Mandelson failed security vetting. Starmer says he didn’t know

Primrose53

It seems to me that people have lost confidence in KS - even many in his own party.

As I said yesterday only 25 parliamentarians out of 403 turned up to support him yesterday. During his questioning on Monday I only saw two MPs speaking out in his support.

I think the May election results will be make or break for KS.

Mandelson's appointment seems to have been one of those 'counter-intuitive' ideas so much in fashion at the moment.

It seems to me that people have lost confidence in KS - even many in his own party.

As I said yesterday only 25 parliamentarians out of 403 turned up to support him yesterday. During his questioning on Monday I only saw two MPs speaking out in his support.

Olly Robbins did not know red boxes had been ticked twaddle. He didn't know and had never seen that particular document showing the red boxes. All he was told that there was a leaning toward not giving Mandelson clearance.

Yvette Cooper and Ed Miliband have now publicly distanced themselves from Keir Starmer.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8de1j4z4do

It seems that Keir Starmer was not told about the failed vetting and Robbins has done nothing wrong but has been dismissed.
The problem arising from this is the civil service losing confidence in Starmer. "A chill wind is blowing through the civil service". The feeling that even if they follow procedure they can be sacked.
I don't want Starmer to go but I think he needs to work to mend fences with the civil service as he needs them.

Casdon

*Sarnia*, it has been established that Starmer did not lie and mislead parliament, because he was not told. That is the material point.
People are trying to find other holes to bury him in now. I don’t dispute that he handled Mandelson’s appointment badly or that Olly Robbins was treated unfairly, but lying to parliament was always going to be a much more serious offence.

Clear, concise and accurate. Oh that we had more posts like this.

Sarnia, it has been established that Starmer did not lie and mislead parliament, because he was not told. That is the material point.
People are trying to find other holes to bury him in now. I don’t dispute that he handled Mandelson’s appointment badly or that Olly Robbins was treated unfairly, but lying to parliament was always going to be a much more serious offence.

twaddle

Casdon

You’re embroidering now ronin. Olly Robbins indicated no such thing, he merely said vetting was a Civil Service issue to deal with. It would appear this practice applies to all similar appointments.

Not only similar appointments. I know somebody who is in a job much lower down the chain than ambassador who had to undergo this same vetting procedure. That's how I knew how it works.

As far as I can see, the mistakes are:

1 Thinking that Mandelson would be a good choice for ambassador, but I can understand the reasoning and it is true that the choice was applauded by many for being brave and bold.
2 Announcing the appointment before the vetting was complete. We all know now how vetting works. There is preliminary vetting before the appointment is made (maybe even before the candidate is considered), which is based on information in the public domain. An offer of appointment is made, but there will be a contract stating that it is conditional on successful vetting. It would appear that the appointment was announced before that process was complete. Emily Thornberry thinks it could have been Mandelson who leaked the information to the press.
3 There seems to be some doubt whether Mandelson "failed" the vetting or was borderline. Robbins at this stage made the decision to overrule any fail (if there was one) or thought there were mitigations to negate any fail. He was not allowed to give details of the concerns, but interpreted this to mean that he couldn't tell anybody the outcome. Starmer disputes this interpretation.

At no stage is there evidence that Starmer "lied".

From what Olly Robbins said there was constant pressure on them to rush Mandelson's appointment through before Trump's inauguration, come what may.
KS also pressured the Foreign Office into finding a senior role for Matthew Doyle, another with links to a paedophile.
As a former lawyer and as our current PM he shows little understanding for how certain processes work and surely the basic fact that Mandelson had close links with Epstein should have been enough not to have even considered him for US Ambassador. KS only has himself to blame for the mess he finds himself in now.

It's actually a bit ambiguous. Robbins stated that Mandeslon was "borderline", so he passed him anyway because he was under pressure to do so. However, he also stated that the red boxes were ticked, which would have been failures. Which one was it?

I'm not sure any competent employer would necessarily have known the rules about confidentiality on vetting. I've certainly know employers who haven't understood. If Mandelson had failed, Starmer would have been told the outcome, but not the reason but he didn't fail. Robbins passed him. Starmer had no reason to ask what had gone on.

Under current legislation, Robbins was barred from talking to the prime minister about Mandy’s leaning towards failing vetting. As any competent prime minister would have known.
Robbins had not seen the official form confirming the red box failed vetting for Mandy. Robbins has been sacked without due process for obeying the law.
Disgraceful. What has this country become? Robbins was not responsible for the structure surrounding vetting which has been in place for many years I understand.

Iam64

Abbot, Corbyn and McDonnell opposed Starmer as leader. They always intended to move to replace him as leader at the first opportunity.
It would be funny, except it isn’t to see posters who share the views of Primrose somehow presenting those three as arbiters of political reliability

If Corbyn had had any integrity he would have stood down after losing the first election; isn’t that what most party leaders do? And one of the reasons why people didn’t vote for him was the thought of Dianne Abbott being Home Secretary because, as great a parliamentarian as she had been she had become an embarrassment.

Wyllow3

"The one thing that does appear to be blatantly obvious is that KS wanted Mandelson, and the decision to announce his appointment before any vetting had taken place was a massive error and one which he and he alone is responsible for"

But Smileless -they all wanted Mandelson, Farage included thought it was an appropriate move for a man like Trump. It was Labour soft left that grumbled, knowing him to be an "operator" not a principled man.

Ed Milliband and David Lammy didn’t want him.

And Zarah Sultana.

Abbot, Corbyn and McDonnell opposed Starmer as leader. They always intended to move to replace him as leader at the first opportunity.
It would be funny, except it isn’t to see posters who share the views of Primrose somehow presenting those three as arbiters of political reliability

Primrose53

MT62

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Thornberry, Lady Nugee, has no love for Starmer I’ll bet after she was passed over for the Foreign Secretary job in favour of Mastermind Lammy.

Revenge is a dish best served cold and I expect she will savouring every mouthful this morning.

Neither is Dianne Abbot- how good was she yesterday

Dianne did well yesterday and surprised me actually. She looked very pleased with herself. Staunch old Labourites Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell also had a go at KS.

Only 25 of 403 Labour parliamentarians turned up today to support their PM. Not looking good for Labour.

I don't suppose anybody is surprised that Abbot, Corbyn and McDonnell didn't miss a chance to have a go at Starmer.

David49

The vetting process was so flawed and chaotic, how can we have confidence in a government that is so blatantly incompetent

The "government" wasn't incompetent. The same thing could have happened whichever government was in power (and possibly has). The civil service system was flawed.

Perhaps it is the process that is 'incompetent'?
The process that is now being amended by this Government.

The vetting process was so flawed and chaotic, how can we have confidence in a government that is so blatantly incompetent

Sin of Omission.
Starmer so desperate for Mandelson to be cleared by vetting process that he announced his appointment without confirming his clearance.
As Dianne Abbott said so sweetly, Why did you not ask?

Starmer has made enemies on his way up and they have not forgotten . See his own MPs lining up to attack him in the Commons yesterday?

.

ronib

Every word spoken by Olly Robbins indicates that Starmer doesn’t understand the vetting process and Starmer has not said a word to correct this.

No they didn't. ! Watched the whole session.
What was absolutely clear was that KS and senior FCO and CO ministers were not at any stage informed by Mr. Robbins of either “borderline” issues, as Mr. Robbins claimed he was informed, or high security and reject recommendation red boxes ticked by the independent vetting service.
Mr. Robbins confirmed exactly that and that he still believes his decision to withhold that information was the correct course of action.

Clearly, the PM and ministers do not agree with him. They were allowed to stand before parliament and make statements Mr. Robbins knew to be untrue.

MT62

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Thornberry, Lady Nugee, has no love for Starmer I’ll bet after she was passed over for the Foreign Secretary job in favour of Mastermind Lammy.

Revenge is a dish best served cold and I expect she will savouring every mouthful this morning.

Neither is Dianne Abbot- how good was she yesterday

Dianne did well yesterday and surprised me actually. She looked very pleased with herself. Staunch old Labourites Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell also had a go at KS.

Only 25 of 403 Labour parliamentarians turned up today to support their PM. Not looking good for Labour.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Thornberry, Lady Nugee, has no love for Starmer I’ll bet after she was passed over for the Foreign Secretary job in favour of Mastermind Lammy.

Revenge is a dish best served cold and I expect she will savouring every mouthful this morning.

Neither is Dianne Abbot- how good was she yesterday

Casdon

You’re embroidering now ronin. Olly Robbins indicated no such thing, he merely said vetting was a Civil Service issue to deal with. It would appear this practice applies to all similar appointments.

Not only similar appointments. I know somebody who is in a job much lower down the chain than ambassador who had to undergo this same vetting procedure. That's how I knew how it works.

As far as I can see, the mistakes are:

1 Thinking that Mandelson would be a good choice for ambassador, but I can understand the reasoning and it is true that the choice was applauded by many for being brave and bold.
2 Announcing the appointment before the vetting was complete. We all know now how vetting works. There is preliminary vetting before the appointment is made (maybe even before the candidate is considered), which is based on information in the public domain. An offer of appointment is made, but there will be a contract stating that it is conditional on successful vetting. It would appear that the appointment was announced before that process was complete. Emily Thornberry thinks it could have been Mandelson who leaked the information to the press.
3 There seems to be some doubt whether Mandelson "failed" the vetting or was borderline. Robbins at this stage made the decision to overrule any fail (if there was one) or thought there were mitigations to negate any fail. He was not allowed to give details of the concerns, but interpreted this to mean that he couldn't tell anybody the outcome. Starmer disputes this interpretation.

At no stage is there evidence that Starmer "lied".

ronib

Every word spoken by Olly Robbins indicates that Starmer doesn’t understand the vetting process and Starmer has not said a word to correct this.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're claiming. Please could you give a specific example. It's a gross hyperbole to say that every word spoken by Robbins indicates lack of understanding. Which words?