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

Just attempts to provoke!

(sail on by attention seeking provocation)

a ‘real Starmer babe’.

My imagination is running wild!
😂

I’m not a ‘real Starmer babe’. Pretty insulting comment in response to attempts to seriously debate significant issues.
I admired Starmer’s legal and cps work.

Like many, I believe the attempts to improve our benefit system and Pip were astonishingly badly managed though I still support the principles
Starmer is t a seasoned politician, there are times when it would help if he was

Moreover, Starmer still hasn't found himself an efficient Director of Communications, who would be responsible for PR and let the pubic know what's going on.

Mollygo
Yes it would be good for someone to get to the bottom of things. But KS himself is not overly clear on pubic affairs.

Mamie

Blimey Mollygo did you want him to be clear on your last words in the post? 😂😂😂

Oh dear, don't say you thought that was a pile of speech or writing that is silly or not true?
I was quoting a previous poster -and it seemed appropriate.

Iam64

Casdon, please continue your calm, well informed posts

Yes, please.

What are you talking about Oreo? Read my posts, I have been quite clear that I think Starmer is accountable. Sometimes it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion because people sont read threads.

Casdon

Just to remind you of what you actually said Cardamon

‘I seem to recall Starmer calling it a "transparency revolution" aimed at "cleaning up politics" and restoring standards in public life. It's going well so far “

Starmer mishandled the Mandelson case but that does not mean no progress has been made in improving transparency and cleaning up politics, does it? Perhaps a less sweeping indictment would have been more fitting.

Only a real Starmer Babe could conclude that he’s doing well on any front.
He’s been an unmitigated disaster as has Rachel Reeves.After waiting 14 years to see Labour back in power I am disappointed and disgusted with him.

Mollygo

^Moreover, Starmer still hasn't found himself an efficient Director of Communications, who would be responsible for PR and let the pubic know what's going on.^
Yes it would be good for someone to get to the bottom of things. But KS himself is not overly clear on pubic affairs.

Blimey Mollygo did you want him to be clear on your last words in the post? 😂😂😂

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?

Casdon, please continue your calm, well informed posts

Just to remind you of what you actually said Cardamon

‘I seem to recall Starmer calling it a "transparency revolution" aimed at "cleaning up politics" and restoring standards in public life. It's going well so far “

Starmer mishandled the Mandelson case but that does not mean no progress has been made in improving transparency and cleaning up politics, does it? Perhaps a less sweeping indictment would have been more fitting.

That's an impressive list casdon; but regrettably, it doesn't cover "Nobody told me" or "I knew but did it anyway". Which, whilst not falling within the parameters of your laudable list, is precisely why Starmer is where he is now.

DaisyAnneReturns

twaddle

Smileless2012

Olly Robbins did not know red boxes had been ticked twaddle. He didn't know and had never seen that particular document showing the red boxes. All he was told that there was a leaning toward not giving Mandelson clearance.

That's what I thought. In that case, he had no reason to tell Starmer anything and Robbins behaved professionally. Goodness knows what form the "leaning toward" took, but he was correct not to pass on tittle tattle. Not only that, but the original story is wrong! Mandelson didn't fail the vetting and this has been the biggest red herring ever!

It's all a bit weird. Everybody knew of Mandelson's reputation when he was appointed. His two sackings from the cabinet were in the public domain. As far as I can remember, the extent of his dealings with Epstein weren't fully known and I'm not even sure that the public was aware just how many friendships with powerful people Epstein had cultivated. Why has the story hit the headlines now?

It seems that the DV has been badly handled and there seem to have been misunderstandings, but nothing illegal has taken place.

Robbins appears to have acted professionally; without clear, substantiated concerns, there was no basis to brief Keir Starmer. Claims that Peter Mandelson was “leaning toward” something are too vague to justify passing on.

The vetting issue also seems mischaracterised. Mandelson didn’t fail DV clearance, so that framing is misleading.

His past was already public at the time of appointment, and while his links to Jeffrey Epstein are now under greater scrutiny, it’s unclear they were fully understood then.

Overall, this looks more like confusion and hindsight than evidence of wrongdoing.

overall, this looks more like confusion and hindsight than evidence of wrong doing

During various inspections and investigations I worked in, the conclusion, sadly, often was - well that was a c**k up, rather than a conspiracy.

Making things more complicated so the fit a particular agenda is rarely helpful

PS I'm not making comparisons with the political appointment system, just clarifying what is being asked on here several times about school DBS checks.

Just to be clear, regarding DBS, the law changed a few years ago. You can't get the information online anymore. You have to wait until the individual concerned brings you their disclosure copy and explains.

The printed form showing the disclosure is sent to the applicant only. If they want to explain it, usually the Headteacher will become involved. The secretary might indeed see it and read it when the person comes into school, and when a copy is taken.

Even if it is a clear DBS, the applicant has to bring it in for proof. Even if, in the case of a supply teacher, the agency has done the checks, the school will want to see the paperwork again.

Moreover, Starmer still hasn't found himself an efficient Director of Communications, who would be responsible for PR and let the pubic know what's going on.
Yes it would be good for someone to get to the bottom of things. But KS himself is not overly clear on pubic affairs.

I found another article written by the Institute for Governement:

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/sue-gray-fix-centre-government

It was written in October 2024, but is just as relevant today.

I'm not sure whether people are aware how No 10, the Cabinet Office and various government departments work. Unfortunately,m there are problems with communication and hierarchies.

Moreover, Starmer still hasn't found himself an efficient Director of Communications, who would be responsible for PR and let the pubic know what's going on.

I know. A lot has changed that people don’t know much about because it doesn’t hit the headlines, it’s in the small print. It’s important to learn from mistakes made by this and previous governments, and to put right known issues. It’s not making the government popular with fellow MPs, but it is the right thing to do.

That is some list.
Pity the details are not better known and acknowledged.

Cardamom

I seem to recall Starmer calling it a "transparency revolution" aimed at "cleaning up politics" and restoring standards in public life. It's going well so far isn't it!

It sounds like you aren’t up to speed with what has been happening. In fact a lot of changes have been made, or are proposed, to improve governance around the conduct of MPs, and the transparency of their actions. This is an AI lift, as the most expedient way of providing a list of the actions.

1. Restrictions on Outside Earnings and Jobs
Removal of "Loopholes": From late October 2024, MPs are banned from using their positions to advise employers on "public policy," "how Parliament works," or offering related consultancy services.
Outside Job Rules: While not a blanket ban, the rule changes stop MPs from acting as parliamentary strategists, strategists, or consultants.
Focus on Constituents: The government is pushing for higher standards, with the House of Commons Modernisation Committee established to examine further restrictions on roles that conflict with parliamentary duties.

2. Changes to IPSA Expenses and Office Running
Ban on Renting from Other MPs: The 2025-26 Scheme of MPs' Business Costs prohibits MPs from using public funds to rent accommodation from other MPs, their family, or connected parties.
Increased Winding-Up Period: Following the General Election, the period for closing down an MP's office (if they lose their seat) is increased to four months, allowing more time for staff, casework, and financial winding-up.
Staffing Support Changes: IPSA is implementing measures to allow for easier movement of staff between MPs, such as inter-office staffing loans, secondments, and recognizing past service with different MPs for redundancy and family leave pay.
End of Tax Advice Funding: From the 2024-2025 tax year onwards, MPs can no longer claim for accounting or tax-related services, as they are no longer required to submit a self-assessment tax return solely because they are an MP.
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
+2
3. Parliamentary Modernisation and Transparency
Modernisation Committee: Chaired by the Leader of the House of Commons, this cross-party committee is tasked with reforming procedures, driving up standards, and updating working practices.
Transparency on Meetings: The government has made commitments to enhance transparency regarding who is lobbying ministers, aiming to end vague descriptions of meetings, though implementation timelines have been debated.
Electoral Reform: The government has signaled moves to tighten rules on political donations, including potential criminal penalties for false declarations by donors, as part of a "clean up" of politics.

4. Staff Pay and Working Conditions
Annual Pay Reviews: IPSA continues to require MPs to review their staff salaries annually, with a focus on raising the salaries of junior staff who often lag behind the living wage.
Staff Pay Increases: IPSA announced that MP staff salaries would be automatically uprated by a certain percentage (e.g., 5% in March 2026), in line with pay increases for the MPs themselves, starting April 1, 2026.
No New Connected Parties: IPSA has continued its rule (started previously but enforced) prohibiting funding for new "connected parties" (family members) employed by MPs.

Note: The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is independent of the government, but updates its schemes in consultation with the House of Commons.

Silvergirl

We know Mandelson was breaching confidentiality by emailing Epstein sensitive government information. This came out a month or so ago. No idea how many others he leaked to. This would be reason enough to fail the vetting I would have thought.

Not if the UKSV didn't know about it at the time the vetting was carried out.

Word is that the concerns in the vetting process weren't about Epstein.

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.

We know Mandelson was breaching confidentiality by emailing Epstein sensitive government information. This came out a month or so ago. No idea how many others he leaked to. This would be reason enough to fail the vetting I would have thought.

I seem to recall Starmer calling it a "transparency revolution" aimed at "cleaning up politics" and restoring standards in public life. It's going well so far isn't it!

Primrose53

But Starmer swept in promising he and his party would be the exact opposite of how he saw Boris. Transparent, honest, trustworthy. What a joke!

That’s a good point.