“That’s not a place any government wants to be because it doesn’t deliver for the people of the country,” Penman added.
On Monday, Sir Keir sought to minimize any sense of a rift with the civil service when he advised MPs: “We have thousands of civil servants who act with integrity and professionalism every day.”
The row between Downing Street and the union representing senior civil servants is the newest fault line to emerge as a consequence of the newest revelations regarding the appointment of Lord Mandelson because the UK’s ambassador in Washington final yr.
Lord Sedwill, who was head of the civil service from 2018 to 2020 and can be a former National Security Adviser, has mentioned the prime minister ought to “retract his accusations” in opposition to Sir Olly and reinstate him.
In a letter to The Times he wrote: “As Robbins explained yesterday, the question for him was not whether to tell the prime minister what he already knew, but whether those issues could be mitigated enough to allow Mandelson access to the secret intelligence necessary to do his job.
“He made the skilled judgment that they may. Unwisely because it turned out, he shouldered his obligations moderately than shunting them.”
Supporters of the prime minister have sought to portray the testimony of Sir Olly as vindication that Sir Keir didn’t know about the vetting details or, crucially, conclusions Sir Olly had been briefed about.
Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme he believed the evidence showed Sir Keir had acted fairly, due to a “basic disagreement” between the pair.
He mentioned: “I believe the prime minister has acted pretty in these circumstances, as a result of he believes that he ought to have had that info, that it was related to the appointment.”
Sir Olly told MPs he was right not to share this in order to protect the integrity of the vetting system.
Pressed on whether or not he knew if Sir Keir was behind calls to Sir Olly about finding a job for then head of communications at No 10, Matthew Doyle, McFadden mentioned: “No I am unable to let you know the small print of this as a result of I solely heard them yesterday although Olly Robbins’ proof.”
McFadden added he did not assume Doyle “would have had the {qualifications} to do this” but “it is common to have conversations when somebody is leaving about what they’ll do”.
In a boost to Downing Street’s position, Dame Emily Thornberry, the Labour MP who chairs the select committee, said after the hearing on Tuesday that she had also concluded that it was right that Sir Olly had lost his job.
But let’s take a step back.
This is the seventh day in a row that the self-inflicted damage of the Lord Mandelson saga has rained down on the prime minister, and this element of it over the last week is but a chapter in the wider story.
The minutiae of the prime minister’s most politically consequential decision in office are now being forensically dissected and, frequently, in public. At the select committee, in the Commons and in the press.
The building blocks of a judgement call Sir Keir now acknowledges he got catastrophically wrong are being scrutinised daily.
So much for the grid of announcements and campaign events Labour folk in Scotland, Wales and in the areas of England with council elections would love to be focused on. Instead, there is incessant conversation about Lord Mandelson.
And Sir Olly, who was dumped on by Downing Street from a prime ministerial height over the last few days, responded with a modestly expressed assault on its judgement, sense of fairness and proportion.
Granted, they have been gunning for his judgement too, in a circular firing squad about credibility.
With Prime Minister’s Questions at lunchtime and the prospect within the coming weeks of the subsequent deluge of paperwork regarding Lord Mandelson’s appointment being revealed, this can be a foul-up Sir Keir is struggling to flee.
