Nigel says either Kia Starmer has been completely dishonest or the prime minister isn't actually in control of the government. Something doesn't quite add up in Westminster. The prime minister insists the rules were followed yet behind closed doors.
Security vetting was allegedly overruled for one of the most sensitive diplomatic roles in Britain. Is whether he did it knowingly or inadvertently surely. No, I don't think he has misled parliament.
And as number 10 made clear last night, the prime minister was only told uh about this on Tuesday evening this week, uh he then commissioned the cabinet secretary to provide him with the full chronology. In fact, so that he Now the question isn't just what happened. It's who knew and when.
Was parliament misled or is this something far bigger, a systemic failure at the very top of government? Astonishing. I think people are finding it almost impossible to believe um that the prime minister and the foreign secretary did not know that such an important appointment at such a crucial time the person that they had announced had been appointed and then confirmed had been appointed had actually failed security vetting.
Do you believe it? Stay with me because what you're about to hear raises serious questions about accountability, transparency, and control in British politics. And if you value uncensored political analysis, hit subscribe now because we go where mainstream media won't.
Opposition leaders this morning are hankering for Saki Starmmer to resign uh as prime minister because it's been revealed that Lord Mandlesson in fact had failed his security vetting before he became ambassador to the US. Well, the prime minister repeatedly told MPs and reporters and all of us that the process had been followed before it became clear last night that officials actually overruled that process to appoint Manderson. Well, we're joined now by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones.
Um, good morning to you, Mr Jones. Can I ask you first of all when you knew that Mandlesson had failed the vetting process and what you were told? Good morning.
I was told Oh, I found out yesterday afternoon whilst I was campaigning in Southampton in the local elections when the Guardian news story broke. I immediately returned to London to be briefed uh on the situation. And what I was told was that the established process uh where UK security vetting had conducted uh in investigations into Peter Manderson in order to provide clearance concluded in them recommending to the foreign office to not appoint him to the role of ambassador to the United States but that the foreign office overruled that recommendation and appointed him and therefore granted DB clearance and appointed him to the role.
And the thing that is quite astonishing about this is not just the individual case of Peter Mandlesson, but the fact that this was allowed to happen in the first place. And I was told again last night that there is the Foreign Office and a small number of other organizations who have the right to ignore the recommendations of UK security vetting when appointing people to sensitive roles. I find that completely astonishing.
And so last night, nobody finds it astonishing. I think people are finding it almost impossible to believe um that the prime minister and the foreign secretary did not know that such an important appointment at such a crucial time the person that they had announced had been appointed and then confirmed had been appointed had actually failed security vetting. Do you believe it?
I believe it on the terms I've been presented it in. The prime minister and the foreign secretary are as furious as no doubt you and your viewers as well as the rest of us and no doubt parliament will be. But as I say, as soon as I found out last night that the foreign office and a small number of other organizations have the right to ignore the recommendation of UK security vetting, I immediately suspended those rights and I've asked for an urgent audit to understand how often uh this uh right has been used.
And this is part of course of a wider independent review of the vetting process that I was due to announce. um very shortly. But this has put the prime minister, the foreign secretary and the government in an extremely difficult uh position because the foreign office overruled the recommendation to appoint Peter Mandlesson, not just any person to a particular role, but to the ambassador of the United States and a political appointment uh from the prime minister.
This is this is deeply deeply unacceptable. Um a and that's why I've taken immediate action to ensure that this process can't be used again and why the prime minister will be going to the House of Commons on Monday when it sits uh next to update the house on what has happened. So am I to understand then that you believe that sir Ollle Robbins who had to taken up the most senior post in the foreign office at the time and has now been sacked that your understanding is that he almost unilaterally overruled the security vetting procedure of our country and what I'm sure you asked why would he do that so just to be clear I have not personally spoken to Ollie Robbins those conversations were via the cabinet secretary and I'm sure the foreign secretary yesterday and overnight but this is a failing of the foreign office which was able to take this decision to ignore the security recommendation not to appoint him and the fact that ministers were not told I I mean any minister would be furious about that in any set of circumstances this set of circumstances uh is just wildly uh worse uh and so you will understand that I'm as astonished as you are that this was able to happen in the first place and why the prime minister and the foreign secretary and as I say no doubt parliament will be incandescent that this was able to happen in the first place.
Do you know why he failed his security vetting? I have not seen the documents in question. Uh viewers might want to know that the UK security vetting process is a deeply intrusive process that looks at people's bank accounts, sources of income, uh past and current relationships, particular views to get a broad picture.
This is supposed to be the most enhanced process for security checking for people coming into sensitive jobs. Those documents are not made available to ministers. um they are not um shared with people but a conclusion and a summary is put to the employee employing department in this case the foreign office for them to be able to make a a judgment.
So, I have not seen that information, but I do know that they recommended not to appoint. And of course, his sacking in public came because of the Epstein files um and um suggestions that when he was um in a business job, and of course, this is now under investigation by the police, we understand, you know, about potentially leaking information that was um sensitive to national security and the economy. Um the question remains of course about misleading parliament for the prime minister.
That is the uh ministerial code of conduct that if a minister if the prime minister knowingly misled parliament then the uh only action is to resign. That is what the opposition leaders are saying. That is what lots of our viewers will be questioning this morning that how is the prime minister's position tenable in the light of this catastrophic dysfunction at the top of government.
So the prime minister has not misled the House of Commons and I think any scrutiny of the words the prime minister has used from the Well, he has misled parliament but the question is whether he did it knowingly or inadvertently. Surely no I don't think he has misled parliament and as look at that that hesitation says a lot. That's not confidence that's pressure.
This is what political scrambling looks like in real time. number 10 made clear last night. The prime minister was only told about this on Tuesday evening this week.
Uh he then commissioned the cabinet secretary to provide him with the full chronology in fact so that he could immediately come to the House of Commons to update parliament of the situation. Um so that information has only been available to the prime minister for a number of hours until the story broke yesterday afternoon. Okay.
But let me ask you this question perhaps in a different way then. The announcement was made by the prime minister in the December of 2024 that Peter Mandlesson was going to be appointed as the British ambassador to Washington. The security vetting had not at that point perhaps even started and certainly not finished.
Why then, if it's not misleading parliament, why did the prime minister feel confident to announce the appointment of somebody who had a very dodgy background anyway in public? We know this had been sacked before. John McDonald, Labour Grandandy, had all himself had said this is a startling announcement, you know, of Peter Mandlesson given his background.
Why was the prime minister confident in December of 2024 before the security vetting process had even begun or even finished? That was an incompetency, wasn't it, on the prime minister's part? Why couldn't he have waited four weeks?
And then perhaps he would have been able to say, "In this instance now, I waited to hear the security vetting. I was lied to. Now, actually, whether he was lied to or not, he announced it before the security vetting result even came in.
Why? For the appointment of ambassadors in particular, and as far as I'm aware, this doesn't relate to any other type of public appointment. Ambassadors will often be announced before their employment is confirmed.
It's a process called Agrial and it's about the host country. So, in this case, the United States uh accepting and formalizing the appointment in that role. So there is a period between political announcement and effective start of employment.
The developed vetting process has always in the past taken place between those two points. That has though contributed uh to this unacceptable situation. I confirmed to the house a number of weeks ago in response to the humble address process where we're publishing the documents about Peter Manderson's appointment in order to provide full transparency to parliament to the public that that process will now change and that clearance will have to be uh granted before public announcement let alone before confirmation of employment.
Would you say this is the biggest crisis to engulf the prime minister? Uh this is unacceptable uh not just in relation to Peter Mandlesson and the difficult position it puts the prime minister in but as far as I'm concerned the fact that this process existed in the foreign office and a small number of other organizations that allow them to overrule the recommendation to appoint somebody to a sensitive role on the basis of security vetting uh is astonishing. The fact that was allowed to happen in the first place is beyond comprehension.
That's why immediately last night I suspended those rights and why we'll be reviewing the entire process. Good to speak to you this morning, Mr Jones. Thank you very much indeed.
And we've already had a lot of reaction, haven't we, to this? And I think Nigel on email sums it up quite nicely. Let us know what you think having heard Darren Jones this morning giving that quite sober assessment of what he thinks has gone wrong.
Uh Nigel says either Kia Starmer has been completely dishonest or the prime minister isn't actually in control of the government, which raises far more troubling questions. It's genuinely unsettling to watch, and it leaves me feeling uncomfortable. If you want analysis that actually challenges the narrative, make sure you like this video, subscribe to the channel, and share it with someone who needs to see this.
And most importantly, drop your opinion in the comments. Do you think this was incompetence or something far more deliberate?
