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

Prejudice is an unjustified, typically negative, attitude or opinion toward an individual based solely on their membership of a specific group. When people on this board have been openly hostile to the Labour government since 5 July 2024, before it had a chance to start governing, I call that prejudice.

This is not the Chat sub forum. This is News & Politics. One might hope that people make use of open source material that others take the time to find and share in order to acquire facts about what is a very serious matter.

The November FAC proceedings were and are crucial in this as chair Emily Thornberry referenced today in the HoC - as tomorrow’s proceedings will be.

I make no apologies for regarding this as as serious matter and not chat.

twaddle

Allira

It would be refreshing if posters could see beyond their prejudice, look at the facts and apply some logic.

Various views are allowed; why is one person's view a prejudice and only yours the valid one? . Not everyone wishes to click on links even if you think think they ought to.

*This is a chat forum.*

Of course, various views are "allowed", but in the end facts and logic matter more.

Of course, in real life, in Parliament. but this is a chat forum and none of our views and logic or lack of it make a jot of difference to the situation except when we place our X.

This is not the Chat sub forum.

Gransnet is an online community and chat forum.

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?

I don't agree that it's horrible and tragic, in the context of everything else which is happening in the world at the moment.

If you're following the details, there is no way you could claim it's Starmer's fault entirely.

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).

Allira

twaddle

Allira

It would be refreshing if posters could see beyond their prejudice, look at the facts and apply some logic.

Various views are allowed; why is one person's view a prejudice and only yours the valid one? . Not everyone wishes to click on links even if you think think they ought to.

*This is a chat forum.*

Of course, various views are "allowed", but in the end facts and logic matter more.

Of course, in real life, in Parliament. but this is a chat forum and none of our views and logic or lack of it make a jot of difference to the situation except when we place our X.

It matters when hype, passion and misinformation dictate where people put their X.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

🤔

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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.

He is speaking slowly and clearly.

He is answering all of Badenoch's questions.

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.