[Tubby Isaacs]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... l-servants

After leading the charge yesterday, the Guardian now informs us that:

Keir Starmer was kept in the dark about sensitive information relating to Peter Mandelson’s security vetting by two other top civil servants, including the head of the civil service, the Guardian can reveal.

I recall it got very shirty when Starmer criticized the (senior) civil service as not being up to the job. Are they going to recant?

Unless Starmer did know all along. I find that unlikely seeing the number of people who could knife him.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I hadn't seen this bit of Alex Wickham's post. If this is true, then Mandelson didn't fail vetting at all.

And sources say in fact Mandelson DID NOT simply fail his vetting. Instead issues were raised and the FCDO security team and ultimately Robbins had to make a decision on whether to grant him DV clearance. It was their decision and there was no “overturning,” sources say

The Guardian ought to be in deep shit if this source is correct.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The Political Editor of The Independent is also overegging it a bit.

Why does this mean they definitely knew, when other people who were close to it said they didn't? Why wouldn't the PM believe the Foreign Office?

[Tubby Isaacs]

This may be Wickham's source.

Ciaran Martin, a former top civil servant with past involvement in vetting work – and a close friend of the ousted Olly Robbins – said this was an oversimplification. Rather than vetting being a simple yes or no, he told the BBC, it was a balance of risks, and entirely standard for officials to decide whether this was acceptable.

If this is true, I find it astonishing the impression created is so different to what actually happened. And I think Ollie Robbins needs to get his job back. Removing him is on Starmer, but the flaw in the story (if it is one) is very much not on him. Fortunately Labour MPs have been pretty sensible not to rush in like, well, Liberal Democrats, but it could easily have pushed the Prime Minister out. That is not something that can be passed over in a "free and vigorous press, shucks" kind of way.

It'll probably turn out Starmer is bang to rights now I've said that, won't it?

[Tubby Isaacs]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... acle-grows

Keir Starmer faces ‘judgment day’ as Mandelson vetting debacle grows
As revelations mount and accusations fly, prime minister prepares for MPs’ anger and Olly Robbins’ testimony early next week

Hang on, I thought the last story was that he wasn't told about what happened with the vetting?

But the upshot is that the PM, photographed looking miserable, faces "judgement day" for the "debacle"? If the PM didn't know, why are MPs angry at him?

Can I suggest "Guardian editor faces scrutiny after heavily implying the PM was a liar, then a day later saying, um, actually he maybe wasn't, then running another story that the PM was in the shit anyway"?

[The Weeping Angel]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... l-servants

After leading the charge yesterday, the Guardian now informs us that:

Keir Starmer was kept in the dark about sensitive information relating to Peter Mandelson’s security vetting by two other top civil servants, including the head of the civil service, the Guardian can reveal.

I recall it got very shirty when Starmer criticized the (senior) civil service as not being up to the job. Are they going to recant?

Unless Starmer did know all along. I find that unlikely seeing the number of people who could knife him.

Oh, it's all Starmer's fault.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Romeo and Robbins aren't the same. The accusation, on which Starmer acted, was that he'd overruled a failed vetting. Romeo has merely not told Starmer quickly enough about this.

But I think Robbins will get a substantial payout, and probably deserves one. Perhaps The Guardian, if it turns out that Mandelson didn't fail vetting at all, could pay for that? We'll see Badenoch and Davey and co shift seamlessly to "The Prime Minister has to resign for unfairly sacking Ollie Robbins", no doubt. No resignation will be forthcoming from either of them, one expects.

I see John Crace has weighed in too.

Nothing about No 10’s version of the Mandelson debacle makes sense as the excuses factory works overtime

Does it make sense now that your own paper has published a story saying "actually we're hearing that he didn't know"?

In the spirit of who knew what when, did The Guardian know that there was a chance that the Prime Minister didn't know when it went in fully on him? Did it speak to anyone who knew about vetting, and did they tell them what Ciaran Martin has said? Did it hold stuff back to make the original splash much more shocking? No need to betray sources or anything here. I hope someone asks them?

[Oboogie]

Well this has slipped out quietly under the smokescreen of STRAMER BAD.

[Tubby Isaacs]

That may be due to the rupee weakening, in fairness.

There is though good news for the Government on "small boats", which has gone unreported (whether you credit the government for it or not)

[Tubby Isaacs]

This thread is sympathetic to Starmer (as he says, "for a change", he isn't generally a fan).

[The Weeping Angel]

That may be due to the rupee weakening, in fairness.

There is though good news for the Government on "small boats", which has gone unreported (whether you credit the government for it or not)

No, they won't from either side. When it comes to immigration, the best course is to try to neutralize it as an issue.

[mattomac]

Another example of the footballisation of political news reporting.

[davidjay]

Another example of the footballisation of political news reporting.

We've got an agenda and we're going to use it.