Overview of The Rest is Politics — Episode 523: The Starmer‑Mandelson Scandal: Lying or Incompetence?
Hosts Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart discuss the unfolding controversy around Keir Starmer’s appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the United States. Key revelations: Cabinet Office developed‑vetting (DV) apparently flagged Mandelson as not suitable for the top‑level clearance, the Foreign Office (via its permanent secretary) proceeded with the appointment anyway, and ministers — including Number 10 — may not have been told. The hosts debate whether Starmer has been misled, is incompetent in personnel oversight, or has been, as claimed, poorly served by officials.
Key points and timeline
- Peter Mandelson was appointed ambassador to Washington and then resigned after revelations about links to Jeffrey Epstein surfaced.
- An investigation was launched into the appointment process.
- It emerged the Cabinet Office’s developed‑vetting process recommended Mandelson should not be cleared for DV.
- The Foreign Office permanent secretary (referred to in the show as Olly/Olly Robbins) reportedly overruled or ignored that advice and pushed the appointment through.
- Number 10 and ministers were allegedly not informed of the DV finding; this is the central political problem.
- The hosts say Keir Starmer will have to make a statement (noted as due Monday) and face parliamentary pressure and calls for resignation.
What is developed vetting (DV)?
- DV is the highest level of UK security clearance, run by the security services and overseen by the Cabinet Office.
- It involves deep, intrusive checks aimed at whether a person can be trusted with highly sensitive material: risks of blackmail, indiscretion, personal conduct, foreign contacts, etc.
- Typically, a failed DV would bar someone from posts involving top‑secret access unless a ministerial/official override is explicitly agreed and recorded.
Hosts’ main arguments and judgments
- Alastair Campbell:
- Finds it almost inconceivable that ministers were not told if DV flagged Mandelson.
- Argues that if Starmer genuinely didn’t know, it implies extreme incompetence; if he did know and misled Parliament, it implies lying.
- Emphasises the need for the prime minister to “get a grip” on personnel and process.
- Rory Stewart:
- Notes a worrying pattern of instability and turnover in senior personnel since the election (Deputy PM, Chiefs of Staff, Directors of Communications, Cabinet Secretaries, and now an FO permanent secretary).
- Suggests the civil service may feel unfairly blamed — Olly Robbins may have been “thrown under a bus.”
- Points out ministers/MPs are not subject to the same vetting as civil servants, which complicates assumptions about prior knowledge.
- Both stress that if the Foreign Office did overrule DV, standard practice would include informing ministers; not doing so would be highly irregular.
Political implications and likely next steps
- Immediate:
- Keir Starmer facing intense political pressure and questions in Parliament (statement expected Monday in the episode).
- Calls from opposition leaders and possible internal pressure within Labour.
- Institutional:
- Possible testimony from the Foreign Office permanent secretary to parliamentary committees.
- Further review of vetting and appointment processes — Darren Jones (mentioned in the episode) and others suggest structural change.
- Electoral:
- Hosts warn the scandal could harm Labour ahead of local elections and undermine claims of managerial competence.
- Civil service morale:
- Concern that Number 10 distancing itself by blaming officials could damage loyalty and working relationships across Whitehall.
Notable lines and quotes
- “Either he’s not telling the truth or he is the most incompetent Prime Minister I’ve ever heard of.” — Alastair Campbell (on the possibility nobody told Starmer).
- “Get a grip.” — Campbell’s recurring admonition about the need for firm control of process.
- “The buck stops here matters.” — Rory Stewart (on ultimate political responsibility).
What to watch this week
- Starmer’s statement in Parliament (referred to as due Monday in the episode).
- Any written record or testimony from the Foreign Office permanent secretary about whether DV was overruled and who was informed.
- Publication of the internal review into the Mandelson appointment (scope and findings).
- Domestic political reaction (opposition demands, Labour MPs’ private views) and any changes to the vetting/appointment process.
Bottom line / takeaways
- The controversy turns on whether a senior security vetting recommendation was ignored and whether ministers were told. Either scenario is damaging: it’s either a crisis of competence/oversight at Number 10 or a crisis of political accountability if ministers were misled.
- The hosts frame the episode as a failure of process and personnel management, with potential long‑term costs for government functioning and political credibility.