Yesterday, Keir Starmer faced Parliament to explain how a man who failed his security vetting ended up as Britain’s most important ambassador. It is a question worth asking. But there is a deeper one beneath it: how does a prime minister who presents himself as the cautious, process-respecting antidote to Conservative chaos keep finding himself in exactly these situations?
The Mandelson affair is, in miniature, the story of this government. A political decision was taken — to appoint a Labour grandee to a high-profile role. Warnings existed. Red flags had been raised. The vetting process that was supposed to filter out exactly these problems produced a recommendation to deny clearance. And yet the appointment went ahead, with civil servants apparently acting on the understanding that the prime minister wanted it to happen. When it collapsed, spectacularly, Starmer said he was furious he hadn’t been told. The civil servant who overrode the vetting was sacked. The prime minister, once again, was the victim of events – or was he?
Starmer is, by every visible measure, a careful man. He speaks slowly and precisely. He qualifies his statements. He projects the steady, deliberate air of someone who never acts without weighing the consequences. And yet, nearly two years into office, he has accumulated a record of unforced errors that a more instinctive politician might envy for sheer variety.
The standard explanation is bad luck, bad inheritance, or an unusually hostile press. There is something in all of those. But they do not explain the pattern. Truly cautious leaders make fewer unforced errors because genuine caution filters out the obvious traps. If the care were real, the record would be cleaner.
It’s not so much that Starmer “shoots from the hip” as he’s overconfident about his own analysis in the moment.
Starmer deliberates carefully on tone, on presentation, on the legalistic question of whether a position is defensible. What he appears not to do — or not to do well — is war-game consequences. He asks, “Is this argument sound?” rather than “what happens next?” Those are very different questions.
The Mandelson decision is the sharpest illustration. It was not rash in any emotional sense. Someone wanted Mandelson in Washington, a case was made, and many people at the time applauded it as a canny move.
The problem is that Starmer approved it – before the vetting was complete. He has been roundly criticised for not asking more questions, and while some people characterise that as “incurious”, it is emblematic of a person who overestimates their own analytical capability. A person for whom, having arrived at a decision, sees no reason to consider the decision further.
As a consequence, what was missed was any serious second-order thinking: about what a failed vetting would mean if it surfaced; about whether a man with documented Epstein links could survive the scrutiny that comes with a major ambassadorial role; about what “due process” would mean if things went wrong and the prime minister needed to account for himself in Parliament. The appointment was politically complete in Starmer’s mind before the process had run its course. The process then bent to fit the decision.
It is the error of the person who is forensically rigorous inside an argument but hasn’t noticed the argument’s limits. Lawyers do sometimes fall into it. A barrister can construct an unassailable case and still lose because the jury was never convinced by the framing. Starmer the barrister may have brought this habit into government. He mistakes a well-made case for a politically complete one and is then genuinely surprised when reality fails to comply.
The winter fuel payment followed the same logic. A Treasury argument was tight and internally consistent. Starmer accepted it. Nobody apparently asked what lay outside the frame — how it would land with pensioners already anxious about energy bills, or what the optics would be alongside the clothing “freebies row”, or whether a government that had campaigned on “change” could afford to open its account with a benefit cut to a sympathetic group.
What makes this particularly hard to diagnose is Starmer’s persona. The hesitancy, the careful phrasing, the visible absence of bravado — these look like the surface signs of a deliberate mind. They may instead be a professional style that has become detached from the actual decision-making process underneath. The carefulness is in the presentation. The decisions, measured by their second and third-order consequences, are often riskier than they appear.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one: The cautious man keeps getting it wrong because the caution, on closer inspection, isn’t quite what it looks like.
* Tom Reeve is a Liberal Democrat councillor in Kingston upon Thames
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Kira Collins
Ian Patterson
Daniel Walker
Richard Flowers
20 Comments
Excellent analysis which has improved my understanding.
A thoughtful analysis of Sir Keir Starmer’s problem. I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats have joined the chorus of those demanding Starmer’s resignation because of the Mandelson affair. True, as this analysis shows, he is not perfect but, given the precarious wold situation, with a delusional egocentric in charge of the world’s mightiest army and largest treasury, I am thankful that Starmer is in charge and not one of his immediate predecessors or current alternatives (Badenoch? Farage? the Green chap, whose name escapes me for the moment? ) We Liberal Democrats need the Labour government to do well, not just for the sake of the country, but because the electoral history of the past 70 years shows that when Labour does well, so do Liberals . So please, let’s confine ourselves to praising the policies they get right, suggesting constructive alternatives to those (electoral reform , devolution to the nations, regions and localities) they get wrong, and, especially in these troublous times, avoid petty populist bandwagons.
I very much agree with this article and do not agree with Peter. I took time off my daily business to listen to Olly Robbins, who came across as a decent, honourable and amusing man. It is clear that The FCO was bounced into this appointment by No 10 and The Cabinet Office. KS has not been able to answer why he wanted M in post so very much. Whatever his diplomatic successes, the public has completely lost confidence in the Prime Minister and the conduct of his government is shambolic. He is indeed in ofice but not in power. I really do not like it when a leader in any walk of line makes his staff take the blame when the buck stops with the man or woman in charge. He should go as soon as possibel after the May elections.
I think there are two parts to Sir Keir’s problem. One is the incomplete thinking that Tom analyses. However I would say it’s that of a lawyer who has an aim in mind (either for the prosecution or for the defence) assessing everything on that basis. In this case the aim was to find the case for Mandelsohn being the ambassador.
The other part of Sir Keir’s problem is that he did not know enough about what went on in the process of assessment. Olly revealed that to be true thereby backing much of what Sir Keir has said since (thought it does not appear that Olly did anything to justify his sacking accoridng to normal procedures). However, is it not very worrying that decisions of this kind are made by PMs without the PM knowing much more of the detail?
Tom gives us a fascinating insight into the probable causes of Starmer’s many failures, but on the BBC radio news yesterday there was a comment which cut through all the details of the Olly Robinson saga: all Starmer had to do was say was ‘sorry, I got it wrong about Mandelson’ and then get on with the rest of his job. Instead, he thought it necessary to throw someone under the bus – an utterly stupid mistake. Robinson has come across as a decent man, with an enviable record of service to his country.
Unfortunately, Starmer has form for this kind of terrified vindictiveness – Jeremy Corbyn, Dianne Abbott, and others have been ruthlessly dispatched quite unnecessarily, due to his insecurity.
I’m afraid the argument that people like Farage or “the Green chap” would be worse prime ministers than him doesn’t wash for me. Starmer is not up to the job, and the Liberal Democrats are right to say that.
Of course, one reason for Starmer’s evident detachment from what is really happening is that he’s a manufactured product, created to get rid of Corbyn, who it was thought had led the Labour party into an unelectable left-wing position. He is always being operated by other more powerful figures in the party. His ponderous delivery style may sound reassuring and ‘measured’ to some, but it actually reveals a lack of any kind of passionate commitment to a guiding vision for the future. Even when he’s exhibiting anger (at being ‘betrayed’ by whoever is the latest scapegoat for his own failures) he can’t quite make it sound real.
I don’t know who wrote his speech yesterday, but when he began with the warning that MPs were going to find what he was going to say almost impossible to believe, he inevitably brought the house down – and yet he looked bewildered at the laughter, apparently unaware that he’d just uttered the funniest thing he’s ever said, or is ever likely to.
I was reflecting on Keir Starmer’s time at the CPS and the comments made by Paul Gambaccini, and whether that episode throws any light on his current predicament. Just a thought.
“A political decision was taken — to appoint a Labour grandee to a high-profile role.”
Yes, but who made it? Friends of former Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, have likened Starmer as sitting in the front cab of the Docklands Railway Engine. He appears to be in charge but the train drives itself.
As John McDonnell alluded to in Parliament yesterday Starmer would never have become Labour leader but for the backing of McSweeney and Mandelson who more than ran his campaign. They calculated exactly the type of program he needed to present to win the support of party members. Starmer continued to rely on his cronies once he became PM.
So it would have been McSweeney who pushed Starmer into making the decision. Not that Starmer would have needed much pushing – he knew that he owed Mandelson a big favour and couldn’t afford to get offside with him. Mandelson knows far too much to be made an enemy.
McSweeney’s phone record would be an interesting read. It’s such a pity that he reported it stolen in October!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/25/would-morgan-mcsweeney-stolen-mobile-have-mandelson-messages-on-it
Listening in full to Ollie Robbins detailing the process through which Mandelson was appointed was very illuminating, and Ollie ought to be thanked for his careful explanation. It is clear that for reasons of confidentiality he should not have reported to Kier Starmer or to No.10 staff about the reasons for the decision which he had arrived at in making his decision as regards vetting. One can certainly fault the decision he had made, in the light of the recommendations which he had received, that the vetting should be confirmed – but he clearly understood and was swayed by knowing the calamity which would have arisen if he had made a decision to go along with those recommendations after, repeat after, the appointment had been publicly announced (the trouble is that the alternative calamity has proved much worse). But it was clearly Starmer’s (and McSweeney’s) determination to press ahead with the appointment without giving proper consideration to the needs for proper vetting that caused the original problem, which Robbins then inherited; everything then followed on from that.
Peter Wrigley misses the point in his suggestion that we should keep backing Starmer. We are not talking about Farage or Badenoch or Polansky taking over. Labour has a massive majority in the commons what will carry them safely over until 2029, whatever losses they might face in the meanwhile. So it is a question of Labour getting its internal act together and deciding who on the Labour benches should take over as Prime Minister until 2029. Which of the possible contenders is best from a Liberal viewpoint?
At this point a general election would be entirely sensible.
@Jenny Barnes. What, an election right now? Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. Labour will dispatch Starmer soon enough. If they do then produce a plan for government that is not a back of a fag packet plan and start implementing it, then this dreadful period of government might come to be seen as an aberration.
Whilst I would be more than happy to see Labour trounced at the polls along with the Tories, I really doubt if the Reform or Green alternatives that would be on offer would be anything other than disastrous for the UK. Whilst I would dearly love the LibDems to triumph, I doubt if we are ready to make a serious attempt in enough constituencies for that to happen.
Elections are meant to take place every 5 years. If a party changes its leader that isn’t a good reason to have another one. The current electoral system gave us Labour (not just Starmer) with a thumping majority for a 5 year term. In 2029 we can all vote again and our sights should be set on winning as many seats as possible when the GE comes.
We also need to remember the role that McSweeney and the Labour party internal bureaucracy had in undermining Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour left with the charge of antisemitism.
Al Jazeera’s The Labour Files – Episodes 1 to 4 trace the entire saga from the purge of the left, through preventing Corbyn taking action against antisemitism to the shutting down of local parties supportive of him and the left. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elp18OvnNV0
A real warning of the illiberal and anti-democratic instincts of those in control of a party’s inner workings.
The most ironic part of this Mandelson fiasco is how those parties, Tory/Reform, that spent their time decrying Civil Servants are now their staunchest supporters (at least for this week)..
Many of us were well aware of Starmers’s lack of integrity well before the last election. It’s no surprise he has thrown Olly Robinson under the bus in an vain attempt to save his own skin. Olly seems a very decent and credible person. There’re always two sides to the story of course but I’ve no doubt who is very much closer to the truth in their accounts.
Prior to the last election I wrote:
“The danger of a Starmer super majority is all too real. It’s not going to make for a good Parliament. There will be insufficient democratic scrutiny of a faction which will be drunk on power.”
” His behaviour undermines democracy. Lib Dems are meant to be a democratic party yet they fail to call out Starmer for his mendacity.”
https://www.libdemvoice.org/we-need-to-be-ready-to-take-on-labour-75435.html
Peter is right, and I think we need to move away from the idea that Mandelson’s appointment was a failure of judgement by Starmer. It evidently was, but prime ministers make thousands of judgments, and some of them are going to later be shown to have been too risky. What matters is Starmer’s failure of character when he looks for someone else to blame for his mistakes, which has happened too often to ignore.
Another factor in this entertaining saga is that we’re all taking Olly Robbins’ demeanour when he was being questioned by the select committee at face value. He came across as a very diffident, innocent victim of injustice, who despite that, didn’t seem to be overtly putting the boot in to Starmer, the man who had unceremoniously sacked him. That may well be exactly who he is, but he has been a highly successful civil servant, so we know he isn’t stupid.
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. Starmer was never going to inspire people, but some people, myself included, hoped that he was a quiet, thoughtful man who would quietly set things right after 14 years of Tory misrule. Many people are coming to the conclusion that this is not the case.
Nesrine Malik has a good piece in the Guardian today in which she quotes a line from an unnamed Labour insider: “Lots of people think Keir Starmer is a good man who is out of his depth. Wrong. He’s an asshole who’s out of his depth.” Harsh, but perhaps an element of truth in that. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/27/zombie-politics-keir-starmer-labour
I might have to adjust my argument about Starmer in light of this, but I think the essential framing still stands: Starmer has too much faith in his own judgement despite the fact that it has been proven to be wrong again and again.
What Starmer and McSweeney did to undermine the whole of the Labour left was pure evil. Subsequently pretending he was of that left to get elected as leader was a con of equivalent magnitude to Boris Johnson kidding people he was competent. Anyone who hoped he had any idea how to sort things out, weren’t paying attention.
I suspect part of the issue is that neither our PM or the Labour party have the political intelligence to navigate the complex circumstances of the UK. I still feel they deserve more time but the reality is that they are where they are and only the right actions performed urgently will save them.