Mandelson vetting: Starmer’s reluctance to engage with the details shows a lack of political leadership

For all of Keir Starmer’s undoubted abilities, steady nerve and top-level experience in the legal profession, his tenure as prime minister has been fraught with difficulty. This is no doubt partly due to his limited enthusiasm for the (at times banal) realities of political leadership.

It is also due to his reluctance to engage sufficiently with the details of important decisions. At key moments, he has chosen to look the other way and defer to others to execute.

The most recent and consequential example of this is the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington DC, which we now know was driven primarily by former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney. A quick refresh on recent Labour party history should have been enough to deter this decision. Instead, Starmer outsourced political judgment to others. Now that it has backfired, he is attempting to deflect the blame for his own misjudgments, perhaps not realising – or not accepting – that the buck ultimately stops with him.

He has lost goodwill by removing a range of colleagues, including two cabinet secretaries, two chiefs of staff, and now a top civil servant. He has not focused enough on the detail of policy, but has rather made broad and vague calls for change and asked others to deliver it. Good leaders delegate with clear instructions to people who are capable of fulfilling specific tasks.

A strong sense of leadership from the centre is needed to make the UK government system work. This was understood by the last Labour government with the introduction of the Delivery Unit, a mechanism to provide performance management across key departments.

The Starmer government got off to a false start in the summer of 2024 and has never really recovered. There was misalignment, to put it mildly, between Starmer’s original (and short-lived) chief of staff, Sue Gray, and other colleagues. A clumsily introduced cut to winter fuel allowance had to be reversed, raising no extra revenue but costing a good deal of political goodwill.

There have been other missteps. Starmer sparked anger among some MPs with his speech warning about the UK becoming “an island of strangers”, only to concede subsequently that he was uneasy with that phrase. He was opposed to his own speech.

Welfare reform was necessary until backbenchers rebelled. A harsher line on immigration did nothing to halt Reform’s rise. A seeming reluctance to criticise Israel’s assault on Gaza cost the Labour party support and helped drive the Green party’s new popularity.

And while Starmer did not know and had no particular fondness for Mandelson, he was persuaded McSweeney that he would be the right person to send to Washington DC as a new ambassador. Hence the rushed process to appoint him, and the subsequent political mess that afflicts Starmer now.

All of these suggest a disengagement with the nitty gritty of politics, the consequences of which are now being made clear.

Understanding the job

Amanda Goodall, a professor of leadership at Bayes Business School, has long argued that “domain knowledge” (or professional expertise) is a vital requirement for those in a leadership position. It pays to have someone in charge who understands and has a profound feel for the world in which they are operating.

Credibility among colleagues is established by being good at the core elements of a job and having proven experience. This was always going to be difficult to achieve for a latecomer to politics like Starmer.

In Westminster, Starmer has always been a fish out of water. He has only been a member of parliament since 2015. He emerged as a viable leadership candidate in the aftermath of Labour’s 2019 election defeat. He succeeded as a figure with calm authority, in contrast to the uncertainty created by Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.

Even under the steadier figure of Rishi Sunak, and undermined by the rise of Reform, the Conservative government was doomed to defeat. In July 2024, the quirks of the UK’s voting system gifted Labour a massive 170-seat majority on a vote share of 34% – a “loveless landslide”. The government was never really all that popular even at the outset. A more politically savvy prime minister might have recognised this and led the new government differently.

Starmer became prime minister without ever having established a distinct political identity or programme. He proudly said that there was no such thing as Starmerism, and never would be. That sort of modesty may have been authentic and appealingly British, in a way. But it left the new government without a song to sing.

Politics, it has been said, is “show business for ugly people”. Charisma is overrated, and after Boris Johnson I suspect the country has had enough of performative prime ministers. The PM does not have to be a stand-up comedian or a “celebrity”. But there should be a purpose to what he or she is doing. A more politically engaged prime minister would have weighed up the risks in appointing Mandelson more carefully, and been aware of warnings that the appointment was being “weirdly rushed”.

Effective political leaders have a coherent and compelling story to tell. They strengthen and give credibility to this story when they make important political decisions with conviction and a sense of ownership. This is what Starmer has lacked all along, and it will be his undoing.

Stefan Stern does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.