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

To get a true picture of Labour and Starmer read Jonathan Cook Independent journalist.

'Labour Together' the key players in Starmers rise to No 10 now gone, the huge slush fund from big business donors, undeclared, for the benefit of the rich and only them the same as American politics.

Also Labour are bringing in Palantir into our NHS. Why?

What is Labour now.

Main Stream Media won't cover this it's not in their billionaire interests.

No, Oreo, not like myself!

AGAA4

It looks as though Starmer will be keeping his job for now as there is nobody suitable to replace him.
One MP said that Starmer was finished now and would not be there at the next GE so no need to rush for the time being.
Others are saying that had Andy Burnham been in government Starmer would have been ousted before now. They think Burnham would be a likely candidate for PM.
Sadly I think Starmer's days as PM are numbered now.

In your post you mention the word Now 3 times.
On the radio this morning a commentator who has worked in parliament for 25 years, said look out for the word NOW
He gave the same reasons you did.

Armando Iannucci gave a wonderful analogy with what’s going on in number 10 and the sinking of the Titanic.
www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002vc9p
His piece comes in at 07. 46.
Sooo clever.

Seems a bit odd to have a restricted brief when appearing in front of a panel of MPs. I can understand the need to protect information which may be needed to prosecute Mandy in the future but Cat Little seemed very good at stalling and not answering questions. I thought Emily Thornberry wasn’t confined to facts surrounding the Humble Address?

Emily Thornberry is very impressive on a committee.

Cat Little was very precise in her evidence to the FAC.

She only said she could not give an opinion when she was asked to speculate on what was said as meetings she was not present at or to speculate on decisions she did not make.

It is something I have notice through watching these FAC enquiries. Some of the MPs on the committee are not very skilled at formulating and asking questions or ask the same questions that have already been asked. The witnesses have shown great patience in answering them.

Little’s brief is only to gather and collate the documents required to satisfy the requirements of the humble address. What she made clear was how careful she has to be in collating documents which will be made public so that the ongoing criminal investigation is not compromised. She explained that she had had to seek high level legal advice on this which delayed passing documents to the PM by some weeks.

ronib

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.

Cumulatively, yes, polling figures are accurate. The result of one poll isn’t, but the result of a year’s worth of polls is.

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.

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

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Rutter

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.

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.

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.

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

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.