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

Hope they come out

AGAA4

I don't think KS remaining as PM is untenable. It seems obvious that the fault lay with Robbins and staff.

A PM has to be able to trust that what he is told by his staff is correct and not lose his position because of incompetencey by others.
Do people believe the PM should double check everything that crosses his desk. He would have no time for his own work.

I think it’s a momentous mess and won’t reflect well on our PM!

Couldn’t send screen shots.

Will attempt to précis.

Robbins insists that ^ it was clear that the PM wanted to make the appointment himself^

He (OR) was only acting on the PM’s orders

Does anyone really think that a leadership election at the moment with all that is going on in the world, is a good idea? I realise the right wing press can’t wait for him to go, but honestly are any of the alternatives acceptable? Starmer has proved he can handle the world’s stage, especially with someone like trump creating mayhem, plus he is doing well getting back with the rest of Europe. We have far more in common with them than the USA.

No, it's not a good idea.

Robbins also said that Starmer took advice and formed a view himself, and we then acted on that view.
So this contradicts what Downing Street is now claiming.

There was a clearly much back and forth discussion.

The Prime Minister gives certain roles to certain people ... he cant be everywhere at once , the ministers have let him down , He has sacked the ministers, what else do you you want him to do ? And that black woman who pops up at every chance to discredit the Prime Minister ... Do you really think that a lot of White Middle aged Men will vote for you to be their Prime Minister ? You are deluded ..

Ladyleftfieldlover

Does anyone really think that a leadership election at the moment with all that is going on in the world, is a good idea? I realise the right wing press can’t wait for him to go, but honestly are any of the alternatives acceptable? Starmer has proved he can handle the world’s stage, especially with someone like trump creating mayhem, plus he is doing well getting back with the rest of Europe. We have far more in common with them than the USA.

It’s never a good time to change horses mid race

It all depends on the contents of the PM’s statement in the House on Monday, and how it is received by his fellow MPs.

There has just been a continuous stream of mishaps, I expected more of this cohort.

The electorate has to be able to trust its Prime Minister, and this seems increasingly unlikely.

Peter Mandelson failed his vetting, and the top Civil Servant and Minister for the Foreign Office apparently failed to inform the Prime Minister who was pushing for this unpopular appointment.
He apparently failed to check the result of the vetting for a controversial appointment.
Why?
Lack of attention to detail?
Unlikely in a highly trained Barrister?
He has known since Tuesday evening, if not before, so why no statement to Parliament?
Where is he now?
Out of the country.

Perhaps you can see why the electorate has lost faith in its Prime Minister.

*Where is he now?
Out of the country*

I think he is doing useful things whilst out of the country.

The ghastly Mandelson should never have been near the role.

I wonder why he’s out of the country!? You would soon be complaining if Starmer wasn’t doing his best, together with other leaders, to try and sort out this trump-filled mess.

twaddle

Rosie51

twaddle

Rosie51

twaddle Firstly, vetting checks can't be carried out until somebody is appointed

Really? So the 4 months of security checking my relative underwent before he could be offered the post in counter terrorism was a figment of his imagination? They might have wanted Mandelson but no announcement of his appointment needed to be made until he had passed vetting. That his previous well documented transgressions hadn't already ruled him out is astounding.

No idea, but presumably the relative was told he/she had the job - subject to successful vetting. I have a very close friend who works in a high level security job. He was told he had the job, then literally sat around for months until he and his family gained clearance.

Nobody can request security clearance for somebody else, unless there's a very good reason such as a firm job offer.

No, he couldn't be offered the position, a transfer from his current policing role, until full security checks had been carried out, including the checks on his brother who permanently resides overseas. So I'm afraid as far as the police at least are concerned nobody can request security clearance for somebody else, unless there's a very good reason such as a firm job offer. is incorrect. Just applying for the role triggers the security checks if you pass initial application. They will have security checked other applicants who didn't get the position even though they had passed those checks.

But he knew the position was his, if he passed the checks. Sorry, but you're wrong. Applying for the role doesn't trigger the check - I do know how it worked. You contradicted yourself by mentioning passing initial application.

There were more applicants than positions. All applicants that were being considered for the position were security checked. He did not know the position was his if he passed the checks. Some applicants that passed the checks didn't get the position. I think my relative knows more about the process he went through than you, unless you are/were in charge of counter terrorism employment? Passing initial application simply meant his application not being totally discarded.

Why on earth would we be told confidential government information?

Neither we nor the Prime Minister have the right to be told why the person failed the vetting, but we do have the right to be told the truth, which is that Mandelson failed his vetting and should never have been appointed.

Where is he now?
Out of the country.

Oh good. Trying to sort out this abominable mess Trump has got us all into, I hope.

^Robbins also said that Starmer took advice and formed a view himself, and we then acted on that view.

So, is Robbins saying “KS wanted PM for the job so, because of that, I didn’t my job properly and ignored part of the outcome of the vetting process to make it fit what KS wanted???

Or is he saying “KS told me to ignore part of the outcome because he wanted PM regardless”???

Methinks Robbins needs to be clear about what he actually means, cos it certainly ain’t clear at the moment.

Anyway, I’m sure it will all become clear in the fullness of time, when he’s giving evidence to a governmental committee rather than The Telegraph!

LizzieDrip

^Robbins also said that Starmer took advice and formed a view himself, and we then acted on that view.

So, is Robbins saying “KS wanted PM for the job so, because of that, I didn’t my job properly and ignored part of the outcome of the vetting process to make it fit what KS wanted???

Or is he saying “KS told me to ignore part of the outcome because he wanted PM regardless”???

Methinks Robbins needs to be clear about what he actually means, cos it certainly ain’t clear at the moment.

Anyway, I’m sure it will all become clear in the fullness of time, when he’s giving evidence to a governmental committee rather than The Telegraph!

OR is reiterating what he said in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee last November.

I would prefer that Starmer spent more time in this country sorting out the mess he is making here.
He has wilfully destroyed any influence he may have had with Trump at the beginning of his premiership.

Here’s the Telegraph piece with the misleading headline “We acted on his decision.”

archive.is/20260417102611/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/04/17/starmer-wanted-mandelson-claimed-sir-olly-robbins/

The FAC proceedings which I posted a link to upthread explain what happened in Mandelson’s case. Q252.

Sir Oliver Robbins: It was different, because this was not run as a standard civil service/diplomatic service process. As the Committee will probably be aware, there is a specific exemption in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 for heads of mission appointments from time to time to be appointed directly by Ministers. They are known as political appointments, although they do not actually have to be politicians or even politically motivated; it is just the choice of politicians. Lord Mandelson’s appointment, as one or two others over the years have done, fell into that category.

To answer the other part of your question, he did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed, but, as is normally the case with external appointments to my Department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance.

That’s what Robbins means. The FCDO acted on Starmer’s wish to appoint Mandelson. After that the process regarding vetting and what may be disclosed and to whom applies, as described by MacMaster in The Spectator piece.

The rest of the Telegraph article is speculation.

Rather than endless doing this why not wait until after Robbins had given his evidence to the cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee next week? Lying to a parliamentary committee is considered a "contempt of Parliament" so the truth of what happened should come out. Starmer knows this so lying about it would be futile.

eazybee

I would prefer that Starmer spent more time in this country sorting out the mess he is making here.
He has wilfully destroyed any influence he may have had with Trump at the beginning of his premiership.

No-one can reason with or influence Trump in any way, eazybee and thinking it is possible is like herding cats.
He's totally unpredictable.

" wilfully destroyed" . T is an utter disgrace. I was proud of KS for refusing to be drawn in.

eazybee

I would prefer that Starmer spent more time in this country sorting out the mess he is making here.
He has wilfully destroyed any influence he may have had with Trump at the beginning of his premiership.

How can anyone have influence over a POTUS who is obviously deranged? You have to take every day (or night) as it comes with Trump.

I’m waiting for a clear chronology of who did what and exactly what KS was told about Mandelson’s vetting procedure. We don’t expect CEO’s of Directors of huge organisation to forensically examine DBS checks. So it’s not u reasonable to expect KS to accept information he’s given.

Like others, I thought Mandelson an unusual choice and it’s proved to imo show poor judgement by KS

He’s operating extremely well in the international stage. I’m bored with the cries that he should be in the country more, from those who long to see him driven out of office

Not the time for s leadership contest. Time for loyalty from some back benchers

KS knew on Tuesday, so why didn't he bring this up in Parliament just before PMQ's? A preemptive strike he could have given an explanation, of events, surely this would have been less damaging.

Visgir1

KS knew on Tuesday, so why didn't he bring this up in Parliament just before PMQ's? A preemptive strike he could have given an explanation, of events, surely this would have been less damaging.

Exactly. By not saying straight away it looks fishy and when it all comes out in the open, as it invariably does, he looks guilty, even if he isn't.

We are in the middle if a crisis and this is not the time for change or distraction.