523. The Starmer-Mandelson Scandal: Lying or Incompetence?

Thanks for listening to the Restisted Politics to support the podcast and listen without

the adverts and get early access to episodes and live show tickets, go to therestistepolitics.com.

That's therestistepolitics.com.

This episode is brought to you by Fuse Energy.

Energy policy rarely stays in Westminster for long, usually arrives for the bill.

And from the 1st of April, 75% of renewables obligation costs will come off electricity bills

and move into general taxation.

So if bills are meant to fall from April, why would anyone bother switching?

Because policy sets the floor. The saving itself is automatic.

What suppliers offer beyond that isn't, and that's where real competition operates.

Fuse goes beyond the mandated saving.

Customers who switch save around an additional £200 on average.

In the Fuse Energy app, you can see exactly what you're using and what it costs,

with 24.7 support if you need it.

Listeners to the show will also receive a free trip plus subscription when they switch.

Get more than just lower rates.

Switch today at FuseEnergy.com, slash politics using the code,

politics and save around £200 on your bills.

Visit FuseEnergy.com for full details and terms and conditions.

Welcome to the rest of the politics with me, Alex Campbell.

And me, Mauricio.

Now, Ruin and I were hoping to have a nice quiet day today.

And we're going to have a nice quiet day because we've got, well, no, we've got other things on.

But I think we have to say something about what's been going on overnight regarding the seemingly

never-ending saga of Keir Starmer's appointment at Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United

States. So Peter Mandelson was appointed, then had to resign over his links with Jeffrey Epstein,

which Keir Starmer claimed not to know the full detail, then the launch of a process to look at

the process by which he was appointed. And in that investigation of that process, it has emerged

that Peter Mandelson was failed in part of the vetting process that's run by the cabin office.

But the foreign office decided he should be appointed anyway.

So what has happened is that it has emerged that the cabin office vetting process

through which I went through it, I don't think you probably did, because you were a minister,

but I certainly went through it. I went through it as the civil servant.

Of course, before that, yeah. As it pertains to Peter Mandelson, it seems that the cabin

office vetting process decided he should not be cleared for developed vetting, which is top secret.

Information. This was not taken into such account by the foreign office that they basically said,

well, that means he can't do the job. On the contrary, the foreign office decided that he could do

the job. And it seems, or it is claimed that nobody in Downey Street and no ministers were told

about this key fact that Peter Mandelson's vetting process had thrown up something, which had

led them to suggest he should not be appointed. Have I given a reasonably clear explanation?

And now that Oli Robbins, the head of the foreign office civil service, permanent secretary,

he has been fired unceremoniously, just in the manner as Peter Mandelson was fired by Oli Robbins

after Peter Mandelson's the depth of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein became clear.

Now, Rory, we're not going to do a full, you know, 45 minute hour long episode, and this

doubtless we'll talk about it again next week because Kierstammer is going to have to make a statement

on Monday, but I think it is important, I first have to say something. So what's your thoughts?

Yeah, well, so just to explain for people right to the beginning, what is the developed vetting

process? It's about the security service in particular going through all your background,

all the evidence on whether or not you can be trusted to keep secret information safe. So

traditionally, people will remember it was about whether somebody could leverage you, whether you

were particularly in discreet, whether you were subject to blackmail. If you fail the developed

vetting process and you're a normal person, so you know, I went through it as a civil servant,

you don't get the job. It is theoretically possible in a full the foreign office, in this case,

the permanent secretary, to take the advice and to overrule it. And so the claim is that Oli Robbins,

who is the Sahampri figure at the top of the foreign office, received this advice saying Peter

Marnelson had not passed the development vetting, but decided that taking other things into consideration,

he was still going to use his prerogative to appoint him as ambassador to Washington. Now, questions.

Number one, why would Oli Robbins do this without informing Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister,

or the foreign secretary? I think that's extremely unlikely. No permanent secretary I would have

worked with whatever have done that. The normal permanent secretary approach would have been to come

to say, prime minister, look, it's a little awkward. He's failed the developed vetting process, but I

do have the power as permanent secretary to decide that he only narrowly failed it for reasons one,

two and three. We can proceed with the appointment. I just wanted to let you know that's what I'm doing.

Now, that's what every permanent secretary I've ever worked with would have done. It's possible

for some reason Oli Robbins didn't do that. Why? Well, maybe he was too much in the number 10 system.

He'd been a private secretary in number 10. He was trying to protect his bosses. So he thought

that this was something they didn't need to know a little bit like Henry II's assassins going out

to kill Beckett and it not being quite clear whether the king's told them to do it. What is inconceivable

is that after Mandelson was fired and Stammer was being asked to answer questions in the House of

Commons. What is completely inconceivable is that the prime minister of foreign secretary didn't at

that stage four months ago say, okay, let's go through this with a fine toothed colon workout exactly

what happened. I need to know all the information. What did happen? We're saying he passed the

vetting. Did he pass the vetting? Was it overruled? What was the process? That must have happened. If that

didn't happen and of course if it did happen, Kirstal was a liar, but if Kirstal was not a liar,

he is the most incompetent prime minister I've ever heard of my life over to you.

Well, I think in this area personnel, if you go through it, so since the election less than two

years, he's lost the deputy prime minister, Andrew Reiner, he's gone through two chiefs of staff,

Sue Gray and Morgan McSweeney. I think he's lost three directors of communications,

two cabinet secretaries have gone. Now the first one was maybe you and I both already should go,

Simon Case, who'd been so much part of the Johnson government, but then Chris Wormold,

and now he's gone and they've now lost also the permanent secretary at the foreign office.

So at the very, very least, it shows a disinterest in key issues of personnel. These are really

important jobs where you have to be absolutely sure you're getting the right person.

And look, I would like you to think there is no lying going on here, but I find it like you,

almost unfathomable, even though the process, the process in development is such that ministers

should be kept separate from it, because as you say it's been carried about the security services,

they're digging deep. They're finding out all sorts of stuff, which isn't necessary and

known by the minister. And frankly, it doesn't necessarily have to be known, but what then gets

made is a judgment, as you say, a judgment in the round. Now the thing about Peter Mandelson is that

a lot was known already. There had been two very high profile resignations, and listeners and

viewers may be thinking, well, wasn't he vetted for that? The crazy thing about our system is,

a lucky miracle where they go through hearings and all that stuff. Our MPs and ministers are not

vetted in the same way. It's reserved for civil service. Yeah, just to interrupt for a second.

I mean, that's what I remember feeling very strongly. Having been a civil servant,

gone through this very advanced development process, having been trained again and again on how

to handle documents, what the different classifications were. When I was the cabinet minister

and sitting on the national security council, so with a head of MI6 and the prime minister was

saying, there was none of that stuff at all. Somehow we jumped the whole process.

Yeah. So there may have been an assumption, well, Peter Mandelson has been through,

been in government, he's been debt effectively, debt to prime minister,

everything that is to be known about him is probably known about him by now.

And of course, what we don't know is what it is within the cabinet of his vetted that led

somebody to say he is not suitable for developed vetted. And it is a very, very intrusive

process. Remember when I was being vetted? And of course, I'd already started the job. We won

the election, we get into number 10 and then there's a list of us, me, Jonathan Powell,

a few others who had to go through the developed vetted process. You're already seeing stuff.

So had I beat a Russian agent, okay, and I'd be going to Daddy Street, I'm already seeing

some very, very useful stuff, but then the vetted process starts and it takes quite a long time.

I kept getting phone calls from people saying, I just had this really weird guy to look at how

I was wanted to ask whether you have a three-in-a-bed rob with somebody or whether you took drugs at

university or why you kept going to Russia as a tourist in your youth and all this sort of stuff.

So it was very, it was, it was serious. And eventually you got a sort of message. I think it

might have been Robin Butler who said to me, or by the way, your DV stuff went through fine,

or whatever. But what he wouldn't have done, I don't think, had the vetted process shown up

something that might have been a cause for concern, I'm not sure he would have gone to Tony Blair.

And there is, if you look at the process that they're following, this is the process that

Darren Jones who works with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's office now,

is saying that they think needs to have, needs to change. Is there is something that says you

should separate it? Yeah, can I question this thing? Because I'm not saying it sensible, but I'm not

saying it sensible. I'm just saying that's the, that is the process. But if Robin Butler had

was looking at somebody who was already very controversial, who'd already had to resign

twice, who there were already a lot of questions around where the Epstein stuff was already out there

in the public. And that person failed the development and they decided to overrule the

their thing. That's true. You don't think that they were, you don't think they would have wanted

to have a quiet word with somebody senior to say just to let you know I've done this because

it's a massive ticking bomb. Well, I wonder, and I don't know, I have actually

been speaking to some of the people involved in this whole thing in the last 24 hours. I wonder

they're all denying any knowledge. But I wonder if we're not, we're talking here possibly about

verbal conversations rather than anything that's written down or whether we're talking

you know, conversations that say things like, you know, would it make that much difference if

rather than this has emerged during the vetting. And of course, what's, you know, people probably,

most of our listeners of yours probably don't care whether it's fair or unfair at the moment

Peter Mandelson because he's, you know, being being investigated by the police over misconduct

or the Epstein stuff and what have you. But of course, none of us know what it is that led them to

say, listen, we don't think he might have been his business dealings with Russia or China,

might be in his private life. We just don't know. But the point about this is that this is a,

this was an appointment that one was very important because of Trump back as president.

That's why it mattered who they put there. When it happened, when the appointment was made,

you and I discussed the pros and the cons and the pluses and the minuses and my minuses were

mainly in the risk category, partly because of what we already knew. And I, as you, you know,

as you, you outed me a private conversation that you outed on a previous episode, I was kind of

fairly gently and then less gently suggesting that maybe David Melaban might be a better,

a better choice because there was less risk, I would argue. And so that's, that's the process.

And I wonder whether what's happened inside the foreign office and remember that Ollied Robbins

had just, he'd only just started in the job. He'd been having a very lucrative life in the private

sector after the whole Brexit because he was so much part of the Brexit debate with Theresa May.

Whether he just thinks, well, I kind of know what the number 10 want and I need to sort of,

you know, so he's having the conversations that lead it in a certain direction. Now, I hope I'm

not being unfair to him because I think he's a, I feel really sad for Ollied Robbins today. I think

he's a really good guy, very good civil servant and it's tragic in a way to what's happened to him.

But I can only imagine that when they talk about the process, actually, it was a lack of process here

that has caused the problem. Okay, so then the second thing, let's say you're right about all of that.

What I cannot believe is that once Madison resigned and once people started demanding to know what

was happening with the vetting that at that stage and there's been four months, somebody didn't go

and say, okay, Ollied, what was the details here? What happened?

Oh, yeah, I mean, let's imagine you were director of communications at number 10.

Yeah, right. So that's what, but Starmer's claiming he knew nothing till yesterday.

That can't be true. It can't possibly be true. That you lose your ambassador in Washington

effectively over the issue of whether he was vetted properly or not and that nobody at a ministerial

level has been informed at any stage that actually he failed the vetting and this was overruled.

He lost the ambassador over the exposure of the full nature or a fuller nature of the relationship

between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein and then announced the process by which every single

piece of email and what's happened, any communication to do with the appointment would now be examined.

So what this thing is this, this is part of that process. I, where I grew with you, it's taken a

bloody long time where I also agree with you. I just can't understand how somebody, and I'm trying

to work out who would have been in our system. It would definitely have been me if nobody was

doing it, who said, okay, if we're going to go out and defend this on the basis of a process

that we're prepared to defend, we have to be absolutely 100% convinced. And I cannot believe nobody

asked the question because it said in Peter's contract of appointment, it said that you have been

so, you have been cleared by the vetting process. It said that. So I cannot believe that nobody said

during the process before he was appointed. Now listen, Peter's a big colorful, controversial figure.

He's never been vetted before because he's been a politician, not a civil servant. In the

vetting process has anything come up, a, that we don't already know, or b, that gives you

cause for concern. I cannot believe that question was not asked. Well, yeah, well, the obvious way

that it happens is the scandal breaks Mandelson resigns, you're aware as the dretched communications

that Stammer is having to go out in the House of Commons in January, saying I don't know anything

about it. First thing you do is you call in Oli Robbins and you sit him down and you very carefully

for as long as it takes, say, I'm going to go through every single stage of this process,

help me understand exactly what happened here. Who did the vetting, where did the recommendation

come from, did he fully pass it, was it overruled, how did it get through and Oli Robbins would be

completely honest if you did that with him. There's no way he would lie to you in that situation.

So why did nobody do that? What's happened overnight, given as I said earlier, that the process is

that the cabinet office does that they oversee the vetting and then the foreign office permanent

secretary can make a judgment, as you say, in the round. Why, if that is the case, wasn't the

defense that cares Stammer and Number 10 made yesterday, we were not involved in that process for

reasons which are well established. Now that would still have, you'd still have faced a political

outcry and people would have thought, what the hell is that really how this thing works. So

it's still being a bad place. But I think you get into a worse place if essentially you're,

because he's headed this side, either he's not telling the truth or he's incompetent.

What happens if it's a mixture of both? Look, I've said this to people in Number 10 before and

I remember early in the early days, there was a senior official being appointed in Number 10.

And I heard who it was and I thought, this is a really bad move. And I don't agitate much.

I really don't. I know you think I spend my whole time trying to run Number 10. I really don't.

But I just, I said, this is not a good idea. And I wasn't getting through. So in the end,

I did say to kids, they all said, this isn't you need to take an interest in this. This is a really

important appointment. And there's probably about, you know, the Prime Minister can't know

everything happening inside the government, but he has to have a system where he depends and trusts

people who will make sure that when he does need to know something, he knows it before anybody else.

And so I would say he's, it reflects badly on him. It reflects badly on the system.

It reflects badly again on Morgan McSwini who was the one, let's, we all know this, pushing

hardest for Peter Muddles and to get through. Clearly in the way it's being presented today,

it reflects badly on, on Oli Robbins. But I think when Oli Robbins presumably will have to

testify before presumably the Foreign Affairs Select Committee or, or some such body,

I suspect he will at least be able to say I actually was following the process. But maybe I

should have been a bit clearer that things had emerged, which should have worried them. I guess

that is, but I, and this could not be happening at the worst time either for the, you know,

you've got the local elections coming up. I was speaking to a couple of MPs this morning who said

that they felt Kierstheim was handling of the Iran war and, you know, the health service feels

like it's getting a bit better and felt the things were politically at least, you know, not quite as

bad as they had been. This is going to be really grim. And of course, Monday is a big, big day,

because he's going to have to stand up in parliament on Monday. You've got every single party leader

at the moment calling from to resign. As you know, I don't think calling for resignation is very

sensible unless you think, you know, it's likely to happen. But he's going to face massive pressure

in parliament and there will be labor MPs over the weekend thinking, you know, what do we do?

And presumably if Oli Robbins appears and says actually he didn't form someone, and I still find

an impossible to believe that Oli Robbins didn't inform someone at least after Manlinson's resignation,

maybe not in the press this morning, but after resignation, then Starmer's got to go, right?

Because he's been so clear in claiming repeatedly that he had no idea.

And also we've now this pattern of his being, he's been let down. He was let down by Peter

Manlinson, Peter Manlinson lied to me, he was let down by the system and now he's been let down by

by Oli Robbins. You know, not for nothing was my, one of the posters that was on my wall in

down his straight out time is get a grip. You have to have a grip of process. Because if you have

a media like ours that isn't that interested in policy, love scandal, love's personality,

love's process, don't let, don't give them, don't feed them the stuff that's going to allow them

to gorge on it in the way they're going to gorge on this. Well, this is also why they're famous

American, the buck stops here matters because I think a Prime Minister or a Minister of Feeling,

in the end, they have the responsibility that they don't get to say, oh, it's my civil servants fault,

it's my underlings fault, I've been let down. If you feel that, you get a grip, the two things

are connected. It also brings loyalty amongst the people who work for you. You know, I have never,

ever, ever named the person who was actually responsible for the, the so-called dodgy dossier,

which has now been morphed into the one that the, the main one in September, 2000,

which it wasn't, was a different document. And, and the reason for that isn't because I didn't

think the guy completely screwed up, or is it I didn't give him an absolute baller king for

doing it. Yeah, but what I didn't want is for everybody else who worked for the communications

department to think that every time you make a mistake, you are going to get thrown under a bus.

And what it feels to me is that Oli Robbins has been thrown under a bus.

And, and the civil service will feel it right the way through. I mean, they will, they will feel

this is a number 10 that is not sticking up for the civil servants that's making them carry the

can, can blaming them for everything that goes wrong. And ultimately, though you said,

though we say it was the foreign office appointment, because it was a senior ambassador,

that appointment was made by the prime minister. And that's exactly as it should be.

A really senior diplomatic position like that that you've got to be happy that the prime minister

has confidence and trust in this person to do it. And I think the other thing here is that

I, everything I heard at the time is that Kierstammer wasn't that keen on Peter Manlison. He was,

he was, he was seeing the risk at the time. But the whole, you know, the more

Glamant Sweeney in particular, I think, was pushing him. He's got to get a grip of his own

appointment of big personnel issues inside the government.