George A Elliott

BBC having to apologise for letting Farage lie.

The far more interesting question is what did Mandelson have on Starmer that made him willing to risk his premiership for him?

What do I think really happened with Mandelson and vetting? In October, November and December 2024, No10 indicated it wanted to appoint Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to Washington. It was presented with an array of people telling them not to: Cabinet ministers, spooks, officials in a vetting report. All raised major red flags. Starmer and McSweeny made clear they weren’t interested in any objection, and this must go ahead at all costs. So Mandelson’s appointment was announced mid December 2024. The vetting we are focussed on today came later, in January 2025. Vetting of ambassadors is the responsibility of the FCDO and Olly Robbins. One bit of the system said no - the UKSV agency said don’t appoint Mandelson. We don’t know on what grounds, but probably the grounds No10 had seen and rejected as a reason to block. Olly Robbins cleared Mandelson. Very quietly, Mandelson didn’t get the very highest level of clearance when he got the job, but he got the overall OK because of Robbins. Robbins did No10 a favour. This is because Olly Robbbins knew that going to No10 post announcement, and saying the Mandelson appointment can’t happen, was politically impossible. And civil servants want to deliver for their political masters. So Olly fixed it for Keir: and is now paying a price. Olly Robbins has - incidentally - done No10 a second massive political favour. The really really toxic claim doing the rounds last night was that surely someone - anyone - in No10 DID know the UKSV agency turned down the vetting Olly Robbins is making clear he didn’t tell people the UKSV verdict because that would be inappropriate as part of the process he followed. It’s not even clear he saw it. No10 don’t seem to realise he’s done them a favour, and are releasing documents to challenge alternative versions of events. Let’s see how it plays out. The bottom line is No10 wanted Mandelson come what may. They rammed it through. One quango; post appointment announcement, was never realistically going to be allowed to stop Mandelson taking the job because the top of Government had publicly committed to it. They hadn’t wanted to heed the warnings earlier; and were in too deep That’s where I think we are

When I was in No10, somebody failed developed vetting before their proposed appointment to a sensitive post. We were told immediately, and were advised - correctly - that this person could not be appointed. Who gave that advice? Sue Gray - later Starmer’s chief of staff.