| Starmer and Labour are in a pickle 16:27 - Apr 16 with 4216 views | DJR |
https://www.theguardian.com/po
"Revealed: Mandelson failed vetting but Foreign Office overruled decision
Guardian investigation uncovers decision by UK security officials to deny clearance before Mandelson took up role as US ambassador"
It calls into question the following.
"Ministers and officials are now likely to be pressed over whether they have been fully transparent about the process that led to his appointment.
At a press conference in Hastings on 5 February, Starmer responded to a question from a journalist by saying there had been “security vetting, carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him [Mandelson] clearance for the role. You have to go through that before you take up the post.” He added: “Clearly both the due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again.”
This appeared to partly put the blame for Mandelson’s appointment on the failure of a vetting process which, according to sources, his government had overruled."
On top of all that Rayner isn't in the clear to challenge, and Streeting has close links to Mandelson. And the right of the party know that someone from their wing (such as Mahmood) won't cut it with the membership, and also despise Rayner.
Still, I suppose it goes to show the advantage of a friend in high places.  I underwent developed vetting nearly 40 years ago, and had I failed, I would have been out on my ass. [Post edited 16 Apr 16:43]
|  | | |  |
| Starmer and Labour are in a pickle on 20:52 - Apr 17 with 351 views | DJR |
| Starmer and Labour are in a pickle on 20:44 - Apr 17 by GlasgowBlue |
edit. Ignore that. Just read the full tweet. [Post edited 17 Apr 20:53]
|
I feel this will come back to bite Starmer especially with Robbins before the foreign affairs select committee next Tuesday. And I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't already contacted his union, the FDA. [Post edited 17 Apr 21:05]
| | | |
| Starmer and Labour are in a pickle on 20:53 - Apr 17 with 342 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Starmer and Labour are in a pickle on 09:59 - Apr 17 by BloomBlue |
The bigger question is why can an unelected civil servant moron working in the Foreign Office have more power than a Prime Minister?
It appears this moron decided to overall the vetting decision and not inform the PM. A classic situation of who actually controls the power in this country?
Sack the civil servant and take away their gold plated Tax payer funded pension, sometimes you need to make an example. |
These unelected morons are the ones who actually do the work. From your tone, are you suggesting they should all be elected? There’s half a million of them! We’d be having elections every day to deal with the constant churn.
The Brexit wangers have got a lot to answer for with spreading this unelected bureaucrat rubbish. IMO of course
Anyway, the big question seems more to be whether the unelected morons flagged Mandleson as a risk, as reported, but someone in government overruled them. That someone very likely to be Starmer. If that’s the case, he’s been lying to us and that could/should be a resignation matter. |  |
| |
| Starmer and Labour are in a pickle on 22:20 - Apr 17 with 255 views | DJR |
Here's a bit more from the Guardian
"Keir Starmer’s claim he was “staggered” not to have been told of Peter Mandelson’s vetting failure has provoked incredulity across Westminster and accusations that he sacked a senior civil servant to save his premiership.
Senior government figures said the prime minister faced “judgment day” next week when Olly Robbins, who is understood to be furious at being forced to quit the Foreign Office, is expected to appear before a powerful committee of MPs.
With Starmer’s position remaining precarious ahead of a statement he intends to make to MPs on Monday, the Guardian revealed on Friday that Starmer was left in the dark about information relating to Mandelson’s security vetting failure by two other top civil servants.
"Within hours of the disclosure, Robbins was forced out of his job as permanent secretary of the Foreign Office.
The former top official is understood to be extremely angry at what he believes to be his unfair treatment by the prime minister, and is said to believe that he was following due process.
Robbins could give his side of the story early next week, with the Commons foreign affairs select committee inviting him to give evidence on Tuesday. Some ministers are concerned he will use his public appearance before MPs to hit back at No 10’s version of events, which could be damaging for Starmer.
“I would be amazed if Olly didn’t keep receipts,” said one senior MP. | | | |
| Starmer and Labour are in a pickle on 09:08 - Apr 18 with 147 views | DJR |
These two statements, the first from Yvette Cooper last September and the second from Starmer yesterday, are don't really tally.
“We do not comment on the details of individual clearances or national security as a matter of course. The UK government’s national security vetting charter includes an undertaking to protect personal data and other information in the strictest confidence … The process is also independent of ministers who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. This remained the case in this instance.”
“That I wasn’t told that he’d failed security vetting when I was telling parliament that due process had been followed is unforgivable. Not only was I not told, no minister was told and I’m absolutely furious about it.”
There is also the nonsensical case that Starmer is making in relation to misleadling Parliament which Jonathan Freedland neatly summarises thus.
"Instead, he now has to rely on a defence that is lawyerly in the worst sense of that word. To have knowingly misled parliament is, in political terms, a capital crime. So the PM has to proceed on two tracks, one for “knowingly” the other for “misled”.
On the first, he insists that when he told MPs in September 2025 that “full due process” had been followed over Mandelson’s appointment, he believed that to be true. That, he explained with great vehemence on Friday, was because he and his fellow ministers had been kept in the dark over the decision taken by officials at the Foreign Office, or FCDO, to override Mandelson’s rejection by the vetters – a non-disclosure Starmer described as “staggering” and “unforgivable” and for which Olly Robbins, the top civil servant at the FCDO, paid with his job on Thursday night. That, No 10 hopes, deals with “knowingly”.
Second, and this is the kind of move that gives lawyers a bad name, Downing Street argues that, technically, full due process had been followed, in that the FCDO’s power to overrule a vetting recommendation is, in fact, a legitimate part of the official process – even if it’s one no minister knew about until now. On that reading, Starmer did not mislead parliament, even unknowingly, because what he told the Commons was technically true. That, he hopes, deals with “misled”."
The problem it seems to me is that Starmer didn't act in a sufficiently lawyerly (i.e. cautious) way to stop Mandelson's appointment, and now appears to be relying on a lawyerly defence that I am not sure would even stand up in a court of law, let alone the court of public opinion. | | | |
| Starmer and Labour are in a pickle on 09:31 - Apr 18 with 129 views | oldbeardy |
Starmer knew appointing Mandelson was a big risk when he announced it. He knew about the Epstein links and Mandelson's general character and past form. It would be interesting to know - not that we ever will - if the DV process produced any significant new info beyond what was already generally known, and known by Starmer. In other words, was the FO judgement that the appointment could go ahead despite the reported vetting "failure" simply a recognition that the PM already knew everything but had reached his own, different, judgement on the risks associated with Mandelson. |  | | |
| Starmer and Labour are in a pickle on 09:54 - Apr 18 with 105 views | DJR |
| Starmer and Labour are in a pickle on 09:31 - Apr 18 by oldbeardy |
Starmer knew appointing Mandelson was a big risk when he announced it. He knew about the Epstein links and Mandelson's general character and past form. It would be interesting to know - not that we ever will - if the DV process produced any significant new info beyond what was already generally known, and known by Starmer. In other words, was the FO judgement that the appointment could go ahead despite the reported vetting "failure" simply a recognition that the PM already knew everything but had reached his own, different, judgement on the risks associated with Mandelson. |
There was also the Cabinet Office due diligence report given to Starmer which warned him of numerous conflicts of interest and describedMandelson as carrying a "reputational risk". [Post edited 18 Apr 9:54]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
