How one civil servant exposed Keir Starmer’s flawed Peter Mandelson process
The News Agents reflect on Olly Robbins testimony in the House of Commons about his role in the 2025 appointment of Peter Manderlson, and what he revealed about the process – or lack of.
Listen to this article
Read time: 4 mins
In brief…
- Former senior civil servant Olly Robbins has revealed the pressure from Downing Street to approve Peter Mandelson as the UK ambassador to the US, which has led to him losing his job.
- The News Agents describe his sacking as a Keir Starmer “tantrum” and a “shameful decision”.
- Emily Thornberry, who hosted the hearing with Robbins, tells The News Agents she believes the pressure put on Robbins by No.10 amounted to bullying.
What’s the story?
Olly Robbins, the former civil servant who took the fall for Labour’s appointment of Peter Mandelson in 2025, was sacked in what The News Agents described as a “shameful decision” by Keir Starmer.
Robbins, who was permanent under-secretary of state for foreign affairs until a week ago, appeared today (21 April 2026) at a select committee hearing, where he gave details of his involvement with Mandelson's role as the UK's ambassador to the US.
It was recently revealed Mandelson failed the security vetting process, but was given the job anyway.
Robbins told the committee that when he started the Foreign Office role, he walked into a situation where Mandelson was already being given access to high-security documents, and there were "high expectations" that Mandelson was wanted in the US role.
He said there was a "dismissive" attitude towards Mandelson's vetting process inside the Foreign Office – and added there was "no stipulation from No.10" that it would even take place.
He added there was "pressure" from No.10, but was not aware who was exerting that on civil servants working directly for the Prime Minister.
"I am incredulous about the decision made to fire him," says Jon Sopel.
"Has there been a more egregious and shameful decision by a Prime Minister to get rid of someone as a way of saving their own skin, because it's hard to see it in any other light.
"This was a political decision made by Downing Street. They only wanted one answer, and Olly Robbins tried to do his best in as proper a way possible, to give them what they wanted – and now he finds his life upended by that."
Robbins' sacking a 'Starmer tantrum'?
Robbins, as the most senior civil servant in the Foreign Office at the time of Mandelson's appointment and the man who made the final decision (based on incomplete information), was sacked almost as soon as details of the vetting failure became public.
But rather than drawing a line under the situation, Emily Maitlis said this only made things worse – especially for the PM.
She describes Robbins’ sacking as a Keir Starmer “tantrum”, and now seeming like the root of all the PM’s problems.
"It is almost impossible not to contrast the gravity with which Olly speaks with the slightly childish, impetuous, faux outrage that we saw from Keir Starmer," she says.
"He walks right into the row and he fires Olly Robbins, and I genuinely think that was actually the beginning of this set of problems, not the end."
On Monday (20 April) Starmer addressed the House of Commons to give his side of the story, saying the situation and outcome were "unacceptable".
Jon says he believes this chapter in the Labour government will see appointment processes change permanently going forward.
"It's ugly, what we have witnessed over the past few days," he says.
"We've seen a very good civil servant sacrificed to save someone else."
Olly Robbins was 'bullied', says Emily Thornberry
The select committee hearing was held by Labour MP Emily Thornberry, who tells The News Agents she believes Robbins was bullied into pushing the Mandelson appointment through.
"Olly Robbins didn't want to say he made the decision because he was bullied," Thornberry says.
"He wanted to say that he had acted independently and had been put under undue pressure, but it hadn't made any difference to him.
"I don't believe it could not have made a difference."
She adds that it is "in the DNA of civil servants" to "ensure that the will of politicians is put into practice."
Thornberry adds that she believes Robbins when he says pressure to approve Mandelson's appointment came from No.10 Downing Street, but does not believe it came from Starmer.
"I think that it was Morgan McSweeney," she says, referring to Starmer's former chief of staff.
"He resigned because of his role in the Mandelson thing, and he was a protege of Mandelson.
"He was open that he relied on him, and he was trying to deliver Mandelson the job."
Because Mandelson had already been announced as the US ambassador when details of the security vetting was known inside the Foreign Office, she says it would have been "humiliating for everybody" if Robbins had pulled the plug on him travelling to Washington for the job.
She does believe, however, that it was right for him to lose his job.
"I think Starmer should have fired Olly Robbins, because I don't think it's right for him to not tell people that there was a problem with the vetting," Thornberry adds.
"I don't think it's right for Ollie Robbins not to obtain a record.
"I like Ollie Robbins. I think that he's very talented, but it's pretty bad not telling anyone that there have been a problem with vetting with somebody who's as controversial as as Peter Mandelson."
Where does this leave Starmer?
When Keir Starmer entered Downing Street, he promised to clean up politics, and bring an end to the "constant scandal, cover up and misbehaviour" that was so common with the previous Tory government, says Jon.
Now look at the state of things.
"Keir Starmer promised the British people something very different, and whilst it may not have been proven that he has lied, I think what emerges is a feeling that he is slippery, evasive, and will do what is necessary to preserve himself," Jon says.
"That ain't a good look when you've told people to vote for you because you are going to clean up our politics."
Emily adds that the public is generous when it comes to people's mistakes, but only to a point.
"When it looks like a pattern of behaviour, when it looks like boys landing cushy jobs, when it looks like let's see what we can get away with now, then it starts looking really grubby," she says.