Yes - but there shouldn't be any public commentary on how anyone's vetting has gone or how complicated it's been. It should be the opposite of transparent!

Welcome to the United Kingdom, where lots of people who have never been security vetted and know nothing about the security vetting process, are very angry about security vetting.

But he did get through vetting. The FCDO granted it.

But UKSV made a recommendation, not a decision.

The FCDO made the decision, as they should.

If anyone doesn't like the decision, that's fine. Foreign Secretary is responsible.

It's a risk judgement. Those risks need managing.

The FCDO didn't actually do anything wrong here.

It's not a test. There is not a pass mark. The binary way this keeps getting described is plain wrong.

Exactly

I've been wondering whether there was a specific risk that the FCDO felt they could mitigate.

The process is not as binary as many are still trying to make out.

Absolutely infuriating to hear them dancing around this as if the Foreign Secretary is not responsible for what the FCDO does - good, bad or ugly

Foreign Secretary still responsible for the FCDO. PM still responsible for appointing Mandelson.

Civil servant sacked.

Not a good look.

Seems to have conveniently forgotten that the Foreign Secretary is still responsible for the actions of the FCDO.....

And that submarine capability is much broader than just the deterrent; too many attribute the nuclear enterprise cost to 'only' delivering CASD

I hope so. Lots of good intentions.

I love the first one.

"How dare Whitehall do consultations that we made it a legal requirement for them to do"

"Now Mr Bomb it would be helpful if you could set out your objectives, then we can explain our posit..."

BANG

People don't deserve a vote in Parliament by virtue of which politician they've buttered up either

It's such a weird obsession. There are only 8k ish companies in the UK employing more than 250 people.

Very few employing 100k+.

Vast majority of companies in the UK are dwarfed by public sector orgs.

I agree with you that it's rare - but the wording of the humble address includes a whole bunch of those rare cases, whether realised by MPs or not.

Quite. Watching a slew of MPs (who have never been vetted) argue incessantly and so confidently about something they know nothing about, with the whole sordid debate commented on by journalists (who have never been vetted) was infuriatingly tiresome.

Yes and I agree your broad take on it all.

The point on 'whole documents' is particularly interesting, given that Jones - as an ex Defence Minister - will know full well they will absolutely seek to redact entire documents, and should do so, given the scope of what is asked for.

The Justice and Security Act 2013 says the ISC can only disclose information to Parliament having confirmed with the PM that it is ok to do so.

I can't see anything in the humble address that changes how the ISC can operate with info it is given, only the provision of info to it in this matter?

The Cab Sec hasn't resigned (yet).

Starmer has made mistakes but the media glee is palpable - Mason today: he's survived but it's not over yet!!

Approval ratings are driven by media reporting. Accurate or not.

'Whitehall Official' = Special Adviser not wanting to be quoted as such

And then when all this shiny new infrastructure needs upkeep, our not-at-all mad country will complain and say we can't afford it until it also crumbles. Repeat ad nauseum.

There are some 7k Parli staff. 95k CS in Whitehall. Plus military, police, contractors. Could easily mean relocating over 100k jobs from one city to another; you'd still have an enormous bill to deal with what's left of SW1A. And you'd move Gov miles away from other nations Embassies etc. Insanity

We do. Moving parliament (plus the rest of parliamentary estate) and at least main HQ elements of all Gov departments (Ministers need to be in both), with the accompanying national security apparatus, and a new Government Security Zone, is mad.

Interesting. Loads of classified info there, which can't simply be made public just because a motion says hand it over. And I'm struggling to find provision in Justice and Security Act 2013 for the ISC to make unilateral decisions on public release of classified info. Usually needs PM to agree....

But graduated in 2023 - so the loan building up from 2019/2020 with no repayments until 2023 at earliest?

Pippa can I congratulate you on typing that without resorting to the following emojis:

😂🤣🤪🤡🤭

Might wanna drop those kneepads off at Congress