Lead

A senior UK minister has admitted it was a mistake to announce Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US before he had completed security vetting, as Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces renewed pressure over the handling of the appointment.

Douglas Alexander, the Scotland secretary, said on Monday that the established protocol for political appointments had contributed to the premature announcement, and that the process was now being changed. His comments came as Starmer prepared to address MPs about why he was not informed that the Foreign Office had overruled a decision to refuse Mandelson vetting.

Coverage Comparison

The Guardian's reporting on the controversy has focused on two main aspects: the admission by ministers that the announcement was premature, and the political fallout for Starmer. In one report, Liz Kendall, the science and technology secretary, said Starmer would have withdrawn Mandelson's appointment if he had known about the vetting failure, and defended the prime minister's overall record. In another, Alexander's acknowledgment of the mistake was highlighted, along with criticism from a former top civil servant.

Both reports draw on interviews with ministers conducted on Monday morning, but they emphasize different elements: one stresses Kendall's defense of Starmer, while the other highlights Alexander's admission and the broader questions about the appointment process.

Key Claims

  • Starmer would have withdrawn the appointment if he had known: Liz Kendall told the BBC that if the prime minister had been aware that Mandelson had not passed security vetting, the appointment would have been withdrawn, regardless of how close it was to Donald Trump's inauguration.
  • The vetting failure was linked to Mandelson's lobbying firm: The reason for Mandelson's failed vetting was reported to be his lobbying firm's connection to the Chinese military. This claim has been carried by a single outlet and has not been independently verified.
  • The announcement was a mistake: Douglas Alexander said it was a mistake to announce Mandelson as ambassador before vetting was completed, and that the established protocol for political appointments was "inadequate in retrospect."
  • Starmer has made the right calls on big issues: Liz Kendall said she believed Starmer had made the right decisions on major issues facing the country, including international relations and domestic policy.
  • Alexander defended the removal of Olly Robbins: The Scotland secretary backed Starmer's decision to remove Olly Robbins, the top civil servant at the Foreign Office, after it was revealed that Robbins' department had not passed on the fact that Mandelson initially failed vetting.
  • Gus O'Donnell criticized Starmer's handling of Robbins: Writing in the Times, the former head of the civil service accused Starmer of unfairly blaming Robbins for the situation.
  • Opponents have called for Starmer's resignation: The controversy has led to renewed calls from political opponents for Starmer to step down, though this claim is based on reports of such calls rather than direct evidence of their scale.

Perspectives

Government perspective: Ministers have acknowledged the mistake in the appointment process but have defended Starmer's overall leadership. Liz Kendall said the prime minister had "made the right calls" on major issues, and Douglas Alexander expressed confidence that Starmer would lead Labour into the next election.

Critics' perspective: Opponents have seized on the controversy as evidence of poor judgment by Starmer, with some calling for his resignation. The criticism has been amplified by Gus O'Donnell's assertion that Starmer unfairly blamed a senior civil servant for the failure.

Process-focused perspective: Some commentators and officials have emphasized that the root cause of the problem was the inadequate vetting process for political appointments, rather than individual failings. The government has said it is changing the process to ensure vetting precedes appointment in the future.