Jonathan Freedland

That was the normal process.

And apparently it is.

So I think that was another misjudgment of his, but he was much less keen

to take responsibility for that one than he was for the overall original sin decision to appoint Mandelson in the first place.

I think a core one is why he didn't think...

damn the process.

This is an exceptional appointment of an exceptional candidate in not necessarily a good way.

I mean, exceptional in the sense of this person's had to quit twice or be forced out twice.

There are all these problematic associations.

Let's remind ourselves it was known about his ongoing post-conviction relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

That had been all over the Financial Times 18 months earlier.

Why didn't he just say, you know, forget what the rules say.

Tell me what happens from this security vetting.

Or, yeah, nice idea, Morgan McSweeney, my previous chief of staff that we appoint, Madison.

Let's just make sure we get full vetting before we even breathe a word of this.

You know, I wrote a piece at the weekend saying, if only he had been more aggressive.

of the dull technocratic lawyer that everyone said Keir Starmer was, then he would have asked, I'm sure of it, a top lawyer would just go, let's dot every I and cross every T here, especially as we're dealing with someone who is so often radioactive.

And I just don't think we've had good answers to that.

And probably because, in a way, the answers would suggest, look, Morgan McSweeney thought it was a bastard stroke to appoint him.

So did all you lot in the Westminster Village.