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.

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.

I couldn’t agree more and it’s being lost in all the sound and fury around Mandelson. It’s the real smoking gun in all this.

She was interviewed on yesterday’s The News Agents where she was asked if it was right that Robbins had been sacked. Her response was a clear yes.

@C8H10N4O2, your username has been screaming out at me. My mind works in that way, “what am I not seeing?” A bit of research - got it!

Yes the outcome should be and was shared. The details of mitigations were not shared as they should not be (this is vetting guidance, not just FO guidance). That guidance also explicitly says details should not be shared with politicians.

Bear in mind that mitigations and discussions often involve considerable personal information being shared, sometimes about third parties outside the process. The hiring LM would need to be involved (and was - it was OR) but everyone else should simply get the outcome.

I’m just gobsmacked at Starmer now claiming it was an "error of judgement” on the part of OR that he failed to share confidential mitigation details with someone outside the process and who was not the LM. OR should not have shared such details with No10, nor did OR accept yesterday that it was a borderline case. Starmer is misrepresenting OR’s words yesterday.

No10 wanted Mandelson, announced it and appointed him post haste, against the advice of Simon Case, tried to avoid vetting and thereby created a relationship risk situation for Robbins to factor into the assessment.

So whilst Robbins may well feel he did not make the decision as a result of pressure, he was making the decision having to consider a significant risk created entirely by No10. If the vetting had been done properly before the appointment that risk would not have existed and maybe a different decision would have been reached.

If anyone knew Mandelson and his activities it was No10. Not impressed by Starmer using lawyerspeak to misrepresent yesterday’s session. However he will get away with it because Badinoch is still weak at PMQ.

Yes exactly

Yes the outcome should be and was shared. The details of mitigations were not shared as they should not be (this is vetting guidance, not just FO guidance).

That guidance also explicitly says details should not be shared with politicians.

I’m just gobsmacked at Starmer now claiming it was an "error of judgement” on the part of OR that he failed to share confidential mitigation details with someone outside the process and who was not the LM.

I agree with all your post, these parts too, it’s incredible. It’s all be in the guidance, UKSV is not to be shared. How does not get a basic point?

Badenoch asks whether the PM stands by a previous statement to Parliament that due process was followed in Mandelson's appointment - he responds: "Yes, I do"
Talking about not getting things at all. Badenoch has not got this all along. Very poor.

It’s Starmer who got Labour in this mess and has fucked up. As much as Labour supporters want to deflect.

However at PMQ its Badenoch’s job to hold him to account - she really performed poorly today. I was expecting her to be all over this, not leave the tough questions to the smaller parties.

She should have brought up the fact Starmer dangerously misunderstands the process, as stated by OR.

Dangerous because his belief that he should have been told undermines the process and security. And of course sacked and trashed on top.

Good luck to him for the constructive dismissal case, it’s a strong one.

Unequivocally!

“McSweeney is being formally summoned by the Foreign Affairs Committee”. (i Paper)

Next Tuesday.

Oh, almost a whole week. Let's hope nothing is lost or stolen in that time.

This for anyone wanting to listen to the LBC interview:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/caller-sarah-a-lawyer-who-worked-with-the-government-explains-the-process-for-de-5HjdXtw_2/

If the PM does not need to be told the outcome then what is the point of the process in the first place?

Exactly. Particularly when the decision is made unilaterally by a civil servant who apparently doesn’t even get to see the documentation.

She’s right, anyone can see it in the guidance. The UKSV works because it’s a private vetting service. The outcome by the FCDO is the public part.

Starmer has it wrong, for an ex lawyer he’s very adamant on something he doesn’t get.

Sir Philip Barton will likely reinforce the guidance and OR’s correct understanding when he speaks to the committee.

The PM did receive the outcome. What he was not entitled to was the detail information which is confidential to the applicant, the vetting team and for mitigation - the line manager.

If OR received the update by phone (which is common) the convo would likely have been “couple of issues a & b, do you wish to try and mitigate”. OR stated he held that mitigation conversation, Mandelson chose to make some details public - that he had agree to sell a share holding and a couple of other actions. That is all normal. The vetting details often include info about people not subject to the vetting, as well as sensitive personal and financial data. The vetting process should have a record of what was agreed but OR wouldn’t have access to that now he is outside of the system.

And then the process is not pass/fail - its a risk analysis. By preempting process and announcing Mandy as ambassador, going to the King, initiating agrement - all without vetting - No10 created a sizeable US relationship risk which OR would have had to factor into the decision. OR did manage to mitigate the risks successfully which saved a lot of egg on No10 faces. The areas OR mitigated were not the reason Mandy was sacked, he was sacked for totally different reasons outside the scope of the vetting.

No10 did its own due diligence on Mandelson and also approved it - including teh business interests.

It all stinks of scapegoat the civil servant instead of taking responsibility and I’d expected better.

This is all correct. And OR is right to say Starmer’s version dangerously misunderstands it because he’s undermining security.

Hopefully some more people will grasp it, including the media and politicians, when a senior person who hasn’t been scapegoated and feels unfairly treated (rightly so) is speaking to the committee.

Hmm.
The headline is misleading talking about “the” DV process - its different in every department and some sub-departments but there are overarching processes in common.

She keeps using the term “failed vetting” which is misleading. When you getting the feedback from the vetting team its not flagged as pass/fail, there may be areas flagged up as risks which need mitigating. It isn’t always a letter, I’ve had calls and that seems to be what happened to OR (although the vetting team themselves will have that record). You do have to find the mitigation in order to approve the relevant clearance - that is the interview she talks about and OR held that interview with Mandelson and they agreed what was needed to manage the risk.

Where I disagree with her is that Starmer and Lammy “must” have received the details. That isn’t correct, its the LM who receives the details. The LM was OR, not Starmer nor Lammy. Just because Mandy was a political choice doesn't mean he becomes a direct report to Starmer outside of the FO.

That being the case, Starmer should have received the outcome, not the details.

I didn’t listen as doing something else, but basically agree with your take and anyone who realises the UKSV info is private.

Why can you not call an MP a liar in Parliament. Now I'm sure Rachel Angela and Keir used to call Borris a liar while sat giggling together It's an opinion isn't it Is Parliament so over protected and so controlling now an opinion isn't allowed it's not like they have been using words unfit for parliament

Thank you for setting that all out so clearly. A powerful element in all of this, which hasn't been factored in, is the Cabinet Office. They have been crucial in these recent developments - releasing the template of the relevant form with the traffic light system that was used in the vetting process.

The Cabinet Office has the direct responsibility to the PM - it was them who released the email that security clearance should not he granted for Mandelson. That is why Cat Little is appearing before the select committee also.

That will be more problematic than anything OR has done. He followed process and should still have his job.

The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. Starmer should bloody well own the fact that:

• he chose to appoint Mandelson;
• he chose to make this public before vetting had been done because he self-evidently didn’t care about the result of the vetting(the only possible alternative interpretation is that he is such an incredibly stupid man that he didn’t think through the potential consequences of very publicly appointing Mandelson as ambassador then immediately publicly sacking him for “secret reasons” he should have waited to find out about before he made the appointment public);
• he subsequently sacked Mandelson for something he knew about before he even appointed him (that he was mates with Epstein) due to public pressure, which makes him look weak;
• he knew plenty of other things about Mandelson’s past that should have stopped him ever choosing the man to represent his country in the US; and
• hardly anyone is going to believe that having stomached all the reasons why he should never have appointed Mandelson in the first place, he would nevertheless have sacked him for reasons the public very conveniently cannot have revealed to them, but which clearly are not that serious, because Mandelson has not been arrested for them and nobody is arguing that he did anything wrong in relation to them while he was Ambassador.

If Keir Starmer does not admit that he, not OR, is entirely to blame for Mandelson being appointed, he will drag the entire Labour party down with him. His current position is utterly indefensible. His total lack of charisma was only supportable on the basis that he was honest and would follow proper procedures, making a refreshing and much needed change from years of increasing corruption, feather-nesting and favours-for-mates-behaviours of previous administrations.

And I don’t think the public needs to know or understand what Keir Starmer was or was not allowed to know about the vetting process to know and understand that Peter Mandelson was the Prime Minister’s choice of ambassador and that the Foreign Office were doing his bidding, not going off on a flight of fancy on their own.