‘Process’, truth, belief and trust

It was another day of anticipation in Westminster as all things lead to 3:30pm when Keir Starmer began his statement to MPs on the revelation that Peter Mandelson had failed the security vetting recommendation for his US Ambassador role in early 2025. The Prime Minister did his best to remain calm under the increasing pressure, as he set out a timeline for each step of the process for Mandelson’s appointment to the chamber.

‘Process.’

This is the word Starmer chose to rely on for his explanation of the decisions that led to Mandelson’s appointment. He says the ‘process’ that was in place for vetting was followed. He ‘does not accept’ that individuals could take the decision to withhold information from him regarding Mandelson’s vetting recommendation. The process was followed, but was not robust enough to prevent this from happening. He has now rectified that ‘process’ so it cannot be abused again in a way that leads to further situations of this nature.

I have no reason to believe the exact account that the Prime Minister placed before the House (and subsequently LabourList, as my colleagues and I sat in the press gallery to watch and listen) is anything other than the truth. Other than the feeling that this truth is – as Stamer himself said – incredible. Again, as the PM said, the facts he has presented do indeed ‘beggar belief’.

READ MORE: PM says ‘deliberate decision’ taken not to inform him of Mandelson’s failed vetting

As a Labour member, this sorry affair has been particularly concerning. Politics is often a game of commitments and promises, that when used well allow politicians to develop trust from the voters. It can also be a game of pointing out the flaws in your opponents commitments, inaccuracies in their statements and shortcomings in their competence to erode voter else’s trust in them.

Even if the story itself seems far-fetched but is perfectly accurate, the continual drip-feeding of the Mandelson saga has slowly but surely damaged trust in several waves. The most frustrating part? It was an obvious and avoidable risk.

“If I had known, before [Mandelson] took up his post, the UK Security Vetting recommendation was that developed vetting should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment.”

Put to one side the situation around vetting, as it was pointed out yesterday in the Commons, “Mandelson has a history”.

This is a man that had to resign from Government twice, that the Prime Minister knew had links to Jeffrey Epstein, the worst name on a longer list of troublesome characters. He still appointed him. While he accepts that this was an error of judgement, and did the right thing by apologising for it at the top of his statement, that admission of poor judgement still leads to an important question: ‘If the signs of risk were there, why did you choose to appoint him anyway?’

This question was put to the PM, but he did not answer – other than referring to the fact that, with the judgement he had accessible at the time, ‘process’ was followed.

Is the nation to believe there was no one else who could do the job of US ambassador? That it had to be Mandelson? If so, the PM has simply not explained why.

Did Simon Case’s advise the PM to appoint only after a security vetting decision was made? If so, why was this advice not followed? Why would someone choose to make that decision? This question was put to the PM several times in the chamber. Again, the response presented was that ‘process’ had been followed.

The relationship between the facts and the story – and a gap exposed between them – is what ultimately decides where trust lies. If Starmer could answer some of those questions MPs posed, he would provide a clearer picture of what is currently a murky scene. One of two things would then happen. Either the truth would be damaging and trust would be further eroded, or the Prime Minister would be seen as taking responsibility and starting on the path to moving on from this situation.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

As pointed out by LabourList editor Emma Burnell yesterday morning, the most optimistic route to salvation from this mess would have been to explain exactly how things would improve moving forward from this situation. When he was asked, he reverted back to how he had changed the ‘process’ – without expanding on the cultural changes needed in our politics. It is one thing to tweak the rules, it is another to lead people into a way of behaving that is deserving of trust.

Labour members will, of course, make up their own minds on how they feel the Prime Minister has handled the appointment of Mandelson and the fallout from it. You will likely be reading this having already made up your mind as to what you think of this situation.

For me, and I imagine a lot of Labour members, I just feel let down that this is happening at all. I feel frustrated that with weeks to go before local and devolved elections, the Mandelson saga is once again front-and-centre of the news rounds – chipping away at our party’s image in the process.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

The Labour party always has been and remains bigger than any individual. There are activists, candidates and councillors putting blood, sweat and tears into their local campaigns. Many go out every evening and knock on doors to tell people that Labour is the party to trust with their vote. With each local council ward or devolved constituency, there are issues completely separate to this that those Labour members will be truly committed to trying to fix. To them I say, dig in and keep going. This is not your fault and I hope that your positive campaign messages land on the doors with the impact they truly deserve, over the ever-loud distractions of Westminster.