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.

Yes exactly and those ticks are one or two of many different factors in the overall recommendation which then is considered further to make an overall judgement (often finely balanced).

I can perfectly see why the overall balance of info available to the vetting team resulted in “doable for this person at this time in this job”, not least because the Epstein stuff was considered known. I can also see why someone from another department misunderstood the process and made incorrect assumptions. Additionally I can see why if vetting had been conducted before all the public pronouncements the decision might possibly have been different as there would not have been the risk factor of turning him down in public.

Insisting that Starmer must have known X or Y or that civil servants lied is just pointless and not fair on Robbins or Starmer. However I do think the No10 operation has been unimpressive on comms strategy and that has fed into the current problems.

Thanks for rounding it all up and giving a very balanced overview.

As I said upthread, the hoo ha over the ins and outs of the vetting is a distraction. None of it really matters since Mandelson as a political appointment technically didn't even need vetting - it's a process usually reserved for civil servants.

The real melodrama is about why so much pressure was put on the FCDO to approve security clearance for Mandelson. And why Starmer is trying to get jobs for his mates (Matthew Doyle). And why a decent civil servant needed to lose his job.

Thank you - as I said I’m not from the “inside” of vetting but just been on the receiving and sponsoring ends for many different organisations and have been involved in the discussions at times on how to manage a particular risk.

I was quite irritated by Emily Thornberry’s rather surprising accusation that they “must” have known about the leaking when Mandelson was in cabinet and apparent incomprehension that the process wasn’t a pass/fail process. She is in a position to know both that vetting is not that simplistic and that the team would not have access to the evidence of leaking. The cabinet’s own “pre-vetting” process and the US receiving process also failed to identify this - probably because at that point the additional info wasn’t available to the relevant teams. Robbins talked about having discussions with Mandelson about a potential business conflict which was resolved (which was appropriate as Robbins was technically Mandy’s line manager in his ambassadorial role).

Its worth saying also that FO ambassadorial vetting is in the category of “extra tricky” due to the wide variation in the roles and needs. As Robbins pointed out - vetting for someone in the London office doing a standard role needs to be different to vetting for someone going to Beijing or Tehran where the pressure points are entirely different.

He would need vetting as he was taking a senior civil service role. He may not have been the FO choice but he still needed vetting - its the role which dictates vetting requirements, not the appointer.

I am not clear on this but I have heard that politicians are not usually vetted and that in this case, the vetting was advised by Simon Case, Cab Sec.

This article covers some of it but isn't clear on whether the role automatically requires vetting.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/20/what-is-dv-key-acronyms-terms-peter-mandelson-vetting-row-explained

The thing is ambassadors are not politicians (even if they are former politicians) and I would be very surprised if the US ambassador was exempted because of being a former politician. I would assume that is why Case recommended vetting.

I agree in the case of political roles the process can be different (and its not one I’m familiar with, just aware that there is a cabinet process on political roles - presumably to try and keep out the leakers…).

@C8H10N4O2 Yes, that's probably right.

But in fairness he has no reason to know the detailed vetting processes for every different department. I think its reasonable for him to have not understood the FO process at a granular level.

I disagree with him on the knee jerk sacking of a PUS based on his misunderstanding of process, especially considering the climate of pressure on the FO created by No10. I think the story which still will run is the Doyle story and especially that No10 were pressuring the FO PUS to “find a job” for a crony at a time when the PUS was having to make civil servants in such roles redundant.

Its not the first time No10 has tried to force cronies into plum roles (Cameron pushed a couple into such ambassadorial roles, its a well trodden path) but to do so with someone already in shit and knowing that redundancies are happening shows a arrogance worthy of Cummings or Campbell.

I think so but there is definitely a “probably” 😀

I've been away from the news today but fcking hell is he still here???? It's like trying to get rid of a moth infestation.

I see it this way: Mandelson’s appointment was 100% a political one. Why on earth would the Foreign Office go out of its way to accept his appointment when he failed vetting for any reason other than the clear political will of their masters? What benefit was Mandelson’s appointment to the Foreign Office as opposed to the politicians who hand-selected him (none, methinks…)? Why on earth would his appointment be announced by politicians before the vetting process was even completed if they had the remotest interest in what the result of the vetting procedures would be? And what’s more, what does it say about Keir Starmer that he was very relaxed about appointing someone with known close links to a paedophile, but apparently takes any other concerns so seriously?

And yet every other word is spelled correctly, you seem to have an issue with "Keir".

Good summary here of why Pierce was dumped In Favour of Mandelson. Summary seems to be it was felt by Starmer and others that Mandelson would be able to handle Trump better than Pierce. Article disagrees with that opinion, citing her previous good relationship with Trump but says it boils down to men not trusting women of a certain age to do a good job (that may have been specific to thinking a man could handle Trump better). Backfired on them for sure.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dame-karen-pierce-peter-mandelson-midlife-woman-scandal-tragedy-b2914004.html

Keir Starmer is an idiot for sacking a civil servant for doing his job. If he’s interested in following due process, he has a funny way of showing it with that knee-jerk reaction.

Not only sacking him but trashing his career in the house as a reason for his own failings.

OR is in the right on this.

I feel so sorry for that civil servant. That’s his entire career gone. Not sure how old he is but he didn’t look retirement age. So potentially 20 years or so of working life (and salary) in the civil service gone. I appreciate that hopefully he’d be employable somewhere else but let’s face it maybe not at such a high level (or not straight away anyway). Hope he gets compensation to the tune of 20 years salary (unlikely).

i have no idea what he knew, but I think he’s shown himself to be someone who will throw anybody under the bus which isn’t great. He knew what Mandelson was and still appointed him. I’d have a lot more respect if he just owned it. Nonetheless I think the whole thing is a bit of a media circus and isn’t that helpful to anyone.

Robbins will just go back to Goldman Sachs and earn squillions more than he did as a civil servant. I wouldn’t cry for him, there are always jobs for the boys at that level.

Yes he obviously liked his job and was good at it. Starmer should go and he be reinstated if Labour had any decency.

I wonder if there's a faux naive astro-turf guide out there, the same one that has brought us posts on Angela Raynor, Yvonne Cooper and Ed Milliband.

Olly Robbins clearly confirmed today that he told no one in No. 10 that vetting concerns were raised by UK Security Vetting over Mandelson.

The Foreign Office knew but not Keir Starmer or anyone else at No. 10. He was very clear on that.

I think anyone can feel sympathy for a man who has been manoeuvred into the position of public human shield for our cowardly PM.

You can feel sympathy for whoever you like as can I. Mine doesn’t extend to someone who will walk from one job paying around a quarter of a million straight into another one paying considerably more.

Sacked wrongly, hopefully a payout is due but it won’t make up for being used and losing a long and good career for a politician who can’t grasp the process.