The simple question – one might assume the very simplest and certainly the most basic – is one the Prime Minister resolutely failed to answer on Monday afternoon: why appoint Peter Mandelson in the first place?
Starmer accepted it was an error of judgement, owned the decision and apologised, but consistently refused to explain what had led him to send Mandelson to Washington. One brave MP suggested that Mandelson and McSweeney had been instrumental in Starmer becoming PM, and so McSweeney had been given Downing Street and Mandelson Washington.
Needless to say, the PM did not respond to that.
We now know from the testimony of Olly Robbins that Number 10 applied a great deal of pressure to speed up the process so that Mandelson would be in Washington in time for Trump’s inauguration, which can only mean that Starmer was personally keen for the appointment to go ahead. But the question remains: why?
Mandelson had been forced to resign not once but twice from Blair’s cabinet (by the way, has anyone noticed that Blair is uncharacteristically silent on the controversy now erupting over the head of his favourite?).
He was known, although the full extent of the friendship was not, to be pally with Epstein.
So why was Starmer so keen to give him the plum of diplomatic roles? He should tell us, or rather tell Parliament.
Presumably, the whole point of vetting is to decide if someone is a suitable candidate for a post. The PM knew the vetting procedure was underway, so why did he never, even as an aside, say, “By the way, I assume Peter satisfied the spooks?” Probably because he just assumed all was well. After all, this was the mighty Mandelson.
Keir Starmer has dodged the most devastating question hovering over the Mandelson scandal - Ann Widdecombe | Getty Images
The PM has continually insisted that if he had known Mandelson had failed his vetting, he would not have appointed him, but it was his own desire for haste that led to the appointment being announced before the full procedures had been completed.
The job of civil servants is to do the will of their political masters, provided it is within the law.
Downing Street had made the need for haste clear, so the questions facing Olly Robbins would have been “How do I get this through? Is the risk beyond management?”
The idea that the PM would have cancelled the appointment is not really credible. Thanks to his own desire for speed, the Americans knew, the press knew, and the appointment was awaiting only confirmation.
The embarrassment of slamming on the brakes at that stage would have presented a formidable obstacle for the PM. Robbins made his judgement accordingly. His job was to mitigate any risks that might have been identified.
That one revelation of constant pressure from No10 may well be the straw that breaks the back of Labour MPs. They won’t move before the local elections, but if the predicted disaster follows, then they will probably decide enough is enough. There is limited enthusiasm for Mandelson among backbenchers anyway, without the current debacle.
The revelation about Andrew Doyle will not have helped, but on its own means little. Political appointments are not unusual, and some preliminary soundings hardly amount to a cause for outrage.
Nevertheless, be careful what you wish for. Rayner? Milliband? Burnham? As for Mandelson, well, I suppose he is now guaranteed a place in the history books as opposed to a footnote or two.
Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter