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

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Cross if Starmer did know?
Blimey
You’re easy going Wyllow.

I think the country are feeling a bit more than ‘cross’ right now.

I’m not “cross”.

Would you expect the head of a huge corporation to be across every detail when you had specialist staff in place to do a specific job and that told you that they had (omitting to say that the applicant had not passed, for whatever reason?)

I believe that KM wasn’t informed. Neither was the Foreign Affairs Committee when it put questions about the appointment. It was simply told that the usual vetting process had been carried out. It was not told that Mandelson had failed that process.

I think he'll hang on till after the local elections, then especially if Labour do badly, he'll go.

Last reply to MayBee70

Oh, and I agree with winterwhite that it seems unlikely that Starmer would lie to parliament - it's not his style.

Wasn't it the much admired Obamas who said "when they go low we go high"? Why oh why did our government think, they've gone low, we'll match them with our own low-life? It's not as if there wasn't enough known about Mandelson and his dodgy dealings, they were full public knowledge. He was never suitable unless you dropped your standards to rock bottom.

Galaxy

This situation materialised ( the appointment of a known deeply dodgy man) because of concerns about the 'world stage' - i.e Trump, it isn't a good idea to keep lowering standards till you reach the bottom.

Who is saying that that is what we should do?

We don't know why Mandelson was appointed, and more to the point we don't know why he failed the vetting process. We can all speculate as much as we like, but that's all it can be - speculation. There is so much surrounding the whole situation (Epstein, Andrew, Trump etc) that involves vested interests, and to pretend that we all know as much as the people involved is foolish. For all we know the people involved might not know the full story.

I'm not advocating curbs on the press, but sometimes I think that they release things before the whole story is known, and that's not always healthy.

The trouble is Mandelsons appointment was because of Trump regaining the presidency…a case of fighting fire with fire I guess. And, as with many things concerning Trump, diplomacy means that no one can say exactly what they think.

As WW2 says, the civil service and Downing Street interact in their own ways and with their distinct roles, and the 'should have known' argument is doesn't really hold water . Kemi Badenoch will know that perfectly well.

From what we know and have seen of Starmer I think it v unlikely that he would have deliberately lied to parliament.

The Foreign Office clearly thought that Mandelson could out-smart Trump and I believe he was a success in the role until the Epstein scandal broke.

IMO this is not the moment to try to bring Starmer down and the case for doing so is weak..

And the leader we have just now resisted the pressure, from all sides, to take us into an illegal war.

The world situation is so precarious and we have someone dealing with it calmly and with their head screwed on.

The world situation is indeed very precarious and that's why we need someone who is focused and determined and who has a reliable, informed and knowledgeable team behind him. Not someone who swithers about making U turn after U turn and doesn't know what his advisers are doing either because "nobody told him" or he turned a blind eye.

This situation materialised ( the appointment of a known deeply dodgy man) because of concerns about the 'world stage' - i.e Trump, it isn't a good idea to keep lowering standards till you reach the bottom.

Allira

Starmer is way down the list of "worst PMs".

People have very short memories if they think that.

Well Liz Truss didn't last long did she, maybe people forget she was PM

Starmer is way down the list of "worst PMs".

People have very short memories if they think that.

I can’t stand Starmer. He has been described, quite correctly as the worst PM we have ever had, so part of me would love to see him go BUT that could mean the ghastly Angela Rayner as PM😮
That’s got to be worse, surely?

In view of that I hope he survives this and any other disasters.

* I think he's doing a great job with the international situation, and when I think of what Badenoch and Farage would have done my blood runs cold.* - this is the crux of the matter at the moment.

The world situation is so precarious and we have someone dealing with it calmly and with their head screwed on.

It’s not a witch hunt. If this government and this unreformed Civil Service can’t guarantee the appointment of ambassadors, why on earth trust them with much more important matters? Iran is beyond their pay grade.

AGAA4

Thank you Graphite for your in depth explanations of how vetting works.
I don't like this trend of sacking PMs that the Tories started with the disastrous Johnson.
We are in a difficult state with the Iran war that Starmer is handling well and so not a good time to change PMs and Graphite's evidence shows that Starmer may not have been told that Mandelson had failed the vetting.
I am not a labour voter or a fan of Starmer but I dislike these witch hunts.

Me too ....... it's just making political capital rather than looking at the bigger picture and the real interests of UK.

1960srelic

I still say that Starmer should stay, simply because there isn't anybody of sufficient stature to replace him on the world stage at the moment who can cope with Trump and all the other crises going on. I am still voting Labour at the local elections, as much as anything to stop Reform getting in.

Indeed so ......

Thank you Graphite for your in depth explanations of how vetting works.
I don't like this trend of sacking PMs that the Tories started with the disastrous Johnson.
We are in a difficult state with the Iran war that Starmer is handling well and so not a good time to change PMs and Graphite's evidence shows that Starmer may not have been told that Mandelson had failed the vetting.
I am not a labour voter or a fan of Starmer but I dislike these witch hunts.

Like Doodledog I think Starmer must stay in position at the moment, we do not need all the upset and confusion of Labour electing a new leader and by default PM. However I do wonder why those in authority didn't ask a great many more questions about Mandelson's appointment in the first place, given his very public history. I'd have thought as soon as his name was mentioned behind closed doors that someone would have said that he needed vetting before any announcement.

1960srelic

I still say that Starmer should stay, simply because there isn't anybody of sufficient stature to replace him on the world stage at the moment who can cope with Trump and all the other crises going on. I am still voting Labour at the local elections, as much as anything to stop Reform getting in.

Yes, I would do the same if we were having elections. I'm far from delighted with Starmer's leadership at home (but very impressed with his performance abroad) but there is nobody I'd rather have as PM so long as Andy Burnham is out of the running.

Graceless

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

This appointment was almost certainly as a result of FO recommendation.

I still say that Starmer should stay, simply because there isn't anybody of sufficient stature to replace him on the world stage at the moment who can cope with Trump and all the other crises going on. I am still voting Labour at the local elections, as much as anything to stop Reform getting in.

I don't know what to think. I doubt we know the half of this. Apparently Mandelson didn't know he'd failed the vetting, and we don't know why he failed. I think it's perfectly possible that Starmer didn't know, but that begs the question of why he didn't make it his business to find out. Is there something still to come out, or that won't come out for 40 years or whatever? Possibly to do with Andrew.

If not for the Iran situation I think I'd be expecting him to resign, even if there are things he can't be open about, but I think he's doing a great job with the international situation, and when I think of what Badenoch and Farage would have done my blood runs cold.

Regarding whether someone can take up an appointment before vetting clearance, this was addressed by the Foreign Affairs Committee although I am not sure it was clarified sufficiently regarding the procedure for direct appointments to ambassadorial positions.

See what Chris Wormald said at Q254.

Generally a political appointment is made before but not taken up until security clearance has been obtained.

Once (or if) we can get past all the usual politically-biased posts and name-calling from people who dislike Labour, who dislike Starmer etc etc and start examining how this could have happened it gets more interesting (for me anyway).

We don’t know why Mandelson failed vetting but if it was to do with Epstein then the UK would be playing into the dead hands of a paedophile who (according to the files) with Bannon, Johnson and Farage did and continue to so much to undermine UK governance.

Barry Gardiner MP on Newsnight was quite candid when he said there are many people who would like to see Starmer out of Downing Street, people both outside and inside the party, but this is not the thing to do it over.