Best Of

This line of "well i would get rid of Petie from the Lords, but its all terrible tricky, we are going to need a working group to explore reform of the rules of the lords", it rather reminds me of all the thousands of minutes banging on about how tricky it was to for Andrew to lose all his titles...then it was done in an afternoon. Or Musky AI allowing people to make dodgy pics, done in a day.

I don't think anyone is saying it's tricky, just that it's up to the House of Lords. The House of Lords is not known as a fast-moving organisation, but there's no mad rush required.

They literally are....Meg Russell, professor of politics at University College London, and director of the university's constitution unit.

A third, which would also remove the title of Lord, is very rare and involves a new act of Parliament, she says.

"Removing the title is a much more difficult process as the title has been bestowed by the Crown," Russell says.

To take away a peerage, "you need legislation to do that", Russell says.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/clynp40ekrdt

A good day to bury bad news, so no-one is talking about the crappy deals Starmer got in China.

He got any deals, news to me? £3 off a bottle of whiskey doesn't count. Unless we are talking about what the Chinese got e.g. super spy HQ signed off.

Errrr.

"whiskey"?

Is some Scottish bloke is going to track me down and kill me now because I used the American spelling....

Only the Scotch Nationalists…

FPT...

Starmer refuses to answer a question from the SNP about whether Mandelson should face a police investigation.

Whether someone should face a police investigation should be for the police to decide, not the government, no?

So any easy one for Mr Forensic to have swatted away then.

The question to ask is not should there be a police investigation into Mandy, it's will you hold a govt investigation into his vetting when you made him ambassador?

Yep. Starmer has no Epstein links and no responsibility for what Mandelson was doing back in Blair/Brown times. What Starmer did was appoint him UK ambassador to Washington. The rationale/process around that (bad) call is where his vulnerability lies.

Notable, as someone pointed out on the previous thread that Ed Miliband was, shall we say, unenthusiastic about having Mandelson in the Labour Shadow Cabinet.

Not all Labour leaders were keen. Mandy was prominent during the Kinnock years, but dropped by John Smith. Then bounced back with Blair, fell out with Brown, but brought back by him later when he became PM. Corbyn not a fan, of course.

FPT...

Starmer refuses to answer a question from the SNP about whether Mandelson should face a police investigation.

Whether someone should face a police investigation should be for the police to decide, not the government, no?

So any easy one for Mr Forensic to have swatted away then.

The question to ask is not should there be a police investigation into Mandy, it's will you hold a govt investigation into his vetting when you made him ambassador?

Yep. Starmer has no Epstein links and no responsibility for what Mandelson was doing back in Blair/Brown times. What Starmer did was appoint him UK ambassador to Washington. The rationale/process around that (bad) call is where his vulnerability lies.

Notable, as someone pointed out on the previous thread that Ed Miliband was, shall we say, unenthusiastic about having Mandelson in the Labour Shadow Cabinet.