Why Starmer still can’t move on from the Mandelson mess

Frustration runs deep across political circles. The prime minister is exasperated. Whitehall is in disarray. Labour MPs are in turmoil. Yet dismissing Sir Olly Robbins hasn’t resolved the crisis or eased the political backlash against Sir Keir Starmer. As one party insider remarked, “Keir’s repeated anger feels hollow—exactly how the public perceives him now!”

The initial gamble

The prime minister’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as U.S. ambassador was always a calculated risk. Even from a distance, the move seemed questionable. Now, with Mandelson’s failure to clear security checks confirmed, some describe it as a “disastrous episode of don’t ask, don’t tell” that seeded political unrest for months.

Understanding the complexity of Whitehall’s protocols is essential. In September, No 10 was alerted to Mandelson’s ties with Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender. This warning formed part of the first government report assessing Mandelson’s background, compiled by the Cabinet Office’s Propriety Department. Starmer’s team posed three additional questions post-report, satisfied with his responses—though they later suspect he misled them.

The vetting process

After the appointment, a separate security review called developed vetting was conducted. As revealed in the autumn, this confidential process involved in-person interviews, financial scrutiny, and a thorough analysis. One senior figure called it “completely forensic.” However, the details were withheld from No 10 and ministers, and the agency’s concerns were not shared with officials.

Despite the vetting verdict, Robbins—then the Foreign Office’s top official—proceeded with the appointment. A former senior official noted: “Vetting is a process, not a decisive moment. It’s about managing risk, not issuing a binary approval.” Robbins, however, didn’t see the full findings and believed the risks were manageable.

Law and political reality

Section three of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act dictates that ministers lack direct control over security vetting. The vetting agency offers recommendations, not final decisions. Think of it like a credit agency: they analyze your financial history, but the bank decides whether to approve the loan.

Robbins’ department was informed of Mandelson’s issues beforehand, yet the prime minister pressed ahead. As a former senior official stated, “It was clear the prime minister wanted this appointment personally.” Now, MPs and advisers call Robbins’ inaction “incredible” and “unforgiveable,” arguing he should have raised the matter with ministers.

An ally of Robbins insists: “He hasn’t done anything wrong.” This sentiment was echoed by his predecessor, Lord Simon McDonald, who said on Saturday: “No 10 wanted Mandelson, and Robbins followed their lead.” Despite the legal framework, political reality has left Starmer grappling with the fallout of a decision that now feels like a misstep in the making.