26th April 2026
What, if anything, is the constitutional and legal significance of the fall-out from the Starmer-Robbins matter?
From a political perspective this last week or so in the United Kingdom has certainly been exciting and dramatic.
As set out in the last post here, we have a Prime Minister making a succession of bad decisions, and blaming and sacking others for those decisions.
In particular, we have a Prime Minister who speaks often about process sacking a senior foreign office official without any process whatsoever.
And as I have described at Prospect, that sacking by a Prime Minister who demands of the civil service that things are ‘delivered’ was of an official who worked out a way of ‘delivering’ the appointment of an Ambassador which the Prime Minister, against cabinet secretary advice, had publicly announced prematurely.
This is all a fascinating political spectacle.
*
But.
So what?
What is the legal or constitutional significance of what has happened – and what is happening?
*
From a lega(isitc) perspective not much: the overall result of the vetting (as opposed to the personal information vetted) was probably legally open to Olly Robbins to share with the Prime Minister. But there was also no legal obligation on him to share that information either. We are dealing here with discretion and policy, not rules and obligations.
What Robbins did and did not do with the vetting assessment was probably neither lawful nor unlawful, for it was not a matter of law.
(There is, of course, an important legal point about the dismissal of Robbins – and it is difficult to imagine a stronger case for unfair dismissal in this sort of context.)
*
Constitutionally, there is an interesting point here about whether it was appropriate for a senior official charged with making this decision to not share the Cabinet Office vetting assessment with the Prime Minister.
Usually, the information about ambassadorial vetting stays with the head of the foreign office civil service, and one can see the point of that with career diplomats.
But when the appointment is external and essentially political and (publicly) directed by the Prime Minister then there is a good argument that the official should place the Prime Minister in the position they should be so as to be properly accountable to Parliament (and the public) for that decision. And there is a strong argument that, by omission, the Prime Minister should not be misled as the vetting exercise.
Yet, when one has an incurious Prime Minister, not asking the appropriate questions and who demands ‘delivery’ – of solutions, not problems – one can begin to see why what happened, happened.
(A follower of this blog messaged to say that Starmer always wanting ‘delivery’ to be both without impediments but also error-free, is about Starmer’s own ‘cake-ism’.)
Add the (fair) security concerns that sensitive information not have wider circulation that necessary, you can see why Robbins did what he did (and did not do), especially as Downing Street is leaky.
Indeed, the only actual security breach in all this is that the media and the public even know about the Ambassador’s vetting failure by means of a leak. For that information to be in the public domain in this manner indicates a serious security breach somewhere.
*
As the Prime Minister has now said at the despatch box both that the original decision was wrong and that his decision to sack Robbins was right, one could perhaps say that the constitutional aspect of this matter is being addressed.
He has accounted to Parliament, and he is still in office – and he has not and is not facing any vote of no confidence.
As I stated at the time at Prospect, the real constitutional importance in all this lays in the House of Commons vote earlier this year that the Prime Minister and Cabinet could not be trusted to make decisions about the the applicability of the ‘national security’ exemption to the release of the Mandelson appointment documents. Those decisions were instead to be made by a parliamentary committee.
For Parliament to decide not to trust the Prime Minister and Cabinet in this way on national security was, in any meaningful way, a vote of no confidence. For this blog, that was the point the Prime Minister ought to have resigned.
Now the Prime Minister is dealing with the direct and indirect consequences of that vote: the placing into the public domain of documents beyond his control – and the prior (perhaps tactical?) leaking of sensitive information in respect of the documents that may be disclosed.
This is an actual example of a Prime Minister who is in office, but not in power – at least in respect of the Mandelson papers.
*
There may be further disclosures in this news story which does not seem to be going away.
At some point a constitutional point may be taken, and a vote of no confidence is put forward. Alternatively, the Prime Minister may lose the confidence of his own cabinet and offer his own resignation (or plan for departure). Who knows.
But what is certain is that this matter shows how a Prime Minister can be held to account for a bad decision which they made – and for a bad decision for which they are now running out of other people to blame and sack.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
Excuse my frivolity but given what is going on elsewhere who really cares?
Ok, great fun for the Murdoch press – but apart from that?
Lets come back in a months time and see where we are ………
“What we have here, in the wild, is the paradox of the “Who Cares?” comment-guy. They call out “Who Cares?” “Who Cares?” so as to give the impression of not caring. But they also care so much that they leave comments. As such they are masters of (self-)misdirection and should be cherished.”
I disagree. The constitution does not get set aside because conflicts break out with potentially disastrous consequences. This is not just about tabloid press interests. The idea that we can only address the most serious national or international event at any one time is unrealistic.
What happens & when, with regard to the fall-out, may well affect, quickly and directly, the effects on us of what is going on elsewhere.
Well, a fair and focused analysis of the position, especially on the implications of the Commons vote.
Depreesing,though. Starmer’s apparently innate tendency towards self righteousness had increasingly come to fore, exposing its bedfellow: hypocrisy.
First glimmering was his easy acceptance of free Arsenal tickets.
The best thing that has come out of this is that the public does know about this and the PM has faced questioning on it. Boris Johnson notably avoided questioning and blatantly lied over partygate.
This is not happening across the pond. There, the public knows what is going on but the executive is able to bypass any opposition due to a failure of constitutional accountability.
Events will soon catch up with Starmer. I think he will be forced to resign if the local election results show how widely unpopular Labour is under his leadership.
The point on National Security is a really important one. This used to be seen as. crown prerogative over which the executive had pretty much complete freedom to act. There are cases in legislation where the Secretary of State has powers to certify that actions are essential in terms of National Security. And review of the exercise of those powers has been a very closely held exercise.
-To my mind there is a disconnect in the storyline.
When Mandelson was appointed did our vetting folk know about ‘Mandelson in his underpants’ and have reason to believe such pictures would be made public? I suspect they did not know about either. They may (or not) have felt Mandelson was a bit whiffy for other reasons but not enough to blow a loud whistle.
Mandelson may well have been a bit whiffy but was convenient and acceptable to Starmer. Fair enough, plenty of folk in high places are a bit ‘high’.
But suppose our vetting folk did know about ‘Mandelson in his underpants’ and spaketh very softly, so softly Starmer could not hear. That seems culpable neglect to me – any reasonable servant would bang very hard on Starmer’s door. Given the current stink someone would be for the high jump. Not much sign of someone led to the scaffold yet.
What may fit the facts is that the vetters did not know. Perhaps the vetters forgot to ask at the right doors. Begging awkward questions about conpetence and diligence and links to our cousins. Egg on faces and the CIA or whatever having a good laugh. Jolly embarrassing.