Star More ” ” ” ” ” It It ” ” I ” It He Russell ” He He ” The The He ” ” She The The

Why Starmer still can’t move on from the Mandelson mess21 hours agoLaura KuenssbergSunday with Laura KuenssbergBBCEveryone’s cross.The prime minister’s furious. Whitehall’s angry. Labour MPs are frustrated. Keir Starmer’s anger is not going to change, despite his repeated declarations. “The prime minister’s original decision to award Peter Mandelson with the US ambassadorship – one of the most prestigious jobs in the country – had risks that could be seen even from space. We now know that the former Labour Minister did not pass security checks. It may have even been, to quote a government source, “absolutely psychopathic” – a disastrous instance of “don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” spreading political poison for months. As we reported in September, No. 10 was informed about Peter Mandelson’s links with late sex offenders Jeffrey Epstein prior to giving him the job. Starmer’s team asked Mandelson further questions after that report, and were satisfied with Mandelson’s answers, even though they now believe that he misled. Step two: after the prime minister gave the former Labour Minister the job, a security check was conducted, also known as developed screening. According to a senior figure, the process was a confidential one that involved an in person interview, financial checks and “ought be completely forensic”, as we reported in autumn. The details of these investigations would not be passed on to No. 10 or ministers to protect confidentiality. As sources told me back in the fall, and the government still states publicly today, no concerns were raised by ministers because of this, even though it was recommended that he not get the job. The vetting agency only makes recommendations to Foreign Office officials – it does not make decisions on who gets a job. Imagine it as a credit agency that checks your financial history, but ultimately it is the bank who decides if you are approved for a loan. In this case, the concerns of the agency were sent to the senior official at the Foreign Office, Mr. Olly Robbins. He didn’t see the entire verdict at the time. He seemed to conclude that the concerns he had been told about could be addressed. Former senior officials have said that vetting is not a test, but a process. It’s more about managing risk than giving a thumbs up or a thumbs down. “Robbins will be pressed by MPs to explain why he felt the gamble was worthwhile. But what is the political reality? Before Robbins’ Department took a look at the former peer, he had already gone through a separate government inspection, and his concerns had been shared with No 10. Starmer decided to go ahead, but Mandelson was waiting at the White House. The now former top mandarin of the Foreign Office told MPs that, during the actual vetting, it was “clear that the prime minister wanted this appointment to be made himself”. One person said, “It’s impossible to believe Olly would do this on his own.” He is known for being obsessed with processes – what was he to gain from taking a risky choice like this without a trail of paper? It doesn’t make sense. “MPs and advisors now say it is “incredible” – and “unforgiveable”. They are “aghast”, that Robbins did not flag the problem at the time to ministers. The process is supposed to be confidential. One Robbins ally tells me: “He’s done nothing wrong.” Lord Simon McDonald’s predecessor, Lord Simon McDonald said the same thing on Saturday: “No. 10 wanted a scalp, and they wanted it fast.” “The view of the top of the government is that it’s unconscionable Robbins did not raise his hand when the prime minister, and other ministers, repeatedly said in public that the procedure had been followed and explicitly that Mandelson was cleared by vetting. A law might state that vetting is a confidential procedure. The civil service code states that officials must correct mistakes as soon as they can, accurately present options, and not knowingly lie to ministers or Parliament. A former Foreign Office Minister says it is astonishing that ministers did not press for more information when Mandleson received the job. David Lammy, the then-foreign secretary, or the PM did not ask: Is it all OK? “One senior Whitehall official suggests: “Olly Roberts has reportedly been sacked because he didn’t create a problem for Prime Minister. This is a novel idea. The lesson to be learned is that the Labour Government wants the civil service save them from their own judgements. “‘It does not stack up’ What is more baffling is that officials have been examining what happened behind closed door for months. Starmer has made a number of earnest statements about how everything will be thoroughly investigated. Did he not ask Mandelson if his security checks were clean when he was repeatedly reassuring that all the rules had been followed, in one of the most embarrassing political controversies of recent years? Did anyone in Starmer’s team ask this basic question for the many months that the government was under pressure to give Mandelson the job, or only recently? It was journalists who brought this to light, not the promised transparency by ministers. Some experienced government insiders are unable to believe the official story. One insider told me, “It’s inconceivable that a flag was not raised between September and now.” It’s hard to believe anyone outside the foreign office did not know. “DOJAbove everything else, given that the Mandelson mess caused the prime minister deep and repeated political troubles, did he, a former chief procuror, really think not to have asked if anyone had ever checked all his references during the last torrid months?” It’s one thing to be “mortified and angry” when things go bad, but that’s not an action. This latest panic over Mandelson, according to a senior Whitehall official, “sums up Starmer’s premiership”: a man who claimed to be a grown-up public service turns out not to care about the details of government or have any political antenna. Ouch! Keir is in pain. By publishing an account of the recent meeting, it was made clear that the prime minister did not know what happened. Darren Jones, one of his senior ministers says that it’s a failure of the state. Starmer has used many different words to express the same thing, that he’s a bit hacked off. It is clear that No 10 doesn’t accept that they’re to blame for the failure. The rapid firing of Robbins demonstrates that they’re determined to put the blame on someone else. It’s not just uncomfortable because it clashes against Starmer’s “Mr Rules” persona. As one ally said: “It is so painful to Keir who prides himself on being a person with integrity. This is just wiping this away in the public’s eyes.” “But this is happening just as Labour is about face millions of voters at a series of large-scale elections in Scotland, Wales, and England. Starmer’s handling the war was praised by some in the party, and it felt as if they were starting to get a break. This most embarrassing scandal blew up again, a mess that was created not by Whitehall but by Starmer’s original decision to bring Mandelson into the fold. Keir is incredibly incompetent to put us in this position again, just three weeks before an election. Another senior MP said it was just a sinking sensation: “Oh no! Here we go again.” “With the elections coming up in a few short weeks, it’s unlikely that any Labour figure will jump-start a leadership frenzy. But don’t be surprised if many MPs are thinking about this. Another said: “It is impossible to put more nails in his grave without it being made out of nails. But this is another one.” “Robbins’ exit also creates bad blood between ministers, and the civil service they need to make plans work. Friction a struggling government cannot afford. It’s also important to note that the departure creates an empty space in foreign policy, one of the few areas where the prime minister has a good track record. Starmer will be questioned by MPs on Monday. Sir Olly Roberts, with his P45 in hand, has been summoned by MPs to give evidence on Tuesday. He’s going to be slammed for his original judgement that he cleared Mandelson’s flight to DC despite concerns from the vetting agency. Robbins’ defenders insist that he believes that he was following the rules. It’s also easy to say that Mandelson’s appointment was a disaster, that it failed. It was a political choice to give the job of prime minister to a politician who had a reputation for getting into trouble. But they share more than you think. BBC InDepth, the website and mobile app that features the best analysis and reporting, offers fresh perspectives and challenges assumptions. Emma Barnett and John Simpson present their selection of deep readings and analysis every Saturday. Sign up here for the newsletterKeir StarmerJeffrey EpsteinLabour party

Senior official removed over Mandelson security dispute to face MPs13 mins agoAdam GoldsmithReutersThe Chief Foreign Office Official who was fired after it was revealed that Peter Mandelson received a security clearance in spite of concerns raised during the vetting procedure is expected to be questioned by MPs on Tuesday. This will add to the potential Sir Olly Robbins, the senior official who was fired over the Mandelson security row, will face MPs on Tuesday. On Friday, he called the decision to not inform him earlier “staggering”, and added: “That I was not told that he failed security vetting while I was telling Parliament due process had been adhered to is unforgivable.” “PA MediaMandelson’s appointment as US ambassador was announced by the government in December 2024. The developed vetting process began the same day. He officially took up the position in February 2025 before being removed in September last year when more details about his past relationships with convicted sex offenders Jeffrey Epstein were revealed Sir Olly was the most senior civil service member at the Foreign Office when Mandelson was selected for the Washington role. Dame Emily Thornberry requested that Sir Olly appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee, which she chairs, to answer questions. They also questioned whether Sir Olly had ever seen the recommendation for the Foreign Office to reject Lord Mandelson’s screening. Allies said that it was unlikely that he saw the entire report and he may have only seen specific risks during the process. The Cabinet Office oversees a government agency that carries out vetting of government employees. This agency then makes recommendations to the hiring departments. Chris Mason: Mandelson nightmare haunts Starmer once againWhat we know about Mandelson’s vetting and clearanceKeir Starmer

At a press conference at Westminster, she said that Sir Keir was “unable to hope” to lead the country because of his “incompetence”. She accused him of being “so She said that she did not have enough Conservative MPs to win a no-confidence vote. “The people who are able to do that, and make this happen, are Labour MPs. “Key questions facing the government over Mandelson vettingWhat’s the Developed Vetting Security Clearance at the centre of Mandelson Row?Chris Mason : Mandelson nightmare is haunt The fact that I wasn’t informed that he failed security vetting at the time I told Parliament that due procedure had been followed, is unforgivable. “I’m furious that not only was I unaware, but no minister was informed. “I intend to go to the Parliament on Monday and present all the facts in full transparency so that Parliament has the complete picture. He added: “Number 10, who was appointed by the Cabinet Office, was not informed that he failed security vetting. That is unacceptable.” “Senior minister Darren Jones earlier said Sir Keir had not misled MPs when he said due process had been followed, and therefore would not be resigning.Jones told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, there was no obligation in the rules for ministers to be told about security vetting decisions when Lord Mandelson was appointed, something he said he had now changed.BBC News understands the United Kingdom Security Vetting service gave the Foreign Office an explicit recommendation not to approve Lord Mandelson’s vetting.It’s understood that UKSV, which carried out the work on behalf of the Cabinet Office, presented the Foreign Office with a list of potential risks as well as a recommendation summing up those risks.That recommendation can fall into one of three categories, described by sources as “yes”, “yes with caveats” and “no”.Sources say the recommendation given to the Foreign Office by the vetting services was a “no”.The Foreign Office is believed to be the only government department in Whitehall with the authority to overrule such a recommendation.Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the PM’s explanation “just doesn’t stack up,” adding: “I am afraid he is going to have to go. “Sir Ed called for an investigation into whether Sir Keir deliberately misled Parliament by the Privileges committee, which was used to hold Boris Johnson accountable over the Partygate scandal. “Or, as a civil servant was he receiving direction from someone else, and if so by whom?” The Mandelson scandal was a tipping point in my opinion. I do not regret it. I stated my position. I stand by it. I don’t retreat from it. I believe Lord Mandel It will be delivered to your inbox each weekday. Keir StarmerNational Security

The The The The