Forum menu
If that is not the case, I fail to see how DV can be used as a yarstick for trustworthiness within the government, unless it genuuinely is one type of DV for politicians/government and another for everyone else (which is really, really fscking retarded).
Of course there's a double standard. Both houses of parliament have members who'd fail any such checks. Civil servants are held to higher standards, and must pass more stringent checks. Which brings us to the core "mistake" made by the PM... we have a civil service full of screened, trained, experienced diplomats... deciding to go along a route similar to the USA, where supporters and cronies are dropped into key diplomatic roles instead of the professionals, was the key mistake that I hope this and future PMs avoid from now on.
I believe McSweney is going to give evidence on this? he was by all accounts the driver for appointing Mandleson and I suspect the source of the pressure from the cabinet office that Robbins was talking about, Streeting is also very quiet at the moment and he was apparently also keen on his appointment
was the key mistake that I hope this and future PMs avoid from now on.
It isn't. The key error here is that the FCO civil servants wanted to do their DV, and that took as long as it takes, all the while No.10 is shouting at them to get a move on and at the end of all that shenanigans the civil servants won't tell them diddly squat about the outcome, ignore the recommendations of their own DV agency and say everything is fine.
Again, Mandy was borderline on his DV for different reasons than he was sacked.
From the BBC
Sir Keir Starmer has accused officials in the Foreign Office of deliberately and repeatedly withholding the fact Lord Mandelson initially failed security vetting for the role of US ambassador.
Giving a statement to MPs, the prime minister said if he had known, he would not have gone ahead with the appointment.
Sir Keir found out last Tuesday the Foreign Office had gone against the recommendation of the security vetting agency and cleared Lord Mandelson for the job.
In his evidence to the select committee, Robbins says that Starmer's version of events in the Commons on Monday was accurate.
Again, Mandy was borderline on his DV for different reasons than he was sacked.
Yet the PM has said that if he'd known about the outcome of the DV, he wouldn't have appointed him.
Anyway... all that you've typed there only came about because the PM wanted to side step the civil service and appoint someone from outside.
Yet the PM has said that if he'd known about the outcome of the DV, he wouldn't have appointed him.
Who knows what the conversation were, and what Starmer's red lines were, or even if he had any. Mandy's problems were all financially based AFAIK, perhaps if the FCDO had been more upfront then perhaps this wouldn't have happened like this, perhaps Starmer might've have ignored them anyway, and still appointed Mandy because as @dissonance points out; he wanted to reward him. regardless, Starmer gets to play the hand he played because the FCO ****ed it up and Mandy was a bad 'un anyway for completely different reasons. Mandy's been sacked, he's likely to either go to prison or be fined into penury, either option is fine by me. I think the odious part of this entire performance is lifting the stone to see just about enough of the slimy relationships that are at play in the press/CS/political world.
In amongst all this confection, Parliament just passed a bill that starts the countdown to banning people from smoking. In theory at least a generation (currently all under 18s) of people will never be allowed to smoke...
THEGUARDIAN.COM In theory at least a generation (currently all under 18s) of people will never be allowed to smoke...
Judging by the way we successfully control access to illegal narcotics, I am not massively confident that this will be the roaring success some people think it will.