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.

No, hes not.

Hes also a barrister and ethical codes will be in his genetics.

Have he, and Reeves, made some poor choices. Yes, they have. Hes also made one particularly good one of late - being measured in response to Trump.

These political games being played by others is just noise and given the current world issues, dangerous noise, and they dont seem to care. Ive more time for Starmer, not less, given that.

He's like the conductor of an orchestra. He relies on the people around him to do their jobs. He's not to be expected to do them all himself.

Someone kept him in the dark - someone arrogant made a decision and thought Starmer didn't need to know.

This is all a media frenzy, and I don't admire people like Badenoch for jumping on the bandwagon.

Of course he is and anyone who doesn’t think so is deluded. No way they’d believe a Tory for the same thing. It’s bias

Christ if this is the constant shit we get before the locals, I dread what crap is going to be churned out for the general.

Who is this McDowell you speak of? I presume you mean John McDonnell but can't see how this was a typo....

No.

Is he a successful politician?

All politicians have to lie to succeed. That’s how the system is set up. You get popular by saying what people want to hear and appeasing the powerful. And what does power do? It corrupts. So a politician not only has to lie, he or she, must also obscure or plausibly deny knowledge of corruption amongst their powerful backers.

I'm on the fence about the Mandelson issue but he's told plenty of lies about other things. All of them do. So, yes, he's probably lying about this too.

Keir.

Frankly this is angels dancing on a pinhead stuff.

Did he specifically know that Mandelson had been poorly assessed as part of DV? Probably not.

Did he pre-emptively announce his appointment, thus essentially rendering the FCDO assessment redundant, and also should he have known that a guy with PM's record was likely to be Dodgy McDodgeville?

Yes, yes and yes some more.

The whole thing about did he know about Olly Robbins's steer... is a ridiculous technicality that he would (rightly) have pilloried the Tories for 36mos ago.

Peter Mandelson was called the Prince of Darkness as a nickname. The idea that his general shadiness is a complete shock, and I'm just as outraged as all of you dontcha know, is for the birds.

That would wash if the appointment was Joe Noname whom Starmer had never heard of.

But Starmer announced his appointment because he didn't want to wait for a forensic assessment, because anyone with even a half-memory of political history since the 2000s could have told you he was dodgy as fuck.

So is he dishonest? Yes.

Yes.

I don't think so. What he is though is naive, stupid (in the massive error of judgement sense), and lacking in basic ability to verify things that are important.

I think this will be his undoing, but not just yet as there is no credible successor.

Also, I have voted Labour for literally decades but I just don't believe the whole competent n decent schtick.

He just isn't.

He fails to understand basic optics (free glasses), he fails to appropriately weigh up really serious questions like women's basic civil rights. He gestures at committing to things (defence spending) but in a way that is essentially meaningless. He appropriates rhetoric and stances (being working class) which are just inauthentic.

I wouldn't compare him to Johnson. I'd compare him to Sunak. An essentially technocratic guy without much vision who blunders on the emotive bits that matter for the media (D Day) and might have succeeded in a less unstable environment.

But we aren't in that environment, so.

I 100% believe he is lying and needs to go.
UKSV is part of the Cabinet Office so they will have been aware of the issue. Remember how Simon Case suddenly stepped down suddenly citing ill health and then was made a Lord? The same Simon case who advised the PM to wait for security checks to
complete before announcing Mandelson (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/20/cabinet-secretary-simon-case-keir-starmer-peter-mandelson).
Then there is no way the civil servants would not cover their own arse. I 100% believe they flagged the issue, whether that be to Starmer or Lammy.
And none of this takes away from the point that Mandleson should never have been appointed in the first place, regardless of any security clearance. As Starmer was so determined to appoint Mandleson, and he knew of his questionable relationships, he should have made a point of asking about his security checks. I don’t think he should need to ask about most normal appointments but Mandleson is far from a normal
appointment. I believe the MP who said Mandleson and his friends funded Starmers leadership bid and this is the payment for that.
I agree with Kemi, he is either a liar or incompetent- and I’m not sure which is worse

Although I think he’s as two faced and shallow as a drum, and absolutely out of his depth, I don’t think he’s a liar. (But I definitely thinks he’ll tell as little of the truth as he thinks he can get away with.)

He's a sanctimonious weasel.

His jaw dropping lack of curiosity betrays his calculated ignorance in the face of appointing a man who had been forced to retire from government twice and who had documented and widely known links to Epstein following his conviction for trafficking and if that wasn't enough to tip the pm off, whose nickname was the Prince of Darkness - to the highest diplomatic office.

Do I think that Keir can argue that he was blindly and innocently following procedure with absolutely no policial instinct or due diligence, perhaps...but his lack of judgement will be enough to see his downfall.

Everyone lies

I don’t think he’s lying but I also think he’s being economical with the truth.

Mandelson was announced as ambassador in Dec 2024 before vetting took place. This was daft and Starmer - a man of process - should have questioned this.

The vetting uncovered some irregularities which the FCDO, Mandelson and the security services ‘resolved’. I believe KS didn’t know about this.

Olly Robbins at the FCDO apparently thought he was legally prevented from passing any of this information- even high level- to ministers. We shall find out the truth on this tomorrow morning.

What Starmer needs to admit to is the grubby behind the scenes dealings which led to a shady man being declared ambassador before vetting had even taken place which he certainly knew about - a decision taken purely because Donald Trump was in the White House.

Everyone knows why it all happened, it’s the faux posturing in Parliament by Starmer that he’s totally innocent and not to blame that is pissing everyone off.

If he's not then he's STAGGERINGLY incompetent and has got to go

I don’t think he’s a straight up bare faced liar, but I do think he is idiotically idealistic and lacking in knowledge and experience in some areas - but nevertheless makes decisions anyway which turn out to be quite poor. I don’t like him, but I’m not sure I fancy the alternatives in his party either. Awful situation.

No, he wasn’t told, how can he have known?

The prince of darkness nickname and previous sackings might have given him a clue that extra diligence would be required.

How could he have known that Mandy was a bad egg? Has he ever read a newspaper?

Honestly the whole thing reminds me of when my kids are told to keep their hands off each other, and respond by jabbing one finger a quarter-inch away from the other's ribcage.

"I'm not touching him, you said don't touch and I'm not actually touching, well how could I know you really meant stop annoying him, that's so unfair, I did exactly what you said" etc.

It's even less cute on a world leader.