Starmer ordina un’indagine su eventuali problemi di sicurezza relativi al mandato di Mandelson negli Stati Uniti
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/20/starmer-commons-statement-foreign-office-stripped-power-overrule-vetting
di denyer-no1-fan
8 commenti
Genuinely will laugh if Starmer somehow gets out of this, he really does seem to be made of teflon when it comes to being pushed to resign.
>“I know many members across the house will find these facts to be incredible,” Starmer told jeering MPs, after setting out how the Foreign Office opted to overrule the initial decision to refuse Mandelson’s security vetting without informing him and other ministers.
>He said: “To that I can only say they are right. Throughout the whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior ministers in our system in government. That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work, and I do not think it’s how most public servants think it should work either.”
>He added that the Foreign Office had been stripped of its powers to overrule vetting decisions.
So he’s really trying to save face by putting all the blame on the civil service? You don’t need to be Einstein to understand that they did that due to political pressure. Robbins even said that the input for the appointment come from Starmer and the foreign office acted on his decision.
By the time this “inquiry” will start we will already have the Robbins deposition and probably quite a good amount of documents from the vetting process. Potential to age like milk here
I’ve hand selected a group of people to investigate this, you can be sure no stone will be left unturned.
Introducing Olly Robbins, who’ll be in charge of this key task………
[removed]
What I don’t get is… what’s so brilliant about Mandelson that he was worth taking this risk? Why appoint him? There are so many diplomats who have boring personal lives, why not play it safe and go for a boring one rather than one with a history of resignation? I mean boring in a complimentary way, I wish our politics was more boring and less scandalous, where we could debate policy and how best to move forward as a country rather than this rubbish.
As part of the enquiry will he ask himself why he didn’t ask about Mandelson’s security status?
Mandelsons lobbying for Palantir should be the next relationship to be assessed.
If only there was someway of knowing that Mandelson was irredeemably corrupt before appointing him. It’s always the ones you least expect.