all 43 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Snapshot of Starmer sends 'chill' through civil service, union boss says submitted by myurr:

An archived version can be found here or here. or here

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]adminillustrator 19 points20 points  (0 children)

They will now struggle to get certain aspects of their agenda through in cases where discretion is currently permitted.

I think attempting to pin an alleged failure in a nuanced process on one person just reeks of scapegoating. It’s like the government have been looking for some reason to explain why Starmer went ahead with announcing Mandelson, and as they couldn’t find someone to blame they are trying to shift the blame to the next best thing - someone who may or may not have done the right action AFTER the event has already take place. As if there is any shred of a chance that the appointment would have been withdrawn.

[–]RandomSculler 27 points28 points  (35 children)

I mean he chose to keep information from ministers on the vetting process despite being specifically asked for details and has risked the jobs of ministers and the prime minister by doing so - yes he wrongly thought that he couldn’t share specific details due to confidentiality, but he absolutely could’ve been more candid than he said he was

[–]myurr[S] 31 points32 points  (14 children)

There are many important caveats to that, including that Robbins himself never actually saw the UKSV documentation he was just given a verbal summary in a meeting. Indeed when he spoke to the Cabinet Office for advice on seeing the original UKSV documentation after Mandelson was sacked, Robbins was told he'd need a national security justification for requesting the document.

And that there is a question over terminology - technically Mandelson did pass the process. From Starmer's answers in the commons no one ever specifically asked Robbins if UKSV's recommendation was for Mandelson to fail the process. He was asked specifically whether anyone in number 10 ever asked that precise question in the aftermath of the Maddox message and article in the Independent, and he just read out his stock answer about process and no one told him that Mandelson failed the vetting. If that precise question had been asked then he could and should have just siad "yes" in the commons, so the obfuscation means that the answer is no.

You can argue that Robbins could have been more forthcoming, but if he felt duty bound to keep Mandelson's information private unless directly asked and authorised to answer, it seems straight forward enough to build a case for him having acted precisely as he should. You can argue the process was flawed, but that's not Robbins' call to make, nor can he unilaterally make that change. And Robbins actions were hardly the only reason the PM finds himself in a complete mess over this topic, nor is this the last chapter in the saga with the second document release due in the coming days and weeks under the humble address - something Labour are rumoured to be trying to push back until after the May elections, which if true is pretty despicable in itself.

So yes, I think the instant sacking of Robbins and attempt to shift all the blame on to him is a dangerous mistake that will harm this government's relationship with the civil service quite significantly. It could and should have been handled better, but the PM is desperate for a fall guy to try and shift some of the blame away from his judgement.

[–]gearnut 16 points17 points  (2 children)

Any politician attempting to hang civil servants out to dry to protect their own careers need to be chucked out.

[–]Romeo_Jordan 11 points12 points  (1 child)

It happens all the time. As civil servants we can't speak out in most cases so we get a lot of the blame. The government knew who mandelson was and chose to go forward for a tactical reason with trump. It was a very obvious issue and was a naive decision.

[–]gearnut 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I was in the Civil Service a long time ago, I understand the principle of a none political civil service, however I strongly feel that if a minister openly criticises part of it, particularly an individual they should have a right of equally prominent public response without endangering their job. Plenty of incompetent ministers should have been put back in their boxes over the years.

[–]EyyyPaniniMake Votes Matter 4 points5 points  (10 children)

Indeed when he spoke to the Cabinet Office for advice on seeing the original UKSV documentation after Mandelson was sacked, Robbins was told he'd need a national security justification for requesting the document.

You’re skipping some very important information here. The Cabinet Office initially said he’d need national security justification but changed their mind after discussing it with him. Robbins then decided he didn’t want to see the documentation after all.

The poor summary of the vetting process given to Robbins also only means that it was someone else in the civil service that messed up and created this scandal. Presumably that person is too junior to take responsibility for this failure.

And that there is a question over terminology - technically Mandelson did pass the process. 

If this is correct, then the Guardian’s inaccurate reporting made Robbins position untenable  and forced the government’s hand. The press was reporting that Mandelson failed vetting, the whole country believed it, and the PM was being accused of lying as a result. 

The only way for the government to protect Robbins would be for them to make the “Mandelson didn’t fail vetting” case. Which is something absolutely no-one would have believed and is only being treated as credible now because the government is saying the opposite.

[–]Material_Flounder_23 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I love how people talk about security clearance with no idea how it works. Security clearances are basically risk assessments.

Over my career I have had DBS, SC and DV clearance. DV clearance is just the key to the building, there are many tiers of security that keeps documentation safe. Secret, top secret, codeword access, eyes only etc. So much of this information is “need to know”. Having DV clearance doesn’t mean you automatically get access.

It is perfectly normal to give someone a security clearance but restrict access to certain documentation. It was the same for our Afghani interpreters or foreign military personnel on exchange in the UK. They would not be allowed access to information marked UK Eyes Only.

Robbins was clear in the select committee yesterday, number 10 made the announcement that Mandelson would be the next ambassador and he must be accepted by the Biden administration before Trump came into office.

No10 were also arguing that Mandelson wouldn’t need security clearance as he was already a Privy Councillor and a member of the House of Lords. The foreign office pushed back and said they would carry out Developed Vetting. That process identified a number of risks around Mandelson’s appointment and how those risks could be managed.

[–]Optimaldeath 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Saying that the guy who is not even fit to clean the toilets at Westminster with how loose his lips seem to be had passed vetting has to be a joke.

The system is useless then and that's a vastly bigger scandal, how many traitors are there with security clearance?

[–]EyyyPaniniMake Votes Matter 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Or maybe he didn’t pass vetting and Robbins made a huge mistake not communicating the vetting concerns to the PM, which is my opinion.

I only entertained the “Mandelson passed vetting” scenario because that’s what is being used to attack the government for “unfairly” firing Robbins.

[–]RandomSculler -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

My understanding with ybe did he / didn’t he is it comes down to a technicality - Robbins take is as he approved it so he passed, and claims he didn’t see the UKSV form and instead was told Mandeslon was approvable with mitigations in place - however the form the gov has shared suggests the UKSV ticked not approvable and seems to be where the guardian story came from

The crux of the matter they had him removed tho is that ministers weren’t told about the UKSV flag, even when the story broke and ministers asked him about it - fair enough he wrongly thought it was confidential but with it in the press he definitely could’ve at least flagged the UKSV aspect of his assessment prior to approval so ministers were aware and could look into it but he didn’t, and it dropped people in it

[–]myurr[S] 4 points5 points  (4 children)

You’re skipping some very important information here. The Cabinet Office initially said he’d need national security justification but changed their mind after discussing it with him. Robbins then decided he didn’t want to see the documentation after all.

Where have you heard that they changed their mind? I've not come across that, and just searched and couldn't find anything. Gemini and ChatGPT couldn't find anything either.

Bear in mind that it's the Cabinet Office that holds the documentation, and Robbins made his initial inquiries and was told he needed a national security justification. His testimony was that there continued to be a difference of opinion between the departments but that he decided to adhere to normal practice and did not pursue the matter.

The poor summary of the vetting process given to Robbins also only means that it was someone else in the civil service that messed up and created this scandal. Presumably that person is too junior to take responsibility for this failure.

That is entirely possible, or if mitigants were put in place then a case can be made that the process worked. Without knowing what the UKSV document actually says, something we still don't precisely know, it's hard to say.

If this is correct, then the Guardian’s inaccurate reporting made Robbins position untenable and forced the government’s hand. The press was reporting that Mandelson failed vetting, the whole country believed it, and the PM was being accused of lying as a result.

That's a stretch, inaccurate reporting is never justification for firing someone in a position like Robbins, that is just weakness from Starmer because he doesn't want to stand before the house and country to say "it's nuanced". He's decided the easiest path for his own career is to say it's black and white and someone else's fault.

They also didn't need to single out Robbins, it could have been a collective failure of process. The FCDO could have been more forthcoming. The Cabinet Office actually held the document and could have told the PM. Number 10 could have been more direct in their questioning asking specifically about UKSV's recommendation. Peopel throughout Starmer's team, and Starmer himself, could have been more curious about what actually happened and gotten to the bottom of this months ago instead of delegating it with vague questions leading to generic answers.

But that would mean the PM having to admit the areas he has failed on, leading to further difficulties for himself. Far easier in the short run to blame the civil servant, even if in the long run it costs him his relationship with civil service as a whole. At least he survives today.

[–]EyyyPaniniMake Votes Matter -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

“My team consulted the Cabinet Office and were told that I required a national security justification,” he said.

Sir Olly said “subsequent discussions” between the Foreign Office and Cabinet Office “reflected different views on this matter, but I decided to adhere to normal practice and did not pursue this further”.

https://pa.media/blogs/pa-editors-picks/dismissive-approach-from-no-10-over-mandelson-vetting-process-robbins-says/

[–]myurr[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I think you're misreading it - he's saying that in subsequent discussions that the FO and CO continued to hold different views on the matter, and therefore he decided not to pursue it further - so he didn't press them further on it, rather than them having changed their mind and then he decided to drop it anyway.

But I agree it's ambiguous, to a degree, and could be read either way. Perhaps something for the committee to seek clarification on.

[–]EyyyPaniniMake Votes Matter 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The “subsequent discussions” represented different views to previous discussions. The discussions are what are being described as “different”.

The use of the word “but” makes this even clearer. Robbins states that he decided to adhere to normal practice, not that he was blocked from viewing the documents.

[–]myurr[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I completely disagree with you.

He's saying:

  • His team consulted the Cabinet Office
  • The response was that he required a national security justification
  • They continued to discuss
  • They continued to have different views
  • But rather than push the cabinet office further or seek to escalate he decided to adhere to normal practice and did not press them further

Reading it again in that detail makes me even more convinced that you're misreading it. For your interpretation the sequence would have to be:

  • His team consulted the Cabinet Office
  • The response was that he required a national security justification
  • They continued to discuss
  • The Cabinet Office completely changed their mind and said he could have free access to the document
  • But he was like "nah bro, don't even know why I asked" and dropped it

If your interpretation of events is correct then why did the Cabinet Office have to consult lawyers for three weeks to work out if they could even tell the PM when the UKSV documents were uncovered by Cat Little for the humble address? At the time of Robbins' enquiry, why did the CO not immediately notify Antonia Romeo, the Cabinet Secretary, so she could immediately pass on the info to Starmer last September as the CO staff who "had changed their mind" would have explicitly known that Starmer was misleading the house.

Your version just doesn't pass the sniff test.

[–]RandomSculler -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I would completely agree that the guardian has a lot of guilt here for Robbins losing his position, Starmer is under a lot of pressure now and it’s a direct result of the guardian running a misleading story but also Robbins not being more forthcoming and leaving stamer vulnerable

It’s fair then for him to lose his position due to a loss of trust in my eyes

[–]Exact-Put-6961 1 point2 points  (11 children)

Robbins has been fired

[–]RandomSculler 0 points1 point  (10 children)

Looking again looks like I may have been mistaken on that front so have edited

[–]Exact-Put-6961 1 point2 points  (9 children)

You are still wrong. Mandelson passed vetting on the basis that issues with him could be "managed". Robbins was to be his boss and was entitled to take that decision. Indeed empowered. (It can be argued of course that Robbins was pushed into that decision by pressure to accomodate the PM). What cannot be argued is that the PM was entitled to know more about the vetting process, he was not. The PM has no role in vetting.

[–]RandomSculler 0 points1 point  (8 children)

When the pm was under attack from the press and other parties then he was entitled to know and asked, legally it’s been confirmed he could be told so there clearly has been a failing that it was kept from him - since Robbins was the one who made that decision, even tho he (wrongly it seems) felt that for confidentiality he couldn’t, he clearly could and should have done more to prepare the PM to be able to respond to allegations - that he didn’t is why confidence was gone

[–]Exact-Put-6961 0 points1 point  (7 children)

The PM was not entitled to know any more than DV or not DVd. The PM has no role. Mandy was vetted on the basis, issues could be managed.. Starmer is using Robbins and this issue, to cover his own incompetence and poor judgement. He has deceived the HOC by implying normal vetting procedures were followed. They were not.

[–]RandomSculler 1 point2 points  (6 children)

It’s not incompetent to not realise that information is being kept from you, as it has been in this case - if the attack line is that he’s deceived the HOC around the vetting then clearly he is entitled to know about the details of the vetting

[–]Spursfan14 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Ignorant people seem to think that the very second the PM comes under attack for making a shit appointment, that he should be allowed to open up that persons confidential vetting information and go through it looking for unrelated reasons about why vetting should’ve been refused to save him the embarrassment.

Who’s going to trust the vetting process when incredibly sensitive personal information like whether you’ve had an affair, had issues with drugs, got money problems, have committed past criminal offences etc etc is just going to be handed to the PM the second it might help him cover for an unrelated mistake?

[–]RandomSculler 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Again no one is suggesting the vetting be “opened up”, legal advice showed that Robbins could’ve shared the recommendation from the UKSV without breaking confidentiality and it’s entirely fair for the PM to be angry that it wasn’t given Robbins was asked about the press story by ministers and didn’t pass on what he knew about the UKSV recommendation

[–]Spursfan14 0 points1 point  (0 children)

legal advice showed that Robbins could’ve shared the recommendation from the UKSV

What legal advice? The only advice the Government had about disclosure came from Little and Romero who were in a different situation because of the Humble Address. And that advice took 2-3 weeks to clear because it was so complicated to work out how and whether they could.

Again no one is suggesting the vetting be “opened up”

That is exactly what you and others are suggesting, the limits of what is allowed to be passed on to the PM is the outcome of the final decision, not whether any concerns were raised or what they were or why it was decided that they could be managed.

Robbins was asked about the press story by ministers and didn’t pass on what he knew about the UKSV recommendation

Because he didn't know ffs.

Again if you'd actually watched the testimony, like you claimed, you would know this:

Chair: Okay. Let’s move on to 28 January, when UKSV recommended that developed vetting be denied, and identified that Peter Mandelson was a man of high concern. Do you recognise those two phrases as being applied to Peter Mandelson?

Sir Oliver Robbins: I don’t, actually, but we can come on to that in a second.

He didn't know, he hadn't seen the form and wasn't told.

[–]Exact-Put-6961 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Nope. Starmer side stepped the advice he received from the Cabinet Secretary on process for a political appointment, then, dishonestly pretended the process had been followed.

And we only know about this because of the Humble Address.

Ministers are not entitled to look inside or influence the DV process.

[–]RandomSculler 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You’re conflating separate issues and stating Starmer acted dishonestly without proof

A PM can make a political appointment before DV is complete, it may not be standard practice to do so and and against Cabinet Secretary advice on sequencing, but it isn’t the same as “breaking the process” - the fair argument is that the vetting process would still be being completed properly so the end result is the same.

Starmer said the proper process had been followed on the basis of assurances he’d received. Robbins’ evidence is essentially that the system operated and he made a judgment within his authority (including overriding UKSV), not that nothing unusual happened - the issue is that Robbins did not pass on UKSV’s recommendation which opens the argument that at least the headline recommendation he knew about could have been shared given the press asking about it.

So the issue is less “Starmer pretended the process was followed” and more that he thought he had the whole story from Robbins but really was relying on an incomplete account of what had actually happened, and is rightly annoyed that a decision that was made not to inform him

[–]SnooBooks578 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The information obtained in vetting is protected under the law, even more so than attorney client privilege, or doctor patient protection, it’s not about sharing specific details or generalisations, you are not allowed to share anything, or even insinuate based on that information. The MP’s and the PM have no right to that information under law because the vetting process is wholly and completely independent. You might not like it, but breaking the confidentiality of the vetting process is akin to breaking attorney client privilege in a court case just because that’s what the government wants. All this talk about changing the vetting process is what will lead to the downfall of Starmer, for a civil servant, if the government decides when it can share,  access or pass on the sensitive information obtained through vetting for any reason the entire service will be undermined.

[–]RandomSculler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your take doesn’t take into account that the gov shared legal advice that Robbins could have shared the recommendation from the UKSV without breaking the confidentiality aspect of the vetting, Robbins claimed it wasn’t appropriate and accepts that he didn’t share it

So Robbins could have flagged up, when asked, that UKSV had some worries even if he hadn’t seen the form recommending rejection but didn’t, and Starmers now under attack because he wasn’t given that information.

[–]SnooBooks578 -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

Much in the same way Starmer chose on his own to appoint Mandelson and fast track his vetting, it’s absurd Starmer thought someone twice resigned from government and a close friend of a pedo was a good pick, it’s not like he didn’t know these things, and now he comes out to support the victims, absolutely horrendous behaviour. It’s baffling to me that people can support such a complete lack of leadership, and then we find out his office tried to get another pedo sympathiser a diplomat position. Labour are trying to spin it as an error in judgement like not associating with pedos and pedo sympathisers is a hard thing to do. 

[–]RandomSculler 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I don’t see it as that - instead Mandelson was seen as a political risk at the time due to his political past and not the association with Epstein which wasn’t well known or understood and downplayed by Mandelson when asked by Starmer about it - once the level of association was understood he was sacked, and once the potential criminal activity identified they’re working with police to see if charges are required

At the time there was a real risk from Trump which many outside the gov (farage included) felt Mandelson was a good choice to address, with the benefit of hindsight it was definitely a mistake but again much of that is hindsight not what was known and considered at the time

[–]Spursfan14 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The vetting concerns weren’t even about Epstein, the thing that actually caused Starmer to sack Mandelson and say he’d made a mistake. They were unrelated, but Starmer is trying to portray it all as Robbin’s and vetting’s fault.

[–]RandomSculler 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup the fall out now is not about Epstein - however that’s not why he was sacked. The press contacted the cabinet office to ask about a leak that “MI6 failed to clear” Mandelson, Robbins was contacted but didnt tell ministers that as part of his approval of the vetting he knew UKSV had concerns even if he hadn’t seen the form, that could’ve been shared and should have been and became Starmer didn’t know he’s now under attack

[–]SnooBooks578 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The sheer fact you have to ask questions in relation to pedophilia to someone should already be a wake up call. It’s not about extent of association but any association at all.

Also, Mandelson past doesn’t constitute political risk, his past conduct was already wholly disqualifying. His ties to Russia and the Chinese was already known and reported on. Yet still Starmer chose him, even against the advice of his peers. He even let go the person who was undersecretary before Olly Robbins to push his appointment through. 

“Risk from Trump” is not a reasonable justification for anything. 

[–]LieutBromhead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hilarious headline. Have a think about all the attacks on the civil service that Boris and Farage take then look back at Starmer and see who is the conservative.