Timeline to Disaster
There are a number of rabbit holes one can be dragged down in the Mandelson appointment saga, and the reality is that each is attractive in what it reveals, but the reality is that whilst the revelations are interesting, bordering on gripping, they are irrelevant to whether Sir Keir Starmer could have avoided the ensuing fiasco by following sage advice.
Sir Simon Case was appointed as Cabinet Secretary in September 2020 and he retained that role until 15th December 2024.
On the 11th November 2024 Sir Simon gave advice to the PM revealed in documents published as a response to the humble address by Kemi Badenoch. In that advice Sir Simon says,
"If this is the route you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential conflicts of interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice. A letter is then needed from the Foreign Secretary to the PUS to FCDO formalising the decision to make a political appointment".
This advice was rejected by the PM. Sir Simon left his post on the 15th December. The new Cabinet Secretary, Sir Chris Womald, took up his post the next day, 16th December. Mandelson's appointment was announced 20th December 2024. The vetting process began 23rd December 2024. The vetting process could have begun on the 12th November 2024 and its findings revealed whilst Dame Karen Pierce was still in post as UK Ambassador to the USA.
We now know Lord Mandelson failed that vetting on the 28th January 2025.
In the Commons during his statement to the House in relation to the appointment crisis The PM said,
"After I sacked Peter Mandelson, I changed that process so that an appointment now cannot be announced until after security vetting is passed"
He also said in the Commons 20th April 2026 during the same statement ,
"If I had known before he took up his post, the UKSV recommendation was that developed vetting should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment".
Essentially this is all we need to know to ascertain where the buck stops.
The PM has changed the appointment announcement process to follow the one he rejected by Sir Simon. The PM could have followed this advice. Sir Keir Starmer would have been given the information which Sir Simon states he would have given him prior to the appointment to better inform his decision.
Sir Keir made it plain that had he known that Lord Mandelson had failed vetting he would not have been given the job.
Lots of other questions spring to mind relating to who knew what and when and why they delayed acting on it, but the most salient point is that Sir Keir rejected advice which would have given him the information he needed which would have resulted in him not making the appointment. This was a gross error of judgment by Sir Keir Starmer. He has bolted all the doors now, but why did he reject Sir Simon's advice?
Distilling the issue into this one massive and avoidable error of judgement brings us back to the desk of Sir Keir Starmer. It was his decision to ignore the advice. He has to accept responsibility, and in so doing he has now run out of road.
Nigel Evans
21st April 2026