Is it possible that Mandelson might bring Starmer down?

[CurlewKate]

?

Starmer uses a script and it shows but the most heartfelt was probably his answer on Morgan McSweeney. Of course he trusts him, backs him and needs him, he got him into power.

That was worth it for this scandal for Starmer. Whether he gets through it we’ll see. His ask for the Cabinet Secretary to vet info may be rebelled against.

I read earlier today that Gordon Brown advised very strongly against the appointment of Mandelson as US Ambassador. And if anyone knew the depths of his dishonesty, it was GB. First over the home loan from Geoffrey Robinson, second time over the visa for the Indian tycoon, and again when Brown himself ennobled Mandelson to bring him into the Cabinet as Business Secretary. Three strikes!

Yet, as some commentators have written (Finkelstein and Matthew Parris in today's Times) he was one of the best political brains of a generation, and Labour royalty as Herbert Morrison's grandson.

And? Vetting is normally after a role has been offered/appointed but before taking it up so this would not be unusual.

Failing vetting would mean either going straight back to appointments or further discussion on the points of failure and their relevance to the role (it can be historic and deemed not relevant to the specific role or mitigation may be put in place).

Its very weird, the whole thing stinks.

Mandelson had multiple chances, blew them all, yet still deemed good enough to be Ambassador.

Can't be defended on any level and really does call into question Starmers judgement and or those around him.

Im actually finding the whole thing incredibly depressing. Cant stand Starmer or Labour. Want them to be out in 2029 and this will add to that chance. But at what cost. This is so bad for the country that we live in. Humiliating, damaging and tawdry. And the government seems to be utterly untrustworthy which is not a good position for us to be in.

After it had been announced to the public? Even Thornberry raised issues

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/16/peter-mandelson-us-ambassador-vetting-foreign-office

Yes i ve worked in a high security environment, vetting takes a long time, so roles are offered, after cursory checks done, full vetting done afterwards... there is some degree of trust that the individual offered the role has told the truth....

But this isn't the issue, it is "Why was he even considered?"

Quite. How is ANY level of relationship with a paedophile deemed acceptable?

Yes, such roles are listed and for political appointments that listing will be publicly reported. In particular for ambassadorial appointments the receiving country would also need time to do their own checks.

As @Alexandra2001 says there is a degree of trust that standard preliminary checks have received honest answers (the equivalent of first round screening for a normal job applicant.).

I’ve been DV’d and SC’d for different departments at different points in my career and its always been after the role was offered. DV in particular is a time consuming and expensive process. I’ve also been involved in making the case for someone to be granted DV or SC for a particular job as an exception where they wouldn’t normally qualify at that point in time. Its all done after the job offer.

After the job offer but also after the public announcement of a high profile ambassador role? Seems like a difficult place to be politically if you have to withdraw.

Plus that article highlights the issues with their process and Kemi Badenoch overturned Starmer’s amendment with Labour MPs so it looks like they all do want more transparency than he does.

Yes it can be embarrassing or awkward but that is the risk they take (and why for political roles the political due diligence should be in place first). Plenty in Labour were not happy about Mandelson’s appointment - not least due to the risk level of someone with that track record. Like Rayner, I want to see a lot more transparency on the process.

There have been scandalous appointments (and honours) in the past by all political parties but this one seems simply stupid considering what was already known publicly at the time.

Incidentally, failing the initial SC/DV checks doesn’t automatically stop you taking up a role advertised as requiring vetting.

I think she did that herself

Kemi Badenoch is leading the call for transparency. Labour MPs are backing her because she has got it right. If you heard PMQs you’d see it was her asking for the ISC and Starmer refusing it.

I heard PMQs. Rayner (and others from both the main parties) were making the same points earlier in the week. Badinoch was not the first to raise it.

Interesting you don’t mention it. She did well. She may well take Starmer out after all. Or lead to others doing so.

@Papyrophile Yet, as some commentators have written (Finkelstein and Matthew Parris in today's Times) he was one of the best political brains of a generation, and Labour royalty as Herbert Morrison's grandson.

I'm not sure I even know what 'best political brain' means. He is certainly conniving and ruthless. Is that what they mean? He got results, he was a fixer but at what cost to the country over the last 30 odd years? Strikes me that being the best political brain of a generation isn't much of an accolade when you boil it down to what his attributes were. Mandelson has destroyed Labour from within over a very long period and has gifted the country Farage as our next PM. A traitor indeed.

Andrew Marr just said he thinks it's the beginning of the end for Starmer.

A Labour spokesman has just said it’s the biggest scandal of the century and really really serious . I think we need a general election. There is no trust in this government.

Normally I would assume a government should see out its term (even though I'm not a Labour supporter). But I can't see how this government will limp on until 2029 even if the PM changes. It would be a disaster for the country.

Starmer should never have been considering Mandleson for the ambassador role, that was pretty poor judgement in itself. The man had been sacked twice before from Government positions. Some people suffer from imposter syndrome Starmer is an imposter who thinks he is great, something he has in common with Trump.

@hairbearbunches with Philip Gould, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, he built on John Smith's legacy to make Labour electable in 1997. Kinnock came back a bit from the catastrophe that was Michael Foot, but blew the 1992 election. However, the Tories were already tired and divided by their failure to thrash out the argument for closer EU political and financial union. From that period, stems much of our current political shenanigans. Each successive election after 1997 has brought weaker political candidates -- across all parties. IMO of course!

It's certainly not helpful to Starmer. But what will finish him is an ongoing constant stream of negative news that detracts attention from the actual running of Government:
Andy Burnham denied the chance to run
Peter Mandelson
Denton and Gorton by election result
May local election results
etc etc

@Papyrophile We'll have to agree to disagree there :) That bunch didn't build on John Smith's legacy at all. If they had done, the country would look very different. John Smith was left wing. That bunch were just self serving opportunists who saw the Labour Party as a vehicle for them to become intensely rich.

They were all members of his front bench team or his close advisers, even so! Gould and Mandelson being the advisors. Philip Gould's book on how they dumped Clause 4 and otherwise removed the most extreme leftist policies to make Labour electable is very good.

Interesting the mention of the £240 million contract to Palantir in PMQs in connection with Peter M and Keir Starmer. I seem to remember some people on MN always throwing shade at the Conservatives for giving "jobs to their mates". This one seems to put those ones rather in the shade.

It's fascinating how everything Labour criticised the Tories of, they themselves have done but much worse.