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

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

Yvette Cooper perhaps?

Otherwise 🤔

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.

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.

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

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 ?

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.

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.

Cat Little is giving evidence to the FAC now and while only a few minutes in (the video can be rewound) is explaining what happened with great clarity.

parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/19ce63b7-d897-4435-b44b-08b08393734a

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.

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.

The rats always leave the sinking ship. I think senior civil servants are very upset over the Robbins sacking which will make working relations difficult. The MPs would rather support them than Starmer who I think made a huge mistake sacking Robbins.

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.

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.

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.

It’s long been my belief that he will run away before 2029

Perhaps he'll become an ex pat?

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.

Would Farage have been the centre of attention on that day?
No.
Was that why he didn't bother to attend?

Incidentally, why wasn't the leader of Reform in Parliament to have his say?

Farage hasn’t made a contribution to a HoC debate since 25 March when he was banging on about small boats again after which all Reform MPs walked out.

Cynics would say it was a planned performance because they knew that Steve Reed was due to announce a ban on crypto donations later in the session and they didn’t want to be there for that.

Correct me if I’m wrong but having scanned Parliament Live TV for the hot debates over the last few days and PMQs. I can’t see Farage there at all. I think he’s travelling around doing his tent shows like the fairground huckster he is.

Despite popular belief, I don’t think the furore over Starmer plays into Farage’s hands at all. Worse case scenario, there’s a vote of no confidence and a snap election leaving Farage with his pants down. He knows his party, were they to win, would be in no position to govern nor would he able to do the job of Prime Minister. It’s long been my belief that he will run away before 2029.

Because child safeguarding isn't that much of a priority for people? Becausr people lose their minds when faced with Trump? I have no idea.

So why wasn't the alarm raised at the time of his appointment?

It seems extraordinary that there was very little opposition when he was appointed - and, yes, most people did know Mandelson's history. The alarm is only being raised now because there was some kind of procedural c*ck up.

Incidentally, why wasn't the leader of Reform in Parliament to have his say?

Well they would, wouldn’t they?

Every single leader is raising concerns about Starmer, not just Badenoch, and to be honest if the shoe was on the other foot Starmer would be behaving in exactly the same way if Badenoch had appointed mandelsson.
If you don't want to be in this position, don't appoint a twice sacked minister with known links to the most famous paedophile in the world.
My smpathy is limited.

DaisyAnneReturns

Cardamom

I agree with what Kemi Badenoch says, either KS lied or he is hopelessly incompetent

It's perfectly possible that both are correct.

It's also possible, with Ms Badenoch's history, that neither are.

It is most certainly possible that neither is correct. Ms Badenoch is in her element accusing people and calling them names. As you say, DaisyAnnReturns, she has history.

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.

Cardamom

^I agree with what Kemi Badenoch says, either KS lied or he is hopelessly incompetent^

It's perfectly possible that both are correct.

It's also possible, with Ms Badenoch's history, that neither are.