Is Kier Starmer a liar?

[catspyjamas1]

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.

And that’s your takeaway from a serious subject .

Yes my assumption was that it was business connections for which a common mitigation might be eg selling shares in the company or putting them into a blind trust but I can see why there would be concerns. I can also see why they were considered mitigated or insufficient to block the appointment when under pressure to confirm.

It was assumed that all the Epstein stuff was public so not part of the risk, the vetting team would not have access to the evidence about the leaks or have reason to look for them based on the information available.

Honestly the whole appointment was a massive political risk, that isn’t the responsibility of the vetting teams.

I am low key convinced this is the same person from last night who had comments removed and was banging on about a spelling mistake I made. Just ignoring now!

Yes but the comment was more in terms of managing the response now rather than when the appointment was made.

It would have been more politically savvy to say “Yes we took a risk on a shit which we thought was overall beneficial to the country, it didn’t work out” rather than endlessly extending the problem by attacking civil servants when you don’t fully understand the process.

But they don’t write about the good things. There’s a lot which Labour have done which is great and it’s never reported. There’s been increased investment in public services inc the nhs, opening of diagnostic centres. Employment rights reforms. Budget deficit had started to fall. More green investment. Improving relations with the EU.

I don’t think the press had it in for Sunak at all until the very end. Truss was the gift which kept on giving so yes the press did vilify her but would have been hard not to. I think they went very easy on Johnson for a long time. There was stuff about flat redecoration, bad arguments with Carrie that the neighbours heard (before he moved into No 10) which died a death quickly. I believe the BBC were criticised for being too soft on Johnson earlier on. Obviously that changed at some point.

I honestly don't think saying the flowery version of "yes we chose shit because we thought it was a good idea but it bit us in the bum" is going to help. That's not just poor judgement but its deliberately poor judgement.

I think it was because the opposition were trying to nail KS on their assumption that the PM, or his team, must have known about the vetting.

They couldn't have been more wrong.

Why is Starmer so desperate to give Mandy what he wants, at seemingly any cost?

Wasnt there something about Trump liking Mandelson? He certainly seemed to be quite complimentary about him earlier last year. So is it less about giving Mandelson what he wants and more about trying to improve relationships with the USA? If they had someone who they thought could charm Trump then that could be a good reason for having him in post.

I know when PM was appointed DH and I (me a Labour voter, DH a swinging voter) were aghast. DH just drily said ' Well that's going to end up biting Starmer in the arse'. Followed by musing what PM had and on who. Because it was a barking mad appointment given PM's history and reputation.

It matters. It's not the only thing I "takeaway". It is a serious subject, yes, but spelling always matters.

I think it's easy to interpret media coverage according to your political bias. I don't agree that the media go easy on anyone. Even the Guardian is giving this government a hard time and they can hardly be described as right wing.

And it's been widely reported by pundits on both sides that the government's comms and PR machine does not work effectively and they are not good at communicating their achievements to the media.

And why would they do that, when neither of them are in a position to stand for the leadership?

No Trump wasn’t that keen and the woman in place was well liked and trusted.

I wasn't on Mumsnet last night. It's easy to make a mistake, but also easy to correct it. Pointing out a spelling error needn't create a drama.

Yes, this has been the motivation all along. Imagine trying to do your best for this country with Trump. They needed a smoothie who could butter up oligarchs and POTUS alike.

Yep, that was my assumption as well. (as a party member although sometimes with gritted teeth).

This keeps coming up but it’s not correct, he wasn’t well liked or wanted by that administration.

Yeah- The Mirror actually live streamed the Olly Robbins appearance.

They usually ignore anything negative of the Labour party.

It won’t help now, it might have done in the immediate aftermath.

That was my view too, although PP says Trump liked the woman in place (which seems unlikely, given his general treatment of women). We know Mandelson and Trump have close connections.

Then it’s a view not based on what happened.

No of course not because Trump would think of them all as being very left wing. However, Mandelson soon had Trump purring over him as we all saw.

The story is moving on. It's now going to be about the scapegoating of a decent civil servant. Starmer will find that difficult to explain.

Although I note that Starmer is not in Parliament today and has deputised to Darren Jones.

Dame Karen Pierce had been in post for 4 years I believe and was very well respected by the Trump administration. So again, why axe her and put a human hand granade in the post instead? PM is a proven liability and up to his eyes in (allegedly) conflicts of interest with Russia and China. He emailed Epstein to give him advance notice of an impending EU bailout being decided in government. Even without vetting PM is clearly being pushed for reasons very much other than being the best man for the job.

But Number 10 Comms have to take some responsibility. I agree - there has been good stuff which has been booted off the press in favour of yet another scandal/policy reversal but then the question is who is managing the grid and why is there so little party discipline in Westminster?

Listening to the select committee from this morning and having been through the process and sponsored others through it I can exactly see how the risk assessment was borderline but not enough to justify pulling. a major public appointment with all that political fall out. It was a “stunning and brave” appointment which backfired - that isn’t the fault of the vetting system but it seems evident that there was a poor understanding of the process by the teams sponsoring Mandelson for the job.