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

As WW2 says, the civil service and Downing Street interact in their own ways and with their distinct roles, and the 'should have known' argument is doesn't really hold water . Kemi Badenoch will know that perfectly well.

From what we know and have seen of Starmer I think it v unlikely that he would have deliberately lied to parliament.

The Foreign Office clearly thought that Mandelson could out-smart Trump and I believe he was a success in the role until the Epstein scandal broke.

IMO this is not the moment to try to bring Starmer down and the case for doing so is weak..

The trouble is Mandelsons appointment was because of Trump regaining the presidency…a case of fighting fire with fire I guess. And, as with many things concerning Trump, diplomacy means that no one can say exactly what they think.

Galaxy

This situation materialised ( the appointment of a known deeply dodgy man) because of concerns about the 'world stage' - i.e Trump, it isn't a good idea to keep lowering standards till you reach the bottom.

Who is saying that that is what we should do?

We don't know why Mandelson was appointed, and more to the point we don't know why he failed the vetting process. We can all speculate as much as we like, but that's all it can be - speculation. There is so much surrounding the whole situation (Epstein, Andrew, Trump etc) that involves vested interests, and to pretend that we all know as much as the people involved is foolish. For all we know the people involved might not know the full story.

I'm not advocating curbs on the press, but sometimes I think that they release things before the whole story is known, and that's not always healthy.

Wasn't it the much admired Obamas who said "when they go low we go high"? Why oh why did our government think, they've gone low, we'll match them with our own low-life? It's not as if there wasn't enough known about Mandelson and his dodgy dealings, they were full public knowledge. He was never suitable unless you dropped your standards to rock bottom.

Oh, and I agree with winterwhite that it seems unlikely that Starmer would lie to parliament - it's not his style.

Last reply to MayBee70

I think he'll hang on till after the local elections, then especially if Labour do badly, he'll go.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Cross if Starmer did know?
Blimey
You’re easy going Wyllow.

I think the country are feeling a bit more than ‘cross’ right now.

I’m not “cross”.

Would you expect the head of a huge corporation to be across every detail when you had specialist staff in place to do a specific job and that told you that they had (omitting to say that the applicant had not passed, for whatever reason?)

I believe that KM wasn’t informed. Neither was the Foreign Affairs Committee when it put questions about the appointment. It was simply told that the usual vetting process had been carried out. It was not told that Mandelson had failed that process.

I would have expected him to have better judgement/ standards than to appoint mandelsson, I was wrong.

Galaxy

I would have expected him to have better judgement/ standards than to appoint mandelsson, I was wrong.

Oh I agree. It was a ridiculously stupid appointment. But I believe KS when he says he wasn’t informed about Mandelson failing the vetting process. I think if most people were not informed, they would naturally assume that he had.

I also think it’s very wrong for KB to call for his resignation. The last thing the nation needs right now is more political upheaval.

The case for Starmer staying is weak surely if a security check is done wasn't it up to him to check Mandelson had passed He was getting a very big job When ordinary people are police checked for working with children is a head teacher not meant to check a person has passed the check or is it someone else's job And Borriswas in a pickle because he had birthday cake with people he worked with in lockdown

TakeThat7

The case for Starmer staying is weak surely if a security check is done wasn't it up to him to check Mandelson had passed He was getting a very big job When ordinary people are police checked for working with children is a head teacher not meant to check a person has passed the check or is it someone else's job And Borriswas in a pickle because he had birthday cake with people he worked with in lockdown

Oh for goodness’ sake. Johnson’s behaviour was far, far worse than eating a bit of birthday cake! As everyone knows.

Yes, it is someone else’s job. My boss, Director of a merchant bank, interviewed. HR did the vetting and it was their responsibility to bring such failures to his attention. As in Government and the civil service.

Firstly, I admit that I have never been involved with recruitment at the very highest levels, which could be subject to different rules, but my guess is that the principles are the same. I have, however, been involved in recruitment and checks.

Firstly, vetting checks can't be carried out until somebody is appointed. That means that appointments are made conditional to security checks. People sometimes sit around at home and can't start work until the checks have been completed. That would explain why Mandelson was appointed before the security checks were completed, although it was a mistake to announce his recruitment until it was confirmed.

The public doesn't know why Mandelson failed the check and, as far as I know, doesn't have any right to know. Even employers are only told the outcome. For all anybody knows, it could be for something quite minor and Robbins took on the responsibility of overruling the check because, in his opinion, it was trivial. He evidently made a serious mistake.

It is conceivable that Starmer knew nothing of all this. Data protection laws protected Mandelson. That doesn't mean to say that (in my opinion) Mandelson was a good choice. I can understand the reasoning, but it was a gamble which failed.

Basgetti

TakeThat7

The case for Starmer staying is weak surely if a security check is done wasn't it up to him to check Mandelson had passed He was getting a very big job When ordinary people are police checked for working with children is a head teacher not meant to check a person has passed the check or is it someone else's job And Borriswas in a pickle because he had birthday cake with people he worked with in lockdown

Oh for goodness’ sake. Johnson’s behaviour was far, far worse than eating a bit of birthday cake! As everyone knows.

Yes, it is someone else’s job. My boss, Director of a merchant bank, interviewed. HR did the vetting and it was their responsibility to bring such failures to his attention. As in Government and the civil service.

Indeed! Olly Robbins would have been informed and was the only person who had a right to the information. It would appear he made the decision to withhold the reason for the failed vetting.

It would appear that Starmer wanted Mandy as ambassador regardless.

ronib

It would appear that Starmer wanted Mandy as ambassador regardless.

What evidence do you base that statement on?

“Regardless” suggests KS was aware of the security failure. He has categorically stated that he was not informed, as have several ministers.

TakeThat7

The case for Starmer staying is weak surely if a security check is done wasn't it up to him to check Mandelson had passed He was getting a very big job When ordinary people are police checked for working with children is a head teacher not meant to check a person has passed the check or is it someone else's job And Borriswas in a pickle because he had birthday cake with people he worked with in lockdown

But KS did ask for the equivalent of DBS. The person providing the DBS equivalent provided the wrong information.
Head teachers check that there is a DBS but they can't check whether the contents are accurate.

I used the same source as you did for your statement …. It would appear Basgetti

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.

Basgetti

ronib

It would appear that Starmer wanted Mandy as ambassador regardless.

What evidence do you base that statement on?

“Regardless” suggests KS was aware of the security failure. He has categorically stated that he was not informed, as have several ministers.

He definitely knew that Mandelson had been sacked from government positions twice before.

He definitely knew that Mandelson was an associate of Epstein as did we all, but not the extent of the friendship

I have seen nothing on this thread or in the media which has changed my mind on the fact that giving `Mandelson the Ambassador’s position was a good idea.

A favourite proverb of mine :-

If you lay down with dogs, you get fleas

Completely agree GrannyGravy. Ridiculous appointment.

That’s not what the thread is about, though? It’s about whether or not KS knew that PM had failed the security vetting in this instance. I believe him when he says that the personnel responsible for that procedure had failed to inform him, as they failed to inform the Foreign Affairs Committee and various ministers.

That’s is no KS’s failing. The person responsible whose remit it was to pass on that information resigned this morning, I think? Rightly so.

There is no basis for calling for KS’s resignation. The head of a corporation/public sector entity cannot be constantly second guessing those appointed to carry out a specific task. Simply unrealistic given their already onerous brief.

OK Basgetti why was the PM or the Home Secretary at the time (Lammy) not informed immediately that Mandelson had failed the UKSV?

Surely the most prestigious Ambassadorial position failing vetting procedures should have been bought to their attention?

Or does it come back to my original question pages back, who is running the country and has the final say, the PM and our elected politicians or the faceless suits in Whitehall?

If as I suspect it’s the second, I find it extremely worrying…

brought not bought 🤦‍♀️

fancythat

And what about the Iran war situation?
Not to forget Ukraine?

He was in Paris yesterday to co- host a meeting with macron discussing opening the strait of Hormuz.
As for Ukraine talks are going very well with them and Germany.

GrannyGravy13

OK Basgetti why was the PM or the Home Secretary at the time (Lammy) not informed immediately that Mandelson had failed the UKSV?

Surely the most prestigious Ambassadorial position failing vetting procedures should have been bought to their attention?

Or does it come back to my original question pages back, who is running the country and has the final say, the PM and our elected politicians or the faceless suits in Whitehall?

If as I suspect it’s the second, I find it extremely worrying…

I suspect t’was ever thus, GrannyGravy. Yes, Minister?

Yes, they obviously ought to have been informed, as should the PM. They can hardly be held responsible that they were not, can they? As I said, I believe the CS whose responsibility to do that but failed to has resigned.