The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Purple Train]

I suspect the whole thing is as simple as that Mandelson was appointed because we needed someone sleazy to get on with Trump.

While this can't exactly be shouted from the rooftops, it was a pretty obvious calculus (at the time the decision was taken - laughable now!) that courting Trump would benefit the country.

If my (unproven) theory is correct, Starmer & co must be feeling pretty annoyed at this blowing up into the "mother of all scandals" when they felt they were acting in the national interest. And even worse they can't even have the credit for doing so, since no politician can admit that they turned a blind eye to the victims of a pedophile (if, hypothetically, that is what Starmer did) for what they saw as greater material gain for the country. And worst of all, his best defence is to try to look like an incompetent, lazy idiot that make Boris Johnson look like a stickler for detail.

So I oddly come out of this feeling a bit mixed. The outcome of this will be politicians who act with more integrity, even when that may be against the country's interests. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is something I am not sure about!

I agree with your theory. I thought it wasn't a bad idea at the time, but then I'm too young to remember Mandelson's political career and the fact that he was involved in the Epstein affair was simply a massive gap in my knowledge (and I hope there aren't too many more of those).

I don't think this should be the end of Starmer, as I have no confidence that his replacement will handle foreign matters any better than him, and it would simply result in the right-wing media pushing ever-more-hysterical smear campaigns onto his successor. I think the belief that an equivalent Conservative PM, or a PM of any other party for that matter, would have resigned or been forced to by now is completely fanciful. The Pincher scandal was "less bad", but it was an accumulation of offences which brought down Johnson, and Starmer is at least a massive upgrade on the five years before him. This is absolutely not "the mother of all scandals" - I raise you Partygate.

One more scandal, however, and he's finished.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I suspect the whole thing is as simple as that Mandelson was appointed because we needed someone sleazy to get on with Trump.

While this can't exactly be shouted from the rooftops, it was a pretty obvious calculus (at the time the decision was taken - laughable now!) that courting Trump would benefit the country.

I agree and I do not want Sir Keir Starmer to resign as Prime Minister. This country cannot afford political instability at present. Changing the Prime Minister does nothing to fix the cost of living crisis for which the number one cause is the continuing dependence on fossil fuels.

 

[DarloRich]

Might have a new Prime Minister soon! Surely Starmer will have to resign?

I suspect that he failed to check that all was in order with the vetting because he was too busy with other matters and just accepted what he was told without checking what had been done.

Or that Starmer did not apparently think to ask!

I guess you have never worked in a big organisation then. Plausible deniability & delegation are crucial. The key is the question asked. Have you done the vetting rather than what does the vetting tell us allows you to say: I asked about vetting and was told it was ok.

I want to be sighted not involved is another key phrase in these circumstances!

There is no outright lie in any of that.

I suspect the whole thing is as simple as that Mandelson was appointed because we needed someone sleazy to get on with Trump.

Agreed!

 

[Gloster]

Taking a slightly Yes, Prime Minister angle on this, I wonder if the Foreign Office, having decided that Mandelson was the man they wanted in Washington to smarm Trump, they made quite sure that Starmer did not get to hear that Mandelson had failed bits of the vetting. The FO got what it wanted and would at the time presume that nobody outside its top mandarins would ever be any the wiser. Starmer should have asked for more detail, but if he was bogged down in other matters the FO may have managed matters so that he did not have the opportunity or reason to ask questions. Starmer should have checked further and, as he is PM, he has to bear ultimate responsibility, but it is quite possible that he was seriously let down and misled by his civil-servants.

I do feel that once the current international turmoil has settled down, Starmer should go. He may be an honest and well-intentioned PM, but he lacks political nous.

 

[sor]

I guess you have never worked in a big organisation then. Plausible deniability & delegation are crucial. The key is the question asked. Have you done the vetting rather than what does the vetting tell us allows you to say: I asked about vetting and was told it was ok.

I want to be sighted not involved is another key phrase in these circumstances!

There is no outright lie in any of that.

It's one thing to do this as a middle manager evading policy and another when you are at the top and you make the policy.

I don't think (if the government attempts) any attempted legalese around whether Starmer was technically accurate or not will go down well. We are told that the buck stops with the prime minister and this is sometimes why arguments are made as to whether they should be paid a lot more than they are.

Agreed!

Team Trump liked Karen Pierce (and reportedly criticised Mandelson's appointment), she didn't seem to be in any rush to retire, and the appointment of Mandelson in particular broke convention of appointing senior career diplomats to the more desirable posts.

There is no real evidence that Mandelson achieved something that she or any other ambassador could not have achieved. It's also a moot point at the moment since the tariff plans have largely failed and Trump is refusing to sign the UK deal anyway.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't think (if the government attempts) any attempted legalese around whether Starmer was technically accurate or not will go down well. We are told that the buck stops with the prime minister and this is sometimes why arguments are made as to whether they should be paid a lot more than they are.

I don't disagree however I think there is enough "wiggle room" to mean Starmer doesn't have to resign. (Or, at least it doesn't feel that way to me!) Without a smoking gun I wouldn't resign in these circumstances. The difference between accountability and responsibility perhaps?

Now, my view would be different if you could show Starmer knew about the issues, overrode advice, disregarded the security services challenges and insisted on Mandelson AND then lied to parliament, the media and the voters. In that case my view would be he MUST resign. Are we there? I am not sure we are.

 

[Harpo]

As Badenoch says a Tory PM would resign immediately.

Comedy gold!!

 

[MP33]

At the Reform UK, party conference. A motion, urging the leadership to prepare for a possible 2027 General Election was defeated. The motion, has become less of a stupid suggestion, as the situation develops.

 

[The Ham]

I think that there's a couple of factors.

Obviously, the appointment is not a great look (quite an understatement).

However the Foreign Office (and other departments) having the power to override the guidance of the vetting process isn't something new - so why didn't the Tories fix this (or is it more likely that they could have been blindsided by this too)?

Personally I think that is something which just wasn't understood (and isn't something which you'd necessarily ask about unless you thought that such a system could exist or you didn't think that the individual was likely to pass - which given he was previously part of government is arguably an unlikely thought).

Therefore, on the very specific point of could Starmer have known about the FO overriding the vetting process, it's possible, however it's more likely that he didn't and he didn't even suspect that the FO had that capability and so it's reasonable not to ask about something which presumably isn't widely know (if it were then why are the Tories only asking about it now it's widely known).

to put it another way if any opposition party were unhappy about the appointment and knew about the ability of departments like the FO being able to veto the vetting process, why didn't they ask months ago?

My thought is that they didn't know to ask in the same way that the PM didn't know to ask.

It would be an interesting question to put to opposition parties who have been in government (or have people who have been in government).

 

[Tetchytyke]

As Badenoch says a Tory PM would resign immediately.

I definitely remember Boris Johnson willingly falling on his sword the first time he made a dubious appointment. I also definitely remember Theresa May, David Cameron, and Rishi Sunak also doing the same.

Yet another example of Keir Starmers modus operandi. Deny all knowledge and throw someone else under the bus.
Mandleson.
Saville.
Grooming gangs.
All the same approach. "I wasn't aware".
He's either incompetent or an outright liar.

Where was Keir Starmer involved in any decisions about Savile and grooming gangs? Where should have been involved?

As for the appointment of Mandelson, the reason why he was appointed to be Ambassador to the US is the same reason why it's all blown up now. He was employed because he could handle Trump. He could handle Trump because he moved in the same circles at the same time.

I suspect the whole thing is as simple as that Mandelson was appointed because we needed someone sleazy to get on with Trump.

Bingo.

 

[xdbjacx]

I think it implausible that the politicians were not aware of Mandelson's connections, dealings, and involvement with extremely unsavoury people. It wasn't exactly a state secret. As others have observed, the PM's approach to this is exactly what you might expect from a senior politician, lawyer, or corporate operator. You don't ask for information for which you then become morally responsible. Instead, you ask an oblique question about process (never outcome) that you can later argue demonstrates that you were applying appropriate oversight. This now endemic, pathologically avoidant mentality has not served any of our institutions well, and this is a particularly catastrophic example of it.

On a pragmatic level: The correctly titled prince of darkness wanted the US gig because he is notoriously vain and covetous of the company of wealthy and influential people. I strongly suspect that it suited the PM to get him out of Westminster because he has dogged every Labour leader since John Smith (possibly even including Tony Blair) with his constant, vindictive, plotting and troublemaking. I am not saying that this line of reasoning is defensible. It is not. But I think it is plausible.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think this probably belongs here.

Last year, after a long democratic process, the Isle of Man Tynwald voted to bring in legislation allowing assisted dying in the Isle of Man. This legislation requires Royal Assent, which is usually a rubber-stamping exercise. The UK are responsible for arranging that Royal Assent.

David Lammy, a fundamentalist Christian and a vocal critic of assisted dying, has now refused to grant that Royal Assent, supposedly because of concerns the legislation is incompatible with human rights legislation. This had been discussed at great length in the Isle of Man and it had been democratically agreed here that it was compatible with human rights legislation.

To say that I am raging is something of an understatement. All our democracy can be undermined by one Christian whackjob who disagrees with what was democratically agreed.

A pox on all of the Labour Party.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's anti-democratic. Is the IoM considering becoming a republic as a result? I hope it is.

 

[edwin_m]

David Lammy, a fundamentalist Christian and a vocal critic of assisted dying, has now refused to grant that Royal Assent, supposedly because of concerns the legislation is incompatible with human rights legislation. This had been discussed at great length in the Isle of Man and it had been democratically agreed here that it was compatible with human rights legislation.

Compatibiliity or otherwise with human rights legislation should surely be a decision for an appropriate court, not for any minister,

 

[ainsworth74]

Compatibiliity or otherwise with human rights legislation should surely be a decision for an appropriate court, not for any minister,

You would think so wouldn't you? Shockingly poor behaviour from Lammy and if were an Isle of Mann resident/citizen I'd be seriously reconsidering the constitutional relationship with the UK...

 

[greatkingrat]

If Lammy has blocked the legislation, it will be based on legal advice he has received. He can't just arbitrarily block stuff based on personal dislike.

 

[Purple Train]

I think this probably belongs here.

Last year, after a long democratic process, the Isle of Man Tynwald voted to bring in legislation allowing assisted dying in the Isle of Man. This legislation requires Royal Assent, which is usually a rubber-stamping exercise. The UK are responsible for arranging that Royal Assent.

David Lammy, a fundamentalist Christian and a vocal critic of assisted dying, has now refused to grant that Royal Assent, supposedly because of concerns the legislation is incompatible with human rights legislation. This had been discussed at great length in the Isle of Man and it had been democratically agreed here that it was compatible with human rights legislation.

To say that I am raging is something of an understatement. All our democracy can be undermined by one Christian whackjob who disagrees with what was democratically agreed.

A pox on all of the Labour Party.

I agree with David Lammy's views on this matter, but that is stunningly undemocratic and I hope a fuss is kicked up. Democracy is all about letting the people make choices, stupid or otherwise, and it is a massive blunder on Lammy's part, both for the Labour Party, and for the pro-life argument.

The entire party seems to have the political nous of a tub of lard. It is insanely depressing.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If Lammy has blocked the legislation, it will be based on legal advice he has received. He can't just arbitrarily block stuff based on personal dislike.

He can. He just has.

Compatibiliity or otherwise with human rights legislation should surely be a decision for an appropriate court, not for any minister,

Quite.

Shockingly poor behaviour from Lammy and if were an Isle of Mann resident/citizen I'd be seriously reconsidering the constitutional relationship with the UK...

Can't say I'm particularly surprised, the same is happening in the UK with the Lords being allowed to deliberately frustrate the Bill agreed by the Commons. Much to the delight of Lammy and Streeting, both of whom have been very vocal in their opposition on religious grounds. Needless to say, if it was something they agreed with the the Lords wouldn't be being allowed to play silly buggers.

Jersey have also voted to bring in assisted dying, so I'm assuming Lammy will do the same thing now to them.

I agree with David Lammy's views on this matter, but that is stunningly undemocratic and I hope a fuss is kicked up.

For personal reasons I agree with the idea of assisted dying. This is for the reason that it is infinitely better than the alternative, which is someone with a terminal illness taking themselves out into the woods in the middle of the night and committing suicide alone.

But yes, it is stunningly undemocratic. Our parliament is about to be dissolved ahead of our General Election in September. Lammy knows this and he knows that he's made sure that the Bill will fall away; if it doesn't get Royal Assent in the next few weeks then we will need to start from scratch in the new parliament.

The Bill has been with the UK since March 2025, and it has taken them this long to come back with this justification. That's why I am certain it is a deliberate blocking attempt by Lammy.

It is just so cynical.

 

[DarloRich]

If Lammy has blocked the legislation, it will be based on legal advice he has received. He can't just arbitrarily block stuff based on personal dislike.

that will be the answer - although I am sure you can obtain the advice required to support your position if you wanted to!

The Bill has been with the UK since March 2025,

Jersey have also voted to bring in assisted dying, so I'm assuming Lammy will do the same thing now to them.

It does seem like a cynical attempt to delay the bill so long that a decision is not required, but surely you cant have a crown dependency out of line with the mainland legislation on something so large and emotive. This is not tax or speed limits after all.

How can Lammy sign off such legislation for crown dependencies when we cant have the same laws here? ( we should have such laws here but i don't think we will get them)

 

[MP33]

In Belgium, when legislation was passed to legalise abortion. King Boudin, as a Roman Catholic, was opposed to it. He abdicated for a day, so that assent could be given. With him not having to make the decision.

Could Lamy, be replaced by temporary Minister, to be re-appointed after assent.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It does seem like a cynical attempt to delay the bill so long that a decision is not required, but surely you cant have a crown dependency out of line with the mainland legislation on something so large and emotive. This is not tax or speed limits after all.

The Commons have agreed assisted dying, but the Lords are being allowed to filibuster it. If it was something the likes of Lammy wanted, the Lords wouldn't be being allowed to play silly buggers.

Same thing has happened here, Lammy filibustering it for over a year, no doubt it will happen to Jersey too.

There's a serious democratic deficit here.

 

[DarloRich]

The Commons have agreed assisted dying, but the Lords are being allowed to filibuster it.

Agreed - and the filibustering is being well managed and run by a small group.

If it was something the likes of Lammy wanted, the Lords wouldn't be being allowed to play silly buggers.

The problem with the UK bill is that is not a manifesto commitment for Labour so the mechanism to force something through the lords is not quite as clear as it other wise would be

There's a serious democratic deficit here.

happy to reform the house of lords!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed - and the filibustering is being well managed and run by a small group.

Fillibustering (debating in bad faith to delay or block a bill) should itself be a criminal offence, and something should be in place to limit the length of a given person's speech if it is clearly wilfully doing this.

 

[Tetchytyke]

the filibustering is being well managed and run by a small group

Always the way with religious types.

Their imaginary sky fairy says that they are not allowed to do something, so they decide this means that I'm not allowed to do that thing either.

 

[sor]

It does seem like a cynical attempt to delay the bill so long that a decision is not required, but surely you cant have a crown dependency out of line with the mainland legislation on something so large and emotive. This is not tax or speed limits after all.

How can Lammy sign off such legislation for crown dependencies when we cant have the same laws here? ( we should have such laws here but i don't think we will get them)

NI spent years out of line with GB on abortion. Scotland's introduction of same sex marriage was behind England and Wales. NI was even longer still and both matters had to be forced through by the UK parliament. So it doesn't seem so unreasonable for a crown dependency to be able to go its own way on domestic matters where the UK government is supposed to be hands off.

One would certainly wonder what these human rights issues were and why they wouldn't impact any part of the UK enacting similar legislation

 

[jp4712]

Always the way with religious types.

Their imaginary sky fairy says that they are not allowed to do something, so they decide this means that I'm not allowed to do that thing either.

All of which would be a compelling argument - if it were true. However as the BBC story makes clear, David Lammy hasn't blocked the IoM legislation because of any fundamentalist beliefs, but because the proposed legislation lacked important legal safeguards nor complied with the European Convention of Human Rights. The UK government has simply asked for these to be incorporated in the bill before it's passed to the King for signature. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn43pkx20n4o

Changes will have to be made to the Isle of Man's Assisted Dying Bill before it can be given Royal Assent, the UK government has said.
In a letter to the Manx government, David Lammy - in his capacity as Lord Chancellor - said key legal protections, while acknowledged, were not written directly into the Assisted Dying Bill 2023.
The Isle of Man became the first place in the British Isles to pass laws on assisted dying in March last year, but they can not come into force until after Royal Assent is granted.
If approved the laws would grant terminally ill Manx residents the right to end their own lives - however several safeguards will now have to be added to the proposed legislation.
The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) had previously consulted with officials on the island, to get clarity on safeguards such as independent monitoring, protection against coercion, and ensuring individuals had the capacity to make informed decisions.
The latest letter from Lammy said while the Manx government given assurances over these concerns, these commitments were not included in the bill itself.

'Obviously disappointed'​

As a result, it did not currently meet requirements under the European Convention on Human Rights, government was told.
The MOJ stressed that while it was unable to recommend the bill for Royal Assent "at this time", it should "not be interpreted as disallowing Royal Assent".
It "reflects solely the need to ensure that the legislation once enacted contains the necessary protections required", it said.
Ramsey MHK Alex Allinson, who brought the private member's bill forward, said while he was "obviously disappointed", work was already underway by the Attorney General's Chamber to "draft amendments which will address these technical issues".
He said the bill was passed by the island's "independent parliament" after "over two decades of campaigning by many members of our community".
The proposed law change would provide "compassion, choice, and dignity for those with a terminal illness facing an inevitable death", he said.
He added he would be working with Tynwald members over the coming weeks to bring forward "a series of amendments to the bill which will strengthen the existing safeguards".
The Isle of Man government has declined to comment.

 

[JamesT]

Always the way with religious types.

Their imaginary sky fairy says that they are not allowed to do something, so they decide this means that I'm not allowed to do that thing either.

One of the biggest opponents of the legislation in the Lords is Tanni Grey-Thompson, who is agnostic.
You're entirely free to kill yourself, the problem is this legislation is putting the onus on other people to help you.
The legislation is deeply flawed, there may be some in the Lords messing about, but there are others putting the bill under the scrutiny it deserves and the proposers don't like it.

 

[Senex]

Isn’t perhaps the most astonishing aspect of all this that a decision to disregard the outcome of a vetting for perhaps the most senior and sensitive post in the foreign service could have been taken at officer level in the Foreign Office and not apparently even formally notified to even the most junior of the ministers? The proof that it really is Sir Humphrey who rules?

 

[Tetchytyke]

However as the BBC story makes clear, David Lammy hasn't blocked the IoM legislation because of any fundamentalist beliefs, but because the proposed legislation lacked important legal safeguards nor complied with the European Convention of Human Rights.

He's spent the last 14 months asking for more and more clarity from the Isle of Man Government about safeguards, only to turn around now to say that everything that has been provided doesn't matter, it all needs to be in the primary legislation.

These changes to the primary legislation cannot be debated before Tynwald is dissolved in a couple of months, there isn't time. When Tynwald is dissolved the Bill fails and has to be started again from scratch.

If he'd said it needed to be in primary legislation 14 months ago, there would have been time to debate it and get it back to them. Weird how it's taken him 14 months to decide it needs to be in the primary legislation, isn't it.

But sure, it is all about the safeguards and definitely not a calculated attempt to stymie democracy in another jurisdiction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Apr 2026 ==

The proof that it really is Sir Humphrey who rules?

Not really.

If the Minister doesn't want to know then the Minister (or, indeed, the Prime Minister) will not be told. "It is an operational matter" is a useful cop-out for all concerned.

Everyone concerned knew that Mandelson was, and is, a corrupt, venal, sleazeball. That is precisely why he was chosen to be Ambassador to the US. Mandelson's qualities made him an ideal choice to deal with Donald Trump, who is also a corrupt, venal, sleazeball.

 

[Broucek]

Isn’t perhaps the most astonishing aspect of all this that a decision to disregard the outcome of a vetting for perhaps the most senior and sensitive post in the foreign service could have been taken at officer level in the Foreign Office and not apparently even formally notified to even the most junior of the ministers? The proof that it really is Sir Humphrey who rules?

Assuming the PM isn't 1) just telling a bare-faced lie (unlikely I'd say, despite not being a fan) then it implies something is wrong in the plumbing of government. Either 2) the Civil Servants have decided to do their own thing or (more likely) 3) the politicians have decided to be hands off.

None of 1-3 is remotely good.

Also, even if Ministers were genuinely not told about the failed vetting, surely someone would have said, "so, did Lord M actually pass vetting?"