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

I believe that he told the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that Mandelson had passed the vetting process.
If so, why would he do this?

However, Mandelson was a very controversial appointment anyway, known for dodgy dealings.

Elegran

It seems that some posters think that the Prime Minister should have the details of all the vetting of everybody at his fingertips, including the most private confidential inquisitions which were not supposed to be passed on to anyone except the vetters.

Does Trump work that way? Or Orban? Or Putin? We are very lucky in this country, We can have trust in our leaders not to use such discoveries for political or financial advantage, but that may not always prove true, so the privacy rules are there for a reason.

Surely the controversial choice of Mandelson warranted the PM to know if he had passed or failed? Did he even ask? If it was the case that even if he had then he wouldn’t have been told? And if that is true then why has Olly Robbins been sacked for doing his job?
There’s a lot that doesn’t add up here!

Primrose53

Wow! just watched Susannah Reid and Ed Balls on ITV grilling the Secretary of State for Scotland over Starmer. They did not hold back and both seemed really shocked that he appointed Mandelson and has got this so badly wrong.

I then turned over to GB News and the former Head of MI6 was being interviewed and he explained the different levels of vetting and he was very surprised at how Starmer has handled this.

Interesting.
Ed Balls is, of course, the husband of the Foreign Secretary.

AGAA4

Hung drawn and quartered even before the enquiry. The media is judge, jury and executioner.

With the "tricoteuses" enjoying the show!

That said I don’t believe he has lied
I think he wasn’t informed by Olly Robbins.

Time will tell.

Sir Keir Starmer has been in Downing Street for almost two years, but the next 48 hours are expected to be the most crucial in determining the fate of his premiership.

The Prime Minister will face MPs this afternoon (pity I’m out and about so will miss the grilling he will get) to give a statement on the latest twists in the Mandelson scandal, and is unlikely to get an easy ride from either his own side or Opposition MPs

Primrose53

Wow! just watched Susannah Reid and Ed Balls on ITV grilling the Secretary of State for Scotland over Starmer. They did not hold back and both seemed really shocked that he appointed Mandelson and has got this so badly wrong.

I then turned over to GB News and the former Head of MI6 was being interviewed and he explained the different levels of vetting and he was very surprised at how Starmer has handled this.

Who would you prefer to be in charge please?

Because you are clearly enjoying this.

Rash judgements!

Nanna8 so you know him personally do you? I don’t know him so cannot make any rah judgements and I know very little about Australian politics at the moment to comment on the “ trustworthiness” of the elected members !!
I often wonder where you source your info from?

It seems that some posters think that the Prime Minister should have the details of all the vetting of everybody at his fingertips, including the most private confidential inquisitions which were not supposed to be passed on to anyone except the vetters.

Does Trump work that way? Or Orban? Or Putin? We are very lucky in this country, We can have trust in our leaders not to use such discoveries for political or financial advantage, but that may not always prove true, so the privacy rules are there for a reason.

Hung drawn and quartered even before the enquiry. The media is judge, jury and executioner.

Are we expecting one man or woman to be fully involved in day to day work that we pay senior civil servants to do?

No we are not, but we are expecting a Prime Minister to have his finger on the pulse. With such a risky and inappropriate appointment concerning a man with an extremely dubious record, Starmer should have asked whether Mandelson had been cleared, and if he did not ask, why not?
In some business circles there is an attitude that' I do not want to know, I did not hear thar that, as it may compromise future actions'. If this is what happened, it is dishonest.

Starmer won't go, no matter what, but his credibility is destroyed, by his own hand.

Starmer should go. Not trustworthy.

Wow! just watched Susannah Reid and Ed Balls on ITV grilling the Secretary of State for Scotland over Starmer. They did not hold back and both seemed really shocked that he appointed Mandelson and has got this so badly wrong.

I then turned over to GB News and the former Head of MI6 was being interviewed and he explained the different levels of vetting and he was very surprised at how Starmer has handled this.

Are we expecting one man or woman to be fully involved in day to day work that we pay senior civil servants to do? PM has to be able to trust those who work for him, or who are in his government to do their work, feed him/her the summary, and specifics when (s)he asks for them, and to highlight areas of concern.
A head has rolled for failure to do so, but by allowing them to resign, they get to keep their pensions and service length !

Twaddle I am with you !

Susieq62

After all of this discussion I still don’t care 🤪🤷‍♀️

Neither do I really, although I will care if Starmer gets forced out at this stage.

I have no more idea than anybody else why Mandelson failed the vetting. However, if it was to do with his company's representing a Chinese firm, it makes sense.

The Pentagon is suspicious about the Chinese company, although nobody else seems that bothered. Mandelson couldn't have represented the company at the same time as being US ambassador because it would have been a conflict of interest. He stepped down from the company in 2024 before taking up the role as ambassador. If (and I don't know, so it's only "if") this was the reason for the failed vetting, it's possible he was told about it and decided to relinquish control of the company in favour of taking up the ambassador role. Robbins was appointed in early 2025 and might have decided that the concern over security didn't exist any more because Mandelson no longer controlled the company, thus he overruled the decision. Robbins would have been forbidden by laws of confidentiality from informing the PM, although I don't know where the fact that two No 10 staff knew fits into it all.

I have no idea whether all of that is true, but it does fit the timeline.

After all of this discussion I still don’t care 🤪🤷‍♀️

How does Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador affect you?

WithNobsOnIt

The whole fiasco could be an episode Yes Minister that went horribly wrong.

If the Civil Service did over ride the vetting decision. Isn't this done kind of Treasonable Offence?

Just exactly who is running this country?

Exactly what I’ve been saying from the start of this thread.
That’s why the truth will never come out.
Unelected civil servants are making decisions that affect us
And we don’t even know who most of them are.
It was ever thus but now we know and have nowhere to direct our contempt and anger.

Boz

If he didn't know he should have known or if he knew and hoped it would not come to light; either way is an error of judgement and he should go.

How could he have known? We have already heard about the level of confidentiality.

Tribal attacks take us no further forward.

WithNobsOnIt

The whole fiasco could be an episode Yes Minister that went horribly wrong.

If the Civil Service did over ride the vetting decision. Isn't this done kind of Treasonable Offence?

Just exactly who is running this country?

Reminds me of Yes Minister too.

The vetting "decision" is more like vetting "advice". They present what they've found & the people they report to decide what to do on the basis of that info.
Presumably if their flatmate is a Russian spy it's likely to be advice not to touch them with a bargepole, but other cases are more nuanced & the decision is up to the Civil servants, so not Treasonable, no.

Links with China ...

As far as I can tell, the links with China were open and legitimate.

Mandelson jointly founded a PR company in 2010. His partner sought advice from Epstein on setting it up. A Chinese company was Mandelson and his partner's biggest client. There's nothing wrong with that. From one viewpoint it's good that a UK export to China is doing something to balance out the balance of trade deficit.

Mandelson stepped back from the company in 2024 before accepting the role as US ambassador, but retained a financial share in the business.

The problem seems to be that the Pentagon wants the Chinese company, WuXi, added to a list of firms that pose security risks. As far as I know, no other country wants the company blacklisted and I don't even know if the Pentagon has got its way. It could just be one of Trump's whims, for all I know.

I don't really see what Mandelson has done wrong, although I can see that alarm bells would ring and there could be a conflict of interest, if Mandelson had still been an active owner of the company while being ambassador, but he wasn't.