[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?