The question being asked everywhere today is “how did it happen”? Because the vibe out of Downing Street this morning seems to be that nobody anywhere did anything wrong, processes were followed, and everything went by the book. 

But can they really, honestly, believe that?

To recap, the reason that everyone is asking is to try and discern whether the failings are a consequence of a fundamental, unfixable flaw at the heart of Keir Starmer’s operation.

Politics latest: Starmer ‘very vulnerable’ following Mandelson revelations

Yesterday, we told you that the security services had raised red flags about the appointment of Peter Mandelson, yet Number 10 went ahead.

The story was nuanced. We did not say that Peter Mandelson had failed a deep vetting, just that concerns were relayed and the appointment went ahead.

We put the story to Downing Street, and – being candid – I did not understand what their official response meant, beyond it quite obviously not being a denial.

As a response, Number 10 said to us that the security vetting process is all done at a department level – with no Number 10 involvement.

To a wider group of political journalists, an hour and a half after we aired the story, Number 10 said they were “not involved in the security vetting process. This is managed at the departmental level”.

Today, the line from Downing Street seems to be that there was no official level block on the appointment, so it went ahead.

Although The Times has reports from allies of Lord Mandelson claiming he disclosed everything, the exact chain of events remains opaque.

But for those who want to understand the inner workings of government, here is more detail about the two types of check that would have gone on, and what this tells us.

Firstly, by the security services.

The Cabinet Office led both on vetting and separately on propriety and ethics (a form of government HR) but in effect, it’s multi-agency and multi-department.

In this instance, potentially multiple agencies would likely feed into the Foreign Office, or FCDO.

FCDO then act as a liaison for vetting – what I’m told is known as a “front face” – and an FCDO official takes a note to tie everything together.

We are being told that this amounts to a binary decision.

So, potentially, an FCDO official ties up the findings from both agencies and departments in one place and that’s given to the Permanent Under Secretary at the department (Philip Barton, later Olly Robbins) and Number 10.

So the recommendations can both be “by a Foreign Office official” and from security services at the same time. That potentially explains some reporting this morning.

I believe, ultimately, I was told about the security service red flags because they do not want to share the blame for a catastrophic intelligence miss that has harmed this government severely.

And is a situation like this ever binary? If there are matters of judgement for the PM to weigh up, are we honestly saying they are kept from him?

Sources tell me there are always conversations around the side of these processes: it would be recklessly incurious of Number 10 if this had not been the case for someone who already resigned twice and whose association with Jeffrey Epstein was in the public domain.

Read more:
Serious questions remain about Starmer’s political judgement
Mandelson’s exit leaves Donald Trump’s state visit in the lurch

But then there is a second, Cabinet Office-led process which is arguably more important.

There will have been checks on Lord Mandelson by examining what’s in the public domain.

It is, quite simply as one person said to me, a “Google check”.

This, too, must have flagged stories about Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein post-conviction, and gone to Number 10.

At this point, the question is why No 10 did not see the sheer enormity of the risk this posed and pressed ahead anyway.

Who thought this was okay, and why?

There is a witch-hunt vibe to the Parliamentary Labour Party right now.

Now – and forever – there will be footage of Sir Keir Starmer in the Commons chamber defending keeping an ally in place who admitted a close relationship with a known paedophile after conviction and a jail sentence, before sacking him the next day.

The previous week, he was defending another ally who had avoided tax, before sacking her two days later.

The damage is likely to be immense.

Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, the paedophile and the peer.

It was a friendship that endured even beyond Epstein’s convictions and one on Thursday that ended Lord Mandelson’s political career.

Politics Live: Starmer accused of ‘blatant disregard for national security considerations’

When emails emerged of exchanges between the two men showing Lord Mandelson remaining supportive of Epstein even after he was convicted for the sex trafficking of underage girls, it was clear he had to go.

Lord Mandelson tried to cling on. The PM summarily relieved him of his duties.

There had initially been an appetite to keep him, in order to avoid embarrassing Donald Trump, who himself is being asked questions about his association with Epstein – and hates it.

But when these emails emerged, it was clear to No 10 that the scandal would blow up the state visit and Mandelson had to go.

But what was also true was that even attempting to keep him in these circumstances could blow up Sir Keir Starmer.

The parliamentary party – and particularly many of the women MPs – were absolutely furious that Mandelson had backed a convicted paedophile against women and girls who had, to quote one victim, been passed to men by Epstein like fruit trays.

The spectre of a powerful man like Mandelson trying to protect him and even the thought of the PM trying to row in behind was absolutely unconscionable.

As Harriet Harman said on our Electoral Dysfunction podcast before he was sacked: “These young women talked about the ruination of their lives by this man abusing his wealth and his power.

“And the idea that Peter Mandelson sided with Epstein in that situation – and this is always the question – whose side are you on?

“You’ve got to be on the side of the vulnerable and not against the person who commits criminal offences, abusing their power.”

Harman also said she thought the prime minister would have been in “anguish” over having to defend Mandelson in the Commons.

He looked almost as green as the green benches on Wednesday as he insisted he had full confidence in his ambassador, despite warnings from Mandelson himself that more embarrassing material was about to emerge.

When that material did emerge, I understand that the PM spent the evening in Downing Street going through the material and then summoned his new Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, who has been a tireless champion in the fight to end violence against women and girls, for a meeting in which they decided to sack Mandelson.

Read more:
No 10 appointed Mandelson despite concerns
Analysis – why wasn’t Mandelson fired yesterday?

That the US ambassador didn’t go of his own accord has angered many MPs and probably the PM, who has a record of prosecuting child sex offenders and made halving violence against women and girls a priority for this government.

Now Mandelson has gone. But, with the end of that comes new questions.

Questions about Keir Starmer’s political judgement.

This is not the first time Lord Mandelson has resigned in disgrace.

He stepped down as trade secretary over a loan from a colleague he failed to register under Tony Blair, and then quit again as Northern Ireland secretary over a cash for passports scandal.

And now the question is, in light of the Epstein connection, why did Starmer let him back in?

There is talk around Westminster that his key advisers had backed the move and Starmer had some reservations.

As well he might, because in the end, the scandal of it all stops at the PM’s door.

There are questions as to whether No 10 ignored concerns raised by the appointment and Badenoch is asking for full transparency.

My colleague, Sam Coates, was told by two sources that the security services did flag concerns as part of the process.

It is not known whether all of the detail was shared with the prime minister personally.

The prime minister’s official spokesman said No 10 “was not involved in the security vetting process”.

Badenoch said the latest revelations “point yet again to the terrible judgement of Keir Starmer”.

She added that it is “imperative that all documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment are released immediately”.

Then there is a bigger picture.

Two weeks into a supposed reset, two scandals and two key figures gone from government.

This was a PM who promised to do politics differently and clean up after the scandal-ridden Tory years.

Peter Mandelson’s return to government and ousting in this manner casts a long shadow over the PM and that promise, and raises serious questions about the PM’s political judgement.

It also casts a shadow over the upcoming state visit.

It was only on Wednesday that No 10 was thinking about trying to keep Mandelson to try to avoid putting the spotlight back onto President Trump.

With the White House, Royal Family and the UK government all tarnished by association with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, this was an issue they all wanted to avoid and now it is top of the agenda.

Left-wing MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy has said she did not secure the nominations required to make it into the next round of Labour’s deputy leadership contest.

It means it is now a two-horse race between Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson and former Commons leader Lucy Powell, after the other three contenders pulled out.

Politics Live: Read Lord Peter Mandelson’s letter to US embassy staff after being sacked

In a statement on social media, Ms Ribeiro-Addy said: “Unfortunately, I have not secured the high number of nominations required to proceed in the deputy leadership contest.

“I am disappointed that the full range of Labour members’ views will not be represented on the ballot paper.”

The required nominations from fellow Labour MPs was 80, which Ms Phillipson surpassed yesterday evening with 116 votes. Ms Powell was just shy of the threshold at 77 as of 7pm Wednesday, however many MPs have declared their backing for her since so she is expected to make it through.

The deadline to reach 80 was 5pm Thursday, with a final tally expected to be published later this evening.

Nominations only opened on Tuesday, leading to accusations from the left of a “stitch-up” aimed at preventing outsiders from having time to shore up a high level of support. (80 MPs is 20% of the parliamentary party).

Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee decided on the rules of the contest, which was triggered by the resignation of Angela Rayner after she admitted to underpaying stamp duty on a flat she bought in Hove.

Initially six people entered the race but housing minister Alison McGovern dropped out on Wednesday afternoon, conceding she was not going to get the support required. She had just two official nominations at the time.

Dame Emily Thornberry and Paula Barker withdrew this morning, having less than 15 nominations each as of last night’s tally.

Many MPs had wanted a third candidate to make it to the next round to offer an alternative to Labour members, who will decide on the winner, as Ms Powell and Ms Phillipson are seen to be similar.

Ms Powell, the MP for Manchester Central, was a member of government until last week when she was sacked in Sir Keir Starmer’s reshuffle.

One reluctant backer told Sky News that while she is “more left than Bridget” she is “hardly a socialist”.

However, another of her supporters said she gave an impressive pitch at an online hustings event on Wednesday night, when she argued that no longer being in government would work in her favour.

They told Sky News: “Her pitch is that she’s been the shop steward of the parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) in government, but now she’s not in government, she can dedicate herself to the role of deputy leader full time without a department to run. She wants to focus on defining our voter coalition and making sure we’re speaking to them.”

The same MP suggested Ms Phillipson might be too busy to take on the deputy leadership role properly, especially as she is overseeing reforms to SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) “which could be a horror show”.

However, while Ms Powell might be the preferred choice for those who want a candidate independent of the party leadership, Ms Phillipson is popular with MPs loyal to the government.

The contest is an unwelcome distraction for Sir Keir, who just last week launched his phase two “reset” following a difficult first year in office and weeks of negative headlines on immigration.

This was before the row over Ms Rayner’s tax affairs kicked off – forcing her to also quit as housing secretary and deputy prime minister and sparking a wider government reshuffle.