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

What this has shown me is that politicians like Badenoch, Davey and others care nothing for the people and are just seeking to improve their political standing.
Starmer is keeping the UK on the right track with this war and to destabilise the government at this dangerous time is wrong. The enquiries are ongoing so no result and those screaming liar need to wait for events to unfold before condemnation.

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.

Did anybody spot Farage in Parliament? I would have thought he'd be in his element.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

What's hilarious is the CIA/Trump will have known all about Mandy so could have played him like a cheap violin and certainly won't have shared anything you couldn't have read in the papers.

Yes, absolutely hilarious. I don't think.

The one clear matter emerging I think is that there were NO grounds for dismissing Olly Robbins. Another example of bad decision making.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

The one clear matter emerging I think is that there were NO grounds for dismissing Olly Robbins. Another example of bad decision making.

Eh?

GrannyGravy13

I am disappointed and cross that despite all the shenanigans of elections it appears our elected representatives are just faces and it’s the civil servants who are running the country…

Thank God that they do.
Think of all the horrors that Politicians try to inflict on us.
Think of Johnson and Truss.

The Civil Service is usually better educated and not wedded to Ideology, like the average politician who is often here to-day and gone tomorrow.

Looks as if some GNs are hoping to have gazpacho soup for lunch.

I have purposefully held off from commenting until we hear more during the select committee.

My reaction so far is

What was the story? Robbins account simply does not differ to Starmer’s.

It is a total non-issue, and waste of everyone’s time, and unless something different emerges, I think the whole thing has (as is so usually the case) been totally blown up into something quite ridiculous.

There, however, remains the issue whether he of the dark arts should have been given the post in the first place, but this has nothing to do with this issue.

Maremia

Looks as if some GNs are hoping to have gazpacho soup for lunch.

And now reduced to making trivial remarks when 2 days ago were predicting doom gloom with sheer delight.

I think it should read were hoping.

I don't agree that Olly Robbins was distinctly jovial Doodledog he was IMO distinctly nervous and unlike Starmer was careful with all his answers, that he didn't inadvertently 'throw anyone under the bus' or as in KS case, do so deliberately.

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.

Olly Robbins came across as professional, sincere and trustworthy which I'm sorry to say cannot be said of KS.

I am rather confused bearing in mind the new employment legislation brought in by this government, that Olly Robbins could be sacked over the 'phone without any proper procedures being followed.

Not me Wyllow look back at my comment yesterday I said I didn’t think Starmer was lying

I’m beginning to feel like WWmk2 that this is a storm in a teacup

Smileless2012

I don't agree that Olly Robbins was distinctly jovial Doodledog he was IMO distinctly nervous and unlike Starmer was careful with all his answers, that he didn't inadvertently 'throw anyone under the bus' or as in KS case, do so deliberately.

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.

Olly Robbins came across as professional, sincere and trustworthy which I'm sorry to say cannot be said of KS.

I am rather confused bearing in mind the new employment legislation brought in by this government, that Olly Robbins could be sacked over the 'phone without any proper procedures being followed.

I am rather confused bearing in mind the new employment legislation brought in by this government, that Olly Robbins could be sacked over the 'phone without any proper procedures being followed.

Most unusual, Smileless unless under extreme circumstances such as gross misconduct, violence or theft. In fact, I did not think it was possible for a Minister to do this and that correct procedures would have to be followed. With such a senior figure, I thought the Head of the Civil Service would be the one to decide and do so.

I think People voted in the GE against something, rather than for something.

And this is what we got.

A storm which may have been avoided if Olly Robbins hadn't been sacked. If KS has done nothing wrong than surely OR also did nothing wrong.

Procedure was followed which suited KS at the time.

It is as you say Allira most unusual.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Not me Wyllow look back at my comment yesterday I said I didn’t think Starmer was lying

I’m beginning to feel like WWmk2 that this is a storm in a teacup

Fairy nuff.

"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.

Food for thought from two letters from today's papers:

1. All MPs have potential access to highly confidential information that might be of interest to our enemies, on no greater security than the votes of the people who supported them in an election.

2. Can we imagine anyone in the US resigning over the vetting of an ambassador to Britain?

We seem have lost all sense of proportion over this.

Smileless2012

A storm which may have been avoided if Olly Robbins hadn't been sacked. If KS has done nothing wrong than surely OR also did nothing wrong.

Procedure was followed which suited KS at the time.

It is as you say Allira most unusual.

What procedure? I think Robbins made it clear that no real procedure was followed.

At the time Mandelson - a member of the privy council- who would have been vetted for such a post - was known to pose a risk, but a risk that was manageable.

I feel deeply sorry for Sir Olly Robbins. He gave such an impassioned reply when asked about his sacking. He clearly loved his job, felt he was doing it to the best of his ability, respected his colleagues and is devastated by losing his job. However, he was unable to give a full answer to one question about the reason surrounding this as his legal advisors are in the process of dealing with it. If KS thinks a line is about to be drawn under the whole shady mess then he's wrong. The fallout from this is going to run for some time to come.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

I think People voted in the GE against something, rather than for something.

And this is what we got.

Absolutely agree. This is what happens with the first past the post system.

Wyllow3

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Not me Wyllow look back at my comment yesterday I said I didn’t think Starmer was lying

I’m beginning to feel like WWmk2 that this is a storm in a teacup

Fairy nuff.

Maybe have a listen to what Olly Robbins says about being asked to find a senior job for Matthew Doyle. That's the same Matthew Doyle who had campaigned for a friend in possession of illegal and obscene images of children. Robbins was told not to tell David Lammy about any of it!!!
KS is supposed to be running a transparent Government but does not want fellow Cabinet Ministers to be told anything.
Storm in a teacup? Hardly.

That's not how I interpreted what was said this morning WW. Everything that needed to be done, was done.

If there was an issue, IMO it was that the announcement of Mandelson's appointment was made before any vetting had taken place and that shouldn't have been the case.

Having watched the entire FAC proceedings, it's clear that Mandelson did not fail vetting. Robbins made that very clear- that UKSV do not pass or fail people. Robbins made the decision. Therefore the PM could not have been told he had failed as he didn't.

Robbins was doing his job. He should not have been sacked and I hope the PM reconsiders this.

The person who should be questioned is Pippa Crear who broke the story as she seems to has access to highly confidential information. Her husband is a former Telegraph journalist and is now senior in the FCDO.

Robbins said the leak to the Guardian of details of Mandelson’s vetting was “a grievous breach of national security”. He suggested he thought the leak happened once information about the UKSV process in this case was passed on to the Cabinet Office and No 10 as part of the process of scrutinising which documents will have to be published to comply with the Commons humble address.