22nd April 2026
Towards understanding an almighty mess
There was once a bad decision, and then there was a worse decision, and then there was an even worse decision.
The bad decision was, of course, the appointment by the Prime Minister to appoint Lord Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States. At the time few expressly objected and some saw merit in such a sui generis appointment to deal with a sui generis President – a Trump Whisperer. (Though we had a perfectly competent Ambassador in place who was good at that too.)
The worse decision was how the Prime Minister opted to react when information was published about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein. He blamed Mandelson for lying, he blamed the civil servants for not telling him about a vetting exercise. He was “furious”. His chief of staff was sacked. He decided it was everybody’s fault, but his own.
And then there was the worst of the decisions, at least from the perspective of his overall credibility. He sacked Oliver Robbins, the head of the foreign office civil service. This has not only poisoned the civil service against a serving premier, but also Robbins’ evidence before a select committee persuasively shows that Robbins and the Foreign Office were simply seeking to find a way to implement a decision which the Prime Minister had prematurely announced (against civil service advice) and which Number 10 staff were pressing (bullying?) the Foreign Office to approve without delay.
The Prime Minister accepts there was a process in place which Robbins followed: that is why the process has been changed. But he sacked Robbins for following that process which he accepts was in place.
And now Robbins can explain, from the outside, what happened.
Had the Prime Minister just owned the original bad decision – which as this blog has previously stated was his own decision – instead of blaming and sacking others, then the second and third mistakes would not have been made.
One can only wonder what further mistakes are to come.
Once this blog has fully digested the Robbins evidence yesterday, there may be more to come on here, at least.
***
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Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.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.
One thing that annoys me more and more (I am getting old) about this and comparable cases is the ‘immaculate apology’,
That is, if the principal concerned has managed to utter words to the effect of ‘If anyone was upset by my words or actions I apologise to them’ without then taking the slightest effort to make amends or correct the error. So in this case, when anyone points out that several other people have lost their jobs because of Sir Keir’s actions, the response is “But I apologised” as if that should be the end of the matter.
An apology, if sincere, should be the start of the process of putting things right, not the end point.
“An apology, if sincere, should be the start of the process of putting things right, not the end point.”
I agree, therefore I do not consider the “If anyone was upset by my words or actions I apologise to them” statements to be apologies, merely a form of words designed to distract and deflect attention from the wrongs done. I like ‘immaculate apology’ to describe them, it perfectly describes what the users of such phrases are attempting.
Thank you for that succinct summary of the whole wretched affair. My mind has been buzzing with the media festival of who said what, when, and to what effect. At last I feel I have got on top of all the detail.
The only baffling element is why anyone ever thought that Peter Mandleson was a suitable , let alone the ideal, candidate for the Washington post. Then again, a short time ago Dominic Cummings was considered by many to be a political genius. Politicians, seemingly worldly creatures, appear to be vulnerable to the attractions of such opportunists .
Keir Starmer heralded the hope of things politic becoming boring again. However, he has demonstrated time and again that he is not good at national politics and that he has no moral compass. He may be good at foreign affairs but domestically he has been, with few exceptions, a disaster. The Mandelson affair is just then end of a long list of mistakes and misjudgements that he and his government have made.
I hate to say it but the UK deserves a better Labour leader.
Is there a politician since Carrington who has acted with integrity once faced with an honourable or dishonourable option, who has not clung on until completely untenable? And I am no Tory. For all his boasts it is not very toolmakery and I know as I was born just outside Redditch. Toolmakers understand tolerances like no others. Even Profumo went after lying to the HoC and worked his penance in the East End for 20 years rather than presenting at Times TV or a column in the Daily Mailospectograph two minutes after resigning. Lying was always fine so long as you were not caught. Being caught in the lie now though is no longer culpable. Shame, repentance and humility are so old fashioned it seems. But then the pool of credible successors is shallower than a puddle.
Amber Rudd resigned in creditable circumstances. But yes few others.
Pressure is not the same as bullying, even with a question mark after it. Bullying is behaviour intended to harm the target. Applying pressure is frequently used in business, politics and no doubt very subtly by senior civil servants. Robbins certainly didn’t appear to be a victim of bullying by No 10. In fact he stated that the pressure did not affect his decision.
In fact, Robbins’ confident evidence completely undermined Starmer’s position over Mandelson’s appointment and Robbins’ sacking. It must have been very satisfying for him to have such a public platform to do such damage in response. Starmer can still claim he wasn’t at fault for things unravelling, but few will believe that is the whole truth. He’s severely weakened and must resign soon. Assuming the local elections are as bad for Labour as polling predicts, Starmer remaining in charge would be a blockage to any revovery of support.
Much of your proposition may be sustainable. And for other reasons, it’s a pity to see Robbins go as he was making a good start on revamping the culture of the FO. But, all that said, a Perm Sec is paid the big bucks to get the key decisions right at the official-political interface. In this case, his judgement was catastrophically wrong….as a senior official you cannot conceal from your political masters such a major issues as a fully failed vetting. To hide behind officialise obfyscation is simply not sustainable. I speak as someone who has worked in the civil service and who retired recently as an Assistant CE in local government.
The evidence & audit trail presented by Cat Little to the committee would suggest Robbins’ narrative account is somewhat over generous to himself, and would appear to show his judgement of the situation was flawed utterly
It’s not unusual for inexperienced public sector managers to read policy “guidelines” as rules while ignoring an actual ability to use their discretion. In this case it would now seem, Robbins fell into the same trap