Starmer seemingly lied about Mandelson vetting

Starmer — On 17 April, it emerged that Peter Mandelson had failed vetting for the ambassador to the US position.

In one sense, this was unsurprising, because he was Peter Mandelson, and he literally should have failed the vetting process as soon as he entered his name.

On the other, it was really quite shocking, because it meant Starmer’s government was seemingly more lazy and corrupt than the Tories.

Since then, Starmer and his few remaining allies have tried to convince us that actually Number 10 knew nothing, and this whole affair is merely the grossest incompetence imaginable.

The problem is that this line of defence has failed to hold up to scrutiny, and now ministers are squirming on the telly when asked about it:

Liz Kendall is asked about David Maddox asking Number 10 about Mandelson failing the vetting months ago, despite the PM saying he only found out last week.

Kendall refuses to comment, saying she can't speak on behalf of number tens director of communications. https://t.co/DzX9KJxMMW pic.twitter.com/pDW1k0ytsc

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 19, 2026

Truth economics

In the clip above, host Trevor Phillips says to Kendall:

All right, on September the 11th last year, a journalist called David Maddox wrote to the director of communications at Number 10, Tim Allan, saying that he’d been told by two sources that Mandelson had not cleared vetting, asking for a comment. Here’s Allan’s reply. Basically, he says, vetting was done by the Foreign Office in a normal way. Was Allan being, as they say, economical with the truth, or did he just not know that there had been a problem with the vetting?

Kendall responded:

You will have to ask those questions to Tim Allan yourself. I’m not going to speak on behalf of him and I don’t think that’s fair that I do.

She’s literally doing the media round on the week of what may be Starmer’s biggest scandal; surely she could have come prepared? This is especially true given that Allan isn’t even in government anymore, so he probably won’t be answering any questions himself.

Phillips continued:

He was responding for the Prime Minister to a journalist. The Prime Minister is now saying he didn’t know anything about this vetting.

A somewhat panicked Kendall responded:

Let me go back to what I said. All ministers were told that he had got developed vetting status. We were not told… that the Foreign Office took that decision, whereas the UK security… advised against. We were not told that. We’re just coming back to the same issue here, Trevor.

And if we had known that, he wouldn’t have been appointed in the first place.

The problem, Liz, is that Starmer saw fit to appoint Mandelson before the vetting was even complete. So he would have been appointed. And this makes it look like Starmer wanted him in the role regardless of how the vetting process shook out.

It’s a problem other ministers have struggled to explain:

So we're being asked to believe that Starmer announced the appointment of Mandelson before the security vetting had been completed and didn't then enquire about the vetting at any point subsequently, and according to Darren Jones this means due process was followed at all times pic.twitter.com/WckCGE8rbC

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 17, 2026

It’s also a problem we knew before now, begging the question: why didn’t Starmer confirm if Mandelson was even vetted?

🚨 NEW: Peter Mandelson was given access to highly-classified Government briefings before he had completed formal vetting pic.twitter.com/M11hCPrjpm

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) March 11, 2026

Starmer in deeper

This problem goes back further than Maddox too:

Starmer's team were warned in 2023 that Peter Mandelson was a major security and vetting risk.https://t.co/4Ztk2ue5Tp

— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) April 19, 2026

Starmer had every reason to suspect that Mandelson wouldn’t pass vetting.

Now, we’re supposed to believe Mandelson was vetted, and no one even bothered to confirm if he’d passed?

As Paul Holden, author of The Fraud, wrote:

So Starmer’s team were briefed by ACTUAL security services about Mandelson risks in 2023/24, which they ignore. Simultaneously, Labour Together, (“provisional wing of Starmerism”) got private firms to investigate journalists and treat THOSE lunatic conspiracies seriously?

If accurate, looks like sec services pointed out potential concerns about Russia and Mandelson. That are ignored. But the mad inventions linking me and other legit investigate journalists to “pro-Kremlin” networks are treated to so seriously they’re reported to GCHQ.

So we know Starmer’s people were spying on journalists and also that they did a piss poor job vetting Mandelson (at the very least).

As such, it’s easy to come to the conclusion that the Starmer operation is a recklessly criminal enterprise.

We’re sure no one will face consequences, but clearly these things must be crimes, or the rule of law is a joke.

And this is how ridiculous the government looks when it tries to defend all this:

Liz Kendall denies that giving a top govt job to a man sacked from the cabinet twice, who was best pal with a billionaire paedophile, in any way put the UKs national security at risk. pic.twitter.com/U8zYjZ1bhQ

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 19, 2026

There’s more

As Saul Staniforth documented, Kendall had more shameless moments too:

Liz Kendall says Epsteins victims are being ignored in all of this

So #trevorphillips calls out Starmers hypocrisy – if the victims should be front & centre why did the PM appoint Mandelson originally?

Kendall tells us Starmer cares so much about violence against women & girls pic.twitter.com/HRsxTIoLN7

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 19, 2026

This is like saying we need to think about Jerry as you’re feeding him to Tom.

To end with some levity, Kendall also said:

Liz Kendall says Keir Starmer is a man of honesty and integrity. https://t.co/10b0kEIKss pic.twitter.com/sULBhDjaxO

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 19, 2026

What do you mean she wasn’t joking?

Featured image via BBC