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

Galaxy

When is it leaving a sinking ship and when is it a decision in the best interests of the party ( I am not commenting either way but I imagine that will be how some of those names see it) . The labour party have never been particularly effective at ousting a leader, some may see that as a strength and some may see it as a weakness.

Possibly both? They are abandoning Starmer and it may be in the best interests of the party. Time will tell.

eazybee

No. people are not ;making it up as it goes along'; they are desperately trying to understand what is going on. Many differing accounts and interpretations. I watched the interrogation of Oliver Robbins and was exhausted simply trying to concentrate . Starmer made a grave mistake in sacking him, not least in the way he did it. Robbins struck me as a man of integrity , extremely competent, with a forensic brain, which Starmer increasingly reveals as his term progresses, he lacks.
I believe there are calls for him to appear before a Privilege committee, which would be excellent, but undoubtedly won't happen. He can't cope with less than an hour of PMQs.
And as for 'Starmer's babes' you are definitely barking up the wrong tree.

The accurate version has been there all along - underneath a load of "embellishment" and hype.

Starmer is unpopular (nothing hidden there) and this whole episode has been used as a reason to try to oust him.

Strip this back and ask yourself what it's all about. The public knew what kind of person Mandelson was when he was appointed - there was some huffing and puffing but no great fuss. Somehow or other people were able to turn a blind eye to the fact that he'd been sacked twice previously.

When the Epstein Files started to be released, it became clear that Mandelson was closer to Epstein than thought - although he almost certainly had nothing to do with the child abuse and might not even have known about it. Mandelson was sacked as ambassador. I expect a lot of people smirked and thought "I told you so", but, again, there wasn't a massive fuss.

Now it was headlined that Mandelson "failed" security vetting for unknown reasons, but everybody assumes is something really sinister. It's now clear that he didn't actually "fail". Olly Robbins has said that he was borderline and that he took it upon himself to ignore the warnings. His interpretation of confidentiality riles was that he shouldn't tell the PM. There seems to be some ambiguity here. Starmer jumped the gun in sacking him.

So what has actually caused everybody to go into some kind of meltdown? And why now? The timing seems a little suspicious, considering the local elections are likely to be a disaster for Labour and there will probably be calls for Starmer to go anyway.

It's not really about Mandelson and any damage to the country, but about the way Starmer has handled this. Ever since he became PM, there have been problems with his management style and the people he has appointed as his closest advisers. Number 10 and the Cabinet Office haven't worked together well. Outside the inner circle, there have been divisions within the backbenchers, a huge number of whom are new MPs and still finding their feet.

Conclusion: Starmer has handled the situation badly.

I'm rather confused about all this talk of rats leaving a sinking ship and Labour M.Ps turning against Keir Starmer after hearing that the party gave Starmer a good welcome at P.M's questions yesterday, illustrated by the cheering !
Is a lot of this negative commenting wishful thinking ?

Sorry should have said this was on Radio 4 Today, this morning

sixandahalf

Primrose53

We already know that Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper no longer support KS. Dan Hodges reports that Pat McFadden, David Lammy, Shabana Mahmood, Wes Streeting and Rachel Reeves have also turned against him.

Fantastic. Everybody hates Starmer. Result.

There you go.

Fantastic. Everybody hates Starmer. Result.
There you go.

What a horrible remark. Gloating does not help.

The last thing we need is a change of leadership at this troubled time but if Starmer has lost the support of his Cabinet then go he should. Rachel Reeves's face told a thousand words yesterday.

I shall be sorry because he seemed to be a steady and stable leader. How ironic that it is the odious Mandelson who might be his downfall.

Allira

sixandahalf

Primrose53

We already know that Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper no longer support KS. Dan Hodges reports that Pat McFadden, David Lammy, Shabana Mahmood, Wes Streeting and Rachel Reeves have also turned against him.

Fantastic. Everybody hates Starmer. Result.

There you go.

Fantastic. Everybody hates Starmer. Result.
There you go.

What a horrible remark. Gloating does not help.

The last thing we need is a change of leadership at this troubled time but if Starmer has lost the support of his Cabinet then go he should. Rachel Reeves's face told a thousand words yesterday.

I shall be sorry because he seemed to be a steady and stable leader. How ironic that it is the odious Mandelson who might be his downfall.

I agree with you. A leadership race is not what's needed at this moment. Starmer has been a poor judge of character rather than an out and out liar and as much as the other parties are baying for his blood I think he should stay.
I liked his stance on the Iranian war and seeing what an almighty mess that has become thank goodness he didn't do a Blair and drag the UK into it. Added to this, who would take his place? Angela Rayner, Bridget Phillipson, Rachel Reeves, Yvette Cooper, David Lammy et al? No thanks. Be careful what you wish for.

Yvette Cooper perhaps?

Otherwise 🤔

I'm with you on that, Allira. I think Yvette Cooper is the only contender, but I'm not sure she has enough support.

Allira

sixandahalf

Primrose53

We already know that Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper no longer support KS. Dan Hodges reports that Pat McFadden, David Lammy, Shabana Mahmood, Wes Streeting and Rachel Reeves have also turned against him.

Fantastic. Everybody hates Starmer. Result.

There you go.

Fantastic. Everybody hates Starmer. Result.
There you go.

What a horrible remark. Gloating does not help.

The last thing we need is a change of leadership at this troubled time but if Starmer has lost the support of his Cabinet then go he should. Rachel Reeves's face told a thousand words yesterday.

I shall be sorry because he seemed to be a steady and stable leader. How ironic that it is the odious Mandelson who might be his downfall.

It was said with a sense of irony but hey ho.

Don't have the energy.

'Everbody hates Starmer'
'Everybody'and 'hates'
I question the choice of both words.

sixandahalf

Allira

sixandahalf

Primrose53

We already know that Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper no longer support KS. Dan Hodges reports that Pat McFadden, David Lammy, Shabana Mahmood, Wes Streeting and Rachel Reeves have also turned against him.

Fantastic. Everybody hates Starmer. Result.

There you go.

Fantastic. Everybody hates Starmer. Result.
There you go.

What a horrible remark. Gloating does not help.

The last thing we need is a change of leadership at this troubled time but if Starmer has lost the support of his Cabinet then go he should. Rachel Reeves's face told a thousand words yesterday.

I shall be sorry because he seemed to be a steady and stable leader. How ironic that it is the odious Mandelson who might be his downfall.

It was said with a sense of irony but hey ho.

Don't have the energy.

FWIW the irony was clear to me, sixandahalf. I didn't see gloating from you at all.

ronib

How exactly can you blame Olly Robbins when he wasn’t in the Civil Service at the time of Mandelson’s vetting and appointment?

Exactly, he was made a fall guy and he will not be going quietly.

Jill Ritter thinks that Robbins will receive a large payoff and his case won’t be aired at an employment tribunal. I guess Robbins must protect himself and his family.
To my mind, Robbins seems to have so much more clarity, and credibility than the Cat woman who seems not to be able to opine! Sir Humphrey would be proud.

Rutter

Graceless

Kier Starmer's real crime was even considering Mandelson for any post in the first place.

That is the big question. Mandelson should never have been considered for this position in the first place. Blame is on Starmer, no one else.

It is Starmer who is the cause of his own downfall.
He persisted in his choice of Mandelson against all advice, then handled the inevitable fallout very badly.

Oliver Robbins could have been a great help to him had he treated him fairly, instead he attempted to make him the scapegoat.
Lack of understanding of process.

I doubt Mandelson will bring Starmer down, regardless of the hopes and wishes of his detractors, because he is cleared of the only very serious issue. More likely it will be the election results.

But the election results are very influenced by the way Starmer manages his job. Sadly Mandy is definitely a factor in the forthcoming local elections??

I think people made their minds up a long time ago ronib, I doubt if this will make much difference at all - just look at the polling figures over the past year.

From memory, polling figures are not always accurate? Starmer hasn’t acted in a way to inspire the electorate from beginning to hopefully what will be the end soon enough. On his head be it.

eazybee

It is Starmer who is the cause of his own downfall.
He persisted in his choice of Mandelson against all advice, then handled the inevitable fallout very badly.

Oliver Robbins could have been a great help to him had he treated him fairly, instead he attempted to make him the scapegoat.
Lack of understanding of process.

Who ensured that the fallout was "inevitable"?

Why wasn't a huge fuss made when Mandelson was appointed? Everybody knew then what he was like.

Delene100

Graceless

Kier Starmer's real crime was even considering Mandelson for any post in the first place.

That is the big question. Mandelson should never have been considered for this position in the first place. Blame is on Starmer, no one else.

No, he shouldn't have been (in my opinion), but he was and very few people took any notice. As far as I know, he didn't do a bad job. He was sacked once the Epstein Files were released and the extent of his relationship with Epstein became apparent and nobody took much notice even then. Why is such a fuss being made now? Olly Robbins has confirmed that Starmer didn't know, so in fact Mandelson didn't fail vetting - there was nothing for Starmer to know!

ronib

Jill Ritter thinks that Robbins will receive a large payoff and his case won’t be aired at an employment tribunal. I guess Robbins must protect himself and his family.
To my mind, Robbins seems to have so much more clarity, and credibility than the Cat woman who seems not to be able to opine! Sir Humphrey would be proud.

Catty!

twaddle

Oreo

twaddle

This article from the Institute for Government explains the vetting process:

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/government-security-vetting

This is an extract for anybody who doesn't want to read the whole thing:

"It is worth noting that in the case of Peter Mandelson, security clearance was granted by foreign office officials. It appears that this was against the advice of UK Security Vetting; it was within the power of foreign office officials to make that decision."

In other words, Mandelson "didn't" fail vetting.

So why was he summarily sacked on Thursday?

Mandelson wasn't sacked on Thursday. From what I can remember, he was sacked as a result of revelations about his relationship with Epstein, which apparently was not why UKSV had concerns.

If you mean Robbins, he was sacked because Starmer disagreed with Robbin's decision to act without consulting him. It would appear that Mandelson was "borderline" and Robbins (and only Robbins) decided that mitigations could be put in place to address the security risk.

This is getting a bit tiresome. People are just making it up as they go along to suit their own agenda.

Like yourself?
I did mean Robbins, who, having followed FO rules to the letter was then sacked on Thursday for not telling Starmer that he (Robbins) had been told Mandelson was a borderline case so used his own judgement on it.Which was allowed !

ronib

But the election results are very influenced by the way Starmer manages his job. Sadly Mandy is definitely a factor in the forthcoming local elections??

It’s all over the papers and everyone knows to connect Mandelson with Epstein, so this affair, added to no doubt appalling figures in the local elections will be the end for Starmer.