The independent adviser on ministerial standards has rejected calls from the Conservatives for an investigation into Sir Keir Starmer over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the U.S.
Just adds to the impression of no accountability
I disagree. What is the argument for an ethical breach by Starmer?
It’s shocking poor judgement, but that’s all: he took a risk and it blew up in all our faces.
The idea of having Magnus Laurie having some all powerful oversight of the PM would be profoundly undemocratic
Number 10 has claimed there was “no requirement” for Keir Starmer to formally interview Peter Mandelson before appointing him as ambassador to the US. The Times revealed last night that Starmer delegated the job entirely to Morgan McSweeney and Matthew Doyle.
Amazing how nothing ever hits his desk.
The obvious question is, how many of the last 10 US Ambassadors been interviewed by the sitting PM??
If the answer is 10 he has serious questions to answer
If the answer is more than 5, he should explain why not
If its less than 5, their is nothing to see here.
Choosing not to interview someone doesn’t absolve you of responsibility if you appoint them to the role
The most obvious answer to Why not? is that he knew the man so well he didn't need to interview him. But given what came out, did SKS know PM that well? But even if he had interviewed him, all that would probably not have surfaced.
Is interviewing someone the best use of 45 mins of the PM’s time?
A visit to the dentist today and two observations:
1) I spent longer filling in the multiple forms beforehand than I did in the dentist's chair.
2) I paid for it, just as I have to pay for my eye test, my flu jab and any prescriptions I get - is the 'free' NHS only for oldies and those on benefits ?
1) My dentist encourages patients to fill in the paperwork online before the appointment.
2) I pay for dentist, but I am extremely fortunate to have a dentist that has some NHS patients so the fees are very much less than private.
On the dentist my wife and I pay nearly £1,000 pa as there are no NHS dentists taking more patients
A visit to the dentist today and two observations:
1) I spent longer filling in the multiple forms beforehand than I did in the dentist's chair.
2) I paid for it, just as I have to pay for my eye test, my flu jab and any prescriptions I get - is the 'free' NHS only for oldies and those on benefits ?
1) My dentist encourages patients to fill in the paperwork online before the appointment.
2) I pay for dentist, but I am extremely fortunate to have a dentist that has some NHS patients so the fees are very much less than private.
On the dentist my wife and I pay nearly £1,000 pa as there are no NHS dentists taking more patients
We have been in Denplan for over 20 years
My wife and I pay £55 each every six months for a check-up. Mrs C had some work done last year; cost £400.
To be fair we have had excellent service including dental treatment in New Zealand when I lost a crown whilst visiting our son there
AIUI the only ones who get free dentistry are children under 18, pregnant woman and certain low income benefits. Pensioners do if on pensioner credit or low-income.
Given that our kids now have better teeth than USA kids, it seems to have worked.
Personally I went private several years ago, funded mainly via a Health Cash Plan (family had a bad experience with Den Plan as they got older and needed more - it became unsustainable). My recent 3 fillings cost about £250 each .
Another example of Farage wanting to import the worst of US politics to the UK.
Nigel Farage said the ban on handguns brought in after Dunblane was “ludicrous” and should be lifted, arguing handguns ought to be legalised and licensed again. https://x.com/BladeoftheS/status/2032165358610653484
If he has just said that, it is spectacular timing to do it on the 30th Anniversary of Dunblane, which was yesterday.
I Was reminded by this video by a former teacher discussing it in terms of risk assessments as Probability x Consequences, and suggesting that a dead class of small children in a primary school overwhelms any possible argument for "handguns for hobbyists".
Another example of Farage wanting to import the worst of US politics to the UK.
Nigel Farage said the ban on handguns brought in after Dunblane was “ludicrous” and should be lifted, arguing handguns ought to be legalised and licensed again. https://x.com/BladeoftheS/status/2032165358610653484
Not to be out-Righted, Revive Restore UK is introducing a policy of free handguns for all white Christian Brits.
Farage doesn't want to be PM and is subconsciously undermining himself.
Turns out Donald Trump does fancy nuking Iran and a year later there is little left of the world's economy or population.
The internet survives though and on PB the debate goes on. There's anger about Trump destroying everything, it's the majority position, but there is pushback from certain posters.
"Hiroshima. It's ok when a Dem president does it then?"
"Well perhaps if the Dems had had a proper primary instead of choosing Kamala."
"Woke simply had to be defeated. It's a shame it came to this but it's all on the Dems."
"Imagine if Hillary had won in 2016. God help us."
"Hunter Biden's laptop."
NEW THREAD
Go old school.
"At least we missed the chaos of Ed Miliband"
Ed Miliband has caused plenty of chaos without even becoming PM.
Number 10 has claimed there was “no requirement” for Keir Starmer to formally interview Peter Mandelson before appointing him as ambassador to the US. The Times revealed last night that Starmer delegated the job entirely to Morgan McSweeney and Matthew Doyle.
Amazing how nothing ever hits his desk.
The obvious question is, how many of the last 10 US Ambassadors been interviewed by the sitting PM??
If the answer is 10 he has serious questions to answer
If the answer is more than 5, he should explain why not
If its less than 5, their is nothing to see here.
Choosing not to interview someone doesn’t absolve you of responsibility if you appoint them to the role
The unanswered question remains
The obvious question is, how many of the last 10 US Ambassadors been interviewed by the sitting PM??
If the answer is 10 he has serious questions to answer
If the answer is more than 5, he should explain why not
This is roughly where I am at present in my thinking on Hormuz.
This is Trump's personal war, and he (& the USA with him) has been lead by the nose into it by Netanyahu. Meloni of Italy - Trump's most ideologically aligned Euro leader, has in the last 24 hours made comparison with Russia's war on Ukraine. The US Govt has repeatedly attempted to carve up Europe in favour of the Russia / USA pair, to create Trump's dream of a China - USA - Russia tripartite world order, which is a fantasy in his head.
Just looking at the public views of the USA across Europe as an ally, they have reversed from approx. 2:! in favour to 2:! against, almost overnight. Here in the UK Trump lost the sympathy of our military community - normally pro-USA - when he dumped on the service of our 300k military who served in Afghanistan/Iraq.
Trump & co are now openly trying to interfere in European politics to generate extreme Right Governments.
To me it is logical for the former US allies to reach "no attack" agreements with Iran, especially for the Asian allies. It would also be logical for the Gulf States - afaik they did not ask the USA to go to war for Israel, and the attacks on their territory which would result.
In the longer term I think it will be "USA alone", and the three poles will be USA, China, Europe, with Russia as a large, 2nd world dictatorship trying to keep up, as it was decades ago.
The real question for the USA IMO, over the next decade is how it deals with the elements around Trump who are trying to replace the Constitutional settlement with a type of white nationalist theocracy in a democratic costume - driven by white nationalism and conspiracy theories. I can't get close to calling that yet.
In the UK we have been very heavily integrated with the USA, with only perhaps Canada more closely tied in, so it will be very difficult to pivot away decisively - and our main political party of Government over the last 100 years have sought greater closeness, which is no longer a practical future.
"I’d be harsh on Iran. They’ve been beating us psychologically, making us look like a bunch of fools. One bullet shot at one of our men or ships, and I’d do a number on Kharg Island. I’d go in and take it."
And yet he says the Polar opposite when Obama is President explaining that Obama intends to go into Iran as a smokescreen. His USP was no unnecessary wars.
And remember, this wasn't his choice, Bibi dragged him into Iran.
Comments
NEW THREAD
It’s shocking poor judgement, but that’s all: he took a risk and it blew up in all our faces.
The idea of having Magnus Laurie having some all powerful oversight of the PM would be profoundly undemocratic
Given that our kids now have better teeth than USA kids, it seems to have worked.
Personally I went private several years ago, funded mainly via a Health Cash Plan (family had a bad experience with Den Plan as they got older and needed more - it became unsustainable). My recent 3 fillings cost about £250 each
I Was reminded by this video by a former teacher discussing it in terms of risk assessments as Probability x Consequences, and suggesting that a dead class of small children in a primary school overwhelms any possible argument for "handguns for hobbyists".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig_Isng0IlU
The obvious question is, how many of the last 10 US Ambassadors been interviewed by the sitting PM??
If the answer is 10 he has serious questions to answer
If the answer is more than 5, he should explain why not
If its less than 5, their is nothing to see here.
This is Trump's personal war, and he (& the USA with him) has been lead by the nose into it by Netanyahu. Meloni of Italy - Trump's most ideologically aligned Euro leader, has in the last 24 hours made comparison with Russia's war on Ukraine. The US Govt has repeatedly attempted to carve up Europe in favour of the Russia / USA pair, to create Trump's dream of a China - USA - Russia tripartite world order, which is a fantasy in his head.
Just looking at the public views of the USA across Europe as an ally, they have reversed from approx. 2:! in favour to 2:! against, almost overnight. Here in the UK Trump lost the sympathy of our military community - normally pro-USA - when he dumped on the service of our 300k military who served in Afghanistan/Iraq.
Trump & co are now openly trying to interfere in European politics to generate extreme Right Governments.
To me it is logical for the former US allies to reach "no attack" agreements with Iran, especially for the Asian allies. It would also be logical for the Gulf States - afaik they did not ask the USA to go to war for Israel, and the attacks on their territory which would result.
In the longer term I think it will be "USA alone", and the three poles will be USA, China, Europe, with Russia as a large, 2nd world dictatorship trying to keep up, as it was decades ago.
The real question for the USA IMO, over the next decade is how it deals with the elements around Trump who are trying to replace the Constitutional settlement with a type of white nationalist theocracy in a democratic costume - driven by white nationalism and conspiracy theories. I can't get close to calling that yet.
In the UK we have been very heavily integrated with the USA, with only perhaps Canada more closely tied in, so it will be very difficult to pivot away decisively - and our main political party of Government over the last 100 years have sought greater closeness, which is no longer a practical future.
And remember, this wasn't his choice, Bibi dragged him into Iran.
So no consistency whatsoever.