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

So there’s now a long list of those who want Starmer out. The Greens, Reform, Conservatives, Lib Dems, many Labour MPs, the Left leaning Guardian and much of the public. Oh dear Keir.

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

Indeed. And no one can claim ignorance of Mandelson's history and reputation; Mandelson resigned twice from Blair’s cabinet—first in 1998 over a home loan, and again in 2001 over a passport controversy, with Blair accepting both to minimize government damage.

Starmer bleating "But I didn'tknow! No one told me!" is just ridiculous; he knew precisely what Mandelson was.

Cardamom

This latest "scandal" couldn't have come at a worse time for Starmer. It's one scandal too many for Labour and follows far too many U turns; they haven't got enough time to turn things around before the May elections. I'm afraid he'll be toast.

I think so too.

I have said for months I couldnt see him lasting past May.

Would he be got rid of before the Local Elections?

Graphite

^Another question, why did Keir Starmer announce PM’s appointment as Ambassador before he had been formally vetted?^

This is explained in the proceedings of the Foreign Affairs Committee linked to above.

The appointment can be made subject to appropriate vetting, but is there a legal requirement to announce it publicly before such vetting is concluded, or it would appear even started?
As I've said up thread it could blight someone publicly for evermore because they failed the vetting.

And what about the Iran war situation?
Not to forget Ukraine?

I agree with Casdon 9.23.

Rosie51

My question would be why was the Mandelson appointment announced before the security vetting had taken place? If the announcement is made and he fails the vetting then isn't that a monumental slight on him forever more? A relative went through extensive security vetting which included his overseas relatives, before being appointed to the counter-terrorist group. Surely such a high profile appointment as Mandelson's required at least the same level of pre-vetting?

Jobs for the boys, perhaps?

Wyllow3

I want more details.

Yes, cross if he did know.

Not a good idea to get into Boris comparisons, he did far, far more than described above (one party, you have to be joking!) as in handouts for mates (contracts, the Chris Pincher episode, lied many times to Parliament) and got a pretty free pass from the right wing press until it got far too much.

Yes I like Yvette Cooper, always have, but not change atm.

i want more details
Not a problem. Just apply under the freedom of information act.
But don’t be surprised if you receive a communication where everything is redacted bar your name and date.
Just saying 🤷‍♀️

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ......

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.

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.

* 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.

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.

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

People have very short memories if they think that.

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

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.

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.

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