Mandelson vetting scandal: why Whitehall is the worst of all worlds when it comes to accountability

Keir Starmer’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US keeps coming back to haunt him. It has now emerged that Mandelson was granted security clearance by the Foreign Office, despite concerns raised during the vetting process. Top Foreign Office civil servant Olly Robbins was sacked over these revelations.

Mandelson was controversial long before Starmer appointed him in 2024. A New Labour figure known as the “prince of darkness” due to his reputation as an adept but often ruthless and underhand political operator, Mandelson had already been embroiled in a number of scandals involving allegations of corruption. He was also known to have had a close relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as well as close business links in China.

Starmer fired him in September 2025 after emails were released showing Mandelson offering supportive messages to Epstein, who faced charges of soliciting a minor at the time. Further emails released by US officials suggested that Mandelson might have passed privileged and market-sensitive information to Epstein during the fallout of the financial crisis. In February 2026, the former ambassador was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He has denied criminal wrongdoing and has not been charged.

Therefore, it is perhaps unsurprising that Mandelson did not pass the vetting process carried out by the Cabinet Office’s UK Security Vetting team. Almost all civil servants are required to go through some form of vetting. But as a top diplomat, Mandelson was subject to the most intensive form of scrutiny. From what is known about the process, red flags were probably raised about Mandelson’s links with Chinese and Russian business interests, though the exact details have not been made public.

Starmer and his allies have argued that Robbins did not tell the prime minister about concerns raised in the vetting process as he should have. In giving evidence to MPs, Robbins said that Number 10 took a “dismissive” approach to the vetting process. He also said that he was under “constant pressure” to approve Mandelson’s clearance due to this being a political priority for Starmer. Mandelson’s appointment was announced publicly before the vetting took place.

The opposition is piling on the pressure for Starmer to resign. But behind speculation about the prime minister’s future stands a deeper set of constitutional questions about accountability and standards in public life.

From Starmer’s perspective, the scandal has revealed a pressing need to improve the independent scrutiny of appointments. He has ordered a review into vetting procedures, and argued that failings lie with civil servants in the FCDO and with the robustness of vetting processes – not with him.

On one level, this defence is an effort to deflect blame. Yet the response also fits with Starmer’s approach to politics as a follower of rules and lover of process.

In arguing for a more robust independent process around vetting in their attempts to avoid blame, Starmer and his allies invoke a longstanding critique of Whitehall culture. This view treats independent, depoliticised scrutiny and checks and balances as key missing links in British politics. Building these would be vital for ensuring transparency and accountability around appointments and politics more broadly.

Since coming to office, Starmer has consistently argued for a rewiring of the British state to modernise the government. Like academics, thinktanks, journalists and former Whitehall insiders before him, Starmer’s view suggests that Whitehall and the centre of the British state operate in an antiquated way. When it comes to accountability and standards, the government arguably lacks proper independent scrutiny and constitutional checks and balances to hold decision-makers to account.

Instead, Whitehall is too reliant on a “good chaps theory of government”, which suggests politicians typically act with the best of intentions and therefore do not need to be subject to independent scrutiny.

Who is responsible?

Critics, echoing Robbins’ testimony, have argued that Starmer and his allies pressed Mandelson’s ambassadorship as a political priority, announcing it before vetting procedures had been completed in order to push through the appointment.

Many have pointed out that Mandelson’s reputation as a potentially suspect character was well known before the release of the Epstein files. Within this narrative, blame for the appointment of Mandelson lies squarely with Starmer.

In a sense, this approach offers a different view of British politics. In terms of appointments – both to top civil service positions and to more political posts – the UK’s approach has been argued to resemble medieval “court politics”. Here, the ruler decides their key advisers on the basis of their own preferences and objectives.

This too implies a lack of proper checks and balances around appointments. But one of the proposed advantages of such a system is that it places accountability and responsibility for decisions clearly in the hands of elected politicians. Britain has a longstanding tradition of individual ministerial accountability.

Starmer, however, is now seemingly weakening this tradition by deflecting blame onto the civil service and its processes. It is this notion of direct political accountability that Starmer’s opponents are invoking when they call for his resignation.

Overall, these two images of British politics are contradictory and indicative of the emergence of an increasingly incoherent form of government. On the one hand, the state has failed to move towards modern and robust independent scrutiny of ministerial decision-making around appointments. On the other hand, politics has shifted away from a culture of clear, individual ministerial accountability.

This leaves Britain in a “worst of both worlds” scenario when it comes to accountability and standards in public life. It has neither robust independent scrutiny, nor clear lines of political accountability. More than anything, the Mandelson vetting scandal reveals the need to fix this broken system.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.