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

I just hope if Starmer has to go we can have an end to this war first. Trump threatening more bombing again so not likely.

Delene100

Galaxy

Why are some peopke so keen for this to happen? Because my morality doesn't include supporting the appointment of a man who gave government information to a paedophile. I understand people have different morality but it just isn't mine. I was absolutely against the appointment of mandelson and said it would end in disaster. For what it is worth I think it will bring about the end for Starner.

Well Mandelson certainly helped to bring down Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and now he will bring down Starmer. So three Labour Prime ministers. I believe Starmer appointed Mandelson for what he thought was the right reason but he was wrong. Listening to Olly's testament in front of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee this morning, Olly was thrown under the bus as he was only only in post for a week before this decision happened. I have come to the conclusion that Starmer lied as he was trying to please Trump. He announced Mandelson's appointment before security clearance was verified and put the Foreign Office in a very awkward position. This is not a good time to change PM but I think eventually Starmer has to go.

What did Starmer lie about? Sorry, but there isn't any evidence he did. Robbins' dismissal might turn out to be unfair, but that's a different issue.

Sarnia

Smileless2012

The wrong person has been sacked I agree ronib so why was he?

To save Starmer's skin. Pure and simple. Olly Robbins has legal advisors working on his sacking so this isn't over yet, not by a long chalk.

‘No greater love has he, who lays down his friends for his life’
😲😂

Delene100

Agree. I thought Olly Robbins gave an honest account of the situation he found himself in and he also explained why he couldn't answer a few of the questions due to national security.

The issue was that his interpretation of the rules was different from Starmer's. Starmer didn't lie.

Oh dear. To admit that as a former lawyer, Starmer didn’t understand the rules around vetting is staggering.

ronib

Oh dear. To admit that as a former lawyer, Starmer didn’t understand the rules around vetting is staggering.

Sorry, when did KS state that?

Every word spoken by Olly Robbins indicates that Starmer doesn’t understand the vetting process and Starmer has not said a word to correct this.

You’re embroidering now ronin. Olly Robbins indicated no such thing, he merely said vetting was a Civil Service issue to deal with. It would appear this practice applies to all similar appointments.

ronib

Every word spoken by Olly Robbins indicates that Starmer doesn’t understand the vetting process and Starmer has not said a word to correct this.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're claiming. Please could you give a specific example. It's a gross hyperbole to say that every word spoken by Robbins indicates lack of understanding. Which words?

Casdon

You’re embroidering now ronin. Olly Robbins indicated no such thing, he merely said vetting was a Civil Service issue to deal with. It would appear this practice applies to all similar appointments.

Not only similar appointments. I know somebody who is in a job much lower down the chain than ambassador who had to undergo this same vetting procedure. That's how I knew how it works.

As far as I can see, the mistakes are:

1 Thinking that Mandelson would be a good choice for ambassador, but I can understand the reasoning and it is true that the choice was applauded by many for being brave and bold.
2 Announcing the appointment before the vetting was complete. We all know now how vetting works. There is preliminary vetting before the appointment is made (maybe even before the candidate is considered), which is based on information in the public domain. An offer of appointment is made, but there will be a contract stating that it is conditional on successful vetting. It would appear that the appointment was announced before that process was complete. Emily Thornberry thinks it could have been Mandelson who leaked the information to the press.
3 There seems to be some doubt whether Mandelson "failed" the vetting or was borderline. Robbins at this stage made the decision to overrule any fail (if there was one) or thought there were mitigations to negate any fail. He was not allowed to give details of the concerns, but interpreted this to mean that he couldn't tell anybody the outcome. Starmer disputes this interpretation.

At no stage is there evidence that Starmer "lied".

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Thornberry, Lady Nugee, has no love for Starmer I’ll bet after she was passed over for the Foreign Secretary job in favour of Mastermind Lammy.

Revenge is a dish best served cold and I expect she will savouring every mouthful this morning.

Neither is Dianne Abbot- how good was she yesterday

MT62

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Thornberry, Lady Nugee, has no love for Starmer I’ll bet after she was passed over for the Foreign Secretary job in favour of Mastermind Lammy.

Revenge is a dish best served cold and I expect she will savouring every mouthful this morning.

Neither is Dianne Abbot- how good was she yesterday

Dianne did well yesterday and surprised me actually. She looked very pleased with herself. Staunch old Labourites Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell also had a go at KS.

Only 25 of 403 Labour parliamentarians turned up today to support their PM. Not looking good for Labour.

ronib

Every word spoken by Olly Robbins indicates that Starmer doesn’t understand the vetting process and Starmer has not said a word to correct this.

No they didn't. ! Watched the whole session.
What was absolutely clear was that KS and senior FCO and CO ministers were not at any stage informed by Mr. Robbins of either “borderline” issues, as Mr. Robbins claimed he was informed, or high security and reject recommendation red boxes ticked by the independent vetting service.
Mr. Robbins confirmed exactly that and that he still believes his decision to withhold that information was the correct course of action.

Clearly, the PM and ministers do not agree with him. They were allowed to stand before parliament and make statements Mr. Robbins knew to be untrue.

Sin of Omission.
Starmer so desperate for Mandelson to be cleared by vetting process that he announced his appointment without confirming his clearance.
As Dianne Abbott said so sweetly, Why did you not ask?

Starmer has made enemies on his way up and they have not forgotten . See his own MPs lining up to attack him in the Commons yesterday?

.

The vetting process was so flawed and chaotic, how can we have confidence in a government that is so blatantly incompetent

Perhaps it is the process that is 'incompetent'?
The process that is now being amended by this Government.

David49

The vetting process was so flawed and chaotic, how can we have confidence in a government that is so blatantly incompetent

The "government" wasn't incompetent. The same thing could have happened whichever government was in power (and possibly has). The civil service system was flawed.

Primrose53

MT62

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Thornberry, Lady Nugee, has no love for Starmer I’ll bet after she was passed over for the Foreign Secretary job in favour of Mastermind Lammy.

Revenge is a dish best served cold and I expect she will savouring every mouthful this morning.

Neither is Dianne Abbot- how good was she yesterday

Dianne did well yesterday and surprised me actually. She looked very pleased with herself. Staunch old Labourites Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell also had a go at KS.

Only 25 of 403 Labour parliamentarians turned up today to support their PM. Not looking good for Labour.

I don't suppose anybody is surprised that Abbot, Corbyn and McDonnell didn't miss a chance to have a go at Starmer.

Abbot, Corbyn and McDonnell opposed Starmer as leader. They always intended to move to replace him as leader at the first opportunity.
It would be funny, except it isn’t to see posters who share the views of Primrose somehow presenting those three as arbiters of political reliability

And Zarah Sultana.

Wyllow3

"The one thing that does appear to be blatantly obvious is that KS wanted Mandelson, and the decision to announce his appointment before any vetting had taken place was a massive error and one which he and he alone is responsible for"

But Smileless -they all wanted Mandelson, Farage included thought it was an appropriate move for a man like Trump. It was Labour soft left that grumbled, knowing him to be an "operator" not a principled man.

Ed Milliband and David Lammy didn’t want him.

Iam64

Abbot, Corbyn and McDonnell opposed Starmer as leader. They always intended to move to replace him as leader at the first opportunity.
It would be funny, except it isn’t to see posters who share the views of Primrose somehow presenting those three as arbiters of political reliability

If Corbyn had had any integrity he would have stood down after losing the first election; isn’t that what most party leaders do? And one of the reasons why people didn’t vote for him was the thought of Dianne Abbott being Home Secretary because, as great a parliamentarian as she had been she had become an embarrassment.

Under current legislation, Robbins was barred from talking to the prime minister about Mandy’s leaning towards failing vetting. As any competent prime minister would have known.
Robbins had not seen the official form confirming the red box failed vetting for Mandy. Robbins has been sacked without due process for obeying the law.
Disgraceful. What has this country become? Robbins was not responsible for the structure surrounding vetting which has been in place for many years I understand.

It's actually a bit ambiguous. Robbins stated that Mandeslon was "borderline", so he passed him anyway because he was under pressure to do so. However, he also stated that the red boxes were ticked, which would have been failures. Which one was it?

I'm not sure any competent employer would necessarily have known the rules about confidentiality on vetting. I've certainly know employers who haven't understood. If Mandelson had failed, Starmer would have been told the outcome, but not the reason but he didn't fail. Robbins passed him. Starmer had no reason to ask what had gone on.

twaddle

Casdon

You’re embroidering now ronin. Olly Robbins indicated no such thing, he merely said vetting was a Civil Service issue to deal with. It would appear this practice applies to all similar appointments.

Not only similar appointments. I know somebody who is in a job much lower down the chain than ambassador who had to undergo this same vetting procedure. That's how I knew how it works.

As far as I can see, the mistakes are:

1 Thinking that Mandelson would be a good choice for ambassador, but I can understand the reasoning and it is true that the choice was applauded by many for being brave and bold.
2 Announcing the appointment before the vetting was complete. We all know now how vetting works. There is preliminary vetting before the appointment is made (maybe even before the candidate is considered), which is based on information in the public domain. An offer of appointment is made, but there will be a contract stating that it is conditional on successful vetting. It would appear that the appointment was announced before that process was complete. Emily Thornberry thinks it could have been Mandelson who leaked the information to the press.
3 There seems to be some doubt whether Mandelson "failed" the vetting or was borderline. Robbins at this stage made the decision to overrule any fail (if there was one) or thought there were mitigations to negate any fail. He was not allowed to give details of the concerns, but interpreted this to mean that he couldn't tell anybody the outcome. Starmer disputes this interpretation.

At no stage is there evidence that Starmer "lied".

From what Olly Robbins said there was constant pressure on them to rush Mandelson's appointment through before Trump's inauguration, come what may.
KS also pressured the Foreign Office into finding a senior role for Matthew Doyle, another with links to a paedophile.
As a former lawyer and as our current PM he shows little understanding for how certain processes work and surely the basic fact that Mandelson had close links with Epstein should have been enough not to have even considered him for US Ambassador. KS only has himself to blame for the mess he finds himself in now.