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

Rash judgements!

Primrose53

Wow! just watched Susannah Reid and Ed Balls on ITV grilling the Secretary of State for Scotland over Starmer. They did not hold back and both seemed really shocked that he appointed Mandelson and has got this so badly wrong.

I then turned over to GB News and the former Head of MI6 was being interviewed and he explained the different levels of vetting and he was very surprised at how Starmer has handled this.

Who would you prefer to be in charge please?

Because you are clearly enjoying this.

Sir Keir Starmer has been in Downing Street for almost two years, but the next 48 hours are expected to be the most crucial in determining the fate of his premiership.

The Prime Minister will face MPs this afternoon (pity I’m out and about so will miss the grilling he will get) to give a statement on the latest twists in the Mandelson scandal, and is unlikely to get an easy ride from either his own side or Opposition MPs

That said I don’t believe he has lied
I think he wasn’t informed by Olly Robbins.

Time will tell.

AGAA4

Hung drawn and quartered even before the enquiry. The media is judge, jury and executioner.

With the "tricoteuses" enjoying the show!

Primrose53

Wow! just watched Susannah Reid and Ed Balls on ITV grilling the Secretary of State for Scotland over Starmer. They did not hold back and both seemed really shocked that he appointed Mandelson and has got this so badly wrong.

I then turned over to GB News and the former Head of MI6 was being interviewed and he explained the different levels of vetting and he was very surprised at how Starmer has handled this.

Interesting.
Ed Balls is, of course, the husband of the Foreign Secretary.

Elegran

It seems that some posters think that the Prime Minister should have the details of all the vetting of everybody at his fingertips, including the most private confidential inquisitions which were not supposed to be passed on to anyone except the vetters.

Does Trump work that way? Or Orban? Or Putin? We are very lucky in this country, We can have trust in our leaders not to use such discoveries for political or financial advantage, but that may not always prove true, so the privacy rules are there for a reason.

Surely the controversial choice of Mandelson warranted the PM to know if he had passed or failed? Did he even ask? If it was the case that even if he had then he wouldn’t have been told? And if that is true then why has Olly Robbins been sacked for doing his job?
There’s a lot that doesn’t add up here!

I believe that he told the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that Mandelson had passed the vetting process.
If so, why would he do this?

However, Mandelson was a very controversial appointment anyway, known for dodgy dealings.

twaddle

AGAA4

Hung drawn and quartered even before the enquiry. The media is judge, jury and executioner.

With the "tricoteuses" enjoying the show!

And here you are!

😂

Have you got your knitting twaddle ? 😁

I prefer crochet, is that ok?
Mind you, I really have to concentrate, can't multi-task with a complicated pattern! Otherwise it's 🐸🐸🐸

I am surprised how many posters know the Prime Minister so
intimately that they are qualified to talk about his character using such terms as lying,erring in judgement,lacking in integrity.
I don't know the man personally and am content to look at reliable evidence, which I don't feel is to be found in the right wing press.
Give it a break for goodness sake and put your knitting away.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

That said I don’t believe he has lied
I think he wasn’t informed by Olly Robbins.

Time will tell.

Exactly.

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.

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.

He also said he would stand by the WASPI women. Mind you, I suppose you could say he stood by and did nothing.

Allira

Primrose53

Wow! just watched Susannah Reid and Ed Balls on ITV grilling the Secretary of State for Scotland over Starmer. They did not hold back and both seemed really shocked that he appointed Mandelson and has got this so badly wrong.

I then turned over to GB News and the former Head of MI6 was being interviewed and he explained the different levels of vetting and he was very surprised at how Starmer has handled this.

Interesting.
Ed Balls is, of course, the husband of the Foreign Secretary.

Yes, I was surprised at how much he had to say that was negative about Starmer and I have never seen Susannah so cross and animated towards anybody before. She was like a terrier today!

westendgirl

I am surprised how many posters know the Prime Minister so
intimately that they are qualified to talk about his character using such terms as lying,erring in judgement,lacking in integrity.
I don't know the man personally and am content to look at reliable evidence, which I don't feel is to be found in the right wing press.
Give it a break for goodness sake and put your knitting away.

We don’t, we are just relying on the msm, & other sources of news.
But if I was appointing someone for such important position, as head of government, I would want to know every fiddle f__t about that person being appointed.

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.

This is misinformation, the claim that Labour would freeze council tax was in the local election campaign before the general election and applied to one year only. There is nothing in the Labour manifesto about freezing council tax, Farage is the one who claimed Reform would lower it, anything to say about that?

Primrose53

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.

He also said he would stand by the WASPI women. Mind you, I suppose you could say he stood by and did nothing.

🤣🤣🤣

It doesn’t matter how much people on TV huff and puff and speculate about this and how many “experts’ give their opinion and report hearsay, the only people who can speak to this are the very senior people who were involved in the process.

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, how many people on this board have bothered the watch the FAC proceedings of 3 November 2025 or read the transcript. Here it is once more:

committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/16673/pdf/

Now that isn’t directly about this current controversy but it is about the process surrounding Mandelson's appointment.

It is also about what happened in the light of new information which was in the new release of Epstein files which prompted Mandelson’s sacking and the timeliness of telling the PM what had come down the wires from the Washington Embassy.

It is also about Mandelson’s failure to appear before the FAC before he took up the post, a process which had been agreed with the FS and had taken place for other ambassadorial appointments.

Wormald and Robbins were both so evasive and obstructive that chair Emily Thornberry came close to losing her cool exclaiming to Robbins You are not making any friends here. Q343 page 30.

The proceedings wrapped up soon after that.

On April 16, Thornberry tweeted,

My committee asked several times whether red flags had been raised by Peter Mandelson's vetting process. It seems there were. Who overrode these concerns? Why were we kept in the dark? People need to stop messing us about and tell us the truth.

Thus Robbins has been called to give further evidence to the FAC tomorrow.

Before that, Starmer will give a Commons statement this afternoon. If he maintains that he was not told knowing that Robbins is due to give evidence which contradicts that then Starmer would have to resign so what would be the point of him lying?

I don't know why I'm bothering, as there will no doubt be the usual 'roll on the floor laughing' response which just dismisses different opinions with no sensible comment, but I'll give my POV anyway.

There is a difference between lying (ie saying something untrue, such as 'I did not have sex with that woman' and making a promise that circumstances mean you can't keep.

I may be wrong (I don't have the insider information that many on this thread seem to have access to), but I don't think that Starmer is a liar. I can't see him saying that he knew nothing about the vetting situation if he had been told. That would be a lie, and would be wrong, unless there is some undisclosed reason why it was necessary for reasons of national security or something.

To me, supporting a cause such as 50s born women (not the same as WASPI, incidentally) but then finding that there is not enough money to pay out is different. It is disappointing, of course - I do support the cause of women who expected to get their SP at 60, as evidenced by many posts on here - but I don't see it as a lie. If a mother told her children they could have bikes for Christmas but then the boiler broke and there was not enough money to buy them, would people call her a liar? Or someone having to choose priorities for all the family?

Starmer could say he wasn't given hard evidence - nothing in writing but,believe me, he would have been received whispered concerns into his ear.
Where does Lammy fit into all this?

That's interesting. How do you know that, Boz? Can you link us up please?

Boz

Starmer could say he wasn't given hard evidence - nothing in writing but,believe me, he would have been received whispered concerns into his ear.
Where does Lammy fit into all this?

I was not told is not the same as I didn’t know.