Point 3) what's the use of vetting? Sir Olly's response to one of Fleur Anderson's questions was interesting. My paraphrasing, but he implied that DV in the Foreign Office isn't really a pass or fail (as it might be elsewhere, eg home office, financial services company, etc), it's to identify risks because of a persons background and foibles that if documented can be managed and mitigated. It seems it failed in Mandelson's case because of his duplicity and lack of honesty during the vetting interview? (Could anyone mitigate the Prince of Darkness's risks?) Sir Olly made an interesting point, if DV was just a filtering and blocking mechanism one would exclude some of the best innovative and broad thinking people because of their individual weaknesses and past mistakes resulting in a boring, bland set of individuals and loss of talent. In the same way it's often saidculture trumps strategy, should we consider that sometimes expertise and experience often trumps process? I suspect Mandelson was selected because his Macchiavellian nature was considered a match for the "Trumpian" court but he lied and hid things - like the payments from Epstein and information he'd leaked - that couldn't be mitigated once they came into the open. Or perhaps he did, but obviously the vetting process wouldn't allow them to be disclosed to #10. A high risk decision that failed? Perhaps if Mandelson hadn't been exposed in the Epstein files it might have paid dividends long term? We'll never know!It's interesting, because if the vetting results can't be sent to the managers, quite rightlyfor reasons of confidentiality, how can they manage and mitigate any risks? A flawed process?
Michael Ixer ● 20d