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

Exactly LizzieDrip 18.56.

I recall also reading various newspaper articles at the time PM's appointment was annouced- putting a positive spin on the choice of PMs appointment, ie that PM had the right personality, skill set, etc to deal with a man like Trump and PM's career history- in the public domain for all parties to know- was not seen as an obstacle for dealing with a man like Trump.

knspol

Listening to the Laura K show this morning I was surprised that nobody asked a question about the 2 people in the cabinet office who reportedly knew about failing the security check a month ago but didn't tell Starmer??? (Antonia Romeo head of civil service and Catherine Little cabinet office permanent secretary ) Totally unbelievable that they had this info but didn't pass it on to Starmer.

Knowing what we now know it’s no surprise at all.
They and other civil servants are Gatekeepers of our democracy. What they decide irrespective of which party is in power goes. As has now been shown.

MT62

Doodledog

Oh, and I agree with winterwhite that it seems unlikely that Starmer would lie to parliament - it's not his style.

Really? He’s lied a few times! One example He said we could rip up our council tax bills as it would remain the same- funny ours has gone up.

And he promised Waspi women their money. Easy to say in Opposition, more difficult in Government, it seems. And before anyone thinks I have an axe to grind, I am too old to qualify as a Waspi women.

At the time of PM’s appointment, Nigel Farage said he thought PM was a ‘very intelligent man’ and his appointment as US ambassador was ‘a good idea’. He offered to work with PM on US trade deals.

The post ask did Starmer know about the failed security vetting. So far, no conclusive evidence her did.

Badenoch gets 6 questions a week at PMQs- If she had any concerns about PM's appointment, at the time his appointment was announced, she had 6 questions, very week to challenge Starmer, with an audience, in the HoC. She didn't.

And Starmer is a prime target given that he’s always worked towards repairing our broken relationship with Europe. So who is going to gain by having Starmer removed from office?

Starmer is working, of his own volition, to repair what he considers to be a broken relationship with Europe. A democratic referendum decided that Britain wished to leave the EU, and more importantly , resented the imposition of the ECHR above the Supreme Court. But since Starmer's arrival decisions are being delayed , for example, the clear directive about single sex lavatories for trans people; the delay on grooming gangs inquiry, the lack of a defence strategy and budget, etc etc, the failure to do anything about illegal migrants other than pay money hand over fist to Macron, who then lectures him about how woefully Britain is doing.

Worst of all, the Legacy Bill is being repealed, enthusiastically led by Starmer and Hermer, the suggesting being that it is done to appease the Irish government as a means of entry to Europe. This will enable human rights lawyers to prosecute veterans as the present system is 'incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights.' Senior members of the military are appalled, saying that it will leave soldiers open to harassment by 'money-grabbing lawyers in a legal cycle that can last for years. Witness the fraudulent Phil Shiner who was prosecuted for illegal practices but somehow evaded his prison sentence; and never forget who worked for him, pro bono, Starmer and Hermer who are both 'fanatical human rights lawyers.'
They need vetting as much as Mandelson.

All this hindsight talk is frankly ridiculous, when anyone even remotely interested in politics knows all about Peter Mandelson.
Starmer still hasn’t said why he was appointed.

It seemed to me what Starmer today said concurred with the content of the FAC November record of proceedings. Thus I cannot, so far, find and evidence he knowingly mislead Parliament.

DoodleDog- I agree with you. Badenoch and other current detractors reported. o qualms whatsoever about Peter Mandelson's appointment at the time. Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing.

As an aside was good to see the speaker direct Lee Anderson to leave the House for his comments.

Doodledog

An interesting thing about the 'debate' in the HoC is the fact that the people baying for blood now were far less vociferous when Mandelson was appointed. Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.

Oh come on! 😂 All of the UK could have told Starmer that appointing Mandelson had the greatest potential for things to go wrong.
Many MP’s did express incredulity at the time.Nobody needed hindsight…tho Starmer used to be called Captain Hindsight.

He is answering all of Badenoch's questions.

He is speaking slowly and clearly.

An interesting thing about the 'debate' in the HoC is the fact that the people baying for blood now were far less vociferous when Mandelson was appointed. Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.

You can watch it on The Guardian just now.
Normal process was followed.
The process has now been changed.

Presumably tomorrow's evidence will deny or confirm any 'perceived' pressure to pass him.

Agreed. And from whom.

I have posted before that I was curious why Case wasn’t called to give evidence to the FAC in November. Instead they called his successor Wormald who said:

… just for absolute clarity, I was appointed Cabinet Secretary on 16 December and Lord Mandelson was appointed on 18 December, so the processes we are going to describe mainly happened under my predecessor, Simon Case—I was there right at the end—but I will answer across the entire period.

Today, Emily Thornberry said that Mandelson’s appointment was leaked to the press, probably by Mandelson himself, effectively bouncing the Government into confirming it.

Here at 16:01:

www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e82f2c25-9b31-4868-b7fe-85284338d639

I read this on the BBC website earlier and it confirms what I thought should have happened. I didn't agree with Mandelson's appointment anyway but to announce it before his vetting contrary to the advice of Simon Case was a bad decision. I realise he may still have been appointed. Then again maybe if it hadn't already been announced there would be less incentive to override the guidance. Presumably tomorrow's evidence will deny or confirm any 'perceived' pressure to pass him.

Documents suggest Starmer was advised to vet Mandelson before ambassador announcement
published at 14:41
14:41
Paul Seddon
Politics reporter
Keir Starmer appears to have been advised to make Mandelson go through security vetting before announcing him as US ambassador, it has emerged.
The Labour peer was vetted by security officials after being publicly announced as Starmer’s pick for the role in December 2024.
But official documents published last month appear to suggest that Simon Case, then the UK’s top civil servant, advised the prime minister that any political appointee should be vetted first.
“If this is the route that you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice,” Case wrote.
The note, published last month as part of the initial response to a Commons motion demanding information about the appointment, was sent on 11 November 2024, over a month before the appointment was announced.

Apparently this will be the procedure going forward, it makes total sense. Even more sensible is for nobody with Mandelson's known history before further revelations surfaced to be given a third chance!

twaddle

Allira

It is a very serious and worrying matter but posters are still entitled to express their views even if they differ from others, are they not?

Of course! But I don't agree that all views are equal. The truth is always more important than views (opinions).

I think it’s a valid point to say that when people don’t stick to the known facts they are not respected by other posters, and that leads to what they say being disputed. We all have opinions, but an opinion based on known information from reliable sources, rather than personal prejudice, is the only one that counts as far as I’m concerned, which is nothing to do with whether I actually agree with it or not. I know, I’m a pedantic bore.

A point of accuracy - GN is a chat board, N&P is a forum within that board, this is a thread in the N&P forum, and I am writing a post on that thread 😀.

Anyway. I am watching about 20 mins behind, and so far I am confident that Starmer did not know about the vetting failure, and also that the system needs an urgent and comprehensive review. It seems to me ridiculous that the PM is not kept in the loop by civil servants. S/he should have all information available, as the PM is the one making decisions that they may make differently in the light of that information.

I am struggling to think of what sort of information might be so sensitive that even the PM can't be told it. Personal information that could be used to blackmail someone is a possible answer, but in that case the PM could be subject to an NDA - isn't it still important that s/he is aware if an important appointee is in such a precarious situation?

If any good comes out of this mess it might be that the Sir Humphreys of the civil service are curtailed in their powers - or is it important that they can operate outside of Party interests? I'm not sure I know the answer to that.

When Labour got in I thought, well give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. It's happening!

Sorry, I have no idea what that means. Who is attempting to control things?

🤔

Allira

Maremia

All views have an equal opportunity to be voiced, on Gransnet. (Within the rules)
It is up to each reader to decide which to believe/agree with/accept.

Precisely.

But not for others to try to control the rhetoric.

Where is this happening please?

I believe him.

Mandelson was not a good choice in hindsight, but I can see some logic behind it when dealing with such as Trump.

Well, he should have been told.
He wasn't.

twaddle

Allira

It is a very serious and worrying matter but posters are still entitled to express their views even if they differ from others, are they not?

Of course! But I don't agree that all views are equal. The truth is always more important than views (opinions).

So what exactly is the truth?

Maremia

All views have an equal opportunity to be voiced, on Gransnet. (Within the rules)
It is up to each reader to decide which to believe/agree with/accept.

Precisely.

But not for others to try to control the rhetoric.