People think vetting procedures exist to uncover truth and prevent bad appointments. In reality, UK vetting systems function as administrative theatre - creating the appearance of due diligence while preserving maximum discretion for decision-makers. This episode reveals how the Mandelson ambassadorship exposes vetting as a ritual rather than an investigation, designed to allocate responsibility without actually assessing risk.

In this episode, I explain:
• Why vetting relies on self-declaration rather than independent verification
• How "plausible deniability" is built into the vetting architecture
• Why serious questions are reframed as tick-box exercises
• How the system protects appointers more than the public interest
• Why US-style confirmation hearings terrify the UK establishment

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

Vetting systems allocate political risk, not uncover truth
Self-declaration models privilege reputation over verification
The system is designed to give appointers "clean hands" after failures
Serious ethical questions get reduced to procedural compliance
Transparency would collapse the current power allocation system

REFERENCED TODAY:
• Cabinet Office vetting procedures and levels
• Business Appointment Rules (ACOBA)
• US Senate confirmation hearing process
• Ministerial Code enforcement mechanisms
• Freedom of Information Act exemptions for appointments

DISCLAIMER:
This podcast is for general information only. It does not provide legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship.