The prime minister's shifting explanations over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador have raised serious questions about vetting, accountability, and what Sir Keir Starmer knew. In February, he apologised to victims of Jeffrey Epstein, claiming he had been misled by Mandelson. By March, he admitted making a mistake despite warnings of a reputational risk. Now, responsibility has shifted to officials, with Sir Olly Robbins forced out after it emerged Mandelson was denied security clearance.
These competing explanations—being misled, ignoring warnings, or a system failure—are not complementary. The government's account of the vetting process is in doubt. Experts note that ministers hear the outcome, not the underlying intelligence, making scrutiny difficult once a decision is set. Blaming Sir Olly for failing to share intelligence looks like justification after the fact, especially since many risks were in the public domain.
By endorsing Mandelson's appointment in advance, Sir Keir appears to have made the vetting process about delivery rather than scrutiny. Problems get buried when inconvenient facts cannot reach the top. The prime minister's defence of 'I did not know' is not valid; ministers are responsible for ensuring the truth can be told. The real issue remains whether it was safe or appropriate to appoint Mandelson—the answer is no.
The cardinal rule of British politics is never to lie to parliament. Sir Keir has hidden behind process. When Tory leader Kemi Badenoch asked if official vetting mentioned Mandelson's relationship with Epstein, the prime minister said yes. If he now claims ignorance, why did he say he did? Civil servants warned No 10 in December 2024 about the risks, yet Sir Keir has not clarified whether his mistake was appointing Mandelson unknowingly or despite knowing the risks.
As the prime minister prepares to correct the record to avoid contempt proceedings—which did for Boris Johnson—Labour MPs face a choice between unity and accountability. With local elections looming, they may rue a decision to prioritise stability over scrutiny.
