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.

This.

The reason the press and right wingers are focusing on Mandelson is they have nothing else. I want KS to focus on steering us through the war in Iran, focus on sorting out our energy with an eye to reducing our dependence on gas, and help support people through the cost of living crisis.

It's clear they thought Mandelson would be better at managing Trump, at a time where he was threatening tarrifs. Keeping on the right side of him seemed jmportant at the time, no one knew how extreme his actions were going to be. And Kemi/Nige were so far up his arse they were using his tongue as a pillow! If they'd been in charge we might be at war with Iran now.

Trouble for Starmer it’s not just the ‘right wing and media’. Diane Abbott did better at calling out Starmer than some loyal posters on here.

yeah but with respect, people on here can say anything which Is why I continually ask for proof.

No it’s all you actually care about. Do you seriously think MPs give a shit about polling three years out from an election?

No, but Tories/reform/greens would love to have KS removed and then get to call for another General Election ASAP, which would be disruptive and a massive waste of money. And then what is we got Russian-money-taking Farage in power 😱

Yes, I do believe they care about the polls, now.

I beg to differ, and land that claim on Tony Blair.

Cameron was weak, Johnson was chaotic and Starmer is evasive.

But Blair did the deepest damage in my opinion. He changed the structure and culture of government and much of what we are living through now, ungovernable Britain, was created in the Blair era.

And that the conclusion I have come to over my long life.

I don’t think he’s actually a liar, but he’s lax and incompetent. He should have insisted on being given all relevant information about Mandelson, given the importance of the appointment, but he chose to leave it to others - and then blame them when the shit hit the fan.

It's literally the only thing they care about

They’ll definitely care about votes in a few weeks which will reflect the polls.

It literally isn’t at this point.

It's good they have the "can't say liar" rule. Otherwise, everything will descend into chaos with everyone calling each other a liar without any proper debate.

Plus the fact that all politicians lie at some point.

Really. I thought his name was Pinocchio!
Yes Keir Starmer is a liar!

Well, Olly Robbins has thrown the 'private office of Number 10' under the bus by saying they leaned on him.

So, yes Starmer is a liar. Or at the very least he deliberately didn't want to know . Bit like Clinton saying he did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Why does Keir Starmer keep trying to find jobs for mates of sex offenders?

It’s the Cabinet Office and he refuses to say who pressured him. He’s failed to cover his back throughout.

The PM is the ultimate at the top of hiring hundreds of people - civil servants, ministers, cabinet staff. He has to rely on the process in place. If he was expected to carry out the vetting himself on every single person, he'd get nothing done.

He doesn’t have to ‘vet himself’ that’s not what’s being asked.

David Maddox, Political Editor at The Independent, posted this 1/2 an hour ago.
https://x.com/DavidPBMaddox/status/2046514498446479398?s=20
'Starmer put pressure on the FCDO to give Matthew Doyle a job and not tell the Foreign Secretary. Another person suspended because he was close to a paedophile. That is stunning.'

Quickly followed by -
https://x.com/DavidPBMaddox/status/2046516208933970198?s=20
'This is truly damning stuff from Robbins - they tried to prevent Mandelson having vetting, they didn't consult the FCDO before the appointment, the constant pressure from No10 private office, "when not if" he was appointed, and then they put pressure on him to give Matthew Doyle an ambassador job and not tell the foreign secretary. Starmer's reputation is under serious question now.'

Liar probably not. I hope not. Foolish - definitely.

Listening to Ollie Robbins, it is pretty clear Keir Starmer isn't lying about having not been told. However, his judgement was poor in deciding to appoint Peter M in the first place. It's also pretty clear that he shouldn't have sacked Ollie Robbins, who was following established process and doesn't appear to have done anything wrong. He has chucked a good person under the bus for no real reason at all. I suspect they will be paying him a substantial settlement for dismissing him. Sadly, it also appears that he is unable to go home at present because he is being hounded by the press .

I'm aware of what's being asked.

People are saying he was told and he is saying he wasn't. There's absolutely no evidence anywhere that someone told him. Even Olly Robbins isn't saying that.

In order to lie, he'd have to have the information to lie about it.

The options from OP were:
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.

I'm saying it's option 1. He's reliant on information from others. No ones suggesting option 2 is a possibility. And the only way for him to be completely sure all the information he gets is accurate, is to do it himself. Which is obviously not possible.

This was the highest diplomatic role and he knew, like everyone else in the country, that Mandelson had been fired numerous times from his political roles because he was well and truly shady and drawn to wealthy shady characters. He had been warned by fellow ministers that it was a risky and dangerous move but he wanted Mandelson and he was willing to jettison the experienced and well-liked Karen Pierce to make it happen.

Your willingness or stubbornness to believe that this is on a par with other top civil service roles, is quite something.

Firstly, I do know this isn't on par with other civil service jobs. I'm comparing the process, not the job role.

Plenty of people praised the appointment - from across the political spectrum and elsewhere - Farage, Gove, David Frost for example. The general consensus in the media was that he was a strategic, if controversial choice. He was hired to deal with Trump - who was hardly a rule player himself.

If your issue is him being selected for the role in the first place (with which I completely agree, he should've been removed from politics a long time ago), that's separate to the issue of Starmer being accused of deliberately lying about the vetting. We knew about the appointment in Dec 2024, so the uproar today (and this entire thread) has nothing to do with his actual appointment.

It's not separate to the issue of his judgement and his startling lack of curiosity. It is not separate from his unwillingness to listen to his fellow ministers, preferring instead the direction of those who put together his political campaign. It's not separate from his statements that he cared deeply about the safety of women and girls as he tactically ignored Mandelson's friendship with a trafficker.