AndyC32 🇬🇧 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 🇺🇦

@PolitlcsUK RESIGN

🚨 NEW: Keir Starmer is flying to Paris this morning to co-host a virtual meeting of the "Strait of Hormuz Maritime Freedom of Navigation Initiative"

@ArchRose90 Hasn't he RESIGNED yet !!!!! #ResignKeir

Here is Keir Starmer claiming to be "absolutely furious" he was not told that Lord Peter Mandelson failed security vetting. “Unforgivable” he added. What’s unforgivable is that he expects us to believe him. We’re even more furious at the amount of lies from “Mr Integrity”.

RT @GoodwinMJ: Notice how the Starmer regime is throwing anybody & everybody under the bus to try & save itself? Starmer should be held t…

@bbcnickrobinson @Keir_Starmer @darrenpjones @BBCr4today @darrenpjones is just the same as @Keir_Starmer An incompetent Liar. Both should resign

The case being made for the defence of @Keir_Starmer this morning appears to be that neither the Prime Minister nor any other minister knew how vetting works & no official pointed this out to them. No wonder @darrenpjones told @BBCr4today it was “quite frankly flabbergasting”.

Keir Starmer lied to us all. @Nigel_Farage is right. ⬇️

@BBCBreakfast @BBCPolitics Just listening to @darrenpjones on @BBCr4today What a liar!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Your pants must be hot LIAR LIAR LIAR

'Is the Prime Minister going to resign?' Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, was questioned on #BBCBreakfast after Downing Street said the Foreign Office didn't tell Keir Starmer that Lord Mandelson had failed security vetting over his appointment as Ambassador to the United States bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn53…

@BBCBreakfast @BBCPolitics RESIGN @Keir_Starmer

@BBCBreaking @Keir_Starmer RESIGN!

Prime Minister Keir Starmer did not mislead Parliament over Lord Mandelson vetting and will not quit, senior minister tells BBC - follow live bbc.in/3Oxht57

@Keir_Starmer You are an empty corrupt incompetent disgraced PM You should disappear back to Holborn and RESIGN

@BethRigby BETH if you continue with this defence perhaps you shoild GO AS Well As bent as a Nine Bob Note

NEW: Anger in No 10 tonight - am told by a source that neither the PM nor his advisors were told, over a series of months, that Mandelson had been granted security clearance against the recommendation of UK security vetting. That suggests this information was held in foreign office and not shared. Big Qs now about the PM misleading the House. I am told the PM had been asking Qs about vetting and not been told this information while giving statements to parliament. Told this week PM had been trying to get answers about what happened since Tues night - Guardian got ahead of story. The critical point is that the minister has to have ‘knowingly misled’ the House, and clearly No 10 saying tonight the PM was not aware. I understand the PM had been intending to update the HoC as soon as No 10 had established facts, which they have been doing since Tues. So expect to see the PM come to HoC on Monday to correct the record I asked PM on March 16 whether he has misled the House when he said due process was followed. This is what he told me BETH RIGBY: On the Mandelson files, your national security adviser said the process was quote, weirdly rushed, and Mandelson was appointed before developed vetting had been complete. You told MPs in the House of Commons that due process was followed. Is there a possibility that you have misled the House when you said that? KEIR STARMER: No, and the independent adviser looked at that very question. I think on Thursday or Friday of last week, and answered it very robustly, that the process had been followed. The process wasn't strong enough. And amongst the changes that I intend to put into place is the fact that you can't announce someone until the vetting is finished. It wasn't an individual decision in the Mandelson case, that was the process. Well, you only have to look at that. in the light of the appointment, to realise that that needs to change. But on due process, the process that was there was followed, the problem was the process wasn't strong enough, but ultimately, it was my mistake and I have apologised for that and quite right to.

@BethRigby Just as bent as #Starmer! Try being a journalist without political views and just do your job (as dirty and grubby as it is)

@Keir_Starmer TIME TO GO BYE!

Honesty and integrity matter. Today’s humiliating climb-down showed that the Conservatives know they can no longer defend the indefensible. It has never been more clear that Boris Johnson's authority is shot and he is unable to lead. Britain deserves better.

@Steven_Swinford @DCBMEP They are just a deep deceptive bankrupt party who has no more names left to call those who disagree. GET RID OF THEM ALL and charge those guilty of fraud

If the official line ends up being that Keir Starmer didn't know, his private office didn't know, that Number 10 didn't know, that the Cabinet Office didn't know, it poses so many questions Taking that claim at face value for a moment: 1) Why did Starmer assert ***categorically*** that Mandelson had cleared security vetting when he hadn't? 2) Why did Starmer and No 10 repeatedly, over a period of many months, say that 'due process' had been followed when it hadn't? 3) Why did the Foreign Office not inform the prime minister that Mandelson had failed his vetting? 4) Is it really credible that the foreign office decided to take this decision in some kind of hermetic bubble - a decision of huge consequence, with direct ramifications for the prime minister? It seems insane 5) In February, when humble address was tabled including the request for all information about Mandelson's vetting, did nobody think to check that Mandelson had indeed passed his vetting? 6) Why were documents about Mandelson's security vetting withheld from the first tranche of the Mandelson files? They were specifically requested in the humble address and yet they are absent. The Guardian reports that there is a debate in government about whether they will be published? The broader question for the prime minister is whether **not knowing** that Mandelson had failed his vetting was enough of an excuse for giving categoric public assurances that he had cleared vetting in public

So it sounds like The Guardian's extraordinary story that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but was overruled by the foreign office is broadly correct - some kind of statement is in the offing It's not clear what that will say, but the line I've had from a few people is that No 10 was completely unaware - including Starmer. Cabinet Office's PET also said to be unaware. Which seems insane Morgan McSweeney was said to be unaware. Mandelson himself was said to be unaware If so it obviously poses big questions for the foreign office and particularly Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary But most of all it poses questions for Starmer and his Number 10 operation. The prime minister repeatedly told the Commons that 'full due process had been followed'. He said that 'there was security vetting by the security services' He told a press conference *explicitly* that 'security vetting... which is an intensive exercise... ***gave him [Mandelson] clearance for the role***'

@Peston Even you Mr Peston are that stupid!!! Are you??

I have just been informed that the former foreign secretary, now deputy prime minister, David Lammy, only found out that Mandelson failed developed vetting - and that Olly Robbins over-ruled the vetting fail - today!!!

Downing Street says neither the PM or the then foreign secretary David Lammy knew that Peter Mandelson failed security vetting to be US ambassador till a few days ago. Sources say they are incandescent that they were not told. The clear implication is that the permanent under secretary at the foreign office Olly Robbins over-ruled the vetting recommendation and never told ministers. If that is right, and no official is denying that, it is impossible to see how he keeps his job

@UKLabour @Keir_Starmer @DavidLammy

The Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson before the vetting had been completed, vetting Mandelson failed. Starmer then said full due process was followed. THAT is misleading Parliament. I'm only holding him to the same standards to which he’s held previous Prime Ministers - that if they mislead parliament, they should resign. In these dangerous times, Britain cannot afford to have a Prime Minister who the country doesn't trust. Starmer has betrayed our national security. He should go.

@BBCBreaking @BBCPolitics What utter cobblers! Makes the PM even more incompetent Should resign immediately.

PM was not aware Lord Mandelson failed security vetting for US ambassador job until this week, UK government says bbc.in/41D0z8g

@Thighsofsteel1 @Jacob_Rees_Mogg Thats super easy!!! You change the standard 😀😀😀😀

@Andyc32 @Jacob_Rees_Mogg How would you comply with BSEN62267?

Driverless trains should be introduced as soon as possible to stop a hard left union holding London to ransom.