Trust in politics is hard won and easily lost. Labour came into government promising seriousness, integrity and a break from the cynicism that has damaged public life over the previous fourteen years of Tory rule. The Lord Mandelson scandal has shaken that promise to the core and the Prime Minister’s judgement has been brought into question. Whether one sees the controversy as a lapse of judgment, a failure of vetting, or something more systemic, the political reality is clear: it has dented public confidence and handed ammunition to our opponents.
For Labour, the question is not how loudly we defend ourselves, but how convincingly we demonstrate that we have learned, changed and strengthened the system. If Keir Starmer is to restore trust, he must go beyond managing the fallout. He must use this pivotal moment to reform how power operates at the centre of government and demonstrate to the public that we acknowledge the problem and are working flat out to resolve it.
Accountability First: Owning the Misjudgement
Voters are weary of deflection – they want accountability. The Prime Minister doesn’t need to accept personal wrongdoing as he did not have the personal relationship with Epstein, but he needs to acknowledge that the appointment was a misjudgement and that due diligence should have been more robust. Clear ownership resets the tone. It signals that Labour holds itself to a higher standard which is what the public want and expect. But tone is not enough, it needs to be followed by structural change.
Reforming the Appointments Process
One clear lesson is that the process for senior political appointments needs to be strengthened, particularly to diplomatic and advisory roles. At present, too much rests on informal networks, political trust and the assumption that past controversies are “priced in”. Labour should introduce a transparent and independent vetting process for senior appointments made by ministers. This could take form in multiple ways but having a compulsory independent report from an ethics commissioner as well as a short, formal parliamentary scrutiny hearing for ambassadorial-level roles, senior civil service roles, and indeed some Ministerial appointments.
The Committee would not be able to block an appointment, but it could have the power to make recommendations that the Prime Minister would need to consider. None of this undermines ministerial authority. It protects it. A Prime Minister should not be left exposed because internal checks were insufficiently rigorous.
Trust depends on independence. The Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests must have genuine authority, including the power to initiate investigations without waiting for the Prime Minister’s consent. That reform has long been debated; now is the moment to enact it. If Labour is serious about raising standards, it should support an automatic publication of advice on potential conflicts, clear timelines for investigation and reporting, and sanctions that are transparent and proportionate.
When oversight is credible, public suspicion declines. With the right and the media already questioning the independence of any policies investigation, having a governmental system that provides the strongest level of scrutiny possible is essential.
Merit Over Patronage: Ending the Culture of Political Reward
One uncomfortable feature of British politics is the blurring of lines between party service and public service. While political loyalty is a reality of any governing system, it must not override judgment about suitability.
Labour should codify a principle that public appointments, particularly those representing His Majesty’s Government overseas, must be justified primarily on merit and national interest, not political reward. This could be embedded in updated Cabinet Office guidance and reinforced through parliamentary scrutiny. Such a measure would not stop former MPs or Ministers being appointed to roles, but it would introduce an extra qualification requiring relevant knowledge and experience, affording the public the confidence that appointments are made on the basis of merit and genuine skill rather than patronage.
Scandals often arise not from a single decision but from a culture in which personal trust substitutes for institutional safeguards. Labour came to power promising professionalism. That professionalism must now extend to how decisions are made.
Number 10 should formalise documentation of appointment advice and risk assessments and allow Parliamentary scrutiny of such documentation. A clearer separation between political advisers and civil service vetting functions must be embedded as the Prime Minister appears to have prioritised the advice of his former advisor, Morgan McSweeney over civil service suggestions. Number 10 should also ensure that senior hires undergo structured security and reputational risk review to a greater level than is currently in place. This is not bureaucracy for its own sake – it’s resilience and ensuring a scandal like this never occurs again.
Transparency, Reform and the Road Ahead
The instinct in moments of crisis is to contain information. That instinct is understandable but counterproductive. Transparency, handled well, is politically safer than secrecy. Starmer should consider publishing a short internal review of what went wrong procedurally and what reforms are being implemented. Not a defensive document, but a forward-looking one. Voters respond positively when leaders demonstrate learning rather than defensiveness.
If Labour wants to go further, this moment can be a catalyst for wider political reform that transcends the immediate scandal. Possible reforms could include a statutory footing for the Ministerial Code, introducing stronger rules on post-ministerial employment including a clearer cooling-off period for sensitive roles. To strengthen Parliament’s role, expanded powers for parliamentary committees to scrutinise high-profile appointments should also be considered. These reforms would not only address the present controversy; they would strengthen the architecture of accountability for future governments of any party and demonstrate to the public that the Prime Minister is a man of integrity who genuinely cares about public service and standards in public life.
Ultimately, restoring trust is not just about process, it’s about values. Labour’s moral claim to govern rests on fairness, integrity and a belief that power should serve the public good. If we appear to operate by different rules, we forfeit that claim. Keir Starmer’s leadership has been defined by discipline and seriousness. This is an opportunity to reinforce that identity, not retreat from it. By acting decisively to reform the system, he can demonstrate that Labour does not defend mistakes; it corrects them and takes ownership when things go wrong.
Political scandals are rarely fatal on their own. What determines their impact is how leaders respond. Voters are realistic – they understand that no government is immune from error. What they will not tolerate is complacency. They know that people can slip through the net and unsuitable people can worm their way into senior roles, but if Labour responds with structural reform, greater transparency and a renewed commitment to institutional integrity, the Mandelson affair can become a turning point rather than a lasting sting. It can mark the moment when Labour proved that it is serious not only about winning power, but about governing responsibly. Trust is rebuilt not by words alone but by action. The country is watching to see which path we choose.
