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.

Being a tactical ostrich might save him from lying on a technicality, that might be good enough for you 🤷🏼‍♀️

Plus his inability to understand process and the lack of any decency by using a scapegoat who did follow process.

I think they are two separate issues. Appointing Peter Mandelson in the first place is a political judgement call. One that I agree was poor. But if he was going to need to resign over that, it would have been 18 months ago when it was announced.

But once the appointment goes through the formal vetting process, ministers (including the PM) don’t get given the underlying intelligence or reasoning. They get a simple ‘cleared’ or ‘not cleared’.

So I’m not sure what ‘lack of curiosity’ is supposed to mean in practice. It’s not like he can demand to see classified vetting details or overrule the process based on speculation. If the Foreign Office says someone is cleared, the system is designed so that’s what you rely on.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ce35qnexlv8t

If officials knew that the most senior civil servant in the Foreign Office was digging around, this could add to claims that the PM’s own team should have been digging around too.

The sacked top civil servant was asking questions and not allowed to see the forms himself - asked after sto see underlying forms caking was told needed a state reason.

I still have no idea if Keir is lying - but I think No 10 is placing fast and loose with the truth - which isn't unusal - but they are not being very good at it.

It looks like I expected No 10 push through a canadiate with huge questions already about him -- then failed to ask any further questions and when that's blown up in their face - entriely predicatbly - they've tried to pin blame on a civil servant.

It was absolutely clear mandelson was high risk. The idea this may have been a surprise to anyone is where the lie began.

He could have asked, "when you say 'cleared', at which point in the process was he cleared? Has any unnecessary pressure been applied at any point in this process to clear this chronically dodgy fucker because it defies belief he could have passed?"

I don’t think he’s a liar. He has many failings but I believe he is honest and has integrity.

OR followed process and he’s right to say Starmer has a dangerous misunderstanding of it.

Fair enough, but circumstantial evidence is pretty damning.

That’s not how clearance works though is it. You're cleared at the end, when it's complete. Why would anyone ask what point was he cleared. It would never be the start would it.

As has been said lots of times, the PM isn’t given a breakdown of how or why someone was cleared. Nor is he allowed that info, so asking would have been pointless. The whole point of the system is that it’s handled independently by security professionals and ministers just get the outcome.

Asking things like ‘what stage was he cleared’ or ‘was pressure applied’ isn’t something he could meaningfully do because if there had been concerns about interference, the clearance wouldn’t have been granted in the first place.

So the choice is either you trust the vetting system, or you’re saying it’s fundamentally compromised. And if it’s the second option, that’s a much bigger issue than just Keir Starmer’s judgement.

We aren't going to agree & we're just going round in circles so I'll leave you to it because unless someone comes out and says I told Starmer and he ignored it, I don't believe this is the issue it's being made out to be.

This is they key:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ce35qnexlv8t

“the vetting process is not there to determine fitness for office or reputational risk, it’s there to protect national security.”

Bam!

Starmer has been taking us all for fools. When he was getting heat over PM’s closeness with Epstein, he hid behind civil service process. There never was any process to protect him from his own bad judgement. It’s all just a distraction technique. Look squirrel!

So,for you, it's just his terrible judgement, lack of general knowledge and disregard for the damage done to Epstein's victims?

Yes. This too. 😁

I think this is the point.

Olly Robbins has spent the last few hours going into minute detail about process. But what this whole saga reveals isn't so much about whether KS was or wasn't lying about whether or not the FCDO told him or didn't tell him.

He's just not being honest about why Mandelson was appointed in the first place - probably as a thank you for supporting him before the election - and why so much pressure was being put upon the FCDO to get things rubber stamped in time for Trump's inauguration.

The more I think and hear, the more I think it was Morgan McSweeney in charge of all of this and KS probably had very little to do with it. He didn't even speak to Mandelson at the time about the appointment.

He's just not being honest about why Mandelson was appointed in the first place - probably as a thank you for supporting him before the election - and why so much pressure was being put upon the FCDO to get things rubber stamped in time for Trump's inauguration.
The more I think and hear, the more I think it was Morgan McSweeney in charge of all of this and KS probably had very little to do with it.

I heard a Labour backbencher basically saying this in an interview last night.

It's not shocking - that poltics to a large extent - but the cover-up when it's all gone wrong to sack and smear the civil service that's doesn't make them look good at all.

If Labour MPs have any decency they’ll not ignore that a decent and competent civil servant followed the process and was sacked due to Starmer’s inability to understand what happens.

The outburst was ridiculous, he doesn’t get the process and worse maligned and sacked someone actually good at their job.

This morning was fascinating.
A - someone buy that man a pen and a notebook!
2 - one dept ticked the red 'no' box, Olly thinks that the box that was ticked was the middle 'maybe but borderline' box but never saw the form anyway and the PM thinks it was the 'Green for GO box'. Amazing process guys, top notch.

This makes me feel sick too. Blame everyone else Starmer. It shows no moral fibre and I WANT moral fibre in my PM.

I was delighted when Starmer got the job. I thought he would be a steady pair of hands and I thought he would have integrity. He has been a profound disappointment. Yes I know Johnson blah blah. But Johnson never pretended to be anything but what he was. Feckless. Not serious. Possibly not terribly bright. Venal. Self serving. Starmer trumpeted about the 'adults being in charge'.

Emily Thornberry just had a mic drop moment... and love that she swore earlier.

ETA: I'm watching it on a delay so her mic drop moment was probably 45 mins ago. Ha!

Emily Thornberry points out that there were "interesting" things about Lord Mandelson and says "that's really the nub of this - how on earth did this happen?"
Robbins replies to say that interesting aspects about Mandelson's life were "very very well known".
"This doesn't stack up," Thornberry goes on to say. "In the end he lost his job because he was a threat and that should have been revealed with the DV [developed vetting].
"He was leaking secrets from the British state to a foreign bank, that is pretty serious".
"Some spook somewhere knew that," she adds.
Robbins replies: "That was not known at the time of his withdrawal, to my knowledge."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ce35qnexlv8t

That read to me - look my party leader put someone well know to be dodgy in high office again - why didn't civil servants stop this or spys.

I do understand civil servants and spys do stop poltcians doing a lot of stupid stuff - but it's not like facts here were missing or unknown though just how bad clearly was missing.

The reason he should have asked is because he deliberately spiked the process.

If he had nominated some uncontroversial person and patiently awaited the DV - fine.

But what he actually did was get rid of a highly competent woman, impose a dodgy man, then before DV could even get started, propose that dodgy man to the Americans, take it to the King, announce it in public, and based on what Robbins said today, give that dodgy man IT access, building access, and access to some high-security-clearance info.

He did all that KNOWING that the vetting had not been completed.

You do not do that by mistake.

That is why he should have been more curious. He wasn't, because he didn't want to know, because he wanted plausible deniability.

I am no Tory, never have been, never will be. But will someone who is defending Starmer please say hand on heart that you would accept a Tory PM doing that? You'd say it was just politics etc, and they should get on with governing, nothing to see here?

Really?

I think he's probably being being honest about not being told about the security clearance thing.

I also think he made a very poor decision and that appointment was always going to be a problem. I could have told him that, anyone could have told him there'd be all sorts of dodgyness in Mandelon's background, and Starmer would have known that more than most.

What I suspect happened is it was a risk worth taking because the Americans/Trump really wanted Mandelson, and at the time Starmer was doing really well in managing that relationship, in the face of all the trade tariffs being slapped on everyone.

They'll never be able to tell us that though.

I think it's clear the security vetting didn't uncover a range of things including Mandelson's leaking of government documents when Gordon Brown was in office - it looks like that would never have come to light if the Epstein files and emails hadn't been published.

So vetting can only go so far...

Yes he’s got it wrong on OR. It is awful to see. Now he’s been sacked and hounded, when he was right, good at his job and followed process.

Starmer needs to find some decency and act accordingly, or his MPs for him.

She is whining that civil servants didn’t step outside their remit to be overtly political and overrule her boss.