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

Sarnia, it has been established that Starmer did not lie and mislead parliament, because he was not told. That is the material point.
People are trying to find other holes to bury him in now. I don’t dispute that he handled Mandelson’s appointment badly or that Olly Robbins was treated unfairly, but lying to parliament was always going to be a much more serious offence.

Casdon

*Sarnia*, it has been established that Starmer did not lie and mislead parliament, because he was not told. That is the material point.
People are trying to find other holes to bury him in now. I don’t dispute that he handled Mandelson’s appointment badly or that Olly Robbins was treated unfairly, but lying to parliament was always going to be a much more serious offence.

Clear, concise and accurate. Oh that we had more posts like this.

It seems that Keir Starmer was not told about the failed vetting and Robbins has done nothing wrong but has been dismissed.
The problem arising from this is the civil service losing confidence in Starmer. "A chill wind is blowing through the civil service". The feeling that even if they follow procedure they can be sacked.
I don't want Starmer to go but I think he needs to work to mend fences with the civil service as he needs them.

Yvette Cooper and Ed Miliband have now publicly distanced themselves from Keir Starmer.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8de1j4z4do

Olly Robbins did not know red boxes had been ticked twaddle. He didn't know and had never seen that particular document showing the red boxes. All he was told that there was a leaning toward not giving Mandelson clearance.

It seems to me that people have lost confidence in KS - even many in his own party.

As I said yesterday only 25 parliamentarians out of 403 turned up to support him yesterday. During his questioning on Monday I only saw two MPs speaking out in his support.

Mandelson's appointment seems to have been one of those 'counter-intuitive' ideas so much in fashion at the moment.

Primrose53

It seems to me that people have lost confidence in KS - even many in his own party.

As I said yesterday only 25 parliamentarians out of 403 turned up to support him yesterday. During his questioning on Monday I only saw two MPs speaking out in his support.

I think the May election results will be make or break for KS.

Smileless2012

Olly Robbins did not know red boxes had been ticked twaddle. He didn't know and had never seen that particular document showing the red boxes. All he was told that there was a leaning toward not giving Mandelson clearance.

That's what I thought. In that case, he had no reason to tell Starmer anything and Robbins behaved professionally. Goodness knows what form the "leaning toward" took, but he was correct not to pass on tittle tattle. Not only that, but the original story is wrong! Mandelson didn't fail the vetting and this has been the biggest red herring ever!

It's all a bit weird. Everybody knew of Mandelson's reputation when he was appointed. His two sackings from the cabinet were in the public domain. As far as I can remember, the extent of his dealings with Epstein weren't fully known and I'm not even sure that the public was aware just how many friendships with powerful people Epstein had cultivated. Why has the story hit the headlines now?

It seems that the DV has been badly handled and there seem to have been misunderstandings, but nothing illegal has taken place.

Sarnia

Primrose53

It seems to me that people have lost confidence in KS - even many in his own party.

As I said yesterday only 25 parliamentarians out of 403 turned up to support him yesterday. During his questioning on Monday I only saw two MPs speaking out in his support.

I think the May election results will be make or break for KS.

That's very possible, but would have been the case without all this. All it has done has distracted Starmer from the real business of government and international issues.

Ironically, if there has been briefing against Starmer (which I think is very possible) it has come from people whom most Starmer-detractors would never vote for.

AGAA4

It seems that Keir Starmer was not told about the failed vetting and Robbins has done nothing wrong but has been dismissed.
The problem arising from this is the civil service losing confidence in Starmer. "A chill wind is blowing through the civil service". The feeling that even if they follow procedure they can be sacked.
I don't want Starmer to go but I think he needs to work to mend fences with the civil service as he needs them.

He certainly does. One of his biggest mistakes was to appoint Morgan McSweeney as Chief of Staff. He needs a loyal and trustworthy Chief of Staff, who can kick backsides but also charm opponents, somebody who understands the national "Zeitgeist".

Starmer has relatively little political experience and it shows. He has some good ideas, but he doesn't seem to understand all the intricacies of Whitehall, in order to get things done and to take the public with him.

I can’t work out why Mandy returned to the UK when he did. He served quite some time in the US as ambassador so what exactly triggered his recall? Did the security services know that risks could not be mitigated at this stage? If so, on what grounds did the security service make its decision? And so on … and on.

Casdon's post may be clear, concise and accurate, as far as it goes.
What is missing is the answer to the question everyone was asking about Mandelson's vetting, put so succinctly by Diane Abbott,
"Why didn't the Prime Minister ask?"

twaddle

Smileless2012

Olly Robbins did not know red boxes had been ticked twaddle. He didn't know and had never seen that particular document showing the red boxes. All he was told that there was a leaning toward not giving Mandelson clearance.

That's what I thought. In that case, he had no reason to tell Starmer anything and Robbins behaved professionally. Goodness knows what form the "leaning toward" took, but he was correct not to pass on tittle tattle. Not only that, but the original story is wrong! Mandelson didn't fail the vetting and this has been the biggest red herring ever!

It's all a bit weird. Everybody knew of Mandelson's reputation when he was appointed. His two sackings from the cabinet were in the public domain. As far as I can remember, the extent of his dealings with Epstein weren't fully known and I'm not even sure that the public was aware just how many friendships with powerful people Epstein had cultivated. Why has the story hit the headlines now?

It seems that the DV has been badly handled and there seem to have been misunderstandings, but nothing illegal has taken place.

Robbins appears to have acted professionally; without clear, substantiated concerns, there was no basis to brief Keir Starmer. Claims that Peter Mandelson was “leaning toward” something are too vague to justify passing on.

The vetting issue also seems mischaracterised. Mandelson didn’t fail DV clearance, so that framing is misleading.

His past was already public at the time of appointment, and while his links to Jeffrey Epstein are now under greater scrutiny, it’s unclear they were fully understood then.

Overall, this looks more like confusion and hindsight than evidence of wrongdoing.

twaddle

AGAA4

It seems that Keir Starmer was not told about the failed vetting and Robbins has done nothing wrong but has been dismissed.
The problem arising from this is the civil service losing confidence in Starmer. "A chill wind is blowing through the civil service". The feeling that even if they follow procedure they can be sacked.
I don't want Starmer to go but I think he needs to work to mend fences with the civil service as he needs them.

He certainly does. One of his biggest mistakes was to appoint Morgan McSweeney as Chief of Staff. He needs a loyal and trustworthy Chief of Staff, who can kick backsides but also charm opponents, somebody who understands the national "Zeitgeist".

Starmer has relatively little political experience and it shows. He has some good ideas, but he doesn't seem to understand all the intricacies of Whitehall, in order to get things done and to take the public with him.

Agree completely.

What an almighty mess and some enjoying it all.

Starmer didn’t know Mandelson well. Pushing for Mandelson would have come from McSweeney, probably from Mandelson himself who was also after the Chancellorship of Oxford.

Had Kamala Harris won the Presidential election, would Karen Pierce have been left in place?

Watching TRIP, Campbell said three names were under consideration, Mandelson, George Osborne and David Miliband.

I haven’t caught up with the latest news but I did see that Thornberry wants to call more witnesses to appear before the FAC. McSweeney needs to appear. I think she should also call Case and Barton. Much of what happened did so before Robbins’ and Wormald’s appointments. In a Civil Service where things aren’t recorded in writing (but should be) she needs to talk to the people who were in post when most of this was going on.

Mandelson didn’t fail vetting; rather, there were issues noted during the DV process that didn’t ultimately prevent clearance.

This was a system that worked as it was supposed to work. It may now be outdated and need reviewing but we rarely come to that conclusion until something goes wrong - from today's perspective - with said system.

My DH explained that the publication of the Epstein files scuppered Mandy and all associated with his appointment.

Would a headteacher keep their job if they had a secratary who hadn't told them a teacher failed the police check ?Why is Mandelson still being called Lord is there no way of taking that title from people who are a security risk and have even been arrested The Lords are not even voted in by the public

TakeThat7

Would a headteacher keep their job if they had a secratary who hadn't told them a teacher failed the police check ?Why is Mandelson still being called Lord is there no way of taking that title from people who are a security risk and have even been arrested The Lords are not even voted in by the public

NO. The governors would have grounds to dismiss the Headteacher on grounds of gross negligence. Absolutely. It is the Headteacher's job to monitor. It would be a regulatory compliance failure. I used to sign the document, and so did the safe guarding governor every time.

Of course the school might choose not to do this. Ultimately, culpability lies with the Head.

ronib

My DH explained that the publication of the Epstein files scuppered Mandy and all associated with his appointment.

... and?

MartavTaurus

TakeThat7

Would a headteacher keep their job if they had a secratary who hadn't told them a teacher failed the police check ?Why is Mandelson still being called Lord is there no way of taking that title from people who are a security risk and have even been arrested The Lords are not even voted in by the public

NO. The governors would have grounds to dismiss the Headteacher on grounds of gross negligence. Absolutely. It is the Headteacher's job to monitor. It would be a regulatory compliance failure. I used to sign the document, and so did the safe guarding governor every time.

Of course the school might choose not to do this. Ultimately, culpability lies with the Head.

You appear to be trying to make appointment about accountability, but I’m not sure the comparison fits. A headteacher’s responsibilities and a political appointment or peerage operate under very different rules and systems, so it’s not really a like-for-like situation.

What was the question KS should have asked, other than has PM passed the vetting?
If KS was told 'yes', which appears to be the case, what was the other question?

DAR are you asking me? And …. Obviously all Mandy’s emails and contacts ended up being public therefore no doubt about financial interests! There for the world to see?

DaisyAnneReturns

MartavTaurus

TakeThat7

Would a headteacher keep their job if they had a secratary who hadn't told them a teacher failed the police check ?Why is Mandelson still being called Lord is there no way of taking that title from people who are a security risk and have even been arrested The Lords are not even voted in by the public

NO. The governors would have grounds to dismiss the Headteacher on grounds of gross negligence. Absolutely. It is the Headteacher's job to monitor. It would be a regulatory compliance failure. I used to sign the document, and so did the safe guarding governor every time.

Of course the school might choose not to do this. Ultimately, culpability lies with the Head.

You appear to be trying to make appointment about accountability, but I’m not sure the comparison fits. A headteacher’s responsibilities and a political appointment or peerage operate under very different rules and systems, so it’s not really a like-for-like situation.

The question was clearly asked, Would a Headteacher keep their job if they had a secretary who hadn't told them a teacher failed the DBS check? I answered clearly.

Make your own mind on the other issue.