Are we all looking forward to David Lammy becoming PM?

[ProudAmberTurtle]

There's no way Starmer can survive this latest scandal.

Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting for the US ambassador job, but he still got the post anyway.

Starmer stood up in Parliament last September and insisted "full due process" was followed — three times.

He therefore either misled parliament and has to resign under the Ministerial Code, or his advisors have misled him and parliament, which is likely a criminal matter and suggests a level of almost unbelievable government incompetence or corruption.

What great things are you hoping this country will achieve under PM Lammy?

Just saw your edit

I think rather a lot of people did point out given Mandelson's track record it was rather a risky move....!!

He’s fucked it. He chose a scapegoat who wasn’t even in place.

Hopefully the media are grasping what that means for the due process lie.

Yes, is the fact that someone else lied to him, not the exact point he's making?

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/52666/documents/293112/default/

Why has he been asked to account for his actions on these given dates if he wasn't responsible? I'm confused.

He can’t even get the timing right on who that was, so it’s unlikely.

He’s grasping for a fall guy and it’s unrelated to the actual timeline that’s how off it is.

First question I ever ask my children whenever they give me the
“nobody told me” act - well did you ask?!

If someone's job is to provide you with the evidence of someone's suitability for a post. And they came to you and said "yes, they're suitable they've passed vetting" would your response be "are you lying"

If he knew and deliberately covered it up, he absolutely should go. If he was provided with false information, the expectation that he still should have known and checked himself is bonkers.

So far Starmer has named Olly Robbins as the person responsible for saying yes. He wasn’t even in the job at the time.

What if that teacher had twice resigned in disgrace from schools you were working at before, and it's since become public knowledge that he was best friends with a paedophile. And concerns had been raised that the guy who said he'd passed the vetting process doesn't actually answer any questions that have been asked to him about the vetting process.

Wouldn't you double check that this new teacher definitely is OK to work with children?

@EasternStandard - sorry I posted before you replied. But this is what's confused me. If OR wasn't in any way responsible, why has he been asked to account for the info he provided on specific dates?

I'm genuinely trying to understand, so if I'm being ignorant and it was nothing to do with him, presumably on Tuesday he'll say "wasn't in post then" and that'll be the end of it?

It's not clear that Starmer was told that he had passed the vetting. It's just that the official line is that he wasn't told that he failed it

I think he’s still part of it because the vetting concluded when he was there but it was also after Mandelson was in post.

So when Starmer says due process was followed in parliament on the timing alone it clearly wasn’t.

Mandelson was given the job pre vetting and pre OR. The process didn’t even happen, OR wasn’t even part of the actual appointment.

If we do need to have change (personally, I’d prefer a period of stability) then I’d like to see a capable, no-nonsense woman in charge - Yvette Cooper or Emily Thornberry. I’ve had enough of mediocre middle aged men to last a lifetime.

Update: Starmer is not saying he was lied to. He's just saying he wasn't told the truth that Mandy failed the vetting process.

But that means he told parliament that Mandy passed the vetting process without ever actually checking if that was true.

Well he will have to tell everyone who the person who lied to him is. And see what happens....Will be fascinating to see what that person says in return.

Why would they tell him it failed before it concluded anyway?

Starmer and co were so keen to have Mandelson they didn’t wait for it, due process wasn’t followed.

But the response seems to be “nobody told me that he had failed” rather than “I was told he had passed” there’s potentially quite a difference there.

Of course you could assume that he’d passed if somebody told you it was ok to proceed but knowing Mandelson’s reputation the PM must have known there was a chance he could fail and might have at least said “oh, so he passed then?”

Anyway, I’m not actually convinced that Starmer is a deliberate liar, but this does give a sense that he’s not fully in control either.

He's a lawyer. He won't have presumed anything. Someone will have told him that Mandelson had failed vetting.

Otherwise he is claiming thay everyone including the secret services sat back and allowed the appointment of soemone who was a threat to national security continue and no one bothered to mention it to him. Sorry. That's just bullshit. But I suppose its bullshit the country is once again being asked to swallow so this circus can continue.

I don’t think Starmer’s story is that he was lied to. I think he’s saying that Mandelson failing security vetting was never made known to him until this week.

That’s what I find so doubtful about Starmer’s excuse. Mandelson was sacked in September last year. Starmer was then questioned publicly about what he knew, what had happened, and so on.

After Mandelson’s sacking and the grilling Starmer got, did Starmer ask no questions, not get any official to investigate, not speak to the Foreign Secretary, not speak to Robbins…and only found out about the vetting failure this week?

Starmer was literally shaking at PMQs when he faced questions about Mandelson back in September. Are we supposed to believe that after that he didn’t care, was totally unconcerned about where he stood in the whole mess?

Edited to change ‘answered’ to ‘faced’. Starmer doesn’t answer anything.

Who took the decision to override procedure then?

Yes it’s changed a bit. Because it’s all fabricated. Mandelson was already working when the vetting came back.

You absolutely can!

I'm so lost, I've had to read up briefly to get my head round the dates.

Mandelson was announced as ambassador in Dec 24 (mid vetting, which appears not to be unusual in terms of these appointments). And appointed in Feb 2025 - at which point OR was in post (he started Jan 2025). So he's being held to account because it was his department that overturned the failure.

So presumably the issue remains whether or not Starmer was aware of the failed vetting and that is the bit I just don't think has been proven but I understand why people might think he did.

Exactly this. There was nearly a Labour coup against him in February with Sanwar calling for him to resign and Burnham trying to become an MP, all against the backdrop of this saga.

Starmer's defence at the time was to repeatedly say that Mandy passed the vetting process.

Are we seriously supposed to believe that he never asked anyone if what he was saying was true? That he never made any attempt to find out what actually happened? That his chief of staff's phone, which had all the answers on it, was stolen and that was that?

It's so obvious that we're being lied to that it's actually quite shocking.