The Peter Mandelson scandal presents a stark and troubling study in contrasts: the description of a “thorough” and lengthy vetting process versus the damning result of an appointee being fired for a scandal that should have been uncovered.
On one hand, former ambassador Kim Darroch paints a picture of a robust system. He describes a process that takes “weeks and weeks,” involves interviews with un-nominated sources, and aims to “discover things that maybe weren’t advertised.” This is the system as it is meant to be.
On the other hand, we have the reality of Peter Mandelson. He was appointed despite his known toxic associations, and the vetting process completely missed the private emails that proved to be the final nail in his coffin. The result is a catastrophic failure that makes the claims of a “thorough” process look questionable at best.
This chasm between theory and practice is at the heart of the questions now facing the government. Was the Mandelson vetting an anomaly, a case where the process was rushed or compromised? Or is the system itself not as thorough as its defenders claim, possessing a critical blind spot when it comes to the digital lives of candidates? Resolving this contrast is now a matter of national importance.
