Mandelson latest: can we trust Starmer's ignorance?
Coffee House Shots
The Spectator
4.4 • 2.2K Ratings
🗓️ 17 April 2026
⏱️ 20 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
The Peter Mandelson scandal just got more scandalous. Last night the story broke that Mandeslon actually failed his enhanced vetting before being made US Ambassador. Number 10 are pleading ignorance. Their defence sits on the suggestion that the Foreign Office’s most senior official unilaterally decided to ignore the findings and – what’s more – that he told no one. It’s a stretch and, as Tim Shipman says MPs' 'fury is overwhelming'.
There are a number of outstanding questions, including: what could possibly be in it for the FCDO to withhold this key information? Now Sir Olly Robbins has been sacked, will he go public? Did Starmer knowingly mislead parliament when he said that the vetting process was followed? And, considering he found out this information earlier this week, why didn’t he correct the record?
Tim Shipman and Isabel Hardman join Oscar Edmondson to react to the latest in what is shaping up to be one of the most challenging scandal of the Starmer era.
Produced by Oscar Edmondson and Patrick Gibbons.
Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.
For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts.
Contact us: podcast@spectator.co.uk
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | Hello and welcome to Coffee House Shots, The Spectator's Daily Politics Podcast. I'm |
| 0:09.5 | Oskredenson. I'm joined today by Tim Shipman and Isabel Hardman. So the Mandelson scandal just got |
| 0:15.5 | more scandalous with the revelation that Peter Mandelson actually failed enhance vetting to become |
| 0:20.7 | US ambassador. |
| 0:22.2 | Now, number 10 are pleading ignorance, and their defence seems to rest on the suggestion that |
| 0:27.2 | the foreign office's most senior official unilaterally decided to ignore this decision, |
| 0:32.8 | and, what's more, he didn't disclose that to anybody. |
| 0:36.2 | Tim, this is all quite complicated, so maybe |
| 0:38.8 | let's start by giving the government a bit of a hearing. How likely is it that what they're saying |
| 0:43.2 | is true? Well, look, I've spoken to people in the government. I've speaking to people who have |
| 0:47.4 | been in government, and I've spoken to some of the people who are sort of in the middle of all |
| 0:51.4 | this. The rage and fury from people close to Stama, |
| 0:56.8 | people close to Morgan McSweeney, people close to the people who were in the room, as it were, |
| 1:03.8 | is absolutely overwhelming of a degree, nature and virulence that I've seldom ever seen |
| 1:10.8 | in British politics. They are incredulous, nature and virulence that I've seldom ever seen in British politics. |
| 1:11.6 | They are incredulous, furious and frankly just, you know, they're gobsmacked that this information |
| 1:22.1 | would have been kept from the Prime Minister and from other ministers. |
| 1:25.9 | That is their account, and I have spoken to enough people that I trust that that is an |
| 1:33.2 | account to a large degree that they seem to believe. |
| 1:36.9 | However, anybody else who's ever been in government, every former special advisor, every |
| 1:42.5 | person I know who was at the top of the civil service, |
| 1:45.0 | anyone who ever had any connections with the proprietary and ethics team, anybody who ever had any connections with the cabinet office, |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Spectator, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of The Spectator and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.