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.

The contortions Starmer supporters put themselves through to remain supportive to him is pretty impressive.. If only they'd put as much effort into critical thinking.

This is clearly the opposite given the select committee yesterday. OR, and others who are equally professional and good at their jobs, don’t want to be sacked wrongly nor trashed in the house by a politician who dangerously misunderstands the process.

I wasn't expecting this but it t was interesting to hear that the chair of the select committee, Emily Thornberry, after listening to Robbins yesterday, also concluded he should go.

Robbins had said there was no paperwork he had seen but that the vetting had warned against Mandelson. Robbins then owned the decision to recommend him.

Where did you see that?

He has a case and will probably win. Starmer has got it wrong not sure if you heard ET correctly.

It is being reported by all the newspapers, broadcasters, on YouTube, and Thornberry is very clear on this. She jokes that civil servants have a note if they have a coffee. She is very underwhelmed that Robbins says he has not seen any paperwork.

The vetting agency had leant towards not approving Mandelson but Robbins had said that if he had his time again he would still have approved him. It is all out there.

I see it’s the note thing, then you’ve over extrapolated that part.

Starmer said in the house OR was wrong to say he couldn’t reveal personal UKSV information. OR is right, he’ll get a payout in all likelihood. He followed process.

Starmer dangerously misunderstands it and some others do too.

If he had any decency he’d do as advised below, but won’t

A former head of the Civil Service has said Sir Keir Starmer must give Sir Olly Robbins his job back.

Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary from 2018 to 2020, called on the Prime Minister to reappoint the Foreign Office chief after sacking him over the Mandelson vetting scandal.

Mr Sedwill said: “The Prime Minister should retract his accusations against Olly Robbins and reinstate him to the job the country needs him to do.”

No, and definitely no less dishonest than any of the Tory PMs we've had before him. Thing is though the press are gunning for him so much now and his colleagues are all turning on him so he is really running out of options.

Given yesterday’s evidence from the horse’s mouth, I suspect Mr Sedwill is incorrect.

Posters on here are incorrect. It’ll probably go to a tribunal and a payout.

1. He didn't lie
2. All people lie
3. He didn't lie but, if he did lie, it is better than a Tory lie.
4. He lied for the greater good
5. I don't care that he lied.

😁

I said that it was interesting that Emily Thornberry, in her capacity as chair of the select committee and after hearing Robbins yesterday, has concluded that she agrees that he should leave that job. I reiterate that I was also surprised to hear that is what she extrapolates!

I am reporting a fact that has been widely covered by different news outlets.

😬

She’s Labour who knows, it won’t stop him winning his case. He followed process.

Emily Thornberry, after listening to Robbins yesterday, also concluded he should go.

I think it was clear yesterday that Emily Thornberry was trying to blame anyone but her boss - civil service spys - for her boss doing a poltical appointment of Mandelson because everyone elee should have seen he was a wrong un but not PM.

Starmer sends 'chill' through civil service, its union boss says

I'm not sure getting the civil service off side is a great move for any government ever - but I think with firm leadership and clear goals and vision and poltical skill it would matter less sadly as well an integrity I think those are also qualites lacking in this current adminstration.

Remember Sir Kim Darroch? He was the UK's Ambassador to the US. Boris Johnson was condemned - by the Tory Foreign Minister - for throwing him under a bus and not supporting him re: Trump!

There’s no headlines with this on looking, unless you have one.

I honestly can't belive we had Boris as a PM at all - the man was a walking red flag.

But the look Tory bad isn't cutting it when Labour are yet again smeared in scandal of their own making.

I struggled last election with who to vote for - working out the least worst option and I'm voting soon and again the picking are bloody slim - none of the major parties look good. I was listening to a political podcast last night where the prediction is more councils than ever are going to be hung or minority and that because I'm not alone think this.

No, all the outlets were fascinated by Thornberry's language - so that got the attention!

It was taken from this interview:

His ability to get another job isn’t a defence at the tribunal.

Robbins was a career civil servant. Fast trackers are encouraged to spend a few years in the private sector before approaching the top service jobs. He was recruited back into the civil service by this government to oversee the FO restructuring when the previous incumbent left early.

Unless there is some huge secret smoking gun somewhere, the casual public sacking of someone for following correct process and achieving what No10 wanted is not only unfair - it’s egregiously unfair. They might as well start writing the cheque and negotiating the compromise agreement.

Starmer ran a government department which requires vetting. He has no reason to understand the details of the FO process but he would know that vetting isn’t a pass/fail process and that details are strictly confidential. As DPP there would have been times where he, the line manager, was involved in mitigation discussions. Starmer wanted Mandelson, the FO made it possible by agreeing mitigations of the business exposures. Since Mandelson also had STRAP access at least one other vetting team had also approved Mandelson, this time for secret access. The agrement process also approved Mandelson.

As a Labour lifer one of the aspects which really stuck in my throat yesterday was the revelation that No10 tried to coerce the FO into giving a plum ambassadorial job to an unqualified and disgraced ex crony whilst Robbins was having to make qualified staff redundant. That stinks. It may not be “sending redundancy notices by taxi in Liverpool” level of corruption but it stinks. Interestingly this was the same crony who was responsible for the due diligence on Mandelson and approved him in the No10 office. This isn’t the corrupt Johnson regime, the incompetent Truss regime or even the Cameron chumocracy (which saw a couple of Cameron chums pushed into these roles) - it’s supposed to be better.

Starmer was advised by multiple people including Case to vet Mandelson before announcing that he would him as replacement for Karen Pierce. He ignored all the advice. The FO successfully found mitigations to make his appointment possible. Mandelson wasn’t sacked due to the mitigated areas in his vetting - he was sacked for lying about his ongoing relationship with Epstein.

Thornberry was hastily doing the rounds yesterday - she appeared on pretty much every news programme and podcast and misrepresented a number of points from the select committee session. I assume she was relying on the fact that most people won’t bother to go back and check the facts on iPlayer. I did (I have no life). It’s no secret she blamed McSweeney when she didn’t get the FO job, I assume the combined stabbing of McSweeney and trying to justify the sacking is her pitch to get the job she missed out on.

I’ve always thought of Ingham as the first of this type of “comms” lead in the UK. He had incredible influence and ruthlessly used that influence on the press and media at a time when there was no plethora of other outlets. That said, I think both Ingham and Campbell reflected a general trend in media use which was already happening across the pond.

The well informed HR lawyer presumably hasn’t been involved in the vetting process.

Starmer should have received the outcome. He absolutely should not have received confidential details of any mitigations within the process since he was not the ambassadorial line manager and he is a politician.

As DPP he would have more info in his capacity as a LM but not in this situation.

The outcome is the FCDO decision not the UKSV form or decision, OR even didn’t see the form.

I agree on Thornberry though and her misrepresentation of OR and what was said, a shame I thought she might be more decent and more able to follow it than that.

The outcome is the FCDO decision not the UKSV form or decision, OR even didn’t see the form

I’m not sure where I said different?

OR was the ambassadorial LM as well as PUS. He would be required to consider mitigations for any flagged areas and decide if they could be identified. He did that and whilst he hasn’t discussed specifics of the mitigations Mandelson has stated that it related to his business interests and he agreed to divest (as most would assume).

Those details should not be shared with any politician, including the PM. What should be shared is the final outcome.

As I said upthread - I can easily see how No10 failed to understand the differences in vetting process for different departments (or subdepartments). That failure to understand does not constitute a failure of the process.

Yep agree with you, the outcome was received by the PM as it was from the FCDO in documentation (certificates etc).

The failure to understand the process is by Starmer and quite a few others. OR was right on that - that KS dangerously misunderstands the process. Which is why the CS below is right, he should get his job back at least. And Starmer go if decent.

Also not sure if you’re saying the outcome should have been shared or was shared, OR was right in saying all comms / certificates etc show the outcome.