Starmer GOES OFF THE RAILS In MASSIVE Argument Over Posistion At PMQ's!

And hello everybody. Welcome back to the

channel. Guys, today was Prime

Minister's questions. A guest armor

arrived with the attitude as if the

whole thing was buried. The whole thing

is over now with regard to the Peter

Mandlesson appointment. He wanted to

move on with things. However, of course,

when being questioned by fellow MPs, uh

the leader of the opposition again went

in and asked more questions with regard

to it. However, again, he just didn't

want to answer them or at least answer

the questions properly and had the

attitude as if, oh, it's all done now.

I' I'm all clean. That's me. Let's crack

on and normal proceedings. And towards

the end, he is asked to resign as the

prime minister of the United Kingdom.

And then goes off the rails, says he's

delivering for the British people, doing

all this sorts of stuff. He's the man

that's going to deliver change to this

country. Unfortunately guys, he's not

going anywhere. Have a watch of this,

but first please do hit the like button

and at the subscribe button for more.

>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the prime

minister stand by his statement at the

dispatch box on the 10th of September

last year that full due process was

followed in the appointment of Peter

Mandlesson as our ambassador to

Washington?

>> Yes, I do. Uh, Mr. Speaker, let me make

clear at the outset that the appointment

itself was a mistake. It was my mistake.

I've apologized to the victims uh for it

and I do so again. What I set out to the

house on Monday is that foreign office

granted security clearance to Mandlesen

against the recommendation of UK

security vetting. Yesterday, Sir Ole

Robbins was asked if he shared that

decision with me, number 10, or any

other ministers. He gave a clear answer.

No, Mr. Speaker, that puts to bed all

the allegations leveled at me by those

opposite in relation to the sodesty.

I believe I believe last week they were

all saying that it must have been shared

with me. So Ollie was very clear

yesterday it was not. I believe not

sharing it was a serious error of

judgment. That information should have

been shared with me and other ministers.

And if it had have been, Mandlesson

would not have been committed to post.

>> Mr. Speaker, it does not put to bed

anything.

>> On the 11th of November, 2024, long

before any uh vetting had happened, the

prime minister received advice from

Simon Casease, the then cabinet

secretary. The advice said the

appointment would require and I quote

the necessary security clearances before

confirming the prime minister's choice.

This advice was ignored.

>> So how can the prime minister still

believe that confirming Mandlesson

before the security clearances was

following full due process?

>> Mr. Speaker, this was looked into by

Chris Wormold. I asked him to review the

appointment process including the

vetting. He confirmed Mr. Speaker his

words appropriate processes were

followed. She's put great weight on the

order events. I remember what a reminder

what s Chris said last November in

evidence to the house. He said this and

I quote, "When we are making

appointments from outside the civil

service, the normal thing is for

security clearance to happen after

appointment but before the person signs

a contract and takes up post." That is

what happened in this case. Sir Ole

Robbins himself, Mr. speaker uh also

gave gave evidence and he said and I

quote as is normally the case with

external appointments to in his

department the appointment was made

subject to obtaining security clearance.

Mr. Speaker on top of that sir Ollle

Robbins has made clear that the fact

that develop vetting was after

announcement made in his words no

material difference to the conclusion

that was reached and Mr. Speaker, I'd

add this that what uh Sari Robbins wrote

to the committee yesterday was this and

I quote, "When the prime minister

informed the house that the proper

process had been followed in respect of

national security vetting, he was

correct.

>> It's very interesting that he mentions

Chris Warmald. He is relying on advice

given to him after Mandolson was sacked

by a cabinet secretary the prime

minister then sacked. That is not

relevant. I'm talking about the advice

he was given before the appointment.

>> He keeps mentioning Sir Ollie Robbins.

Sir Ollie Robbins told us that the prime

minister even sought clearance from his

majesty the king before the vetting.

He'd already got agreement from the US

administration. The chair of the select

committee said that Mandlesson was a

done deal. Yesterday, Sir Ollie Robbins

said that the focus was on getting

Mandlesson out to Washington quickly.

>> He said the prime minister's team showed

a dismissive attitude to vetting and

they even argued Peter Mandolen didn't

need any vetting at all.

>> This clearly wasn't proper process. Why

was due process not followed?

>> Mr. Speaker, let me deal with this

directly, particularly this question of

pressure uh in relation to the uh

decision uh to appoint and to put into

post Peter Mandlesson. So Ollie Robbins

could not have been clearer in his

evidence yesterday. He said this, I I

didn't feel under pressure personally in

terms of my judgment. His words, Mr.

speaker. He went on he went on to say he

went on to say, "I have complete

confidence that recommendations to me

and the discussions we had and the

decision we made were rigorously

independent of any pressure." Mr.

Speaker, on top of that, he was asked if

any conversations led him to believe

that Mandles needed to take up the role

regardless of vetting outcome. He said,

"I can say with certainty, it was never

put to me in that way. No pressure

existed whatsoever in relation to this

case. What is unacceptable is that the

recommendation of UKSV

was not given to me before Mandlesson

took up his post.

>> Mr. Speaker, we all heard what Sir Ollie

Robbins said yesterday. The fact of the

matter is that the prime minister spent

a lot of time telling us just how

furious he was to learn that Mandlesson

failed the vetting. The same prime

minister who was trying to get into

Washington without any vetting at all,

which is unbelievable. The reason the

cabinet secretary advised the prime

minister to carry out full vetting

before the appointment, this is common

sense, Mr. Speaker, carry out full

vetting before the appointment was to

protect our national security. The due

diligence document said Mandolen

remained on the board of the Kremlin

linked defense company Systemma long

after Putin's first invasion of Ukraine

in 2014. The prime minister told us on

Monday that he'd read that due diligence

report. Why did the prime minister want

to make a man with links to the Kremlin

our ambassador in Washington?

>> Well, Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the

first allegation she put in that

question. It was always the case that

would be developed vetting in this case.

That was the understood process that was

carried out. It was reviewed by Sir

Chris Warmold and he said it was the

appropriate process.

So Ollie was absolutely clear that

nobody put pressure on him to make this

appointment. either e whatever the

sequence are developed a vetting in

relation to what was in the due process

any issues of national security are

dealt with in the developed vetting

process. I knew that Peter Manderson

received clearance through that process.

The problem was as I said to the house I

was unaware that UKSV recommended