It’s bad. I mention it further down in my thread.

An interesting question. I assume the finding was close to the border between the yellow and red boxes on the form.

This is far from the end. There will be more questions, more revelations and more inquires, including the outcome of a criminal investigation and whatever follows. The only way to avoid be engulfed by successive waves of this scandal is for Starmer to go, if not now then before the year is out. End/

The evidence also raises new questions. Was the Cabinet Office acting as a proxy for Downing Street when it suggested that vetting wasn’t even necessary? If so, Starmer’s insistence that he would have respected the outcome of the vetting process had he known about it lacks credibility. 7/

Even worse, Robbins was instructed not to tell the Foreign Secretary about the idea, simultaneously undermining departmental authority and collegiate government. David Lammy would have every right to be livid about this. Other Cabinet members should also be concerned. 6/

One thing that genuinely shocked me was the revelation that No 10 wanted be give an ambassadorship to Matthew Doyle. These are not baubles to be handed out to favoured courtiers. To consider displacing a career diplomat with an unqualified pol is the sign of a deeply unserious government. 5/

Although Starmer insists that he would have withdrawn Mandelson’s appointment had he known about the vetting problem, the evidence presented by Robbins casts serious doubt on that. Most likely, Starmer would have brushed it aside and installed Mandelson anyway, such was his determination. 4/

But overall, the evidence is damning about Starmer’s approach and the way everything was subordinated to the goal of getting a controversial and deeply flawed man into a highly sensitive post. Everything stems from the single, defining misjudgment. 3/

Moreover, Robbins assured Starmer that Mandelson had been cleared because as far as Robbins was concerned, he had been. A case of “the process, c’est moi”. The astonishing part is the Robbins himself decided not to find out what the vetting issue was before giving clearance. 2/

Looks like I got this right (apart from the misspelling). The problem arose because of a procedural mismatch: a political appointment was treated as a departmental appointment for the purposes of vetting with no reference back to the person (Starmer) making the appointment when an issue arose. 1/

Sure, there are many bonkers elements to this.

Does Olly Robbins have any idea how bonkers this sounds coming from the man who decided not to block Mandelson’s appointment?

The sad truth is that this will do far more damage to the reputation of Israel in the US than the death of any number of Palestinian civilians at the hands of the IDF. Such is the twisted logic of this conflict and the West’s attitude to it.

I was fortunate in being able to appreciate him for more than a moment, but I know what you mean. 2003 was a very significant year for me, for good and bad.

In 2003 I got most of my stag weekend gang together at Gatwick early, then called my ex-flatmate to find that he was still in bed. He made the flight anyway and I got absolute pelters from the rest. But I remain unrepentantly ETTA.

I quite like snooker in a vaguely nostalgic sense, but I prefer Northern Soul, also in a nostalgic sense.

I hate it when that happens. 😂

He’s a very good historian. His book about the 70s culture wars in the US is just brilliant. But it was obvious in February that there was much more to come out about Mandelson, with or without Starmer’s fumblings.

The historian Dominic Sandbrook was on BBC radio back in February predicting that the Mandelson scandal would quickly blow over because it had “nowhere to go”. I knew at the time he was talking nonsense. Just goes to show that understanding the past doesn’t always mean you understand the present.

But as I said, the same applies to the appointment of Cabinet Ministers who can hardly be said to be lower profile than an ambassador. Post-appointment vetting is the norm. Also, his appointment had been announced but he hadn’t taken up post.

You’re right on the last point. It was terrible judgement. But vetting is something that often happens after appointment. It did in my case, as with most Ministers and special advisers. I think he didn’t check because quite reasonably he’d expect to be told if there was an issue.

This is a tricky one for American Catholics - side with the Pope or Satan’s emissary? If only the bible had something on this sort of thing.

I think he did check and I think he was told that due process had been completed because in weird civil service logic, it had been.

Just seen this. It’s gobsmacking.

You’d think so, but it appears not.

Partly, yes.

“No way” was my position until lunchtime when friends of Robbins confirmed that he took the decision without telling anyone else. I don’t think they’re saying that to protect Starmer.

I was sure of it too, but friends of Robbins insist not and they’ve no particular reason to protect Starmer now. On the contrary, they are bizarrely insisting that Robbins was right to keep Starmer in the dark.

Well, indeed. Everything stemmed from that lapse of judgment.

That’s not unusual. My own vetting happened post-appointment. Access to classified material was restricted until clearance.