What Keir Starmer Got Wrong: A Crisis Communications Lesson 

The Mandelson vetting affair has become one of the most instructive, and damaging, examples of crisis communications mismanagement in recent political memory. Not because the underlying facts are necessarily fatal to the government, but because of how catastrophically the communications have been handled. 

The story, in brief: Peter Mandelson was appointed UK Ambassador to Washington in early 2025, despite having initially failed his security vetting. The Foreign Office overrode that recommendation using a rarely invoked authority. For months, Starmer publicly insisted that due process had been followed and that Mandelson had been given clearance. When The Guardian revealed the truth, the PM found himself accused of misleading Parliament, forced to sack the Foreign Office’s top civil servant, and facing resignation calls from every direction. 

There is plenty of political commentary on what this means for the government. From a crisis communications perspective, something more specific is worth examining. 

Know your timeline. Know your facts.

The first rule of any effective crisis response is simple: before you say anything, establish the facts. Who knew what, and when? What actually happened, and in what sequence? 

Starmer failed this test comprehensively. For months he stood at the dispatch box, in interviews, and in statements and told the public that vetting had been properly conducted. In February he said Mandelson had received clearance through “an intensive exercise” by the security services. He said due process was followed. These were specific, verifiable claims which turned out to be wrong. 

That is the definition of a hostage to fortune. When a leader makes confident factual assertions about a sensitive matter without first being certain those assertions are accurate, they risk the contradiction becoming a bigger story than the original issue. It is a pattern that can play out well beyond Westminster – in crisis management for schools, charities, public sector organisations and others, the same dynamic recurs with striking regularity.

Incuriosity is not a defence

The government’s current line, that Starmer simply wasn’t told about the vetting override, may be entirely true. But it creates a different problem. If a Prime Minister appoints someone to one of the most significant diplomatic roles in the world, someone whose associations with Jeffrey Epstein were already a matter of public record, the question of what the PM knew is the obvious one. 

A leader who says “I wasn’t told” about a material fact of that significance is demonstrating a failure of due diligence. In crisis terms, incuriosity becomes a major liability. 

The rule that should have applied

There is a straightforward discipline that applies here, and it is one we would encourage any leader to follow when facing media scrutiny over a complex or contested situation: if you do not know the full picture, do not fill in the gaps with confident assertions. 

Saying “I’m satisfied due process was followed” when you have not personally verified that is the kind of imprecision that becomes explosive under pressure. The safer, more honest position is to confirm only what you know for certain, acknowledge what you are still establishing, and commit to transparency when you have the full picture. It is a less compelling headline in the short term. It is far less damaging when the full picture eventually emerges, as it almost always does. 

The lesson

Crises rarely destroy reputations on their own. What destroys reputations is the gap between what a leader claimed and what turned out to be true. Starmer’s problem today is not primarily the vetting failure. It is the months of statements that now look, at best, careless and, at worst, misleading. 

There is an old rule in crisis communications: it’s not the crime that kills you, it’s the cover-up. Starmer may not have orchestrated a cover-up, but months of confident assertions that turned out to be wrong can look indistinguishable from one. In a reputation crisis, perception has a habit of becoming reality long before the full facts are established. 

Every effective crisis communications adviser will tell you the same thing: get the facts before you speak. And if you cannot get the facts, say so. 

Alder helps organisations deliver evidence-led communications in complex situations. Call us today to discuss your challenges.