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

Oreo

Primrose53

McSweeney says “I got it wrong”.

They’re all covering their backs now, everyone loses their jobs bar Starmer.
Funny that 🤔

I'd love to know who's been promised what in an effort to cover Starmer's back - it's sickening.

Spinnaker

Oreo

Primrose53

McSweeney says “I got it wrong”.

They’re all covering their backs now, everyone loses their jobs bar Starmer.
Funny that 🤔

I'd love to know who's been promised what in an effort to cover Starmer's back - it's sickening.

I’d be interested to know what people are hoping for as the end result of all this. Change of party leader? If so who do they want to replace him? Change of government? If so which party do they want to be in power? As far as I’m concerned I want Starmer to remain as leader and Labour to remain in power. But I’d love to know what those who seem to be gleefully watching all this unfold actually want from it.

I thought this morning made it clear McSweeney had a big part in pushing the recommendation

(us Labour left of centre wanted him to go for a long time) very hard, he's an apparatchik and I don't like political wheeler dealers a great deal from anyone

; it was rushed when it shouldn't have been, but there was pressure to get someone in place becuase of political events in the USA:

The civil servant made it very clear he was NOT instructed to short cut processes or ignore available information: yes there were pressures to do it quickly (which meant it was being taken seriously)
BUT it's not unsusal for the civil service to be asked to fast forward matters.

I dont think Starmer has anything to add that has not been said already, frankly: he has apologised openly and frankly,

its quite clear to me he wouldn't go and appoint someone connected with such a child and woman abusive person - you can call him what you like (or what the right wing press are dining out on, drinking the coolaid atm)

but he would never knowingly make such an appointment neither would ANY politician I would sincerely hope.

I was hoping for so much more from the anti sleaze government… so much for that line of propaganda.
We really have a sorry bunch of politicians. Carry on regardless?

Sorry, did I miss the bit where Starmer's name is in the Epstein Files?
Now those are a sleazy bunch of folk.

Wyllow3

I thought this morning made it clear McSweeney had a big part in pushing the recommendation

(us Labour left of centre wanted him to go for a long time) very hard, he's an apparatchik and I don't like political wheeler dealers a great deal from anyone

; it was rushed when it shouldn't have been, but there was pressure to get someone in place becuase of political events in the USA:

The civil servant made it very clear he was NOT instructed to short cut processes or ignore available information: yes there were pressures to do it quickly (which meant it was being taken seriously)
BUT it's not unsusal for the civil service to be asked to fast forward matters.

I dont think Starmer has anything to add that has not been said already, frankly: he has apologised openly and frankly,

its quite clear to me he wouldn't go and appoint someone connected with such a child and woman abusive person - you can call him what you like (or what the right wing press are dining out on, drinking the coolaid atm)

but he would never knowingly make such an appointment neither would ANY politician I would sincerely hope.

But of course, it all has to be Starmer’s fault, it all has to be a corrupt cover-up, those Starmer bashers wont accept anything else!

ronib

I was hoping for so much more from the anti sleaze government… so much for that line of propaganda.
We really have a sorry bunch of politicians. Carry on regardless?

In your opinion.

In some people’s opinions, on and off here, if Starmer said grass was green he’d be a sleazy liar!

I’ve never know a PM so constantly slated by media of all types.

McSweeney was very clear in his remarks. He advised Starmer to appoint Mandy because of Mandy’s experience as a Trade Envoy for the EU.
Obviously Starmer agreed with McSweeney and the appointment went ahead.
Ironically Mandy probably did facilitate a good trade deal between the US and the Uk. This is clearly what the government wanted.

ronib

McSweeney was very clear in his remarks. He advised Starmer to appoint Mandy because of Mandy’s experience as a Trade Envoy for the EU.
Obviously Starmer agreed with McSweeney and the appointment went ahead.
Ironically Mandy probably did facilitate a good trade deal between the US and the Uk. This is clearly what the government wanted.

But, I think we all agree, he should never have been appointed and this is a big fat mess, taking up valuable time that could be spent elsewhere ☹️☹️

Not quite. There’s clearly some problem with the way political appointees become ambassadors. If anything, there needs to be a much tighter vetting process which must fully precede the taking up of the position. It’s not a waste of time but essential. Cossy. Also the vetting body needs to have much more input into the final appointment going ahead. This very waffling situation shouldn’t happen again. Also the chain of command needs clarification. Does the prime minister have a right to know when vetting has failed?

Fair do ronib. I agree with your last two posts.

ronib

Not quite. There’s clearly some problem with the way political appointees become ambassadors. If anything, there needs to be a much tighter vetting process which must fully precede the taking up of the position. It’s not a waste of time but essential. Cossy. Also the vetting body needs to have much more input into the final appointment going ahead. This very waffling situation shouldn’t happen again. Also the chain of command needs clarification. Does the prime minister have a right to know when vetting has failed?

I certainly agree the entire vetting process needs reviewing.

I didn’t mean this process was a waste of time, but had the vetting process been different and had the PM been informed (I don’t know if he should or shouldn’t) then we wouldn’t be where we are now.

Cossy

Wyllow3

I thought this morning made it clear McSweeney had a big part in pushing the recommendation

(us Labour left of centre wanted him to go for a long time) very hard, he's an apparatchik and I don't like political wheeler dealers a great deal from anyone

; it was rushed when it shouldn't have been, but there was pressure to get someone in place becuase of political events in the USA:

The civil servant made it very clear he was NOT instructed to short cut processes or ignore available information: yes there were pressures to do it quickly (which meant it was being taken seriously)
BUT it's not unsusal for the civil service to be asked to fast forward matters.

I dont think Starmer has anything to add that has not been said already, frankly: he has apologised openly and frankly,

its quite clear to me he wouldn't go and appoint someone connected with such a child and woman abusive person - you can call him what you like (or what the right wing press are dining out on, drinking the coolaid atm)

but he would never knowingly make such an appointment neither would ANY politician I would sincerely hope.

But of course, it all has to be Starmer’s fault, it all has to be a corrupt cover-up, those Starmer bashers wont accept anything else!

The media have been desperate to pin something on Starmer ever since they failed with donkeygate. If only they’d been so forensic pre referendum about Brexit benefits #stilllookingme…

No wonder the buses are often late with the number of people Starmer has thrown under them.

And McSweeney’s phone getting stolen. Not reported to the Police.
Handy that.

Well, the idea that Starmer is pushing a three line whip tonight to keep himself out of facing a privilege committee? Surely if he were innocent (believable) this wouldn’t be necessary?

So now we have a choice. Who to believe.
Starmer and No10 or this man with a lifetime of service.
It’s not a hard decision is it?

Starmer should allow a free vote. Boris did! I sincerely hope he does allow MP's a free vote. It then gives the opportunity to see whether in fact there are still decent Labour MP's with integrity!

love0c

Starmer should allow a free vote. Boris did! I sincerely hope he does allow MP's a free vote. It then gives the opportunity to see whether in fact there are still decent Labour MP's with integrity!

I agree

What time is the vote?
I cant find the answer anywhere.

Apparently, Starmer is likely to easily win it.

It's done.
MPs voted against Starmer facing a parliamentary inquiry over whether he misled MPs over Lord Mandelson's vetting.

Well thank goodness ... he can now get on with governing the country.

I'm glad. This has been a tsunami in a teacup. Now they can get on with the job .

With the whip in force would you expect anything else?

The point is that there is no alternative to Starmer ….. yet.

Luckygirl3

Well thank goodness ... he can now get on with governing the country.

Absolutely.