Page 10 | Is Kier Starmer a liar?

catspyjamas1 · 2026-04-20T18:34:22+00:00

Is Kier Starmer a liar - yes or no? It's a simple question. I can't see this on the trending threads, so asking the question. YABU: He reliant on civil servants to share information and is in the clear, he didn't know what he didn't know. YANBU: He's the Prime Minister. Who happens to get briefings and knew.

Nanalovesnature · 21/04/2026 12:51

He is a liar, he is incompetent, he and his sidekick Rachel Reeves have destroyed the UK. It will take decades to undo the damage they have done, if it is even possible to remedy the mess they have made.

AprilMizzel · 21/04/2026 12:53

What I suspect happened is it was a risk worth taking because the Americans/Trump really wanted Mandelson, and at the time Starmer was doing really well in managing that relationship, in the face of all the trade tariffs being slapped on everyone.

US didn't want him - and said so publicly at the time. The woman in post had a really good working relationship with Trump and his whitehouse.

This was nothing to do with US - this seems to be pay back for UK politcal favours.

This was Starmer's fuck up - despite him and many round him trying to blame everyone else.

BBC December :Trump campaign adviser calls incoming UK ambassador to US a 'moron'

Peter Mandelson, founder and chairman of Global Counsel LLP, attends the Milken Institute Asia Summit in Singapore, on Friday, Sept. 20, 2019. T

Trump campaign adviser calls Lord Mandelson 'an absolute moron'

Lord Peter Mandelson will be the UK's next ambassador to the US, an appointment he describes as "a great honour".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyx9kplge8o

Holtome · 21/04/2026 12:53

Nanalovesnature · 21/04/2026 12:51

He is a liar, he is incompetent, he and his sidekick Rachel Reeves have destroyed the UK. It will take decades to undo the damage they have done, if it is even possible to remedy the mess they have made.

Oh come on. No-one has done more harm than Truss, were still recovering from that debacle.

C8H10N4O2 · 21/04/2026 12:54

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 20/04/2026 22:02

I think he made a significant error in appointing Mandelson before the vetting process had been concluded, and it's possible that the civil servants were getting the message that they needed to rubber stamp the decision.

I don't think he is lying about the fact that he wasn't told. The evidence from Olly Robins would appear to back this up, as it was reportedly his view that he wasn't legally allowed to share the vetting info. Though I can't actually believe that he wasn't at least allowed to share the fact that Mandelson had failed!

I think Starmer is genuine in his anger about what has happened and I genuinely don't believe that the problem is with his integrity or honesty - I haven't really seen any evidence of that. What I do see as a problem is a distinct absence of good political judgement. He made a poor decision to appoint Mandelson in the first place, and he has made a series of poor decisions in response to the unfolding situation.

I don't think it is in the national interest to have yet another PM at this time, and I don't really see that there is anyone waiting in the wings (Labour or otherwise) who would necessarily do a better job. I would prefer that our politicians could be allowed to focus on running the country rather than the constant political turmoil that we've seen, and of course, the associated media circus. But honestly, I think the momentum is against Starmer now, others are baying for his blood and he will struggle to survive.

I agree with most of your post but I think the vetting process is poorly understood,

Though I can't actually believe that he wasn't at least allowed to share the fact that Mandelson had failed!

The process is not pass/fail, its a risk assessment. Its entirely normal for the details to be kept confidential from line managers/other parties outside the process, in particular politicians should not be involved.

What normally happens is the areas assessed as weak/problematic (rather than “failed”) will be discussed along with potential mitigations. If the value of the person is high and mitigations can be put in place for the risk areas then they will be approved for DV. My experience of this is particularly where niche skills are needed and the only resource is not a national or has a connection with industry or other perceived risk - if the skills are important enough and mitigations can be found the DV proceeds for the role.

Bear in mind Mandelson had already been appointed, trumpeted to the press and approved by the US, the vetting process would have had to find something pretty damning that couldn’t be mitigated. The existing knowledge about Epstein would have been considered public domain and therefore not a risk from a vetting perspective. The factors resulting in his sacking were not known to the vetting process - Mandelson lied about his ongoing relationship with Epstein after conviction and the leaking of information.

I tend to agree with a view I heard from one news programmes - it was a mistake ever to appoint him but having so done Starmer would have been better advised to say upfront “we know he’s a shit but we think he’s a shit Trump will like” (in flowery language). This ongoing sequence of ever more “shocks” is symptomatic of the shockingly poor comms management which has plagued the government since election

EasternStandard · 21/04/2026 12:54

AprilMizzel · 21/04/2026 12:53

What I suspect happened is it was a risk worth taking because the Americans/Trump really wanted Mandelson, and at the time Starmer was doing really well in managing that relationship, in the face of all the trade tariffs being slapped on everyone.

US didn't want him - and said so publicly at the time. The woman in post had a really good working relationship with Trump and his whitehouse.

This was nothing to do with US - this seems to be pay back for UK politcal favours.

This was Starmer's fuck up - despite him and many round him trying to blame everyone else.

BBC December :Trump campaign adviser calls incoming UK ambassador to US a 'moron'

Yep all these excuses. This is all on Starmer.

C8H10N4O2 · 21/04/2026 12:55

MNLurker1345 · 21/04/2026 08:48

I beg to differ, and land that claim on Tony Blair.

Cameron was weak, Johnson was chaotic and Starmer is evasive.

But Blair did the deepest damage in my opinion. He changed the structure and culture of government and much of what we are living through now, ungovernable Britain, was created in the Blair era.

And that the conclusion I have come to over my long life.

Show quote history

Does that life extend back to Ingham in the 80s? I always assumed Campbell used Ingham as his role model.

C8H10N4O2 · 21/04/2026 13:03

TeenagersAngst · 21/04/2026 12:44

I think it's clear the security vetting didn't uncover a range of things including Mandelson's leaking of government documents when Gordon Brown was in office - it looks like that would never have come to light if the Epstein files and emails hadn't been published.

So vetting can only go so far...

Show quote history

Yes its a limited process and I’d be astonished if its scope included access to the leak evidence in the absence of a criminal warrant or formal government enquiry. It would have been a massive open ended data trawl to find that particular needle in the haystack.

We know Mandelson lied about a number or aspects of the Epstein relationship.

His past was public knowledge and so would not have been considered a risk factor (or at least one which had already been accepted by the government). In a climate of vetting someone already publicly appointed and approved by the US the vetting team would have needed something very substantial and new and for which there was no mitigation in order to withhold approval and create a massive public embarrassment.

TeenagersAngst · 21/04/2026 13:23

C8H10N4O2 · 21/04/2026 13:03

Yes its a limited process and I’d be astonished if its scope included access to the leak evidence in the absence of a criminal warrant or formal government enquiry. It would have been a massive open ended data trawl to find that particular needle in the haystack.

We know Mandelson lied about a number or aspects of the Epstein relationship.

His past was public knowledge and so would not have been considered a risk factor (or at least one which had already been accepted by the government). In a climate of vetting someone already publicly appointed and approved by the US the vetting team would have needed something very substantial and new and for which there was no mitigation in order to withhold approval and create a massive public embarrassment.

Show quote history

As far as anyone outside the vetting team seems to know, the security concerns were nothing to do with Epstein, it was to do with his possibly dodgy relationships with Chinese and Russian companies.

TeenagersAngst · 21/04/2026 13:32

C8H10N4O2 · 21/04/2026 12:54

I agree with most of your post but I think the vetting process is poorly understood,

Though I can't actually believe that he wasn't at least allowed to share the fact that Mandelson had failed!

The process is not pass/fail, its a risk assessment. Its entirely normal for the details to be kept confidential from line managers/other parties outside the process, in particular politicians should not be involved.

What normally happens is the areas assessed as weak/problematic (rather than “failed”) will be discussed along with potential mitigations. If the value of the person is high and mitigations can be put in place for the risk areas then they will be approved for DV. My experience of this is particularly where niche skills are needed and the only resource is not a national or has a connection with industry or other perceived risk - if the skills are important enough and mitigations can be found the DV proceeds for the role.

Bear in mind Mandelson had already been appointed, trumpeted to the press and approved by the US, the vetting process would have had to find something pretty damning that couldn’t be mitigated. The existing knowledge about Epstein would have been considered public domain and therefore not a risk from a vetting perspective. The factors resulting in his sacking were not known to the vetting process - Mandelson lied about his ongoing relationship with Epstein after conviction and the leaking of information.

I tend to agree with a view I heard from one news programmes - it was a mistake ever to appoint him but having so done Starmer would have been better advised to say upfront “we know he’s a shit but we think he’s a shit Trump will like” (in flowery language). This ongoing sequence of ever more “shocks” is symptomatic of the shockingly poor comms management which has plagued the government since election

Show quote history

The irony of all of this is that the thing that brought Mandelson down - and may bring Starmer down - was not picked up by the very process supposed to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

godmum56 · 21/04/2026 13:41

C8H10N4O2 · 21/04/2026 12:54

I agree with most of your post but I think the vetting process is poorly understood,

Though I can't actually believe that he wasn't at least allowed to share the fact that Mandelson had failed!

The process is not pass/fail, its a risk assessment. Its entirely normal for the details to be kept confidential from line managers/other parties outside the process, in particular politicians should not be involved.

What normally happens is the areas assessed as weak/problematic (rather than “failed”) will be discussed along with potential mitigations. If the value of the person is high and mitigations can be put in place for the risk areas then they will be approved for DV. My experience of this is particularly where niche skills are needed and the only resource is not a national or has a connection with industry or other perceived risk - if the skills are important enough and mitigations can be found the DV proceeds for the role.

Bear in mind Mandelson had already been appointed, trumpeted to the press and approved by the US, the vetting process would have had to find something pretty damning that couldn’t be mitigated. The existing knowledge about Epstein would have been considered public domain and therefore not a risk from a vetting perspective. The factors resulting in his sacking were not known to the vetting process - Mandelson lied about his ongoing relationship with Epstein after conviction and the leaking of information.

I tend to agree with a view I heard from one news programmes - it was a mistake ever to appoint him but having so done Starmer would have been better advised to say upfront “we know he’s a shit but we think he’s a shit Trump will like” (in flowery language). This ongoing sequence of ever more “shocks” is symptomatic of the shockingly poor comms management which has plagued the government since election

Show quote history

he kind of did....or something like it....he said IIRC "some people love him. some people hate him but to us he's "just Peter"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/watch-keir-starmer-crack-joke-34759575

Watch Keir Starmer crack joke that has room in stitches ahead of Trump talks

A smiling Keir Starmer quipped that there was a true one-off pioneer in Washington who many love and others love to hate in what appeared to be an allusion to Donald Trump

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/watch-keir-starmer-crack-joke-34759575

27TimesAway · 21/04/2026 13:42

Seems Downing street is doubling down.

I just feel more contempt as this utter shite goes on.

TeenagersAngst · 21/04/2026 13:46

27TimesAway · 21/04/2026 13:42

Seems Downing street is doubling down.

I just feel more contempt as this utter shite goes on.

What's being said?

hattie43 · 21/04/2026 13:48

There’s a third option . He is as vague and omisive as he can be to avoid being called a liar .

Pacificsunshine · 21/04/2026 13:49

TeenagersAngst · 21/04/2026 13:32

The irony of all of this is that the thing that brought Mandelson down - and may bring Starmer down - was not picked up by the very process supposed to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Show quote history

I actually think the vetting process was to protect the national interest. Which it did. No secrets from OM to China or Russia as far as we know.

It was never meant to protect politicians’ reputations. It’s ridiculous for KS to complain that his underlinings didn’t stop him from doing what he wanted to do

27TimesAway · 21/04/2026 13:50

TeenagersAngst · 21/04/2026 13:46

What's being said?

Show quote history

'No 10 rejects claims of 'dismissive attitude' towards vetting'.

Emergency debate in Parliament about to start.

I was meant to be DOING stuff today. I'm stuck in front of the tv darnit!

TeenagersAngst · 21/04/2026 13:53

Pacificsunshine · 21/04/2026 13:49

I actually think the vetting process was to protect the national interest. Which it did. No secrets from OM to China or Russia as far as we know.

It was never meant to protect politicians’ reputations. It’s ridiculous for KS to complain that his underlinings didn’t stop him from doing what he wanted to do

Show quote history

It's there to try and prevent a number of different situations arising, including one whereby someone could be bribed because of secrets they hold. Mandelson giving away top secret information in a past life would have most definitely been of interest, I'm sure.

dailyconniptions · 21/04/2026 13:54

Why the fuck can people not spell his name? It's KEIR.

ProudAmberTurtle · 21/04/2026 13:56

Trump repeatedly said he didn't want Mandelson as US ambassador - how do people not know that?

MulberryBrandy · 21/04/2026 13:56

To answer the OP's question: Is Keir Starmer a liar?

Olly Robbins said that no one at No.10 was informed of the expressed vetting concerns over Peter Mandelson.

So the answer has to be: No, he is not a liar.

JulietteHasAGun · 21/04/2026 13:56

if he isn’t a liar then his staff at No 10 were calling the shots and not informing him about stuff. Is that usual, that there’s that level of delegation….no idea.

I do think a lot of the mainstream press have had it in for Labour/Starmer since Day One. We need to ask ourselves why the media are so against Labour? Who owns/controls the media and why do they want the Tories in power? Or is it Reform they want in?

TeenagersAngst · 21/04/2026 13:58

JulietteHasAGun · 21/04/2026 13:56

if he isn’t a liar then his staff at No 10 were calling the shots and not informing him about stuff. Is that usual, that there’s that level of delegation….no idea.

I do think a lot of the mainstream press have had it in for Labour/Starmer since Day One. We need to ask ourselves why the media are so against Labour? Who owns/controls the media and why do they want the Tories in power? Or is it Reform they want in?

The media thing is nonsense. The media have it in for everyone. The coverage of Truss, Johnson and Sunak was brutal.

Would you rather the press didn't hold him to account because he's a Labour PM? Moreover, if he got his shit together, maybe they'd have fewer bad things to write about and more good things to write about.

EasternStandard · 21/04/2026 14:00

TeenagersAngst · 21/04/2026 13:58

The media thing is nonsense. The media have it in for everyone. The coverage of Truss, Johnson and Sunak was brutal.

Would you rather the press didn't hold him to account because he's a Labour PM? Moreover, if he got his shit together, maybe they'd have fewer bad things to write about and more good things to write about.

Show quote history

Yep of course it was and agree.

Parky04 · 21/04/2026 14:03

All politicians are liars!

PowerTulle · 21/04/2026 14:04

Whether or not Starmer lied or not, over a very specific piece of evidence (vetting) is a red herring in my view. And of course Starmer will win the argument that he didn’t in fact lie technically. Because he’s a lawyer he’ll use semantics to obfuscate the real issue.
The real issue being that the PM removed a perfectly good person from post who was already working well with Trump in the role, in order to shoe in Mandelson. Why? And why was it imperative that Mandleson was rushed through as an appointment, announced immediately as a done deal and then continued to stay in post despite everything we know about his murky background, his failure to deliver appropriately in previous government roles and his known close friendship with Epstein?
Why is Starmer so desperate to give Mandy what he wants, at seemingly any cost?

27TimesAway · 21/04/2026 14:05

TeenagersAngst · 21/04/2026 13:58

The media thing is nonsense. The media have it in for everyone. The coverage of Truss, Johnson and Sunak was brutal.

Would you rather the press didn't hold him to account because he's a Labour PM? Moreover, if he got his shit together, maybe they'd have fewer bad things to write about and more good things to write about.

Show quote history

100%