It’s not often brought up that Civil Servants also have their own beliefs, views, and opinions because the Service is supposed to be free of such prejudicial party politics. It’s not however considered that some people become more familiar than others, and it may have been this that prejudiced a decision to clear Peter Mandelson when he shouldn’t have been given it.
It’s not so much an issue of the party, but it can be a result of the party’s interaction in Whitehall, for instance, and in wider government. The name recognition of some people has helped them in their careers immensely, and it’s no different for Peers and those that appear in the news media often.
This in itself is a currency of acceptance that may have persuaded some to overlook concerns that were flagged but may have seemed out of character for Mandelson. If he did need more rigour in the vetting there is a question over why it hadn’t been raised before, or volunteered as information by someone in the Intelligence services.
The Labour party is run by its ability to get things done with the people it’s got and the absence of Mandelson may have looked like too large a gap to leave. In the political calculations of those nearer to the action, perhaps such a denial would be too late in his career, not serve the interests of the country, and deny a stronger candidate a place in an admittedly fraught period of time.
