Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Starmer is toast.
As I have been describing over on Emergency Podcast, Starmer isn't just toast, he's the toast you've accidentally incinerated and have to scrape all the burn off with a knife...
Isn't he toast that has self-incinerated? All this it seems to me is down to him ignoring multitudes of advice and going with McSweeney's desire to get Mandelson into the Oval Office for meetings.
I'm convinced that he owed Mandelson and making him Ambassador was payback.
The Prime Minister should not feel under any obligation except towards the voters. If Starmer doesn't go over this then it degrades British democracy.
No, rottenborough is right. Mandelson was McSweeney's mucker, not Starmer's. It's ironies all the way down.
If it's all McSweeney's doing, and Starmer falls over this, then it raises the question: how many other British Prime Ministers have been brought down by an Irishman?
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
The earnest better would be wise to check the T's and C's before wading in!
And avoid Betfair, who will make it up as they go along!
They've published the Rules, though I think it's changed slightly since I placed a bet.
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
The earnest better would be wise to check the T's and C's before wading in!
Oh, and it's 'bettor'. You need to report yourself to the Pedantry Police.
If I was Kemi I would look and point at each cabinet minister on the front bench and simply ask just how can you continue to serve under a PM who puts political expediency above national security
Todays release of Case's advise has to be career ending
Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?
This is the point I made repeatedly yesterday. This was not some arcane and remote issue for the PM, it was something he was fielding questions on every week (or at least every week he chose to turn up) where he was having to be very careful about what he said in the context of an ongoing police investigation. I simply do not find it credible that someone with the background and experience of the PM would not have been all over this and only found out that Mandelson failed the DV last week. His whole defence was, as usual, all the correct procedures were followed. Did he really put that forward without knowing?
This is so obvious and for an experienced lawyer an utter failure of his due dilligence
But lawyers also know how not to ask question when it's best they don't know something. Like not asking their client whether they are guilty, for example...
Maybe plausible deniability was the aim from the beginning...
This comment is massively misleading about lawyers. There are Trollope novels - Orley Farm for example - where the impression is given that lawyers (solicitors and barristers, especially Chaffenbrass) walk into court without having troubled their client about giving their account of what happened.
None of this is even slightly true about the disciplines, rules and practices of criminal lawyers. Whether or not the client's account of the facts amounts to a criminal offence (guilt) is central to their concerns.
That's not really what I meant.
So it's not true that a lawyer is unable to represent a client they know to be guilty? Perhaps I got that from watching too much American TV!
Known to be guilty of what exactly? Even if I admit the funds were in my account, perhaps they were just resting there.
From decades' old recollections of Rumpole, a barrister can represent a client known to be guilty – making the prosecution prove its case, knocking charges down to lesser offences, and mitigation after a guilty verdict. What they can't do is run a defence that is directly contradicted by the client's instructions. If only we had some actual lawyers on PB.
Case said (If you want a political appointment) "you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming you choice"
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
Isn't this a smoking gun? Simon case is spelling out the due process to follow, which he ignored and then told parliament repeatedly that due process was followed.
It turns out that the head of the civil service told Starmer he should get all the security vetting done before he announced who'd be the new ambassador
"Clearly Starmer chose not to do that, [he] chose to ignore formal advice"
Starmer was advised by head of the civil service to gain security clearance for Mandelson before confirming his appointment... but PM ignored this advice
What this demonstrates to me is that relations between Starmer and the Civil Service are now absolutely poisonous. Many governments fall out with their Civil Servants but I cannot honestly recall where Whitehall has been so clear that enough is enough. Even if he survives today governing in such an atmosphere is going to be almost impossible and hopelessly ineffective.
Yes, I think that is right. There seems to be widespread fury across Whitehall at how Olly Robins has been treated and they wont forget.
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
The earnest better would be wise to check the T's and C's before wading in!
Oh, and it's 'bettor'. You need to report yourself to the Pedantry Police.
Punter – ‘bettor’ is a vile Americanism. The clue is in your name.
Simon Case advised that security clearances and due diligence should be done before confirming your choice.
Labour now says the old process still allowed announcement before vetting.
Bad for SKS: the advice pointed one way, No 10 did the other.
20 Dec 24
No 10 announced Mandelson as ambassador.
Accepted.
No dispute: announcement came before vetting.
Late Jan 25
UKSV recommended DV should not be granted.
Labour says Starmer and ministers were not told.
That may well be true on current evidence.
Pre-10 Feb 25
FCDO overrode UKSV and granted clearance anyway.
Labour says this stayed inside FCDO / UKSV.
This is SKS’s best narrow defence on what he knew.
10 Sep 25
Starmer told MPs that full due process was followed and said he had confidence in Mandelson.
Labour later narrowed this to the relevant process for a political appointee.
This is the big shift in the line.
11 Sep 25
Mandelson was withdrawn after the Bloomberg emails; FCDO said the full extent of the relationship was materially different from what was known at appointment.
Labour says Starmer acted when genuinely new information emerged.
Fair enough on the sacking, not on the original judgment.
11 Mar 26
Government published the first Humble Address tranche and said future diplomatic appointments will not be announced until vetting is complete.
Labour says the process was followed but was not strong enough.
That is effectively an admission the old process was defective.
14-15 Apr 26
No 10’s own readout says the PM was first told on 14 Apr that UKSV had recommended against DV and that FCDO had overruled it. It also says ministers may have inadvertently misled Parliament.
Labour now says SKS was kept in the dark and officials failed to flag the key fact.
Best evidence so far: helps him on “did he know?”, but concedes Parliament may have been misled.
17 Apr 26
Starmer said it was “staggering” and “unforgivable” that he had not been told Mandelson failed vetting.
Labour line hardens: PM not told, no minister told, officials at fault.
Plausible, but still leaves SKS looking careless with his earlier wording.
Summary: on the public record so far, there is not yet proof that SKS knowingly lied about the failed-vetting decision itself. The strongest current primary document actually helps him on that narrow point.
Conclusion: but I do think he gave the House a misleading picture of the process. “Full due process was followed” was far too sweeping when the appointment was announced before vetting, the original advice said clearances should come first, and the process later had to be rewritten so it could not happen again. So for now this looks less like a proven knowing lie, and more like a serious overstatement that was at best inadvertent and at worst reckless.
Built from Hansard, GOV.UK releases, the 17 Apr 26 No 10 document release, and contemporaneous reporting. Stops before Starmer’s later Commons statement today.
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
I would expect him to announce his resignation and to remain until the new leader is elected
Indeed. When was the last time a PM, or any party leader, didn’t do this? I’m sure it’s happened, but it’s uncommon.
EDIT: a propos of nothing, I’m eating a very nice homemade pistachio ice cream.
Brown was the most recent example (2010) I can remember, where a leader stood down and an interim leader (Harman) was in charge during the leadership contest. Then you have the not quite the same situation when Smith died while Labour leader and so am interim leader was required (I think that was Beckett).
In the past leadership contests for the Tories were dealt with much more quickly, since they didn't involve the party membership, and so the question hardly arises.
If I was Kemi I would look and point at each cabinet minister on the front bench and simply ask just how can you continue to serve under a PM who puts political expediency above national security
Todays release of Case's advise has to be career ending
As usual you live on cuckoo land
At least Boris only ate cake not like Starmer who put politics before national security
I wonder how Brixy is dealing with the factual upgrade
Another disaster for Kemi ?
If Kemi gets her scalp, the running order of people most pissed off will be:
3. Starmer 2. Brixy 1. Nigel Farage. Kemi getting results as the LotO - ooh, that's got to hurt. Especially just before the locals. 5% rise for Kemi's Tories, 5% drop for Reform?
(and Labour polling in single digits, to the benefit of the Greens?)
That would be the twitter twat who accused him of lying and deception on Friday, and.no doubt having been warned of the utter stupidity of saying such lies in public has immediately tried back and u turned again.
We've seen before an opposition leader losing any credibility by missing an own goal.
She's blown any reasonable attack before she's even walked on the pitch
The experienced Tories sat behind her today will be as much worth watching as the ones behind Starmer.
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
Imagine the PMQs in the interregnum.
Why would the deputy not become PM until replaced?
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
The earnest better would be wise to check the T's and C's before wading in!
Oh, and it's 'bettor'. You need to report yourself to the Pedantry Police.
Punter – ‘bettor’ is a vile Americanism. The clue is in your name.
I didn't actually know that, DJ. I tend to use 'punter' to avoid the difficulty but outside the UK and notably in the US the meaning is different.
We need to standardise the world's language - to English of course.
Simon Case advised that security clearances and due diligence should be done before confirming your choice.
Labour now says the old process still allowed announcement before vetting.
Bad for SKS: the advice pointed one way, No 10 did the other.
20 Dec 24
No 10 announced Mandelson as ambassador.
Accepted.
No dispute: announcement came before vetting.
Late Jan 25
UKSV recommended DV should not be granted.
Labour says Starmer and ministers were not told.
That may well be true on current evidence.
Pre-10 Feb 25
FCDO overrode UKSV and granted clearance anyway.
Labour says this stayed inside FCDO / UKSV.
This is SKS’s best narrow defence on what he knew.
10 Sep 25
Starmer told MPs that full due process was followed and said he had confidence in Mandelson.
Labour later narrowed this to the relevant process for a political appointee.
This is the big shift in the line.
11 Sep 25
Mandelson was withdrawn after the Bloomberg emails; FCDO said the full extent of the relationship was materially different from what was known at appointment.
Labour says Starmer acted when genuinely new information emerged.
Fair enough on the sacking, not on the original judgment.
11 Mar 26
Government published the first Humble Address tranche and said future diplomatic appointments will not be announced until vetting is complete.
Labour says the process was followed but was not strong enough.
That is effectively an admission the old process was defective.
14-15 Apr 26
No 10’s own readout says the PM was first told on 14 Apr that UKSV had recommended against DV and that FCDO had overruled it. It also says ministers may have inadvertently misled Parliament.
Labour now says SKS was kept in the dark and officials failed to flag the key fact.
Best evidence so far: helps him on “did he know?”, but concedes Parliament may have been misled.
17 Apr 26
Starmer said it was “staggering” and “unforgivable” that he had not been told Mandelson failed vetting.
Labour line hardens: PM not told, no minister told, officials at fault.
Plausible, but still leaves SKS looking careless with his earlier wording.
Summary: on the public record so far, there is not yet proof that SKS knowingly lied about the failed-vetting decision itself. The strongest current primary document actually helps him on that narrow point.
Conclusion: but I do think he gave the House a misleading picture of the process. “Full due process was followed” was far too sweeping when the appointment was announced before vetting, the original advice said clearances should come first, and the process later had to be rewritten so it could not happen again. So for now this looks less like a proven knowing lie, and more like a serious overstatement that was at best inadvertent and at worst reckless.
Built from Hansard, GOV.UK releases, the 17 Apr 26 No 10 document release, and contemporaneous reporting. Stops before Starmer’s later Commons statement today.
If I was Kemi I would look and point at each cabinet minister on the front bench and simply ask just how can you continue to serve under a PM who puts political expediency above national security
Todays release of Case's advise has to be career ending
As usual you live on cuckoo land
He's fucked mate. Even if this doesn't finish him entirely, his authority is massively damaged and his "I am the good guy" persona trashed.
Fucked. With a capital Fuck.
And here's the thing. Had he been a Tory you would have been jumping up and down screaming blue murder. So grow a pair and drop the screaming hypocrisy.
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
I would expect him to announce his resignation and to remain until the new leader is elected
Indeed. When was the last time a PM, or any party leader, didn’t do this? I’m sure it’s happened, but it’s uncommon.
EDIT: a propos of nothing, I’m eating a very nice homemade pistachio ice cream.
Brown was the most recent example (2010) I can remember, where a leader stood down and an interim leader (Harman) was in charge during the leadership contest. Then you have the not quite the same situation when Smith died while Labour leader and so am interim leader was required (I think that was Beckett).
In the past leadership contests for the Tories were dealt with much more quickly, since they didn't involve the party membership, and so the question hardly arises.
Both of those were in Opposition though, not in Government.
There’s no such thing as a temporary Prime Minister, so you’d expect SKS to do as the recent Tory leaders did and stay on as PM - at least de facto - until the contest concludes.
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
Imagine the PMQs in the interregnum.
Why would the deputy not become PM until replaced?
Labours process is Cabinet/NEC agree a temporary leader if the PM steps down immediately. I think its someone who wont be running in the leadership contest but i dont know for sure
Simon Case advised that security clearances and due diligence should be done before confirming your choice.
Labour now says the old process still allowed announcement before vetting.
Bad for SKS: the advice pointed one way, No 10 did the other.
20 Dec 24
No 10 announced Mandelson as ambassador.
Accepted.
No dispute: announcement came before vetting.
Late Jan 25
UKSV recommended DV should not be granted.
Labour says Starmer and ministers were not told.
That may well be true on current evidence.
Pre-10 Feb 25
FCDO overrode UKSV and granted clearance anyway.
Labour says this stayed inside FCDO / UKSV.
This is SKS’s best narrow defence on what he knew.
10 Sep 25
Starmer told MPs that full due process was followed and said he had confidence in Mandelson.
Labour later narrowed this to the relevant process for a political appointee.
This is the big shift in the line.
11 Sep 25
Mandelson was withdrawn after the Bloomberg emails; FCDO said the full extent of the relationship was materially different from what was known at appointment.
Labour says Starmer acted when genuinely new information emerged.
Fair enough on the sacking, not on the original judgment.
11 Mar 26
Government published the first Humble Address tranche and said future diplomatic appointments will not be announced until vetting is complete.
Labour says the process was followed but was not strong enough.
That is effectively an admission the old process was defective.
14-15 Apr 26
No 10’s own readout says the PM was first told on 14 Apr that UKSV had recommended against DV and that FCDO had overruled it. It also says ministers may have inadvertently misled Parliament.
Labour now says SKS was kept in the dark and officials failed to flag the key fact.
Best evidence so far: helps him on “did he know?”, but concedes Parliament may have been misled.
17 Apr 26
Starmer said it was “staggering” and “unforgivable” that he had not been told Mandelson failed vetting.
Labour line hardens: PM not told, no minister told, officials at fault.
Plausible, but still leaves SKS looking careless with his earlier wording.
Summary: on the public record so far, there is not yet proof that SKS knowingly lied about the failed-vetting decision itself. The strongest current primary document actually helps him on that narrow point.
Conclusion: but I do think he gave the House a misleading picture of the process. “Full due process was followed” was far too sweeping when the appointment was announced before vetting, the original advice said clearances should come first, and the process later had to be rewritten so it could not happen again. So for now this looks less like a proven knowing lie, and more like a serious overstatement that was at best inadvertent and at worst reckless.
Built from Hansard, GOV.UK releases, the 17 Apr 26 No 10 document release, and contemporaneous reporting. Stops before Starmer’s later Commons statement today.
That's an excellent piece of work,.
struggling to get PB to honour the column widths though
I wonder how Brixy is dealing with the factual upgrade
Another disaster for Kemi ?
If Kemi gets her scalp, the running order of people most pissed off will be:
3. Starmer 2. Brixy 1. Nigel Farage. Kemi getting results as the LotO - ooh, that's got to hurt. Especially just before the locals. 5% rise for Kemi's Tories, 5% drop for Reform?
(and Labour polling in single digits, to the benefit of the Greens?)
That would be the twitter twat who accused him of lying and deception on Friday, and.no doubt having been warned of the utter stupidity of saying such lies in public has immediately tried back and u turned again.
We've seen before an opposition leader losing any credibility by missing an own goal.
She's blown any reasonable attack before she's even walked on the pitch
The experienced Tories sat behind her today will be as much worth watching as the ones behind Starmer.
How does it feel to be the last rat on the sinking ship?
Simon Case advised that security clearances and due diligence should be done before confirming your choice.
Labour now says the old process still allowed announcement before vetting.
Bad for SKS: the advice pointed one way, No 10 did the other.
20 Dec 24
No 10 announced Mandelson as ambassador.
Accepted.
No dispute: announcement came before vetting.
Late Jan 25
UKSV recommended DV should not be granted.
Labour says Starmer and ministers were not told.
That may well be true on current evidence.
Pre-10 Feb 25
FCDO overrode UKSV and granted clearance anyway.
Labour says this stayed inside FCDO / UKSV.
This is SKS’s best narrow defence on what he knew.
10 Sep 25
Starmer told MPs that full due process was followed and said he had confidence in Mandelson.
Labour later narrowed this to the relevant process for a political appointee.
This is the big shift in the line.
11 Sep 25
Mandelson was withdrawn after the Bloomberg emails; FCDO said the full extent of the relationship was materially different from what was known at appointment.
Labour says Starmer acted when genuinely new information emerged.
Fair enough on the sacking, not on the original judgment.
11 Mar 26
Government published the first Humble Address tranche and said future diplomatic appointments will not be announced until vetting is complete.
Labour says the process was followed but was not strong enough.
That is effectively an admission the old process was defective.
14-15 Apr 26
No 10’s own readout says the PM was first told on 14 Apr that UKSV had recommended against DV and that FCDO had overruled it. It also says ministers may have inadvertently misled Parliament.
Labour now says SKS was kept in the dark and officials failed to flag the key fact.
Best evidence so far: helps him on “did he know?”, but concedes Parliament may have been misled.
17 Apr 26
Starmer said it was “staggering” and “unforgivable” that he had not been told Mandelson failed vetting.
Labour line hardens: PM not told, no minister told, officials at fault.
Plausible, but still leaves SKS looking careless with his earlier wording.
Summary: on the public record so far, there is not yet proof that SKS knowingly lied about the failed-vetting decision itself. The strongest current primary document actually helps him on that narrow point.
Conclusion: but I do think he gave the House a misleading picture of the process. “Full due process was followed” was far too sweeping when the appointment was announced before vetting, the original advice said clearances should come first, and the process later had to be rewritten so it could not happen again. So for now this looks less like a proven knowing lie, and more like a serious overstatement that was at best inadvertent and at worst reckless.
Built from Hansard, GOV.UK releases, the 17 Apr 26 No 10 document release, and contemporaneous reporting. Stops before Starmer’s later Commons statement today.
That's a really excellent summary Sweeney.
What becomes more intriguing by the hour is the question of why Starmer was so keen to have Mandelson installed in the first place, despite the obvious risks.
Simon Case advised that security clearances and due diligence should be done before confirming your choice.
Labour now says the old process still allowed announcement before vetting.
Bad for SKS: the advice pointed one way, No 10 did the other.
20 Dec 24
No 10 announced Mandelson as ambassador.
Accepted.
No dispute: announcement came before vetting.
Late Jan 25
UKSV recommended DV should not be granted.
Labour says Starmer and ministers were not told.
That may well be true on current evidence.
Pre-10 Feb 25
FCDO overrode UKSV and granted clearance anyway.
Labour says this stayed inside FCDO / UKSV.
This is SKS’s best narrow defence on what he knew.
10 Sep 25
Starmer told MPs that full due process was followed and said he had confidence in Mandelson.
Labour later narrowed this to the relevant process for a political appointee.
This is the big shift in the line.
11 Sep 25
Mandelson was withdrawn after the Bloomberg emails; FCDO said the full extent of the relationship was materially different from what was known at appointment.
Labour says Starmer acted when genuinely new information emerged.
Fair enough on the sacking, not on the original judgment.
11 Mar 26
Government published the first Humble Address tranche and said future diplomatic appointments will not be announced until vetting is complete.
Labour says the process was followed but was not strong enough.
That is effectively an admission the old process was defective.
14-15 Apr 26
No 10’s own readout says the PM was first told on 14 Apr that UKSV had recommended against DV and that FCDO had overruled it. It also says ministers may have inadvertently misled Parliament.
Labour now says SKS was kept in the dark and officials failed to flag the key fact.
Best evidence so far: helps him on “did he know?”, but concedes Parliament may have been misled.
17 Apr 26
Starmer said it was “staggering” and “unforgivable” that he had not been told Mandelson failed vetting.
Labour line hardens: PM not told, no minister told, officials at fault.
Plausible, but still leaves SKS looking careless with his earlier wording.
Summary: on the public record so far, there is not yet proof that SKS knowingly lied about the failed-vetting decision itself. The strongest current primary document actually helps him on that narrow point.
Conclusion: but I do think he gave the House a misleading picture of the process. “Full due process was followed” was far too sweeping when the appointment was announced before vetting, the original advice said clearances should come first, and the process later had to be rewritten so it could not happen again. So for now this looks less like a proven knowing lie, and more like a serious overstatement that was at best inadvertent and at worst reckless.
Built from Hansard, GOV.UK releases, the 17 Apr 26 No 10 document release, and contemporaneous reporting. Stops before Starmer’s later Commons statement today.
One question will be how common has it been for political appointments to have been made pre vetting? I suspect it was standard, I can't imagine the likes of Cumming and Campbell would have had any patience for such stuff when they were running things. So if they can find some examples from previous PMs then thats enough to overcome this one too.
Of course his authority is gone and he is a lame duck but one that will still wobble into 2027 imo.
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
Imagine the PMQs in the interregnum.
Why would the deputy not become PM until replaced?
They can do but the terms of the market are "Next permanent", but please carry on,
The quoted model was, as has been said before, a case of starting with the conclusion then working backwards to substantiate it, hence all the ridiculous counterfactuals.
Even worse than the typical GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. It was instead "this is our output, how do we back that up" resulting in utter garbage going in as the only way to match the predetermined out.
If I was Kemi I would look and point at each cabinet minister on the front bench and simply ask just how can you continue to serve under a PM who puts political expediency above national security
Todays release of Case's advise has to be career ending
As usual you live on cuckoo land
At least Boris only ate cake not like Starmer who put politics before national security
Simon Case advised that security clearances and due diligence should be done before confirming your choice.
Labour now says the old process still allowed announcement before vetting.
Bad for SKS: the advice pointed one way, No 10 did the other.
20 Dec 24
No 10 announced Mandelson as ambassador.
Accepted.
No dispute: announcement came before vetting.
Late Jan 25
UKSV recommended DV should not be granted.
Labour says Starmer and ministers were not told.
That may well be true on current evidence.
Pre-10 Feb 25
FCDO overrode UKSV and granted clearance anyway.
Labour says this stayed inside FCDO / UKSV.
This is SKS’s best narrow defence on what he knew.
10 Sep 25
Starmer told MPs that full due process was followed and said he had confidence in Mandelson.
Labour later narrowed this to the relevant process for a political appointee.
This is the big shift in the line.
11 Sep 25
Mandelson was withdrawn after the Bloomberg emails; FCDO said the full extent of the relationship was materially different from what was known at appointment.
Labour says Starmer acted when genuinely new information emerged.
Fair enough on the sacking, not on the original judgment.
11 Mar 26
Government published the first Humble Address tranche and said future diplomatic appointments will not be announced until vetting is complete.
Labour says the process was followed but was not strong enough.
That is effectively an admission the old process was defective.
14-15 Apr 26
No 10’s own readout says the PM was first told on 14 Apr that UKSV had recommended against DV and that FCDO had overruled it. It also says ministers may have inadvertently misled Parliament.
Labour now says SKS was kept in the dark and officials failed to flag the key fact.
Best evidence so far: helps him on “did he know?”, but concedes Parliament may have been misled.
17 Apr 26
Starmer said it was “staggering” and “unforgivable” that he had not been told Mandelson failed vetting.
Labour line hardens: PM not told, no minister told, officials at fault.
Plausible, but still leaves SKS looking careless with his earlier wording.
Summary: on the public record so far, there is not yet proof that SKS knowingly lied about the failed-vetting decision itself. The strongest current primary document actually helps him on that narrow point.
Conclusion: but I do think he gave the House a misleading picture of the process. “Full due process was followed” was far too sweeping when the appointment was announced before vetting, the original advice said clearances should come first, and the process later had to be rewritten so it could not happen again. So for now this looks less like a proven knowing lie, and more like a serious overstatement that was at best inadvertent and at worst reckless.
Built from Hansard, GOV.UK releases, the 17 Apr 26 No 10 document release, and contemporaneous reporting. Stops before Starmer’s later Commons statement today.
That's a really excellent summary Sweeney.
What becomes more intriguing by the hour is the question of why Starmer was so keen to have Mandelson installed in the first place, despite the obvious risks.
Maybe we will find out soon.
The interesting issue now is less “did SKS personally know the UKSV recommendation?” and more “did Olly Robbins simply operate the old system exactly as designed?”. On the public record so far, that looks quite possible. The 17 Apr No 10 paper itself says there was departmental discretion to grant clearance despite a negative UKSV recommendation, and Jones told the Commons last September that ministers were told only the final outcome, not the underlying vetting findings. If so, Robbins may have done what the system contemplated: take the political decision as fixed, apply mitigations, grant clearance, and keep the detailed vetting result tightly held. If that is right, No 10 is now trying to hang Robbins for behaving more or less in line with the process they themselves previously described. Which in turn makes SKS’s “full due process was followed” line look less like a careful truth and more like an over-confident political gloss on a process he had not properly nailed down.
Simon Case advised that security clearances and due diligence should be done before confirming your choice.
Labour now says the old process still allowed announcement before vetting.
Bad for SKS: the advice pointed one way, No 10 did the other.
20 Dec 24
No 10 announced Mandelson as ambassador.
Accepted.
No dispute: announcement came before vetting.
Late Jan 25
UKSV recommended DV should not be granted.
Labour says Starmer and ministers were not told.
That may well be true on current evidence.
Pre-10 Feb 25
FCDO overrode UKSV and granted clearance anyway.
Labour says this stayed inside FCDO / UKSV.
This is SKS’s best narrow defence on what he knew.
10 Sep 25
Starmer told MPs that full due process was followed and said he had confidence in Mandelson.
Labour later narrowed this to the relevant process for a political appointee.
This is the big shift in the line.
11 Sep 25
Mandelson was withdrawn after the Bloomberg emails; FCDO said the full extent of the relationship was materially different from what was known at appointment.
Labour says Starmer acted when genuinely new information emerged.
Fair enough on the sacking, not on the original judgment.
11 Mar 26
Government published the first Humble Address tranche and said future diplomatic appointments will not be announced until vetting is complete.
Labour says the process was followed but was not strong enough.
That is effectively an admission the old process was defective.
14-15 Apr 26
No 10’s own readout says the PM was first told on 14 Apr that UKSV had recommended against DV and that FCDO had overruled it. It also says ministers may have inadvertently misled Parliament.
Labour now says SKS was kept in the dark and officials failed to flag the key fact.
Best evidence so far: helps him on “did he know?”, but concedes Parliament may have been misled.
17 Apr 26
Starmer said it was “staggering” and “unforgivable” that he had not been told Mandelson failed vetting.
Labour line hardens: PM not told, no minister told, officials at fault.
Plausible, but still leaves SKS looking careless with his earlier wording.
Summary: on the public record so far, there is not yet proof that SKS knowingly lied about the failed-vetting decision itself. The strongest current primary document actually helps him on that narrow point.
Conclusion: but I do think he gave the House a misleading picture of the process. “Full due process was followed” was far too sweeping when the appointment was announced before vetting, the original advice said clearances should come first, and the process later had to be rewritten so it could not happen again. So for now this looks less like a proven knowing lie, and more like a serious overstatement that was at best inadvertent and at worst reckless.
Built from Hansard, GOV.UK releases, the 17 Apr 26 No 10 document release, and contemporaneous reporting. Stops before Starmer’s later Commons statement today.
That's a really excellent summary Sweeney.
What becomes more intriguing by the hour is the question of why Starmer was so keen to have Mandelson installed in the first place, despite the obvious risks.
Maybe we will find out soon.
We all know why. The likes of Gove and Farage amongst others on the right even supported the appointment too, at the time.
Contemporaneous article here covers it better than anything written today with hindsight bias.
Simon Case advised that security clearances and due diligence should be done before confirming your choice.
Labour now says the old process still allowed announcement before vetting.
Bad for SKS: the advice pointed one way, No 10 did the other.
20 Dec 24
No 10 announced Mandelson as ambassador.
Accepted.
No dispute: announcement came before vetting.
Late Jan 25
UKSV recommended DV should not be granted.
Labour says Starmer and ministers were not told.
That may well be true on current evidence.
Pre-10 Feb 25
FCDO overrode UKSV and granted clearance anyway.
Labour says this stayed inside FCDO / UKSV.
This is SKS’s best narrow defence on what he knew.
10 Sep 25
Starmer told MPs that full due process was followed and said he had confidence in Mandelson.
Labour later narrowed this to the relevant process for a political appointee.
This is the big shift in the line.
11 Sep 25
Mandelson was withdrawn after the Bloomberg emails; FCDO said the full extent of the relationship was materially different from what was known at appointment.
Labour says Starmer acted when genuinely new information emerged.
Fair enough on the sacking, not on the original judgment.
11 Mar 26
Government published the first Humble Address tranche and said future diplomatic appointments will not be announced until vetting is complete.
Labour says the process was followed but was not strong enough.
That is effectively an admission the old process was defective.
14-15 Apr 26
No 10’s own readout says the PM was first told on 14 Apr that UKSV had recommended against DV and that FCDO had overruled it. It also says ministers may have inadvertently misled Parliament.
Labour now says SKS was kept in the dark and officials failed to flag the key fact.
Best evidence so far: helps him on “did he know?”, but concedes Parliament may have been misled.
17 Apr 26
Starmer said it was “staggering” and “unforgivable” that he had not been told Mandelson failed vetting.
Labour line hardens: PM not told, no minister told, officials at fault.
Plausible, but still leaves SKS looking careless with his earlier wording.
Summary: on the public record so far, there is not yet proof that SKS knowingly lied about the failed-vetting decision itself. The strongest current primary document actually helps him on that narrow point.
Conclusion: but I do think he gave the House a misleading picture of the process. “Full due process was followed” was far too sweeping when the appointment was announced before vetting, the original advice said clearances should come first, and the process later had to be rewritten so it could not happen again. So for now this looks less like a proven knowing lie, and more like a serious overstatement that was at best inadvertent and at worst reckless.
Built from Hansard, GOV.UK releases, the 17 Apr 26 No 10 document release, and contemporaneous reporting. Stops before Starmer’s later Commons statement today.
One question will be how common has it been for political appointments to have been made pre vetting? I suspect it was standard, I can't imagine the likes of Cumming and Campbell would have had any patience for such stuff when they were running things. So if they can find some examples from previous PMs then thats enough to overcome this one too.
Of course his authority is gone and he is a lame duck but one that will still wobble into 2027 imo.
Political appointments are risky at the best of times, and I referred to the case of Peter Jay and Jim Callaghan earlier as a good comparison. I suppose you can fudge the Vetting issue if it all works out ok, as it did in the end with Jay. But if it all goes tits up, like it has here, you really have a problem.
Case’s advice raises serious concerns - very serious concerns. In plain terms, the Prime Minister was told by the country’s most senior civil servant to submit the proposed name, allow proper vetting, and only then make a decision. On the face of it, that process was not followed; instead, the Prime Minister established a separate approach.
If the overnight reporting from the Times is accurate, this advice also creates difficulties for Olly Robbins’ defence. Case clearly states that the Prime Minister should provide the name of their preferred candidate so that a plan can be developed to secure the necessary clearances and carry out due diligence on any potential conflicts of interest or other relevant issues - specifically, issues “of which you should be aware.” That wording matters. It challenges any claim that the Prime Minister ought not to be informed of such concerns and instead makes clear they should be disclosed to enable a fully informed decision.
Simon Case advised that security clearances and due diligence should be done before confirming your choice.
Labour now says the old process still allowed announcement before vetting.
Bad for SKS: the advice pointed one way, No 10 did the other.
20 Dec 24
No 10 announced Mandelson as ambassador.
Accepted.
No dispute: announcement came before vetting.
Late Jan 25
UKSV recommended DV should not be granted.
Labour says Starmer and ministers were not told.
That may well be true on current evidence.
Pre-10 Feb 25
FCDO overrode UKSV and granted clearance anyway.
Labour says this stayed inside FCDO / UKSV.
This is SKS’s best narrow defence on what he knew.
10 Sep 25
Starmer told MPs that full due process was followed and said he had confidence in Mandelson.
Labour later narrowed this to the relevant process for a political appointee.
This is the big shift in the line.
11 Sep 25
Mandelson was withdrawn after the Bloomberg emails; FCDO said the full extent of the relationship was materially different from what was known at appointment.
Labour says Starmer acted when genuinely new information emerged.
Fair enough on the sacking, not on the original judgment.
11 Mar 26
Government published the first Humble Address tranche and said future diplomatic appointments will not be announced until vetting is complete.
Labour says the process was followed but was not strong enough.
That is effectively an admission the old process was defective.
14-15 Apr 26
No 10’s own readout says the PM was first told on 14 Apr that UKSV had recommended against DV and that FCDO had overruled it. It also says ministers may have inadvertently misled Parliament.
Labour now says SKS was kept in the dark and officials failed to flag the key fact.
Best evidence so far: helps him on “did he know?”, but concedes Parliament may have been misled.
17 Apr 26
Starmer said it was “staggering” and “unforgivable” that he had not been told Mandelson failed vetting.
Labour line hardens: PM not told, no minister told, officials at fault.
Plausible, but still leaves SKS looking careless with his earlier wording.
Summary: on the public record so far, there is not yet proof that SKS knowingly lied about the failed-vetting decision itself. The strongest current primary document actually helps him on that narrow point.
Conclusion: but I do think he gave the House a misleading picture of the process. “Full due process was followed” was far too sweeping when the appointment was announced before vetting, the original advice said clearances should come first, and the process later had to be rewritten so it could not happen again. So for now this looks less like a proven knowing lie, and more like a serious overstatement that was at best inadvertent and at worst reckless.
Built from Hansard, GOV.UK releases, the 17 Apr 26 No 10 document release, and contemporaneous reporting. Stops before Starmer’s later Commons statement today.
One question will be how common has it been for political appointments to have been made pre vetting? I suspect it was standard, I can't imagine the likes of Cumming and Campbell would have had any patience for such stuff when they were running things. So if they can find some examples from previous PMs then thats enough to overcome this one too.
Of course his authority is gone and he is a lame duck but one that will still wobble into 2027 imo.
Political appointments are risky at the best of times, and I referred to the case of Peter Jay and Jim Callaghan earlier as a good comparison. I suppose you can fudge the Vetting issue if it all works out ok, as it did in the end with Jay. But if it all goes tits up, like it has here, you really have a problem.
Vetting at the top level is weird. Does anyone believe the likes of Gabbard and Hesketh would pass vetting at an entry level position in their departments? Of course not.
Simon Case advised that security clearances and due diligence should be done before confirming your choice.
Labour now says the old process still allowed announcement before vetting.
Bad for SKS: the advice pointed one way, No 10 did the other.
20 Dec 24
No 10 announced Mandelson as ambassador.
Accepted.
No dispute: announcement came before vetting.
Late Jan 25
UKSV recommended DV should not be granted.
Labour says Starmer and ministers were not told.
That may well be true on current evidence.
Pre-10 Feb 25
FCDO overrode UKSV and granted clearance anyway.
Labour says this stayed inside FCDO / UKSV.
This is SKS’s best narrow defence on what he knew.
10 Sep 25
Starmer told MPs that full due process was followed and said he had confidence in Mandelson.
Labour later narrowed this to the relevant process for a political appointee.
This is the big shift in the line.
11 Sep 25
Mandelson was withdrawn after the Bloomberg emails; FCDO said the full extent of the relationship was materially different from what was known at appointment.
Labour says Starmer acted when genuinely new information emerged.
Fair enough on the sacking, not on the original judgment.
11 Mar 26
Government published the first Humble Address tranche and said future diplomatic appointments will not be announced until vetting is complete.
Labour says the process was followed but was not strong enough.
That is effectively an admission the old process was defective.
14-15 Apr 26
No 10’s own readout says the PM was first told on 14 Apr that UKSV had recommended against DV and that FCDO had overruled it. It also says ministers may have inadvertently misled Parliament.
Labour now says SKS was kept in the dark and officials failed to flag the key fact.
Best evidence so far: helps him on “did he know?”, but concedes Parliament may have been misled.
17 Apr 26
Starmer said it was “staggering” and “unforgivable” that he had not been told Mandelson failed vetting.
Labour line hardens: PM not told, no minister told, officials at fault.
Plausible, but still leaves SKS looking careless with his earlier wording.
Summary: on the public record so far, there is not yet proof that SKS knowingly lied about the failed-vetting decision itself. The strongest current primary document actually helps him on that narrow point.
Conclusion: but I do think he gave the House a misleading picture of the process. “Full due process was followed” was far too sweeping when the appointment was announced before vetting, the original advice said clearances should come first, and the process later had to be rewritten so it could not happen again. So for now this looks less like a proven knowing lie, and more like a serious overstatement that was at best inadvertent and at worst reckless.
Built from Hansard, GOV.UK releases, the 17 Apr 26 No 10 document release, and contemporaneous reporting. Stops before Starmer’s later Commons statement today.
That's a really excellent summary Sweeney.
What becomes more intriguing by the hour is the question of why Starmer was so keen to have Mandelson installed in the first place, despite the obvious risks.
Maybe we will find out soon.
Presumably it's because Starmer's close advisors were acolytes of Mandelson so they were advising Starmer to appoint him, because Mandelson desperately wanted the role.
Simon Case advised that security clearances and due diligence should be done before confirming your choice.
Labour now says the old process still allowed announcement before vetting.
Bad for SKS: the advice pointed one way, No 10 did the other.
20 Dec 24
No 10 announced Mandelson as ambassador.
Accepted.
No dispute: announcement came before vetting.
Late Jan 25
UKSV recommended DV should not be granted.
Labour says Starmer and ministers were not told.
That may well be true on current evidence.
Pre-10 Feb 25
FCDO overrode UKSV and granted clearance anyway.
Labour says this stayed inside FCDO / UKSV.
This is SKS’s best narrow defence on what he knew.
10 Sep 25
Starmer told MPs that full due process was followed and said he had confidence in Mandelson.
Labour later narrowed this to the relevant process for a political appointee.
This is the big shift in the line.
11 Sep 25
Mandelson was withdrawn after the Bloomberg emails; FCDO said the full extent of the relationship was materially different from what was known at appointment.
Labour says Starmer acted when genuinely new information emerged.
Fair enough on the sacking, not on the original judgment.
11 Mar 26
Government published the first Humble Address tranche and said future diplomatic appointments will not be announced until vetting is complete.
Labour says the process was followed but was not strong enough.
That is effectively an admission the old process was defective.
14-15 Apr 26
No 10’s own readout says the PM was first told on 14 Apr that UKSV had recommended against DV and that FCDO had overruled it. It also says ministers may have inadvertently misled Parliament.
Labour now says SKS was kept in the dark and officials failed to flag the key fact.
Best evidence so far: helps him on “did he know?”, but concedes Parliament may have been misled.
17 Apr 26
Starmer said it was “staggering” and “unforgivable” that he had not been told Mandelson failed vetting.
Labour line hardens: PM not told, no minister told, officials at fault.
Plausible, but still leaves SKS looking careless with his earlier wording.
Summary: on the public record so far, there is not yet proof that SKS knowingly lied about the failed-vetting decision itself. The strongest current primary document actually helps him on that narrow point.
Conclusion: but I do think he gave the House a misleading picture of the process. “Full due process was followed” was far too sweeping when the appointment was announced before vetting, the original advice said clearances should come first, and the process later had to be rewritten so it could not happen again. So for now this looks less like a proven knowing lie, and more like a serious overstatement that was at best inadvertent and at worst reckless.
Built from Hansard, GOV.UK releases, the 17 Apr 26 No 10 document release, and contemporaneous reporting. Stops before Starmer’s later Commons statement today.
That's a really excellent summary Sweeney.
What becomes more intriguing by the hour is the question of why Starmer was so keen to have Mandelson installed in the first place, despite the obvious risks.
Maybe we will find out soon.
The interesting issue now is less “did SKS personally know the UKSV recommendation?” and more “did Olly Robbins simply operate the old system exactly as designed?”. On the public record so far, that looks quite possible. The 17 Apr No 10 paper itself says there was departmental discretion to grant clearance despite a negative UKSV recommendation, and Jones told the Commons last September that ministers were told only the final outcome, not the underlying vetting findings. If so, Robbins may have done what the system contemplated: take the political decision as fixed, apply mitigations, grant clearance, and keep the detailed vetting result tightly held. If that is right, No 10 is now trying to hang Robbins for behaving more or less in line with the process they themselves previously described. Which in turn makes SKS’s “full due process was followed” line look less like a careful truth and more like an over-confident political gloss on a process he had not properly nailed down.
The process predates the Labour govt though, presumably? That the process had long been subverted for political convenience and that the new Labour govt was unaware of this can still both be true.
What is apparent from the former CS briefings is that they are out for Starmer, so even if there is no actual smoking gun they are going to do their best to imply there is one. It is going to be a very hard struggle for him to survive this, particularly if Mandelson is also out for revenge. The only thing in his favour is that his most ambitious rivals are compromised currently.
Simon Case advised that security clearances and due diligence should be done before confirming your choice.
Labour now says the old process still allowed announcement before vetting.
Bad for SKS: the advice pointed one way, No 10 did the other.
20 Dec 24
No 10 announced Mandelson as ambassador.
Accepted.
No dispute: announcement came before vetting.
Late Jan 25
UKSV recommended DV should not be granted.
Labour says Starmer and ministers were not told.
That may well be true on current evidence.
Pre-10 Feb 25
FCDO overrode UKSV and granted clearance anyway.
Labour says this stayed inside FCDO / UKSV.
This is SKS’s best narrow defence on what he knew.
10 Sep 25
Starmer told MPs that full due process was followed and said he had confidence in Mandelson.
Labour later narrowed this to the relevant process for a political appointee.
This is the big shift in the line.
11 Sep 25
Mandelson was withdrawn after the Bloomberg emails; FCDO said the full extent of the relationship was materially different from what was known at appointment.
Labour says Starmer acted when genuinely new information emerged.
Fair enough on the sacking, not on the original judgment.
11 Mar 26
Government published the first Humble Address tranche and said future diplomatic appointments will not be announced until vetting is complete.
Labour says the process was followed but was not strong enough.
That is effectively an admission the old process was defective.
14-15 Apr 26
No 10’s own readout says the PM was first told on 14 Apr that UKSV had recommended against DV and that FCDO had overruled it. It also says ministers may have inadvertently misled Parliament.
Labour now says SKS was kept in the dark and officials failed to flag the key fact.
Best evidence so far: helps him on “did he know?”, but concedes Parliament may have been misled.
17 Apr 26
Starmer said it was “staggering” and “unforgivable” that he had not been told Mandelson failed vetting.
Labour line hardens: PM not told, no minister told, officials at fault.
Plausible, but still leaves SKS looking careless with his earlier wording.
Summary: on the public record so far, there is not yet proof that SKS knowingly lied about the failed-vetting decision itself. The strongest current primary document actually helps him on that narrow point.
Conclusion: but I do think he gave the House a misleading picture of the process. “Full due process was followed” was far too sweeping when the appointment was announced before vetting, the original advice said clearances should come first, and the process later had to be rewritten so it could not happen again. So for now this looks less like a proven knowing lie, and more like a serious overstatement that was at best inadvertent and at worst reckless.
Built from Hansard, GOV.UK releases, the 17 Apr 26 No 10 document release, and contemporaneous reporting. Stops before Starmer’s later Commons statement today.
One question will be how common has it been for political appointments to have been made pre vetting? I suspect it was standard, I can't imagine the likes of Cumming and Campbell would have had any patience for such stuff when they were running things. So if they can find some examples from previous PMs then thats enough to overcome this one too.
Of course his authority is gone and he is a lame duck but one that will still wobble into 2027 imo.
Alastair Campbell described his own vetting in a recent TRiP. I imagine Dominic Cummings was similar – iirc someone posted here DC's musings.
If I was Kemi I would look and point at each cabinet minister on the front bench and simply ask just how can you continue to serve under a PM who puts political expediency above national security
Todays release of Case's advise has to be career ending
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
The earnest better would be wise to check the T's and C's before wading in!
Oh, and it's 'bettor'. You need to report yourself to the Pedantry Police.
Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?
This is the point I made repeatedly yesterday. This was not some arcane and remote issue for the PM, it was something he was fielding questions on every week (or at least every week he chose to turn up) where he was having to be very careful about what he said in the context of an ongoing police investigation. I simply do not find it credible that someone with the background and experience of the PM would not have been all over this and only found out that Mandelson failed the DV last week. His whole defence was, as usual, all the correct procedures were followed. Did he really put that forward without knowing?
This is so obvious and for an experienced lawyer an utter failure of his due dilligence
But lawyers also know how not to ask question when it's best they don't know something. Like not asking their client whether they are guilty, for example...
Maybe plausible deniability was the aim from the beginning...
This comment is massively misleading about lawyers. There are Trollope novels - Orley Farm for example - where the impression is given that lawyers (solicitors and barristers, especially Chaffenbrass) walk into court without having troubled their client about giving their account of what happened.
None of this is even slightly true about the disciplines, rules and practices of criminal lawyers. Whether or not the client's account of the facts amounts to a criminal offence (guilt) is central to their concerns.
That's not really what I meant.
So it's not true that a lawyer is unable to represent a client they know to be guilty? Perhaps I got that from watching too much American TV!
Known to be guilty of what exactly? Even if I admit the funds were in my account, perhaps they were just resting there.
From decades' old recollections of Rumpole, a barrister can represent a client known to be guilty – making the prosecution prove its case, knocking charges down to lesser offences, and mitigation after a guilty verdict. What they can't do is run a defence that is directly contradicted by the client's instructions. If only we had some actual lawyers on PB.
They also can't lie on the client's behalf. Should the defendant tell his lawyer outright that he's guilty, then the lawyer can't plead not guilty on his behalf.
Starmer 2022: "Look, there are only two possible explanations. Either he's trashing the ministerial code, or he is claiming he was repeatedly lied to by his own advisers and did not know what was going on in his own house and his own office. Come off it."
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Before the Union Scotland was shut out of a lot of trade with England. Access to English markets was one of the main reasons for Scotland signing up.
No it was not, it was down to some rich f****rs wanting even more money , people had no say in it. It was sold by a parcel of rogues for gold.
Month Starmer replaced as Labour leader April-June 2026 4.7-5.6 July-Sept 2026 2.66-2.68 Oct-Dec 2026 7.4-8.2 2027 or later 3.2-3.7
That April - June departure looks like free money.
I don't see how he survives Mandy combined with the slaughter of the Local Innocents. If he makes it that far.
If he resigns in mid-May or even now, the contest to replace him will take a while, so he probably wouldn’t be replaced as Labour leader until July. It ain’t free money.
The earnest better would be wise to check the T's and C's before wading in!
Oh, and it's 'bettor'. You need to report yourself to the Pedantry Police.
So "bettor" is better than "better", but "punter" is better than "bettor". "Better" is worse than "bettor" and worse than "punter", but"bettor" is better than "better" but worse than "punter". Which is better than everything.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Before the Union Scotland was shut out of a lot of trade with England. Access to English markets was one of the main reasons for Scotland signing up.
No it was not, it was down to some rich f****rs wanting even more money , people had no say in it. It was sold by a parcel of rogues for gold.
Which just goes to show that, as Terry Pratchett once said, the eternal enemy of the Scots are...the Scots.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Before the Union Scotland was shut out of a lot of trade with England. Access to English markets was one of the main reasons for Scotland signing up.
No it was not, it was down to some rich f****rs wanting even more money , people had no say in it. It was sold by a parcel of rogues for gold.
Which just goes to show that, as Terry Pratchett once said, the eternal enemy of the Scots are...the Scots.
Starmer 2022: "Look, there are only two possible explanations. Either he's trashing the ministerial code, or he is claiming he was repeatedly lied to by his own advisers and did not know what was going on in his own house and his own office. Come off it."
Starmer 2022: "Look, there are only two possible explanations. Either he's trashing the ministerial code, or he is claiming he was repeatedly lied to by his own advisers and did not know what was going on in his own house and his own office. Come off it."
If I was Kemi I would look and point at each cabinet minister on the front bench and simply ask just how can you continue to serve under a PM who puts political expediency above national security
Todays release of Case's advise has to be career ending
As usual you live on cuckoo land
At least Boris only ate cake not like Starmer who put politics before national security
This is career ending
You are not having that.
I said from the start Starmer should fall on his sword for an egregious error. It is a shame he didn't on Thursday when the Guardian story broke. Where does the buck stop?
But this utter lie from PB Tories that Johnson was merely ambushed by a cake is unacceptable rubbish.
As for Johnson not being a scandalous national security threat can I remind you of a serving Foreign Secretary attending an alleged sex party sans minders at the home of a KGB Grandee. (You started the whataboutery)?
Or Johnson putting Priti Patel in the Cabinet after she had been sacked by Theresa May for operating a clandestine foreign policy with Israel.
Comments
Looking at you, Jenrick.
Hur hur hur....
From decades' old recollections of Rumpole, a barrister can represent a client known to be guilty – making the prosecution prove its case, knocking charges down to lesser offences, and mitigation after a guilty verdict. What they can't do is run a defence that is directly contradicted by the client's instructions. If only we had some actual lawyers on PB.
Mandelson / SKS timeline
Summary: on the public record so far, there is not yet proof that SKS knowingly lied about the failed-vetting decision itself. The strongest current primary document actually helps him on that narrow point.
Conclusion: but I do think he gave the House a misleading picture of the process. “Full due process was followed” was far too sweeping when the appointment was announced before vetting, the original advice said clearances should come first, and the process later had to be rewritten so it could not happen again. So for now this looks less like a proven knowing lie, and more like a serious overstatement that was at best inadvertent and at worst reckless.
Built from Hansard, GOV.UK releases, the 17 Apr 26 No 10 document release, and contemporaneous reporting. Stops before Starmer’s later Commons statement today.
In the past leadership contests for the Tories were dealt with much more quickly, since they didn't involve the party membership, and so the question hardly arises.
This is career ending
We've seen before an opposition leader losing any credibility by missing an own goal.
She's blown any reasonable attack before she's even walked on the pitch
The experienced Tories sat behind her today will be as much worth watching as the ones behind Starmer.
Why would the deputy not become PM until replaced?
We need to standardise the world's language - to English of course.
Fucked. With a capital Fuck.
And here's the thing. Had he been a Tory you would have been jumping up and down screaming blue murder. So grow a pair and drop the screaming hypocrisy.
There’s no such thing as a temporary Prime Minister, so you’d expect SKS to do as the recent Tory leaders did and stay on as PM - at least de facto - until the contest concludes.
What becomes more intriguing by the hour is the question of why Starmer was so keen to have Mandelson installed in the first place, despite the obvious risks.
Maybe we will find out soon.
Of course his authority is gone and he is a lame duck but one that will still wobble into 2027 imo.
The quoted model was, as has been said before, a case of starting with the conclusion then working backwards to substantiate it, hence all the ridiculous counterfactuals.
Even worse than the typical GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. It was instead "this is our output, how do we back that up" resulting in utter garbage going in as the only way to match the predetermined out.
https://news.sky.com/liveblog-webview/politics-latest-keir-starmer-peter-mandelson-vetting-commons-iran-war-olly-robbins-12593360
Contemporaneous article here covers it better than anything written today with hindsight bias.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/22/peter-mandelson-is-being-sent-to-washington-to-join-the-battle-for-donald-trumps-ear#:~:text=1 year old-,Peter Mandelson is being sent to Washington to join the,a very good ambassador there.”
If the overnight reporting from the Times is accurate, this advice also creates difficulties for Olly Robbins’ defence. Case clearly states that the Prime Minister should provide the name of their preferred candidate so that a plan can be developed to secure the necessary clearances and carry out due diligence on any potential conflicts of interest or other relevant issues - specifically, issues “of which you should be aware.” That wording matters. It challenges any claim that the Prime Minister ought not to be informed of such concerns and instead makes clear they should be disclosed to enable a fully informed decision.
NEW THREAD
That the process had long been subverted for political convenience and that the new Labour govt was unaware of this can still both be true.
What is apparent from the former CS briefings is that they are out for Starmer, so even if there is no actual smoking gun they are going to do their best to imply there is one. It is going to be a very hard struggle for him to survive this, particularly if Mandelson is also out for revenge. The only thing in his favour is that his most ambitious rivals are compromised currently.
Should the defendant tell his lawyer outright that he's guilty, then the lawyer can't plead not guilty on his behalf.
Rayner into 3.65, £1400 wanting to back
Streeting 8.2-9 having been 12 earlier
https://x.com/guidofawkes/status/2046206405762338917?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
I said from the start Starmer should fall on his sword for an egregious error. It is a shame he didn't on Thursday when the Guardian story broke. Where does the buck stop?
But this utter lie from PB Tories that Johnson was merely ambushed by a cake is unacceptable rubbish.
As for Johnson not being a scandalous national security threat can I remind you of a serving Foreign Secretary attending an alleged sex party sans minders at the home of a KGB Grandee. (You started the whataboutery)?
Or Johnson putting Priti Patel in the Cabinet after she had been sacked by Theresa May for operating a clandestine foreign policy with Israel.