Do we believe Starmer?

Added: 2026-05-05

[00:00:00]Do we believe Sakir Starmer? His excuse for failing to tell the House of Commons that Peter Mandlesson had not passed his developed vetting is that nobody told him. Like Mavity, he wasn't there. He was absent. The information didn't filter through. He was in blissful, joyful, happy ignorance. What a state for a prime minister to be in. And this leads on to the question of whether he is a nave or a fool. He's a nave if he's lied. He's a fool if he didn't know. But let's look at those in turn. Let's look at nave first. Do we believe him? And why do I personally not believe him? I don't believe him on a number of grounds. First of all, it seems to me inconceivable that such an important decision would have been made without some discussion around it. What did Sir Oliver Robbins say to the select committee? He said there was political input in the most high-profile decisions. In that political input, there's usually a discussion. It's not just somebody saying X and getting no response. There is somebody saying, "Well, we want this to happen." and the civil servant replying well there may be some difficulties what would you want me to do if not the formal order to say if he isn't cleared you must override it saying well I know it's your decision but it would be very helpful if you came to the conclusion that he was all right that in the circumstances it was fine and of course it's a prime ministerial decision whether that's the prime minister himself saying it or his agents is another matter but the idea that there was no political engagement at all just doesn't seem to me to understand how government works. Wasn't my experience of the discussions you had with civil servants that there were areas that ministers did not decide but were within their department where civil servants spoke to them to have an idea of what they wanted. That is routine within government that you want to know what your political masters because we are a democracy. we are run by the politicians would want you to do in a certain circumstance. So I think that at the very least Sir Oliver Robbins knew that that is what the prime minister wanted and this is something for which leaders have to take responsibility and need to understand.

[00:02:33]Just think of Henry II and Thomas Beckett. What happened to Henry II?

[00:02:37]Well, he said who will rid me of this turbulent priest? Knights went off, murdered Beckett in Canterbury Cathedral, and Henry II had to take responsibility. Henry II had to do penance. He was actually whipped by the monks of Canterbury as his penance for effectively ordering the murder of Beckett. And how is this analogous?

[00:03:00]Well, Starmmer had already announced that he wanted Peter Mandlesson to be ambassador to the United States. And therefore, his underlings fulfill his will. And you cannot when your will is being fulfilled by your underling say it's nothing to do with me. I did not know. But there's more than that because there's actual evidence that Downing Street was made aware of the situation as long ago as last September. a distinguished journalist called David Maddox, who I used to speak to a lot when he was at the Daily Express, less so now he's at the eye newspaper, um had a story last September that Manslson had failed his developed vetting and he asked a question of the Downing Street press office if this were true. He had heard that it had happened because of China rather than because of Epstein. The reply came back saying the vetting was done in the normal way. Now, you may say, well, that came from a press officer. It didn't go anywhere near the prime minister. But again, that's not how the system works.

[00:04:06]If when I was in government, a particularly tricky inquiry came in about something that we didn't want to discuss, was embarrassing, whatever, I would be made aware of it. Why?

[00:04:18]Because it was important. If the person answering the query didn't know the answer, they would go to a special adviser or to the minister himself to find out what the answer was. And this was a pretty explosive question. It was saying Mandlesson had failed his developed vetting. And are we really to believe that that question raised with Downing Street just stayed at a not particularly junior level, the press officer responding was reasonably senior, just stayed there. and he didn't think to say to anybody else in the um Downing Street building, his superiors or even to ministers, I've had a question about the developed vetting because the prime minister was going out saying all the time the process was followed. They knew the prime ministerial line and this fundamentally blew the prime minister's line out of the water line he continued to use in the ensuing six and seven months. So I don't believe the prime minister first of all because I think it's unlikely that there would not have been any instruction at all implicit if not explicit. Secondly I think people have to take responsibility for their desire when they are leaders when that is clearly known. And third this was raised with Downing Street seven months ago. So for all those reasons, I just don't think Starmer's statements add up. And I think he must have known that they weren't actually true. He must have known that the process was one. He had decided upon the outcome before the process had started.

[00:05:53]They weren't the consequence of a process. A process was added on on top.

[00:05:58]But if you think I'm being too cynical, I'm being too harsh on secure. What about the fool argument instead if you don't think he's a nave? Well, here I think it simply shows that he is not in control of his government and this isn't the first time. Some years ago, Star said he wasn't one of those leaders who would blame underlings when things went wrong. In fact, he blames them the whole time. He always tries to find somebody else to blame. And this just isn't good enough. Proper leaders take the blame for themselves. What was it Harry S.

[00:06:33]Truman had in the Oval Office. The buck stops here. If big mistakes are made, they are the responsibility of the prime minister, not of his underlings. And if he's not in control of his government, if he doesn't know what's going on, if he can't give it the sense of direction that he needs, then he's not fit to be prime minister. It's as simple as that.

[00:06:55]He has to lead. He is failing to lead by admitting that he didn't know. And this isn't the first time he didn't know. So I think if he's not a nave, he's a fool.

[00:07:05]And either way, he doesn't deserve to be prime minister. And he has also failed against the ministerial code to keep parliament up to date. This is the third point. The ministerial code says that parliament must be informed as soon as possible if it is inadvertently misled.

[00:07:24]So, if you're really kind-hearted, well, you're one of my subscribers, so I'm sure you're enormously kind-hearted, generous person, you want to think the best of people. You want to think the best of Sakir Dharma, and you've accepted that he's not a nave, and you've thought, well, he's not a fool cuz running government's difficult, and the pressures, can you draw Leviathan out with an all of that are so great that you would forgive him? But then he took time to tell Parliament and indeed didn't tell Parliament he had to have it dragged out by a leak. He knew on Tuesday evening that Mandlesson had failed developed vetting. The record is meant to be corrected as soon as possible. He was at the dispatch box on Wednesday and he did nothing. He said nothing. He allowed the misapprehension to be continued.

[00:08:19]Ministers routinely put corrections in Hansard as soon as they know that they have said something that is wrong. They don't wait until there's been a few days, a recess, an absence of parliament to correct the record. So, not only did he mislead Parliament, you're generous.

[00:08:38]You think it was inadvertent, but then he didn't follow his own code. The ministerial code is the prime minister's code. He didn't follow that to correct the record as soon as he possibly could. It came because of a leak to the Guardian. So on all three grounds, I just think he's got to go. He is not fit for office. And the idea that there's no one else just isn't right. I may not be the greatest admire of any of the Labour candidates, but at least they may be halfway, quarter of the way more competent than this man who just isn't up to the job. As always, thank you very much for listening.