"The words general reputational risk, peppered throughout the Cabinet Office's brief summary of Mandelson's inglorious career to date, are mandarin-speak for don't say we didn't warn you. Though the publicly available facts chiefly but not only about his friendship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were bad enough, civil servants were signalling that they couldn't rule out worse to come."
"That their verdict isn't more emphatic may surprise some, but it reflects unelected officials working as they are designed to in a democracy: not blocking a potentially bad decision so much as listing all the ways it might go wrong, before leaving the final call to elected politicians."
"What emerges isn't a portrait of a wildly dysfunctional, chaotic No 10, nor one afraid of telling its prime minister home truths. Instead it suggests an oddly rigid operation that had no time for objections, even ones that would have saved its bacon."
Peter Mandelson was sacked from a previous position and later demanded half a million pounds in public money while asserting his dignity. When appointed ambassador to Washington, the Cabinet Office conducted vetting that identified significant reputational risks, including his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Civil servants used cautious language like "general reputational risk" to signal concerns without explicitly blocking the appointment, following their democratic role of listing potential problems while leaving final decisions to elected politicians. Downing Street's political operation apparently ignored these warnings, suggesting a rigid administration unwilling to heed legitimate objections from unelected officials.
#political-accountability #government-vetting-process #downing-street-decision-making #civil-service-warnings #diplomatic-appointments
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]