¶ Starmer's Broken Promises and Mandelson Vetting
This is a Global Player Original Podcast.
Starmer came to office saying that he wanted to clean up politics. They weren't going to have this constant round of scandal and cover-up and misbehaviour. And yet where are we now?
Mates and wives of mates and husbands of mates, and this person said it was like Wags City Central.
I think processes are going to change a bit as a result of this whole fiasco.
Another friend of another paedophile being pushed into another top-notch ambassadorial role. I think it is almost impossible to see how Starmer comes back from that.
The uh Morgan McSweeney, the Chief of Staff, rang Sir Philip uh and said, in terms stronger than those that I can use before the watershed.
I think you should.
Wow.
Uh-huh.
Rydyn ni'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd
Yeah.
Was the pressure to approve Peter Mandelson in the job at the heart of what happened in that critical vetting process we now know so much about?
The account from Sir Olly Robbins of what happened and why is so starkly different from what Keir Starmer had to tell the common That you're left wondering now whether it's Keir Starmer who can survive. Welcome to the newsagents.
🎵 Music
Yeah.
Thanks, John.
It's matless.
And it's hard to overstate the drama of what we witnessed today in that committee room with a bunch of MPs and a senior civil servant. And don't let the fact be That he spoke in a quiet voice, gull you to believe that this was quiet and inconsequential. It was massive what he was saying today, because he set out a case that essentially torpedoed what Keir Starmer had said yesterday to the Commons, undermined a lot of the Starmer arguments.
and left an awful lot of people scratching their heads and saying, Why was this man made a sacrificial lamb for a process that Downing Street itself was the author of, the master of, the creator of, and should be the owner of, and yet it is Sir Ollie Robbins who has walked the plank, and not Keir Starmer.
Yeah. And what Robbins went on to tell us in his two hour appearance before the committee today was how much pressure there had been to okay the decision that would hurry Peter Mandelson into the Washington job. Let's just listen to him and his own words. As quickly as humanly possible. So hang on a second. There is this long vetting process. There is this cabinet office vetting process. There is this propriety and ethics process.
where everyone is meant to do their job thoroughly and report back. And Robin says, Yes, we did do it thoroughly. We did do it properly. There was no question that the vetting was done properly. But the circumstances, the context at the time was just get this guy in. He says they were actually quite dismissive about the whole vetting
Process, he says that the Cabinet Office at one point said, Oh, do we really need to do this again? And he also reminds us that yes, Simon Case had told Keir Starmer. Don't go ahead with the announcement before you've done the vetting. Ollie Robins said he was right. I would have said the same.
¶ Downing Street Pressure and Robbins' Burden
And this is what torpedoes the Starmer argument yesterday. When Starmer says if I'd have known I would never have appointed Peter Mandelson. If I'd known there'd been a problem over the vetting, he would have never got the job. He'd already been given the job, Sakir Starmer already had the approval of the king. You had written to the US uh embassy to say that Ki uh that Peter Mandelson was coming out as our ambassador. You had flown in the face of the advice that
They get signed off from Donald Trump himself, right? It's the agrimon, they call it, between the two countries.
Exactly. And then you've had the Simon case warning saying you must do vetting before you announce it, ignored. You've had uh y Jonathan Powell, who was Tony Blair's kind of chief of staff.
Who knew-
Mandelson well say, why is this appointment being made with such undue haste? Are you got Starmer? Like a steam train saying this has to happen. So I think the Starmer argument from yesterday that I'd have never appointed him just doesn't hold water.
You have to listen to this because it is Ollie Robbins describing how the pressure was to In his words almost daily.
AD phone call.
I I I couldn't say for certain daily, um, but I mean certainly very frequent, from um private office to private office. Has this been delivered yet? Um never any interest, as far as I recall, in weather, but only an interest in when.
I mean, that is damning.
Yeah.
No interest in weather, no only in when. In other words, you are there to deliver what we've asked for. Just hurry up. Which takes us back to the expletive at the very beginning. So Ollie Robbins is in this position. Where the announcement's been made, the agreement's been made, the job is on offer. Peter Mandelson has already got, we understand, the Downing Street lanyard clearance before the vetting's been signed off.
And what happens then is he goes to the vetting service, which is done through the Cabinet Office, and he asks them what they've found. He doesn't see any of the forms that we're now familiar with. He doesn't see the red box of danger being ticked. That's what we heard today. But he does understand that there is a balance of probabilities. They are leaning towards saying that this could be risky. But it is for Ollie Robbins to make that decision himself.
It's not for the vetting process, so he didn't overturn anything, and it's not for ministers. It is not for the Prime Minister. It all rests with the decision he made. And he says, yes, I did take that. Given where we were in the process, given what I thought we already knew about Mandelson, I made the process to sign it off, and that lay with me alone.
¶ Civil Service Firing and Political Motives
I find the nerd in me kind of fascinated by learning about how government works and we've learnt a lot about the vetting process and what it means to have developed vetting. We've kind of all gonna come away experts at the end of this process. But I'm also sort of fascinated by the bigger political picture of what has unfolded in this whole thing. where Ollie Robbins has behaved like successive civil servants have, that apparently it is to the discretion
the you know, the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office to decide whether there is a risk and how you manage that risk and what you do to mitigate it and and he has done that. But also the crucial point and I hadn't really thought about this before it Th if there is a red flag over somebody or a mitigation that needs to be do you pass that on around and make that part of general conversation? When that could have such a bearing on someone's career for years to come.
Mae'r fath o'r fath o'r fath o'r fath o'r fath o'r fath o'r fath o'r fath o'r fath o'r fath o'r fath o'r fath o'r fath.
You mean written down?
down and I think that there was frustration from Emily Thornbury, the committee chair, that not more had been written down. But the idea is that you you take a decision, I'm gonna mitigate this, and it's not for everyone to know what those mitigations were, because this is highly confidential and the vetting process is meant to remain highly confidential between the person whose judgment it is to make it, in this case the permanent undersecretary at the Foreign Office,
And UK vetting service who've done the work and said these are the issues that we're concerned about. And according to Sir Rolly Robbins and you know, whether we'll find proof of this Ollie Robbins was not didn't know about re the traffic light system. All he knew was that he had been told that Mandelson represented a borderline risk and that it could be managed.
Yeah, and one of the questions that you raised yesterday was why he didn't tell anyone else, why he didn't refer up, if you like, to his line manager who would have been Chris Wormold, who was the cabinet secretary. And it's exactly the point that you've just made. He says, I felt that I had to take responsibility for that. Because as soon as you start sharing your concerns, you're essentially saying, Right, it's on you now.
Yeah, I'm subcontracting.
I'm subcontracting, yeah, I'm not taking responsibility. And so what you get is an id i the idea of a of a guy who, as he says, knows the code of the civil service as well as he knows the common Bible. In other words, inside out. He has read that code, he's studied it, he's been a top civil servant, he's been a civil servant for a quarter of a century, and so he is trying to make the judgments based on what he feels
He's learnt and the job that he has now been given. So he doesn't tell Chris Wormold, and he certainly doesn't tell Keir Starmer, because there is meant to be a dividing line between The decisions that the Foreign Office takes are civil servants and what ministers are told. Right? All ministers, even the Prime Minister, has to know is that the decision has been okay. And that
And that was very quietly effective because I think the impression was created by Starmer yesterday was that Ollie Robbins had behaved in a high handed, arrogant out of touch manner where he had just taken power into his own hands and had no regard for anything else and it was kind of the superciliousness of the civil service at work and he was saying, No, no, no, this is this is just how
We operate and how you have to handle very sensitive stuff like developed vetting. And so he was kind of arguing that. Everything he did was in compliance with normal civil service behaviour. And then he was asked about Well could you imagine a set of circumstances where vetting was denied to Peter Mandel?
What do you think would have happened if you'd denied clearance? How would you have gone about that?
Okay.
Would it even be possible?
Um so maybe this is the first time remembering back to the chair's introduction where I can abandon the civil servant's um response of saying that's a hypothetical question. Um
Ha ha ha.
Uh I think I think it would have been very difficult indeed, Mr D Mr Cardin. I mean again if I can walk you back to uh the situation I came into the post in, we have been through all of these steps very publicly, in which the Prime Minister's nominee had been put out there to the public, announced
Rydyn ni wedi'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw'n yw.
I I'm not trying to hide from your question, but I suppose all I can do is agree with the premise that against that backdrop, uh the Foreign Office saying Okay, but sorry, we can't grant him clearance would have been a very, very difficult problem.
And so you are left with that situation where you feel that Ollie Robbins had no option but to approve, because that is what Downing Street willed, that he did his best that he went through the vetting process, that he d kind of put in place mitigations for Peter Mandelson. But it would have been impossible. It the train had travelled so far down the track that to say, No, no, we've got to back up two miles now would have just been unthinkable.
And so the idea that Ollie Robbins has been fired in such a peremptory way on Thursday night, last Thursday night, I still think it's just jaw dropping.
So he has painted the picture of a Prime Minister who A had already announced before the vetting was completed, okay, against better advice. B was not really in control of the facts, didn't understand about the division between the civil service and ministers in terms of what they were told. And after all that comes the bombshell. Another friend of another paedophile we are told being recommended for an ambassadorial role. And at that point all gloves are off. We'll be back.
🎵 Music
¶ Matthew Doyle: Another Jobs Scandal
Put aside. The man who we now know was friends with a paedophile and got an ambassadorial job, Peter Mandelson. And turn your mind to Robin's next.
Revelation.
That he was asked to find an ambassadorial role, what they call a head of mission. It's just one below an ambassador. For Keir Starmer's then chief of communications, a man called Matthew Doyle, who was recently suspended over his links to another paedophile. And this is Robin's response to being told in March of last year that it would be really great if somebody at the Foreign Office could find Matthew Doyle.
There were several discussions initiated by number ten with me um about potentially finding a head of mission opportunity for Matthew Doyle, who was then the Prime Minister's Director of Communications. I was under strict instruction not to discuss that with the then Foreign Secretary, which was uncomfortable.
Rydyn ni'n ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r ymwneud â'r hyn. I was in the process of talking to the top team about quite a profound restructuring involving job losses
It was an absolute jaw-dropper when you heard Matthew Doyle's name thrown into the mix of all of this because you expected everything just to be about the appointment of Mandelson and then to find out that Downing Street And presumably the political office in Downing Street, so not the civil servants had been campaigning for Matthew Doyle, who is a lifelong Labour comms person who's been around Since the Blair years he then went to work for Tony Blair, he then comes back to be
He's a political person, not a civil servant.
Yeah. For all the faults and problems and dangers and risks attached to Peter Mandelson, he'd been an EU commissioner, he was used to negotiating trade deals, he had had a distinguished kind of, you know, career
problematic, yes, but distinguished. I mean Matthew Doyle had been a press officer. That's all he'd ever been. And suddenly the idea that Downing Street is trying to shoot presumably Keir Starmer wants Matthew Doyle out as press secretary because They didn't think he was that good at the job. And so or what can we find him? Can you find him a nice ambassador's job somewhere? Look.
That the fact that Robbins told us today that he was told by Keir Starmer's private office not to tell David Lamy, who was
Yeah.
Foreign secretary. Because Matthew Doyle is still in the post and may not have known that Starmer was trying to replace him. This is when it gets really murky. This is where it gets really Kind of disgusting actually because up until this point you're thinking Was this an error of judgment? Was the Mandelson thing a sort of, you know, ambition over good sense? Was he trying to fit around an unconventional president like Trump? What were there mitigating reasons why it made sense?
And now it just looks like cushy jobs for the boys. And actually over the weekend I was talking to somebody who was describing how just about all the junior ministerial roles, not not the cabinet level ones, which were made by Starmer, but the junior ministerial ones. were all, they believed, made by Morgan McSweeney. And they described it how it was basically mates and wives of mates and husbands of mates
And this person said it was like WAGS City Central, like the Wives and Girlfriends Committee. In other words, what you are starting to question, right, is the very integrity Of the whole decision making process around Keir Starmer, which is were you just finding your mate's job?
Or worse than
Were you trying to fire people but giving them consolation prizes in some of the highest offices in the world?
Yeah.
Emily, you and I have been at the BBC for years where we saw people who were crap at their jobs. They were the editor of a out of you know, a bulletin or something like that, and they're crap at their jobs, and they've suddenly become managing editor, paperclips and desks. And you feel that surely the Prime Minister isn't doing the same thing in Downing Street where you're trying to get rid of a
Oh, I don't know, what can we do with him? Oh, I'm sure the Foreign Office can find himself them an ambassadorship somewhere. This at a time when the Foreign Office is undergoing cuts and restructuring, and Ollie Robbins, to his credit, by the sound of it, pushed back pretty hard and said, No wait and it and as we now know, that did not happen and but Matthew Doyle was then given a period.
Um for his efforts as having been uh the press secretary at number 10 Downing Street. And so I do think that. You know, Kirstama came to office. saying that he wanted to clean up politics, that he wanted politics to weigh less heavily on people's lives and that they weren't going to have this constant round of scandal and cover up and misbehaviour.
¶ Robbins' Ordeal and Starmer's Integrity
And yet where are we now? Where are we now when we listen to Sir Olly Robbins, a senior civil servant? who has been fired, who is out of a job apparently for doing his job and doing it quite well. And it was interesting listening to Ollie Robbins talking about some of the emotional part of stress that this has been.
Mr. President, thank you. I again Mr Cullen, thank you for the generous way you asked the question, but I should be careful here. Um the very short answer is I don't fully understand the reasons that I'm in the position I am in. But that is for a separate process for me to try to get to the bottom of.
I am oh well, I mean as a human being I'm desperately, desperately sad about it, Mr Cardin. I I loved that job, I loved that institution, I was proud to serve this government and any government that might follow it.
Um I hope I was doing it to the best of my ability. I was certainly gwneud hynny'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n mynd i'n my
It's been the proudest part of my career to lead that institution because of their work, not because of mine. And you say kind things about my distinguished career. I just feel intensely proud of the people I've led and I wish them every success and wish I could still be with them.
We sat rap listening to the evidence that Ollie Robbins gave. And I'm trying to think of an occasion where a civil servant, so senior, was fired so quickly with kind of just thrown out of the building like they were a scoundrel and had been caught stealing money from the till. And I have just left incredulous about the decision made to fire him. And I would ask, has there been a more egregious and shameful decision By a political master, the Prime Minister, the
to get rid of someone as a way of saving their own skin. Because it's hard to see it in any other light. Is Ollie Robbins perfect? No, probably there were decisions and maybe things that made along the way. But my god, this was a political decision made by Downing Street and they only wanted one answer and Ollie Robbins tried to do his best in as proper a way possible to give them what they wanted and now he finds his life upended by that.
Yeah I mean if you just rewind back to Thursday to to the uh brilliant Pippa Curr and and the breaky of the story in The Guardian that uh Peter Mandelson had failed his his his vetting. I I mean, honestly, there is a world in which That story was Kir Starmer could have said, if he'd been over on top of the briefing, he could have said, Well, I understand that UK vetting, you know, w were leaning against it, but that was not a decision that they had to make. It was one for the
Foreign office and that was taken and I didn't have anything to do with that because that's the separation of powers. He could have left it there. The fact that he has this tantrum and fires Ollie Robbins is actually the beginning of the problem. Right? He could have just said, Yeah, of course there were gonna be differences, of course there were gonna be discrepancies This is why we do it properly. There are going to be very fine
Balances in the decision making process, but I had to step back from that and allow my brilliant professional civil service to carry that out. He didn't. Right? He walks right into the row and he fires Ollie Robbins. And I I genuinely think that was actually the beginning of this set of problems, not the end. I mean In terms of did Ollie Robbins do anything wrong, look, you've already uh
commented on the fact that Emily Thornbury's getting pretty annoyed that there isn't more stuff written down. We'd like to see a few more notes, we'd like to see a few more minutes. Could you just tell us if there were phone calls, you know, who you spoke to, all the rest of it. He doesn't
He doesn't seem to reveal the the sort of the detail of of where those records were kept or he says that he hasn't got those records anymore. And I guess there is still a question over if he was doing it again, would he really pass Mandelson? Would would he would he really have passed Mandelson, knowing that there was this sort of balance of of danger and and that the vetting office was leading against it?
What would he respond to that? I guess he's already responded. He said, look, it would have been incredibly awkward for UK US relations because the thing had been done. It was a feta complete.
Of this whole fiasco and it's ugly the fiasco that we have witnessed over the past few days and we've seen a very very good civil servant uh sacrificed it feels like to save someone else. So that part of it is clear. I think there are still persistent questions and I'm interested now to see that uh Yvette Cooper
Hi her predecessor. And she says I was the Home Secretary at the time, that I understand this had taken place. So I was not involved and don't know the circumstances. I am, of course, extremely concerned at any suggestion that the Permanent Secretary or Permanent Under Secretary of the Foreign Office would be told not to inform the Foreign Secretary. I can also confirm that the case that he raised, it would not have been an appropriate appointment.
So I think number ten I think Yvette Cooper by making this statement has pointed a finger back at number ten and say, What the friggin' hell was going on with you saying find an ab um an ambassador job for Matthew Dorse?
This looks quite ugly and there is a beautiful irony that Keir Starmer might in the end be brought down not by Peter Mandelson but about the attempt to appoint Matthew Doyle. Because at this point
Which outside of the Westminster bubble no one had heard.
But but this is the trouble that I think the public is is Generous up to a point about something that looks like a genuine mistake. When it looks like a pattern of behaviour, when it looks like cushy jobs, when it looks like let's see what we can get away with now and please don't tell You know, my colleague David Lamy, then it starts looking really grubby. And I think that's where people just lose faith.
And that is where expectation and reality are in such sort of sharp disharmony. You know, with Boris Johnson when he was Prime Minister and there were all these scrapes, was anyone surprised?
We kinda knew that Boris Johnson was charismatic but a bit of a rogue. Keir Starmer promised the British people something very different. And whilst it may not have been proven that he has lied I think what emerges is a feeling that he is slippery, legalistic, evasive, and will do what is necessary to preserve himself. And that ain't a good look when you've told people to vote for me because I am going to clean up our politics.
I should say we haven't had a response to the Doyle claims yet from number ten. Um and we're Pretty keen to hear what they um tell us. We have heard on some of the other claims that um and this is in response to whether officials in the office had been nagged or cajoled or bullied by Morgan McSweeney, they say no.
This is their words. As I said earlier, there's a distinction clearly between asking reasonably for updates on an appointment process. I would draw a distinction between the idea of pressure and you know being kept informed about the process and the progress of the appointment. So they will push back on the idea uh of the context that that um Ollie Robbins has just wanted to.
General. Um asked by reporters whether number ten recognise the description by Ollie Robbins, um the Prime Minister's official state spokesman says no. Um, and they deny showing a dismissive approach to Lord Mandelson's vetting for US ambassador. Look, at this point. There is no other jury on this, right? There is no there is no jury on this except for what those around Keir Starmer and the public
¶ Thornberry Confirms Bullying, Assigns Fault
start to feel. Well before we go any further, we've just been joined now by Emily Thornbury, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, who has hot footed it um from that extraordinary Morning of questioning Emily, we heard your interjection when you provided a swear word to accompany what you understood to be Morgan McSweeney's imperative. to the then civil servant that he'd get on with the hiring of Peter Mandelson. Just take us through that. Yeah.
It was a I mean, I think it was part of a pattern of behaviour. I think that the previous permanent undersecretary, Philip Barton, who left in early January, had been well what sounded like bullied, basically, you know, and then and then the new permanent under secretary was talking about having you know, daily interaction with number ten, um, phone calls and and various things. And it was quite clear from number ten that they wanted
Peter Mandelson appointed and it was up to the Foreign Office and the Foreign Office should just fucking get on with it, basically. Is what Morgan McSweeney is is alleged to have said. and the behaviour or the way in which, you know, you look at the evidence that you that we actually see in front of us, we see it being announced.
Um we hear about the bullying. Um we then see that it was it was uh the the king's permission was granted, they got in touch with the Americans, everything was lined up. And so all that was needed was for the Foreign Office to get on with it and to agree the vetting.
Do you think Ollie Robbins was bullied too?
I do. Yeah, I think that I think they were all, you know, that the I I mean and I think there was you know, that was kind of what Ollie I mean, Ollie Robbins didn't want to say I made the decision idea because I was bullied. He didn't want to say that. He wanted to say that he had acted independently and hadn't been put under undue pressure. Well, had been put under undue pressure but it hadn't made any difference to him.
I don't believe it could not have made a difference. I think that in the end, what's in the the DNA of civil servants is you to they are there to ensure that the will of politicians is is is put into practice and that's kind of what you know, that's what they do.
Um now it has to be done in a proper way and that's the question and I think that the pressure that was coming from number ten and I don't by the way think that it was even the Prime Minister. I think that it was It was Morgan and Morgan McSweeney who who, you know, remember he did he he he resigned because of the his role in the Maddelson um thing and he was a protege of Maddelson's, he was open about that, he relied on him, and he was trying to deliver Maddelson the job.
Um so I think the fault on you know, the fault on the politician side was is a clear one. And then I think on Ollie Robin's side, I think the fault was he didn't make any notes of any of the things that he was doing.
Um and he should have. You know, it's all very well him saying, Oh, actually the direct vetting wasn't quite as strong as been said. It was it was uh leaning towards Rydyn ni'n ymwneud â hynny'n ymwneud â phobl sydd wedi'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i'i
Um and he says, No, no, no, no, no, it wasn't like that. No, there was a conversation and no we were doing this and no we were doing that, but there's no note.
Do you think Ollie Robbins made the wrong call on that?
I do. I do. Well, I mean, obviously, I'm now speaking with the benefit of hindsight, obviously. But yeah, no, I think he should have said no. And of course If he had said no, all hell would have let loose because the Americans already knew, the King knew, it had been decided.
Um he also dropped a bombshell today that Another friend of another paedophile had also been recommended by Keir Starmer for a high level ambassadorial job. one Matthew Doyle, his former chief of comms. Did you know that was coming?
I then let it wasn't clear that it was Keir Starmer who'd recommended him for it. It was the private office at number ten getting in touch with Sir Ollie Robinson's office, private office and saying can you get him an ambassadorial job? I mean it was shocking. And I think it speaks to a an arrogance that is very concerning. You know, people should not Well, that's the question. You know, that's the question. I mean I would have thought that it's probably again head of office, but you know
I mean I just when it came to appointments I have always been struck by how disinterested actually the Prime Minister has been. And it does seem to have been the head of his office who was largely responsible for an awful lot of appointments, whether that was you know, politicians to political jobs or or these sorts of things. It seemed to be
the engine behind it seemed to be the head of his office, Morgan McSweeney, rather than the PM. Now some people will criticise that, but you know, I mean I I suppose the only thing you can say is that there is an awful lot that the Prime Minister has to do and has to be on top of.
And it's surprising'cause most most Prime Ministers would hold that to themselves because that's the way in which you can influence people and make sure that they're loyal to you because, you know, if you got your job th through the Prime Minister and you know that you did, you remain loyal to him. Um, if you give that job to someone else then you end up with loyalty going to the person whose job it is to be responsible for appointments, right?
¶ Starmer's Future and Doyle's Impact
Shocking. Um
Yeah.
to learn about this and to learn that David Lamy was kept out of the loop on this. Uh i is Starmer in big trouble now?
I think this is trouble. I think that, you know, we have never needed to have a foreign office more at the top of its game than we do now and I think that the world needs that too. I think when the Foreign Office is firing on all salidas. It is it is a posit it is a you know, a force for good. Mae'n ymwneudol iawn. Mae'n ymwneudol iawn. Mae'n ymwneudol iawn. Mae'n ymwneudol iawn. Mae'n ymwneudol iawn. Mae'n ymwneudol iawn yn ymwneudol iawn. Mae'n ymwneudol iawn. Uh
we could do without it. We could definitely do without this. Um
Mm. But uh but do you think the do you think the Matthew Dorr stuff is the is the does that break the camel's back?
I don't know how serious that was, whether it was somebody whether it was one call Whether it was, you know, oh wait, you know, since we're talking about g handing out sweeties, can Matthew Doyle have a be be a be an ambassador? Whether it was a serious thing or not, I just don't know. But It sounds pretty serious to me. But he did say in his evidence that it was sort of went away fairly quickly.
And Emily, y what about your colleagues? Your parliamentary colleagues who essentially hold the future of Keir Starmer in their hands? There was a kind of it's ebbed and flowed that there was gonna be a coup, there wasn't going to be a coup. and he's been getting plaudits for his handling of Iran and now it seems to have gone back to the darkest, darkest days of his leadership.
I think that most people are focused on the local elections and ymwneud â'n sicrhau ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud â'n ymwneud.
So you think that post Local council elections in two and a half weeks' time, this is very firmly on the agenda.
Well let's see. Let's see what happens. I mean so much happens so fast these days in politics. This may be, you know, yesterday's news uh very quickly. But uh at the moment it seems it's very shocking.
Okay.
Yeah.
Do you think do you think he should stay on and can stay on as Prime Minister?
I think you should stay on as Prime Minister. I think things are much better now that he's changed some of the key personnel. Rwy'n credu bod Morgan McSweeney wedi gweithio mewn gwirionedd, ond rwy'n credu bod hynny'n hynny'n hynny'n hynny'n hynny'n hynny'n hynny'n hynny'n hynny'n hynny'n hynny'n hynny'n hynny'n hynny.
Do you think you should have fired Ollie Robbins?
I think he should have fired Ollie Robbins because I don't think it's right for Ollie Robbins to to um to to not tell people that there have been a problem with the vetting. And I don't think it's right for Ollie Robbins not to have turned a record. I mean, I like Ollie Robbins. I think that he's very talented, um, but
It's pretty bad not telling anyone, you know, that uh there have been a problem with vetting with somebody who's as controversial as as Peter Mandelson. And then okay, not telling anybody at the time, but then You know, when it kept coming forward. I mean remember I'm I'm the woman who got you know, who got these ridiculous letters from Ollie Robbins or from or his evidence. So I'm not that generously inclined towards him.
You know, when I ask him directly was there a problem with security of uh with Maddelson and I just get an answer back saying he you know, the uh vetting was was done to the usual high standards or whatever and he was appointed. You know, not saying, Oh, but actually he didn't pass the vetting and but I decided that there were ways in which we could get round it. It could be ameliorated.
Rydyn ni'n ei wneud hynny'n ei wneud hynny'n ei wneud hynny'n ei wneud hynny'n ei wneud hynny'n ei wneud hynny'n ei wneud hynny I think that the decision had been his. We had you know, there's been a wrinkle or there's been, you know, there have been reservations, but for those reasons Pre Mandelson will not be allowed to do X, Y, and Z.
You know, why not say that um to the PM um or to Morgan or whoever it was? Why you know, why keep it a secret? Why not tell your line manager? Why not tell the cabinet secretary? You don't have to go into the details. of of of what has been found, what the problems are, but you can surely talk about how to deal with the problem, how the problems were going to be dealt with and how that was going to affect Mandelson's um working life.
Dem Emily Thornbury, or Chair, as we must now call you. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
🎵 Music
From a range of trusted voices and award winning justice.
Good morning, I'm Nick Ferrari. It's time to get to your call.
latest news and hear every side of the story.
the Foreign Secretary was advised on and allowed to sign this statement without that UKSP had recommended Peter Mandelson be denied develop vetting closure. is absolutely unforgivable. The Oli Robbins, Peter Mandelson, Kir Starmer debacle. Has anything changed?
Fallout of the Iran War. Follow it live on LBC. Listen on LBC app.
🎵 Music
As we've said, the shock that comes out of the Ollie Robbins evidence to the Select Committee was about this attempt by number ten to get a job for Matthew Doyle, then the director of communications at number 10, to get him a plum ambassadorial job, or chief of mission as they called it. Um there was something that went under the radar yesterday, which is a question asked by the MP Edward Morello, a Liberal Democrat, to Kia Starmer.
And it's worth playing this exchange from yesterday because I think this question has got added urgency and rocket boosters underneath it.
So can the Prime Minister at least confirm to the House that this was a singular error of judgment? and that his number ten operation has not proposed political appointee for any other senior role in the FCDO.
Thank you.
Prime Minister.
I will have to just check on that and get back to him because I'm not, there are very many appointments made, very many appointments made to senior positions and I will just check.
Yeah, Edward Morello, who was on the committee today and was one of those asking the questions. Seems to be of the understanding that this was not just a one off with Peter Mandelson, and if it is proven to be correct. That Matthew Doyle was Was another friend of another paedophile being pushed into another top-notch ambassadorial role? I think it is almost impossible to see how Starmer comes back from that. But we're awaiting Prime Minister's questions tomorrow.
Should be an easy ride. We'll see you tomorrow. Bye bye.
Bye for now.
This has been a global player original production.