Nothing about Peter Mandelson's departures from government has ever been quiet. So it is proving again.
As the Guardian noted yesterday, much of what has been said by Keir Starmer and others about his latest sacking turns out to have been untrue.
Last September, Keir Starmer said that:
Full due process was followed during this appointment
And this February, following his departure, he again said:
There was then security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave [Mandelson] clearance for the role
It has now transpired that this was not true.
According to the Guardian's report, the substance of which now appears to be correct, Mandelson failed his security vetting when Starmer decided to appoint him as the UK's ambassador to Washington.
The story is that the Foreign Office, under the leadership of civil servant Sir Olly Robbins, whose previous great achievement was to negotiate the UK's exit from the European Union, overruled the failed security vetting and approved his appointment anyway, without apparently telling either the Foreign Secretary at the time, or his successor who is still in office, or the Prime Minister.
All three of them went on to provide assurance that security vetting had been obtained, without ever apparently having checked that this was actually the case.
Robbins was sacked as a result last night. He has obviously been chosen as the government's fall guy.
That said, I think we can be sure that we have not heard the last of this as yet. There are some obvious questions to ask.
The first is why, if, as is widely believed, the Foreign Office did not want Mandelson in Washington, did they cover up the fact that he had failed his security vetting and repeatedly suggest that he might be appointed when that was not the case? The contradictions appear to make no sense.
Secondly, why did the Foreign Office not correct Keir Starmer when they knew that what he was saying to Parliament was wrong? Were they deliberately setting up Starmer to fail in a game of very high-risk political poker?
Thirdly, why did three people appointed to very high political office make statements to Parliament about this appointment without seeking the evidence to support the claims they made? David Lammy was Foreign Secretary when Mandelson was appointed; Yvette Cooper is now; and Keir Starmer must have understood the gravity of this situation, and the transparency that would be demanded of him as a consequence of opposition action to demand disclosure of all the papers surrounding Mandelson's appointment, and yet apparently gave assurances to the House without establishing a basic fact such as whether he had passed his security clearance or not. Their failures are astonishing. Their lack of curiosity in not apparently asking for evidence is amazing.
But, having now looked at the facts and asked the questions, I can now speculate. That speculation revolves around three issues.
The first is straightforward: It has to be wondered whether Lammy, Cooper and most especially Keir Starmer have all lied about this. Did they know the truth but carried on anyway?
The second speculation follows from the first. Who or what has been controlling the agenda? In other words, who was so desperate to have Mandelson in Washington that they were willing to take risks on this scale, and are apparently still willing to do so? Why, in other words, was Mandelson, with his known links to Epstein and his own poor track record, so important that it was necessary for a string of people to prejudice their political careers to secure his appointment to Washington? Who was it that they were collectively appeasing when taking this enormous risk?
Third, assuming instead that the story is true and that the Foreign Office has persistently misled Downing Street, why did it do so, and in whose interests?
What, in other words, is the system that protects civil servants who are lying, by requiring that politicians must accept their word without ever having been provided with the backup data to show that they are telling the truth?
I have to ask the question in that way because, for the story Stermer et al are suggesting to be true, there must have been deliberate lying at the Foreign Office, and there must have been a block on the disclosure of papers held there being supplied to ministers, presumably for security reasons, even though those ministers had been security cleared and were responsible for the security services. Is there, then, some inner power within the civil service that can decide what is disclosed, which is beyond ministerial control, suggesting that we have a system of government beyond democratic accountability?
I do not know the answers to these questions. I stress, I am speculating.
I think we need to know the answers, and I also think they are vital. The future of Starmer, his government, and even Labour in office might be in doubt as a result of whatever is now revealed about Mandelson's appointment, combined with the total electoral disaster coming Labour's way in only three weeks' time.
Potential revelations to come, around either lying and an elaborate stitch-up, or alternatively a failure to ask appropriate questions by a string of ministers including the Prime Minister, coupled with obvious political incompetence in office, might be enough to bring this Prime Minister down; and with no obvious heir apparent who can command support in this Parliament, potentially bring the Parliament down with it.
But for me, potentially the biggest question of all here is whether there is a government within a government in Westminster which is beyond ministerial reach. Harold Wilson always thought so. Will this debacle prove that? It is the most plausible explanation for what has happened.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
What mystifies me is how both Kier Starmer and Boris Johnson can believe that as Prime Minister they are not ultimately responsible for what happens under their watch. As a very junior staff nurse I was legally responsible for the actions of all the staff under me if I was in charge of the ward, so how is this not also the case for Prime Ministers? Whoever made the decision Starmer wasn’t curious enough to find out and if necessary override it. Given Mandleson’s track record and the sensitivity of the appointment I find this unbelievable. Whatever the true story he is incompetent and must go. The worry is who is more competent to take his place.
Another Theory
Starmer makes it clear he wants Mandelson in Washington with a strong hint of whatever vetting reveals
Civil Service take the hint and never tell him he failed it as its clear he doesnt want to hear that
I remember though many years ago a manager in a local authority – not the one I now work for complaining that the staff ran it not the management. Looking at the evidence almost certainly correct and backed up by other sources BUT the manager never asked why this was the case or sought to do anything to address it.
Could this be the case with Government?
I agree, that is a possibility
When the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended for two years because of disagreements about cross border arrangements post Brexit, Northern Ireland kept running, thus demonstrating that it’s Civil Servants, rather than Government that runs things. No new legislation was created but for Civil Servants in Northern Ireland it was probably a good time as no Government Ministers would be interfering or making changes.
I have always believed that government is but a vailed covering, almost a pretence for “democracy” in the UK. I am sure the “Establishment” ensures that it is business as usual no matter what party is first passed the post. This is certainly true of other parts the dominant ruling sectors (finance, banking, business); if you have been marked you will soon find out. You are absolutely correct to ask the question. Nevertheless the truth is that Mandy should never have been considered for the post in the first place. He was/is spoilt goods everybody knew this, therein lies the failing. The judgement of the “Leader without a cause” was incorrect. He can fume all he wants but the decision to appoint Mandy was and remains his responsibility.
It all reminds me of the Profumo affair back in the day. Plus ça change!
A re-run of Profumo?
Given his previous achievements, it seems fair to say losing Robbins is not the worst outcome for the fallout.
My suspicion is that the view was mainly wanting someone who could work with Trump above all other considerations, so the existing connection was taken above all concerns. Someone within those corrupt walls whose sexuality gave plausible deniability to accusations of direct involvement. And Trump clearly favours existing connections over qualifications.
It was the wrong choice, but you can see potential reasons that were mainly about political influence rather than shadowy interests
I can only see very poor judgement, incompetence, and indifference
From my studies of organisations, there are ‘policy communities’ within them that might harbour particular views and not be aligned with actual ‘public’ policy.
Given that we have a thing called a ‘Privy Council’ it seems obvious to me that this sort of behaviour is officially sanctioned anyway. It’s in plain site, but is apparently ‘private’. Democracy eh?
You make clear to us on an almost daily basis that our Government’s “management” of the economy is based on misinformation and untruths about how public spending really works. So we have no grounds on which to delude ourselves that any of the other responsibilities of Government are conducted honestly. We are right always to fear the worst, because that is what the evidence tells us.
I will be happy to see Starmer go and, preferably, take Lammy and Cooper with him. However I think you are being a little unfair. Should the prime minister and senior ministers have to check the actual evidence when they are given ‘facts’ by their ‘staff” (a general term covering all those who advise ministers)? I think that would stall all decision making, and Starmer is already bad at doing that.
On the more specific point I think it is clear that Cooper knew some time ago. The letter she wrote to the security committee(?) stated, factually, that Mandelson had been subjected to vetting and the conclusion was that he was appointed by the Foreign Office. Not the phraseology you would expect if she had checked and found that he had passed vetting, so …..
If Cooper knew then and failed to inform Starmer so that he could avoid misleading Parliament she has broken the Ministerial Code and must go.
But your main point about government within government must be likely. Occam’s Razor – it is the simplest explanation for a lot of strange decisions. And, as you say, why was it so important that Mandelson go to Washington? I wonder what Blair has been doing recently?
Generally I would agree with you
But Starmer knew this one was the subject of intense interest. Of course he should have checked. That was his job in this case.
We already know from Paul Holden’s book the Fraud that there is/was ‘a party within a party’ – the very seme people now in the frame – Mandelson McSweeney, Starmer who used illegal funds and weaponised antisemitism to take over Labour. It is certainly poetic justice – that the very conspirators who brought Corbyn down are self destructing – a pity they have also already destroyed the Labour party.<p>
George Osborne letting slip that Corbyn would never have got ‘security clearance’ to be PM , hints very much that there is a ‘government within the government’ . Its not too fanciful that this involves the security/intelligence services which are themselves entwined with CIA/Mossad . They must have been shocked into action after Corbyn nearly beat Theresa May . It all sounds ridiculously conspiratorial, but as you hinted Richard, there were rumours about Lord Mountbatten etc in Wilsons time.<p>
We are living in interesting times.
There are probably a myriad of networks at work, nebulous groups making suggestions and steering things.
Starmer has been picked for sure, he has ability to deflect and appear unmoved but some of the appalling decisions being made… Who picked him – Blair? Probably.
You know what? Starmer will get through this crisis, others will take the fall, of course… But he will emerge, regardless, from the Westminster swamp.