Mandy

[secretsqirrel]

It'll be amusing to hear outrage from Reform about No10 putting pressure on civil servants when it's their policy to sack civil servants and replace them with people who'll do what No10 tell them

Or Truss, congratulating Labour for attacking the blob.

 

[CXRAndy]

Its clear that very few notes or minutes are taken in government departments.

No record of anything important- then its if I remember

 

[Psamathe]

There's also the fact that he pushed the appointment through before the vetting had concluded, so how can he stand up in parliament and say he wouldn't have appointed him if he knew he'd failed the vetting if he didn't allow time for the vetting TO fail? The implication is that he just didn't care either way and all that mattered was getting the paedophile's friend in post.

My impression is that DV did not fail. Mitigations were put in place to allow DV to "pass".

And it is absolutely right that MPs and Ministers don't get any details about the DV and outcome as there is no confidentiality once anything is in the "political domain" eg Mandleson failed DV known if No 10 on Tuesd and it's on the front page of the Guardian by Thurs (and that is confidentiality?)./

 

[Psamathe]

Is Mandy’s connection with Epstein his ONLY risk factor? Doesn’t it just add to the list?

My understanding Ifrom reliable reports) is that the concerns are in relation to Madlelson's companies and contacts with some foreign Governments (eg China and Russia). Thus Robbins put mitigations in place to protect against those concerns and thus allow the appointment to proceed.

 

[TailWindHome]

So Starmer's version of events, with regard to the vetting, seems to be supported by Robbins?

 

[CXRAndy]

It smacks of a boys club, just alter the rules to get whoever they want in certain roles.

Mandleson was known to be dodgy, but the response was let's mitigate the issues, then pass him.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

From Robbins testimony today.

If we turn DV [developed vetting] into a pass/fail piety test, what we end up doing is robbing the British state of a lot of very, very capable people with complicated lives and potential vulnerabilities.

Not really the best justification. The point of DV is literally to disqualify people who may be vulnerable to some form of blackmail or bribery. I would have thought keeping people who are vulnerable away from possible harm was best for all parties!

 

[laurentian]

So Starmer's version of events, with regard to the vetting, seems to be supported by Robbins?

I think that's what I understand from what I've just been listening to.

Starmer didn't know but that's the way it is. It's a bit puzzling that Starmer was so outraged at the fact he wasn't told when it appears to be policy that he wouldn't be.

 

[Psamathe]

From Robbins testimony today.

If we turn DV [developed vetting] into a pass/fail piety test, what we end up doing is robbing the British state of a lot of very, very capable people with complicated lives and potential vulnerabilities.

Not really the best justification. The point of DV is literally to disqualify people who may be vulnerable to some form of blackmail or bribery. I would have thought keeping people who are vulnerable away from possible harm was best for all parties!

Does it not also consider where individuals might have other influences (eg personal interests like their companies) and to put in place mitigations to protect against those personal interests influencing their Government role.

 

[Psamathe]

... Starmer didn't know but that's the way it is. It's a bit puzzling that Starmer was so outraged at the fact he wasn't told when it appears to be policy that he wouldn't be.

Starmer has to be "outraged" as the only alternative it to admit he wasn't aware of "policy" or accepted "policy". Outrage helps Starmer push his "I'm the victim" stance.

 

[briantrumpet]

It's a bit puzzling that Starmer was so outraged at the fact he wasn't told when it appears to be policy that he wouldn't be.

I suspect that was a performative decision to make him look emotionally involved rather than his normal android detachment. It might have been more credible if he'd just admitted that Mandelson's appointment was a cynical play to try to 'play' Trump, but that would then have pissed off the Americans even more.

 

[laurentian]

I suspect that was a performative decision to make him look emotionally involved rather than his normal android detachment. It might have been more credible if he'd just admitted that Mandelson's appointment was a cynical play to try to 'play' Trump, but that would then have pissed off the Americans even more.

Quite! - there's a joke on the "NCAP Political Jokes" thread that sums this up perfectly

 

[Ian H]

Starmer has to be "outraged" as the only alternative it to admit he wasn't aware of "policy" or accepted "policy". Outrage helps Starmer push his "I'm the victim" stance.

I don't think I want a PM who plays the victim. I'd prefer, "it was a gamble and I lost, you live and learn".

 

[Psamathe]

One aspect to Starmer's uttering that to me highlights a failing of current politicians: "I take full responsibility" just uttering the phrase means no consequences (for the speaker), no more discussion please, end of story, more on ...

It's become a meaningless phrase used to attempt to close down important issues. Starmer's judgement is a major issue and that he admits he failed means he should be putting in place procedures to prevent against poor judgement eg in the case of appointing senior diplomats that the Foreign Affairs Committee examine and approve (or can veto) proposed appointments. But no, Starmer wants "I take full responsibility" to be he keeps all those powers he's proved himself incapable of exercising properly.

 

[Shortfall]

So Starmer's version of events, with regard to the vetting, seems to be supported by Robbins?

Up to a point. It confirms that Robbins didn't inform him, but when you hear his testimony and listen to the commentary it would appear that this was because he was put under intense pressure by No 10 to make sure Mandelson was approved "despite" what was thrown up by the vetting. It doesn't deal with the point either that David Maddox had previously asked Downing St to.confirm a leak that Mandelson had basically failed it. It's hard to believe the PM wasn't aware of this. Starmer comes out of this really badly. He wanted Mandelson to have the job at all costs and made sure it happened and then threw what appears to be a very decent Civil Servant under a bus for doing what he was told to do. It also begs the question, what is even the point of the vetting if it can effectively be ignored?