A flashback to advice provided by Simon Case on 11 November 2024 to Starmer on appointing a new ambassador in DC:
“Political Appointment – The second option would be to make a political appointment to the post (directly appointing a non Civil Servant to the post without a competition.)… If this is the route that you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice. A letter is then needed from the Foreign Secretary to the PUS to FCDO formalising the decision to make a political appointment.”
The government claims that the political appointment process which saw Mandelson’s appointment announced publicly is based on precedent from past governments. Here we have the sitting Cabinet Secretary advising Starmer to do the due diligence before announcing his choice. Ignored by the PM…
Scotland Secretary Douglas Alexander has taken the morning round ahead of Starmer’s Commons statement at 3:30 p.m. Alexander argued that the public announcement of Mandelson’s appointment happening prior to the security vetting process was the fault of “previous governments.” Questioned on by Sophy Ridge on Sky News he said:
“So the process by which a political appointee can be appointed as an ambassador was one that we inherited from previous governments. In that process, appointments could be made ahead of developed vetting vetting status being undertaken… there was an established process that process in retrospect was inadequate and that’s why already even before the events of the last few days the government has moved to change that process to make sure that vetting precedes appointment so you’re right to recognise that was a flawed process.”
Labour’s move to bring security vetting forward after the last Mandelson blow-up also contradicts Starmer’s claim not to have known there was any problem with Mandelson’s vetting specifically until last week. We are reaching levels of ‘blame the Tories’ never previously thought possible…
After a string of new Epstein revelations over the weekend Peter Mandelson wrote to Labour’s general secretary Hollie Ridley last night to resign his Labour membership and said:
“I have been further linked this weekend to the understandable furore surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and I feel regretful and sorry about this.
Allegations which I believe to be false that he made financial payments to me 20 years ago, and of which I have no record or recollection, need investigating by me.
While doing this, I do not wish to cause further embarrassment to the Labour Party and I am therefore stepping down from membership of the party.
I want to take this opportunity to repeat my apology to the women and girls whose voices should have been heard long before now.
I have dedicated my life to the values and success of the Labour Party and in taking my decision, I believe I am acting in its best interests.”
Starmer vaguely suggested that Mandelson should testify before Congress: “Anybody who has got information should be prepared to share that information in whatever form they are asked to do that.” Couldn’t even bring himself to remove Mandelson’s membership himself…
The scandal will persist – tax lawyer Dan Neidle is pursuing several lines of inquiry on Mandelson this morning including what he claims to be evidence of him passing internal sensitive No10 documents to Epstein. The Tories have managed to produce a call for a “thorough independent investigation” into Mandy:
“Keir Starmer and his Chief of Staff appointed Mandelson Ambassador despite his relationship with Epstein, and then refused to act even as the mountain of evidence against him grew.
“Given the Prime Minister’s appalling lack of judgment and the participation of his Downing Street operation, there must now be a full and thorough independent investigation.”
How long before he gets a sit-down interview with the BBC and a chin-stroking magazine article series this time?
Downing Street is still trying to hose down the Mandelson scandal and communications chief Tim Allan is catching the flak. Starmer’s spokesman refused to say Downing Street was trying to prevent Mandy getting a six-figure payout for his spectacular sacking…
A series of news stories on the affair failed to address questions of who knew what and when directly after Bloomberg approached Mandelson with a cache of messages and twenty questions about them. FCDO Permanent Secretary Olly Robbins was obviously aware – Downing Street would not have been left in the dark…
Rumours circulating widely in government circles point the finger at Starmer’s new executive communications chief Tim Allan. Insider sources say that Blairite veteran Allan would have had sight of the messages on Monday and failed to show them to the PM. Naturally no one wants to stick their hand up after a cock-up that big…
As Guido reported at the time Allan was of the view that McSweeney was responsible for the screw-up on the whole by hiring and defending his mentor. General criticism of McSweeney aside, the Downing Street communications operation is now attempting to get its head around why Starmer wasn’t told early enough and how to keep the names of personnel involved out of the press…
Guido hears the “total avoidance of blame” by Allan – who is responsible for managing communications – is causing “fissures” among Number 10’s political staff. A Downing Street source adds that following the perceived success of Trump’s visit “nerves are on the rise again.” In the run-up to Starmer’s sink-or-swim conference Downing Street’s top honchos are the story again. How do they do it…
Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee Emily Thornberry told the Commons during the debate on Mandelson that he was not vetted by the Foreign Office until after his appointment as Ambassador to the US. She slammed the government for “rushing” through his appointment without asking the proper questions:
“If Lord Mandelson had appeared before the committee, he would have faced a range of questions which would have highlighted issues that needed to be considered properly and couldn’t in the rush to appoint him. We would shed light on the nature of the appointment and be able through our questions to be able to examine whether or not it was the wisest thing to do.”
Meanwhile Kemi has said there must be “serious consequences” and that “someone takes responsibility” over Mandelson’s appointment and delayed sacking. McSweeney sweating…
Starmer has spoken for the first time since sacking Peter Mandelson. He says he “wouldn’t have appointed” him as US ambassador “if I knew then what I know now.” The Trump state visit will be fun…
He told Sky News:
“Had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him. I knew that questions had been put to Peter that he had not yet answered. Um, and he hadn’t answered them by the time it got to PMQs. There is, of course, a time lag in America, but I knew that there were questions that have been put to him, but I didn’t know what answers he was going to give to those questions.”
Starmer stood up at PMQs last week, declaring he had “full confidence” in Mandelson, knowing that there were more “very embarrassing” revelations to come about the relationship with Epstein and that the Foreign Office was investigating new emails. Starmer’s spokesman insisted this morning that the PM did not know or ask about the content. How can you declare full confidence in someone without knowing all the details?
Speaking at his speech on how to achieve “progressive capitalism” Wes Streeting fired a dig and Andy Burnham:
“Bond markets are not bond villains and fiscal rules matter.”