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

Maremia

One single astute remark, made after months of failure, is not a recognised qualification for becoming Leader.

You know what they say about stopped clocks!

Smileless2012

What I don't understand is how Mandelson could have fulfilled his role without security clearance .

I'm unclear too.

It's not clear whether he was denied top level clearance or whether he was given it, despite the failed vetting.

When he was Foreign Secretary, it was rumoured that Theresa May denied Boris Johnson access to some top secret intelligence reports, although this is disputed and I doubt the truth will ever be known.

One single astute remark, made after months of failure, is not a recognised qualification for becoming Leader.

I can’t say I’m the greatest fan of Kemi Badenoch, but IMO she made a very astute remark about KS and this fiasco - seen on the BBC website. ‘He’s so blinded by his own righteousness that he can’t see what others can (or do - can’t remember).’

I agree with your first paragraph, eazybee. There was enough information in the public domain for anybody to realise that Mandelson should never have been put forward for the role.

However, I almost choked on my coffee when I read the last sentence. Badenoch can't even unite her own party never mind those from any other party. She wouldn't even know what words like "negotiate" or "agreement" mean. She doesn't come up with solutions to anything.

Don't think his wife would be happy about that GG13

MartavTaurus

I would rather KS stayed for the moment.

But, if I hear the words, I understand the strength of public feeling or I know how people feel again from him on Monday, I think I'll scream. It's rubbish.

Totally agree, only because I cannot see another leader in waiting

Bring back Rishi…

You lost me at
'I would trust Kemi'
Sorry, no thanks.

The original sin is Starmer's in proposing Mandelson for the post of ambassador, a political appointment met with expressions of concern within No.10 and elsewhere. He resolutely ignored sage advice as to Mandelson's suitability, being determined to appoint him against all odds.. Pressure was put upon those facilitating the appointment 'to speed things up', 'weirdly rushed' said Jonathan Powell, before Trump's Inauguration.
A disastrous decision which has blown up in Starmer's face, caused damage to his Party, ruined his credibility,and won't go away.
Holding on to a disgraced leader, proved incompetent and untrustworthy, because there is no-one better to replace him is shameful. If a party with 404 MPs cannot produce a new Leader they should not be in power.
Personally, I would trust Kemi Badenoch, possibly heading a coalition, because we are in dangerous times.

I think this is a gift on a silver platter for the far right.

It plays into the "they are all the same" rhetoric.

I would rather KS stayed for the moment.

But, if I hear the words, I understand the strength of public feeling or I know how people feel again from him on Monday, I think I'll scream. It's rubbish.

What I don't understand is how Mandelson could have fulfilled his role without security clearance .

I would need hard evidence that Starmer knew about the vetting failure before passing judgement.
At the moment it is just supposition from those who wish Starmer gone for whatever motive they may have.

If it is proved that he allowed this then he would have to answer for it but it won't be good for the country if we lose Starmer at this critical time.

I’m just the opposite GG.

The more I read (BBC News, Sky News) the more I’m convinced that KS did not know.

Supporters of Robbins say that he would not have told KS because that is the way the vetting process works.

Here’s just one example (of many):

“Prof Ciaran Martin, who has worked in government himself and so is schooled in the protocols of Whitehall, told The World at One on Radio 4 that Sir Olly was a stickler for exactly those precedents and was right not to tell Sir Keir Starmer, given how inevitably prying and personal the vetting process is.”

Source: Chris Mason, BBC News online

^ stand up for UK interests^

I think that is where he is at his worst.
That is one of the things that bothers me the worst.
[not meaning the wars].

May write more later.

The more I read on this the less I am convinced that the PM was unaware of Mandelson’s failure to pass vetting until this week…

love0c

I can not believe this lying, deceitful imbecile is still my PM!

That’s a bit harsh!

Rantings not rankings

I can not believe this lying, deceitful imbecile is still my PM!

Starmer has been useless. In what way?
With Starmer unfit for office ..... In what way?

These blanket statements are simply tribal rankings.

Many gransnetters are not paid up Labour supporters but can stand back and see that we finally have someone at the helm who is able to hold his own internationally, stand up for UK interests and approach his role in a thoughtful way. He does not get everything right (who does?) but he is a breath of fresh air after the absence of gravitas and respect for democracy of what went before .... notably Johnson and Truss.

Sometimes 'opinions' are simply wishes.

It is not a universally held belief that Starmer is unfit for office. I do wish people would stop presenting opinion as fact.

With Starmer unfit for office who is there? They all are just now. That is why he remains.

Everybody has an opinion on this, don’t they?

There are so many media reports that say, Sources say this … , and, Sources say that … but nobody, as far as I can see, is named. David Maddox for the Independent was no different.

It reminds me of All The President’s Men about the Bob Woodard/Carl Bernstein investigation into Watergate for the Washington Post. A very angry executive editor Ben Bradlee says Goddamnit, when is somebody going to go on the record in this story? You guys are about to write a story that says the former Attorney General, the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in this country, is a crook! Just be sure you're right.

The same applies. People are accusing the Prime Minister of lying but nobody is going on the record.

As for learning about the processes involved in Mandelson’s appointment, I would urge people to watch the proceedings of the Foreign Affairs Committee on 3 November 2025 (text linked to above) and what Ollie Robbins and Chris Wormald had to say, although much of what they do say is tempered by rules of confidentiality.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002mqtf/select-committees-foreign-affairs-committee-on-the-appointment-of-lord-mandelson

I have to say I find Chris Wormald’s evidence confusing and at times contradictory.

He left his post by mutual agreement in February 2026. I do wonder whether the failures over Mandelson had something to do with it although he made it clear to the FAC that the processes described would have taken place under his predecessor Simon Case. The latter resigned on health grounds after taken leave of absence in the time proceeding that - which could raise questions over who was responsible for any failings durng that time. I’m left wondering why Case wasn’t called to give evidence. Although he retired on health grounds he has taken up appointments subseqently.

Robbins evidence to the FAC next Tuesday 21 April 2026 will be crucial in all of this.

Hear, hear, Rosie51.