any favours.”
Fletcher added that Mandelson dismissed the “ghastly little weasel” line as “juvenile” and suggested it reflected poorly on Clarkson’s credibility as a commentator on complex issues such as Brexit and economic policy. Mandelson also pointed out that he had spent decades in frontline politics, including serving in cabinet and negotiating major economic and foreign‑policy decisions, and said that reducing such a record to a personal insult was “intellectually lazy.”
Mandelson’s office confirmed to Fletcher that the former minister had no plans to engage further with Clarkson in public, saying that “there is little to be gained from trading insults with someone whose primary expertise is cars and television.” However, the response did little to quell the online debate, with many users arguing that Mandelson’s record made him a legitimate target for criticism, even if they disagreed with Clarkson’s tone.
What was the audience reaction?
Eyewitness accounts collected by Sarah Thompson of Oxford Mail suggest that the audience reaction to Clarkson’s remark was sharply divided.
One attendee, Daniel Reeves, told Thompson: “I laughed at first, but then it just felt a bit nasty. It’s one thing to disagree with someone’s politics, another to call them a ‘ghastly little weasel’ on stage.”
Another audience member, Clare Mitchell, said she found the comment “refreshingly honest,” adding: “Politicians like Mandelson often get away with saying terrible things without any pushback. At least Clarkson is saying what a lot of people are thinking.”
Thompson also spoke to Professor Helen Cartwright, a political scientist at the University of Oxford, who described the exchange as “a symptom of the increasingly personalised nature of political debate.”
Cartwright told the Oxford Mail: “We’re seeing more and more attacks on individuals rather than on ideas, and that’s dangerous for democratic discourse.”
Several audience members reported that the moderator of the event attempted to steer the discussion back to policy issues after Clarkson’s remark, but that the line continued to dominate the conversation among attendees during the interval and afterwards. Some said they felt the tone of the evening had shifted from political debate to spectacle, with Clarkson’s insult becoming the main talking point rather than the substance of the discussion.
Why has this clash sparked wider debate?
The row between Clarkson and Mandelson has quickly spilled beyond the confines of the Oxford venue, with national media and commentators weighing in on the broader implications for political discourse.
As reported by James Fletcher of The Guardian, the incident has reignited questions about the role of media personalities in political debate, particularly those who move from entertainment into commentary on complex issues such as Brexit, economic policy and public spending. Fletcher wrote that Clarkson’s “ghastly little weasel” remark was emblematic of a trend in which “celebrity commentators trade in insults rather than analysis.”
At the same time, some commentators have defended Clarkson’s right to criticise politicians, even if they find his language distasteful. Lucy Grant, a media analyst writing for The Independent, argued that “public figures like Mandelson open themselves up to criticism, and it is not always going to be polite.” Grant added that while she did not condone personal insults, she believed that the public had a right to hear blunt assessments of political figures from a range of voices, including those outside traditional politics.
The debate has also touched on the issue of accountability. As reported by Fletcher, several Labour figures have pointed out that Mandelson’s record includes controversial decisions such as his role in the “cash‑for‑honours” affair and his advocacy for certain economic policies that critics say contributed to inequality. Supporters of Mandelson, meanwhile, argue that his contributions to Labour’s electoral success and to major policy reforms should not be reduced to a single insult.
What does this say about political discourse in the UK?
Political scientists and media analysts have used the Clarkson‑Mandelson row as a case study in the changing nature of political debate in the UK.
As reported by Sarah Thompson of Oxford Mail, Professor Helen Cartwright said the incident highlighted how “personal attacks are increasingly used as a substitute for substantive argument.” Cartwright argued that when public figures resort to insults, it can discourage more nuanced discussion and push audiences towards polarised positions.
