Olly Robbins and the Mandelson affair: civil servants and politicians

The Mandelson affairs in the UK threatens to unseat PM Keir Starmer.

Starmer appointed Mandelson, now known to be tainted by his long association with Epstein, as UK's ambassador to the US. Before you get appointed to such a post, you have to go through an elaborate vetting process.

Richard Dearlove tells us why the vetting is so important:

The restricted compartments of the UK’s national security infrastructure are clearly defined and closely controlled. To work across them requires “a developed vetting certificate”. The primary qualification for holding a “DV” is integrity, honesty and transparency in one’s personal and professional life. To lie about or hide potential vulnerabilities is an immediate disqualification. Staff who do not meet the DV requirements for whatever reason are barred from positions that demand DV clearance. There are no grey areas or soft edges.

The role of British ambassador in Washington is one of those posts. It sits across a number of highly classified compartments. It is no ordinary diplomatic job. The extensive security acreage of the special relationship includes, for example, the UK’s nuclear deterrent, the intelligence relationship, the UK-US alliance which ties together the National Security Agency and GCHQ by treaty, and other domains of great sensitivity. The ambassador has access to these even though their need to become involved in them in normal times is limited. The British staff that comes under the ambassador’s authority is extensive and stretches beyond those working in the embassy. The ambassador’s access to the US administration is also usually highly privileged, such is the nature of the special relationship.

Olly Robbins knew that Mandelson had failed the vetting. He did not inform his boss, the Foreign Secretary. PM Starmer thus remained unaware of Mandelson's failing to qualify. The Foreign Office has the right to overrule vetting recommendations. Robbins exercised that right, with all the risks that entailed.

Another significant fact: the PM announced Mandelson's appointment even before he had gone through the vetting process. 

Now, why would a senior civil servant do something as foolish as clearing a candidate who had failed the vetting process?

A report in the Guardian explains the motivation:

Robbins told MPs: “I walked into a situation in which there was already a very, very strong expectation. And you have seen the papers released already under the humble address that’s coming from No 10 that he needed to be in post and in America as quickly as humanly possible. The very first formal communication of this to my predecessor from No 10’s private office being that they wanted all this done at pace and Mandelson in post before [Donald Trump’s] inauguration.”

Asked who in No 10 had applied pressure, he said it was mainly the prime minister’s private office, which is staffed by civil servants. But he added: “I think that the private office would only have been [putting on] this pressure themselves if they were under pressure.”

In other words, Robbins knew that the PM expected him to clear the appointment and he proceeded to do just that.

Nothing novel here.

What Robbins describes is universal: survival and progress in the civil service are contingent on the civil servant reading the mind of the politician and doing the needful. The politician will rarely be explicit about his requirement. The civil servant must have the ability to pick up cues, to anticipate - and to oblige.

By the time the civil servant reaches the top, he's entirely accustomed to such behaviour. 

That raises the question: why would you do all this after reaching the top?

One reason is that if you don't, you will be sidelined in your job. The more important reason is that there are sinecures to look forward to if you cater to the politician's needs: in the UK, a knighthood, an ambassadorship, member of Parliament, etc.

If you ready to hang up your boots after retirement, you can act correctly and conscientiously. But what civil servant would want to retire when there are plums to be had after retirement?

Early assessments of Rishi Sunak

Rishi Sunak has become PM after Liz Truss's short-lived tenure. It was a period in which the government's ill-conceived fiscal proposals sent the financial markets into turmoil. You could say that after that disaster, anybody would be an improvement.

That's ok, but can can we expect anything more? A columnist in FT, Janan Ganesh, thinks that Sunak's competence is over-rated:

He has crammed a lot of misjudgments into a short career. Among the prime ministers since the EU referendum of 2016, two voted Remain (Theresa May, Liz Truss) and one (Boris Johnson) embraced Leave with the tardiness of an opportunist. Britain is now led for the first time by someone who believed with real fervour that Brexit was a good idea. The lost trade, the forfeited fiscal receipts: he failed to anticipate these costs, or overrated the ease of making them up elsewhere. He does not even have the excuse of being a nostalgic. There was and is a coherent traditionalist case for Brexit. There was never a liberal or free-market one. How a man of modernist, pro-growth sensibilities came to believe otherwise is not just an academic mystery. It forces the question of what other eccentric choices he might make as head of government.

Ganesh still thinks that Sunak is a good choice because of his rectitude. I thought the writer was talking about his integrity in financial matters. No, it's not that. 

Ganesh thinks that Sunak took a principled position in quitting Johnson's cabinet after its murkiness crossed limits. Well, I am not sure. There are many who saw it as opportunism, a case of jumping off  a sinking ship. Johnson supporters saw it as back-stabbing on Sunak's part. It's rather naive to think that there is much room for principle at that level of politics- if you were constrained by principle, you would not survive. Look at what happened to Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour party.

A more perceptive article in Russia Today sees the Conservative party as riven by divisions between the old and new elites. The old elites believed were somewhat wary of globalism, identity politics, transgender rights and the rest. They were more inclined towards traditional values such as nationalism, family, Christian work ethic, etc. These divisions explain the conflict between the pro- Brexit brigade (to which Sunak belongs) and the anti-Brexit brigade. The writer thinks these divisions doom the Conservative party. Sunak does not have the skills to achieve a reconciliation:

.....if the party is to survive, even in the short term, it needs a head with real stature and genuine political skills. Rishi Sunak, who has just become the new leader, does not even come close to fitting this bill.  

The writer thinks Sunak will not last till Christmas, which implies he will give close competition to Truss! Well, we'll wait and see.