Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
The Chancellor and Energy Secretary will signal plans to break the link that means Brits pay gas-level prices for electricity, even when power like wind and solar is doing much of the work.
Labour ( by their standards) have had a good news day. Growth, preempting the CO2 crisis and NHS waiting lists. They even got a cautious/ grudging welcome from Nick Ferrari, but on BBC WATO Labour had experienced a shocker.
If anyone is shocked by the decision that the Mandelson gamble was anything other than Starmer's throw of the dice they are not very good at reading political discourse.
Life can be unfair. Britain was booming in 1997 but Major was turfed out anyway.
The BBC are supposed to be impartial. Sarah Montague is not.
That's your view, others will differ. Lefties think the BBC is right wing. Right wing nutters think the BBC is the denizen of lefties.
And the smug barstewards in the BBC think if they get criticised by everybody that is somehow ok and "proves" that they are doing fine. Its an interesting way of thinking, that is for sure. Try applying it to a referee who makes bad penalty decisions at both ends.
Thing is I DO think the BBC is hideously biased, just not left vs right. Its very urban, and woke (you can bet that BBC email etiquette involves pronouns), its progressive. Its probably vastly white, middle class but is horrified by its own lack of diversity. It has no real feel for the rural community of the country (as shown weekly on Townyfile). It reflects, to a large part, the community of people it employs. University graduates, mainly middle class and from the 'right' background.
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
It may be that Starmer has only just found out that the Foreign Office (not Lammy) sat on the failure of the security clearance because it was just too embarrassing to tell Starmer as Mandelson had already been appointed. Starmer thought Mandelson had passed the security clearance because he hadn't been told to the contrary. What a cockup. If this is what happened, Starmer will have hit the roof today. Heads will roll.
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
It may be that Starmer has only just found out that the Foreign Office (not Lammy) sat on the failure of the security clearance because it was just too embarrassing as Mandelson had already been appointed. Starmer thought Mandelson had passed the security clearance because he hadn't been told to the contrary. What a cockup. If this is what happened, Starmer will have hit the roof today. Heads will roll.
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
It may be that Starmer has only just found out that the Foreign Office (not Lammy) sat on the failure of the security clearance because it was just too embarrassing as Mandelson had already been appointed. He thought Mandelson had passed the security clearance because he hadn't been told to the contrary. What a cockup. If this is what happened, Starmer will have hit the roof today. Heads will roll.
It’s like one of my lines at work (with apologies to Yes, Minister)
I have found no evidence of wrongdoing (because I haven’t looked)
Or
These are the standards we expect from X, we expect him to be a copper-bottomed shit who would sell his own granny to make a profit, and he hasn’t disappointed.
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
Keir and Present Danger?
He's been very factual.
There was vetting.
It gave him clearance for the role.
He's not an eminent Barrister for no reason
He thinks before he speaks.
Other Party Leaders take note
I was going to reply to that but there is a distracting smell from the toaster I need to see to.
The Chancellor and Energy Secretary will signal plans to break the link that means Brits pay gas-level prices for electricity, even when power like wind and solar is doing much of the work.
Labour ( by their standards) have had a good news day. Growth, preempting the CO2 crisis and NHS waiting lists. They even got a cautious/ grudging welcome from Nick Ferrari, but on BBC WATO Labour had experienced a shocker.
If anyone is shocked by the decision that the Mandelson gamble was anything other than Starmer's throw of the dice they are not very good at reading political discourse.
Life can be unfair. Britain was booming in 1997 but Major was turfed out anyway.
The BBC are supposed to be impartial. Sarah Montague is not.
Oh yeah, very impartial when Hunt was called C*** - by "accident".
Have I ever mentioned I spent a number of hours talking to Jeremy Hunt? He was FS at the time. I found him very amenable. Shame about the Party he belongs to.
He came to Dartmouth to do a tea and cake session as part of his leadership drive. Amenable indeed.
As indeed are many of the Conservative Party. An even greater proportion, since Reform's recruiting drive has hoovered up many of the shits.
He'd put 5% on Tory vote if he pulled them back from being Reform Re Form led by Farage with braids
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
It may be that Starmer has only just found out that the Foreign Office (not Lammy) sat on the failure of the security clearance because it was just too embarrassing as Mandelson had already been appointed. Starmer thought Mandelson had passed the security clearance because he hadn't been told to the contrary. What a cockup. If this is what happened, Starmer will have hit the roof today. Heads will roll.
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
Keir and Present Danger?
He's been very factual.
There was vetting.
It gave him clearance for the role.
He's not an eminent Barrister for no reason
He thinks before he speaks.
Other Party Leaders take note
BIB - It didn't. Someone over-ruled this.
It’s a nothing story in an ultra-extreme-right-wing-pro-Trump paper
Is that so that Israel is free to bomb the shit out of Iran again?
They’re locked and loaded and ready to go and Iran are threatening to do the same. It’s a cheery thought. How on earth is the S&P at a record high ?
‘ Iran's Seyed Mohammad Marandi:
“Because of Netanyahu and Trump, Iran is preparing to destroy everything in the Persian Gulf - including all critical infrastructure in the UAE, Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. Temperatures will rise, the Peninsula will become uninhabitable, and the global economy will crash.”’
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
Keir and Present Danger?
He's been very factual.
There was vetting.
It gave him clearance for the role.
He's not an eminent Barrister for no reason
He thinks before he speaks.
Other Party Leaders take note
BIB - It didn't. Someone over-ruled this.
It depends whether you consider the opportunity for the PM to ignore the vetting as being an integral part of the process.
"Mandelson was thoroughly vetted and passed the vetting on the basis that I didn't care what it said."
Only in the UK? Terrorists standing for election is commonplace! From Trump and the Jan 6 protestors to Mandela in S Africa or multiple Israeli politicians.
I must confess that I thought Mandelson's appointment a good idea at the time. He seemed to get on reasonably well with Trump, which, again at the time, seemed to have advantages. He was, of course, known to be, if not as bent as a fiddlers elbow, then a very slippery customer with some very dodgy friends. Which seemed an ideal description for someone who had to deal with President Trump!
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
It may be that Starmer has only just found out that the Foreign Office (not Lammy) sat on the failure of the security clearance because it was just too embarrassing as Mandelson had already been appointed. Starmer thought Mandelson had passed the security clearance because he hadn't been told to the contrary. What a cockup. If this is what happened, Starmer will have hit the roof today. Heads will roll.
Yes.
Starmer's.
A few more utterly incompetent civil servants.
Starmer is far more effective than even Cummings and Truss at removing the blob
Westminster and the 5% who have any interest in this ancient non story will masterbate and menstruate over it for the next week whilst the PM continues to protect the UK from another global crisis leading a country utterly destroyed and hollowed out by the Tories, Brexit and Tory Brexit corruption
Only in the UK? Terrorists standing for election is commonplace! From Trump and the Jan 6 protestors to Mandela in S Africa or multiple Israeli politicians.
The Chancellor and Energy Secretary will signal plans to break the link that means Brits pay gas-level prices for electricity, even when power like wind and solar is doing much of the work.
Labour ( by their standards) have had a good news day. Growth, preempting the CO2 crisis and NHS waiting lists. They even got a cautious/ grudging welcome from Nick Ferrari, but on BBC WATO Labour had experienced a shocker.
If anyone is shocked by the decision that the Mandelson gamble was anything other than Starmer's throw of the dice they are not very good at reading political discourse.
Life can be unfair. Britain was booming in 1997 but Major was turfed out anyway.
The BBC are supposed to be impartial. Sarah Montague is not.
That's your view, others will differ. Lefties think the BBC is right wing. Right wing nutters think the BBC is the denizen of lefties.
And the smug barstewards in the BBC think if they get criticised by everybody that is somehow ok and "proves" that they are doing fine. Its an interesting way of thinking, that is for sure. Try applying it to a referee who makes bad penalty decisions at both ends.
Thing is I DO think the BBC is hideously biased, just not left vs right. Its very urban, and woke (you can bet that BBC email etiquette involves pronouns), its progressive. Its probably vastly white, middle class but is horrified by its own lack of diversity. It has no real feel for the rural community of the country (as shown weekly on Townyfile). It reflects, to a large part, the community of people it employs. University graduates, mainly middle class and from the 'right' background.
I’d agree. It has a very young urban/big city perspective.
It also has no feel for the towns either.
One of the reason people are turning away from it, like we are, is it offers us very little we want to watch or listen to. It largely talks to itself and like minded people and this is, in part, due to it never having to compete for its income even if it competes against commercial broadcasters. I’d hope the redundancies are a sign this govt is not simply going to hose more of our cash at it.
I did love this. BBC journo interviews a black dude in Swindon, and couldn’t leave fast enough after getting the wrong sort of answers.
I must confess that I thought Mandelson's appointment a good idea at the time. He seemed to get on reasonably well with Trump, which, again at the time, seemed to have advantages. He was, of course, known to be, if not as bent as a fiddlers elbow, then a very slippery customer with some very dodgy friends. Which seemed an ideal description for someone who had to deal with President Trump!
I said the same but I didn't know that he had failed the Security vetting. I thought he was someone slippery enough to survive in the cess pit that Washington has become under Trump with an excellent address book. I did not appreciate that those addresses included Epstein even after his conviction.
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
Keir and Present Danger?
He's been very factual.
There was vetting.
It gave him clearance for the role.
He's not an eminent Barrister for no reason
He thinks before he speaks.
Other Party Leaders take note
BIB - It didn't. Someone over-ruled this.
It’s a nothing story in an ultra-extreme-right-wing-pro-Trump paper
And Kemi…
I knew she’d be the one to blame for all this. Surely she is on borrowed time.
The Chancellor and Energy Secretary will signal plans to break the link that means Brits pay gas-level prices for electricity, even when power like wind and solar is doing much of the work.
Labour ( by their standards) have had a good news day. Growth, preempting the CO2 crisis and NHS waiting lists. They even got a cautious/ grudging welcome from Nick Ferrari, but on BBC WATO Labour had experienced a shocker.
If anyone is shocked by the decision that the Mandelson gamble was anything other than Starmer's throw of the dice they are not very good at reading political discourse.
Life can be unfair. Britain was booming in 1997 but Major was turfed out anyway.
The BBC are supposed to be impartial. Sarah Montague is not.
Oh yeah, very impartial when Hunt was called C*** - by "accident".
"Welcome to the BBC, broadcasting on behalf of the Conservative Party" - Young Ones TV series
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
Keir and Present Danger?
He's been very factual.
There was vetting.
It gave him clearance for the role.
He's not an eminent Barrister for no reason
He thinks before he speaks.
Other Party Leaders take note
BIB - It didn't. Someone over-ruled this.
It’s a nothing story in an ultra-extreme-right-wing-pro-Trump paper
And Kemi…
He is in full panic mode lashing out again in a vain attempt to justify the unjustiable
When was the last time all the opposition parties united to demand a PM resign ?
What seems to have happened is ridiculously Mandelson was appointed with a lot of fanfare before security’ clearance was passed .
Maybe Starmer expected him to pass that . Then Mandelson failed the clearance . Pulling his appointment would have been a total embarrassment. Having to explain he was appointed before all the checks had been done .
So it’s possible Starmer panicked, overruled and was hoping none of this would come out .
If the report is accurate then I don’t see anyway he can survive this .
I like the theory that like most normal people Sir Keir and his staff couldn’t get their heads around the idea that Mandy and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor would continue to be friends with a convicted nonce.
Most of us would have cut ties the moment he was convicted if not sooner.
Even that notion is bollocks. Starmer most likely knew that Mandelson had been chums with Epstein until the moment Epstein karked it. All the right wingers thought it was a great idea at the time. It probably was, but now it turns out it wasn't and people like Gove never thought it a good idea after all.
The decision was Starmer's, the error was Starmer's. This is why he has to go quietly.
In hindsight, a certain up-frontness would have been useful. Look, we're appointing someone who has a chequered record, it's a risk, but we're appointing a certain type of schmoozer* to deal with schmoozers and we think he could be useful in this specific role.
Not everyone but enough would have nodded along at that and even from this side of events would have understood an idea that didn't come off.
But politicians, and certainly Starmer, aren't built that way.
* There may be more respectable words that would sit better here.
In hindsight he should have said ‘Look Donald is a bit of a shit and who better to deal with him but another friend of Jeffrey.’
Maybe a tad too direct but, yes, something that conveyed pretty much that exact meaning.
I am noted for my bluntness/directness in my professional life.
(It’s actually one of the reasons OGH asked me to edit PB, I am not one to equivocate, everybody knows where I stand.)
It's the shoes, they make it difficult not to be aware.
Would be a ridiculous reason to resign particularly as Trump has made the art of lying de rigeur.
As for Badenoch she'd do well to keep her powder dry. Demanding a PM resign over something as trivial just emphasises quite what a flaky LOTD we now have.
I'd like him to go but not in a point scoring contest with someone as childish as Badenoch
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
That's the key one. If he in fact failed the vetting that was a lie to Parliament.
Starmer certainly owes the House an explanation for that, and if he is unable to provide one, is in serious trouble.
The Mandelson foolishness was probably survivable. That it was a poor idea is suggested by both Gove and the Mail being enthusiastic about it at the time - but the fact that so many supported the decision the gamble diffuses the blame
Lying to the House about "procedures" which he claimed to have followed, on the other hand, falls on him alone.
The Chancellor and Energy Secretary will signal plans to break the link that means Brits pay gas-level prices for electricity, even when power like wind and solar is doing much of the work.
Labour ( by their standards) have had a good news day. Growth, preempting the CO2 crisis and NHS waiting lists. They even got a cautious/ grudging welcome from Nick Ferrari, but on BBC WATO Labour had experienced a shocker.
If anyone is shocked by the decision that the Mandelson gamble was anything other than Starmer's throw of the dice they are not very good at reading political discourse.
Life can be unfair. Britain was booming in 1997 but Major was turfed out anyway.
The BBC are supposed to be impartial. Sarah Montague is not.
Oh yeah, very impartial when Hunt was called C*** - by "accident".
"Welcome to the BBC, broadcasting on behalf of the Conservative Party" - Young Ones TV series
Would be a ridiculous reason to resign particularly as Trump has made the art of lying de rigeur.
As for Badenoch she'd do well to keep her powder dry. Demanding a PM resign over something as trivial just emphasises quite what a flaky LOTD we now have.
I'd like him to go but not in a point scoring contest with someone as childish as Badenoch
So Davey, Polanski, Farage, are all childish as they join Kemi in seeking Starmer's resignation ?
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
It may be that Starmer has only just found out that the Foreign Office (not Lammy) sat on the failure of the security clearance because it was just too embarrassing as Mandelson had already been appointed. Starmer thought Mandelson had passed the security clearance because he hadn't been told to the contrary. What a cockup. If this is what happened, Starmer will have hit the roof today. Heads will roll.
Yes.
Starmer's.
A few more utterly incompetent civil servants.
Starmer is far more effective than even Cummings and Truss at removing the blob
Westminster and the 5% who have any interest in this ancient non story will masterbate and menstruate over it for the next week whilst the PM continues to protect the UK from another global crisis leading a country utterly destroyed and hollowed out by the Tories, Brexit and Tory Brexit corruption
U ok m8 ? Been chopping onions, yeah ? A hug ? Yeah, ok then.
Would be a ridiculous reason to resign particularly as Trump has made the art of lying de rigeur.
As for Badenoch she'd do well to keep her powder dry. Demanding a PM resign over something as trivial just emphasises quite what a flaky LOTD we now have.
I'd like him to go but not in a point scoring contest with someone as childish as Badenoch
Trump is not an example to be copied. He is a cautionary tale to be avoided.
I must confess that I thought Mandelson's appointment a good idea at the time. He seemed to get on reasonably well with Trump, which, again at the time, seemed to have advantages. He was, of course, known to be, if not as bent as a fiddlers elbow, then a very slippery customer with some very dodgy friends. Which seemed an ideal description for someone who had to deal with President Trump!
I said the same but I didn't know that he had failed the Security vetting. I thought he was someone slippery enough to survive in the cess pit that Washington has become under Trump with an excellent address book. I did not appreciate that those addresses included Epstein even after his conviction.
Yeah, similar. The key point is I thought his deviousness was being deployed in the national interest whereas it has become clear to us now that it was being deployed in his own and - worse - Epstein's and Epstein's pals - interests. And it's just not credible at this point that Starmer wasn't getting even the faintest whiff of that.
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
That's the key one. If he in fact failed the vetting that was a lie to Parliament.
Technically he wasn’t speaking to parliament in that clip.
I think we might be into ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky’ territory now.
Starmer mentions the vetting to the House here. He doesn't, however, actually say he passed it.
If the Foreign office overruled, as the article says, he may not have known it was failed. So just a mistruth, not a lie?
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
It may be that Starmer has only just found out that the Foreign Office (not Lammy) sat on the failure of the security clearance because it was just too embarrassing as Mandelson had already been appointed. Starmer thought Mandelson had passed the security clearance because he hadn't been told to the contrary. What a cockup. If this is what happened, Starmer will have hit the roof today. Heads will roll.
Yes.
Starmer's.
A few more utterly incompetent civil servants.
Starmer is far more effective than even Cummings and Truss at removing the blob
Westminster and the 5% who have any interest in this ancient non story will masterbate and menstruate over it for the next week whilst the PM continues to protect the UK from another global crisis leading a country utterly destroyed and hollowed out by the Tories, Brexit and Tory Brexit corruption
The tractor production stats make a powerful case for BAU
So it sounds like The Guardian's extraordinary story that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but was overruled by the foreign office is broadly correct - some kind of statement is in the offing
It's not clear what that will say, but the line I've had from a few people is that No 10 was completely unaware - including Starmer. Cabinet Office's PET also said to be unaware. Which seems insane
Morgan McSweeney was said to be unaware. Mandelson himself was said to be unaware
If so it obviously poses big questions for the foreign office and particularly Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary
Would be a ridiculous reason to resign particularly as Trump has made the art of lying de rigeur.
As for Badenoch she'd do well to keep her powder dry. Demanding a PM resign over something as trivial just emphasises quite what a flaky LOTD we now have.
I'd like him to go but not in a point scoring contest with someone as childish as Badenoch
You are saying Starmer is screwed like a replacement parent working the port facility social entertainment business, while posting on a popular social entertainment social media site?
So it sounds like The Guardian's extraordinary story that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but was overruled by the foreign office is broadly correct - some kind of statement is in the offing
It's not clear what that will say, but the line I've had from a few people is that No 10 was completely unaware - including Starmer. Cabinet Office's PET also said to be unaware. Which seems insane
Morgan McSweeney was said to be unaware. Mandelson himself was said to be unaware
If so it obviously poses big questions for the foreign office and particularly Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary
Never in the history of human endeavor has so little been known by so many.
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
Keir and Present Danger?
He's been very factual.
There was vetting.
It gave him clearance for the role.
He's not an eminent Barrister for no reason
He thinks before he speaks.
Other Party Leaders take note
BIB - It didn't. Someone over-ruled this.
The Foreign Office not Number 10, by the Guardian's account, so Starmer might be technically correct. People are so keen to see Starmer ousted they've not noticed the story has Yvette Cooper (over her letter) on shaky ground. And that is without the question of whether it was David Lammy or someone else who overruled the the UKSV. Shame we can't see Morgan McSweeney's phone!
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
That's the key one. If he in fact failed the vetting that was a lie to Parliament.
Technically he wasn’t speaking to parliament in that clip.
I think we might be into ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky’ territory now.
Starmer mentions the vetting to the House here. He doesn't, however, actually say he passed it.
If the Foreign office overruled, as the article says, he may not have known it was failed. So just a mistruth, not a lie?
Or the FO is part of the vetting process as described by Starmer.
So it sounds like The Guardian's extraordinary story that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but was overruled by the foreign office is broadly correct - some kind of statement is in the offing
It's not clear what that will say, but the line I've had from a few people is that No 10 was completely unaware - including Starmer. Cabinet Office's PET also said to be unaware. Which seems insane
Morgan McSweeney was said to be unaware. Mandelson himself was said to be unaware
If so it obviously poses big questions for the foreign office and particularly Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary
Never in the history of human endeavor has so little been known by so many.
I have no idea how Restore gets to 9% (rather than, say, just 1 or 2%) given that as fas as I can tell it's Rupert Lowe pumping out the occasional tweet.
It is hard to believe that 2.6 million voters (9% of the number voting in 2024) plan to vote for a party no-one has heard of. IIRC apart from on PB I have never heard the name of this party mentioned in print or any other media. Do I need to get out more?
Davey is right, if Starmer mislead Parliament he cannot stay . I have heard the answer to Badenoch's question and Starmer is so equivocal that I find it hard to believe it is the slam dunk she says it is.
I'd like Starmer gone. He was clearly responsible for Mandelson and as such should go. Nice try, but no cigar.
God help us and it's not that useless fool Milliband. I don't share her politics but I'd take Rayner (if available) any day of the week.
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
Keir and Present Danger?
He's been very factual.
There was vetting.
It gave him clearance for the role.
He's not an eminent Barrister for no reason
He thinks before he speaks.
Other Party Leaders take note
BIB - It didn't. Someone over-ruled this.
The Foreign Office not Number 10, by the Guardian's account, so Starmer might be technically correct. People are so keen to see Starmer ousted they've not noticed the story has Yvette Cooper (over her letter) on shaky ground. And that is without the question of whether it was David Lammy or someone else who overruled the the UKSV. Shame we can't see Morgan McSweeney's phone!
Whoever snatched that phone (?) apparently doesn't realise what a treasure trove he could have uncovered.
I have no idea how Restore gets to 9% (rather than, say, just 1 or 2%) given that as fas as I can tell it's Rupert Lowe pumping out the occasional tweet.
It is hard to believe that 2.6 million voters (9% of the number voting in 2024) plan to vote for a party no-one has heard of. IIRC apart from on PB I have never heard the name of this party mentioned in print or any other media. Do I need to get out more?
You aren't the one targeted by the algorithm. Those who supported Nick Griffin all those years ago are being bombarded with it. They haven't gone away. They just haven't had an outlet for their hate and self loathing.
Like I've being saying most Brits ain't got a scooby about the disruption coming.
Britain preparing for food shortages as Iran war bites
Secret government analysis sets out ‘worst-case scenario’ whereby a lack of critical carbon dioxide supplies would hit farming and the hospitality sector
Britain could face shortages of chicken, pork and other supermarket goods this summer if the war in Iran continues, a secret government analysis has found.
Officials have drawn up contingency plans for a “reasonable worst-case scenario” amid fears that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz will lead to shortages of carbon dioxide, which is critical to the food industry.
Senior officials — including from No 10, the Treasury and Ministry of Defence — have secretly rehearsed scenarios looking at the potential impact on British industry in an event codenamed “Exercise Turnstone”.
The Times has been told the reasonable worst-case scenario prepared for the session, run by the government’s emergency committee, Cobra, was set in June 2026 and assumed that the strait had not reopened and a permanent peace deal had not been reached.
Farming and hospitality would likely be hit earliest and hardest, given CO2 is used to help increase the shelf life of food such as salad, packaged meats and baked goods.
CO2 is used in the process of slaughtering nearly all pigs and more than two thirds of chickens and the sector is not thought to have much by way of surplus supplies. While the government does have stockpiles, this was said to not be a long-term solution.
Breweries would also be hit because the gas is used to make drinks fizzy. Concerns were raised about the shortages coinciding with the Fifa World Cup, which begins on June 11.
While there are not expected to be critical food supply shortages, officials expect there could be a lack of product variety in shops. Officials discussed unease that the impact would be highly visible and risk undermining wider government campaigns stressing security of supplies in other areas.
Officials plan to prioritise healthcare and civil nuclear disruption, believing that a collapse in CO2 supplies could cause a risk to life through a lack of dry ice to cool blood supplies, organs and vaccines, as well as to Britain’s national electricity supply.
Yes and no. This very report says "...there are not expected to be critical food supply shortages...". We have become used, over the last few years, to not having the same availability of produce as before Brexit (for a number of reasons). This would be more of the same. Until the threat becomes petrol rationing (unlikely in the UK) or serious disruption to MRI's (lack of liquid helium is a major worry) then I think most people will shrug, grumble and KBO.
I think what is focussing minds is that is the reasonable worst case scenario, given Trump’s erratic behaviour the worst worse case scenario could happen.
Its good to be thinking about it and planning, but I take issue a bit with your intro. I don't think the disruption is going to be that significant (at least based on this story).
But for everyones' interests this needs resolving.
The other issue is that ordinary people don’t behave rationally.
Remember bog roll at the start of the pandemic?
That sort of irrational panic buying could cause problems.
Except people who stockpile ARE behaving rationally, just for their own benefit, not society. After all, if you rushed out and bought enough loo paper for a year on March 10th 2020, you didn't personally run out. Its a classic irregular verb situation. Same with petrol during the blockades under Blair.
Diesel is far more an issue for UK than petrol is my understanding.
There may be food but how is it to be delivered?
Diseasal is in everything. Ingredients, packaging, supplies etc all get delivered by diesel. So much food is packed in plastic which is made with diesel. Farmers need diesel for everything they do on the farm. And that just gets you to a finished product. Which gets hauled by diesel to a warehouse and then onto another diesel truck to a supermarket warehouse and then onto another diesel truck to the actual store. Get a delivery? Diesel van.
Best thing about diesel? We send the oil we get from the north sea abroad to be refined, and then bring in actual diesel. So that's diesel on ships two ways plus trucks to and from the refinery etc etc etc.
Have read a few things on MAGA twitter that they are doing the blockade to force the world to buy oil from Trump (US/Venezuela) in dollars and thus protect the petrodollar.
This is The End. If the war doesn't end with American dominance of global energy supplies then the petrodollar is finished. And that means the US economy is finished.
So yeah, we're caught up in a giant shell game. And its going to significantly damage us.
Has MAGA noticed Trump's tariffs actively harmed the dollar as petrocurrency and reserve currency?
That's important. It is the same as the traditional American world-ending-at-the-edge-of-the-USA silo.
Even amongst USA intellectuals, to me they seem to be naive as to what is happening to their country. They have a sort of conditioning inside their heads which is like an unconscious version of manifest destiny.
Two examples:
Here is a very good conversation between constitutional historian Heather Cox Richardson and economist Paul Krugman. Cox-Richardson is well up to date on the politics as she engages every day, but Krugman seems behind and some way behind how the whole world is pivoting away at some pace. That is particularly because of US overreach - such as laws on the Cloud that provide access to EU Country Government owned data, which now is starting to matter as the USA is no longer trustworthy.
Rough journey back from rural Derbyshire - every Highway authority under the sun seems anxious to spend their 2026-27 budget as quickly as possible. I thought I could dodge the lorry fire on the M11 via the A10 and the A120 - the latter had horrendous road works. The epitome of driving from the frying fan into the fire as it turned out.
If what the Guardian has discovered is true, it's certainly concerning but unfortunately we ought to need proof, not speculation, before we hang anyone in politics. though I'm well aware that's far from bening how the world works.
Who then overrruled the original vetting decision and is there a clear audit trail to that decision? Whoever took the final decision is buttered and ready to have some really good marmalade on top. You might argue Starmer, if not actually taking the decision, made it very clear what he wanted that decision to be but, absent any evidence, that's speculation.
So it sounds like The Guardian's extraordinary story that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but was overruled by the foreign office is broadly correct - some kind of statement is in the offing
It's not clear what that will say, but the line I've had from a few people is that No 10 was completely unaware - including Starmer. Cabinet Office's PET also said to be unaware. Which seems insane
Morgan McSweeney was said to be unaware. Mandelson himself was said to be unaware
If so it obviously poses big questions for the foreign office and particularly Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary
It may be a side issue, but maybe it isn't. Let us assume innocently that MMcS's phone is truly stolen, lost and not backed up. But the recipients and senders of all his communications also have records of them. There is a strange silence on this subject. Why?
If, for example PM and MMcS were 'unaware' of everything, then of course their entire transactions in the relevant period will display that unawareness. It can't do otherwise.
But if all recipients and senders phones are strangely AWOL, I draw my own conclusions. If they are not AWOL then MMcS's communications are all recoverable.
So it sounds like The Guardian's extraordinary story that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but was overruled by the foreign office is broadly correct - some kind of statement is in the offing
It's not clear what that will say, but the line I've had from a few people is that No 10 was completely unaware - including Starmer. Cabinet Office's PET also said to be unaware. Which seems insane
Morgan McSweeney was said to be unaware. Mandelson himself was said to be unaware
If so it obviously poses big questions for the foreign office and particularly Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary
It may be a side issue, but maybe it isn't. Let us assume innocently that MMcS's phone is truly stolen, lost and not backed up. But the recipients and senders of all his communications also have records of them. There is a strange silence on this subject. Why?
If, for example PM and MMcS were 'unaware' of everything, then of course their entire transactions in the relevant period will display that unawareness. It can't do otherwise.
But if all recipients and senders phones are strangely AWOL, I draw my own conclusions. If they are not AWOL then MMcS's communications are all recoverable.
Rough journey back from rural Derbyshire - every Highway authority under the sun seems anxious to spend their 2026-27 budget as quickly as possible. I thought I could dodge the lorry fire on the M11 via the A10 and the A120 - the latter had horrendous road works. The epitome of driving from the frying fan into the fire as it turned out.
If what the Guardian has discovered is true, it's certainly concerning but unfortunately we ought to need proof, not speculation, before we hang anyone in politics. though I'm well aware that's far from bening how the world works.
Who then overrruled the original vetting decision and is there a clear audit trail to that decision? Whoever took the final decision is buttered and ready to have some really good marmalade on top. You might argue Starmer, if not actually taking the decision, made it very clear what he wanted that decision to be but, absent any evidence, that's speculation.
House of Commons Library:
Once an individual has been selected, the Foreign Secretary (with the Prime Minister’s approval for senior postings) makes a formal submission to the King recommending their appointment
It is not credible that the FS and PM did not know of the vetting fail and overruled the decision. The power lies nowhere else. In the case of PeterM, even (per impossibile) if they didn't know it is obvious that the question should be asked so that they could find out.
I have no idea how Restore gets to 9% (rather than, say, just 1 or 2%) given that as fas as I can tell it's Rupert Lowe pumping out the occasional tweet.
It is hard to believe that 2.6 million voters (9% of the number voting in 2024) plan to vote for a party no-one has heard of. IIRC apart from on PB I have never heard the name of this party mentioned in print or any other media. Do I need to get out more?
Someone brought them up in reply to a youtube comment I'd made on a video which was middle of the road/apolitical, so I guess at least a percentage of the online right are aware, even if I doubt it is 9%.
Rough journey back from rural Derbyshire - every Highway authority under the sun seems anxious to spend their 2026-27 budget as quickly as possible. I thought I could dodge the lorry fire on the M11 via the A10 and the A120 - the latter had horrendous road works. The epitome of driving from the frying fan into the fire as it turned out.
If what the Guardian has discovered is true, it's certainly concerning but unfortunately we ought to need proof, not speculation, before we hang anyone in politics. though I'm well aware that's far from bening how the world works.
Who then overrruled the original vetting decision and is there a clear audit trail to that decision? Whoever took the final decision is buttered and ready to have some really good marmalade on top. You might argue Starmer, if not actually taking the decision, made it very clear what he wanted that decision to be but, absent any evidence, that's speculation.
House of Commons Library:
Once an individual has been selected, the Foreign Secretary (with the Prime Minister’s approval for senior postings) makes a formal submission to the King recommending their appointment
It is not credible that the FS and PM did not know of the vetting fail and overruled the decision. The power lies nowhere else. In the case of PeterM, even (per impossibile) if they didn't know it is obvious that the question should be asked so that they could find out.
Classic case of claiming ignorance/stupidity, as even if that makes you look bad it is not necessarily fatally bad.
Rough journey back from rural Derbyshire - every Highway authority under the sun seems anxious to spend their 2026-27 budget as quickly as possible. I thought I could dodge the lorry fire on the M11 via the A10 and the A120 - the latter had horrendous road works. The epitome of driving from the frying fan into the fire as it turned out.
If what the Guardian has discovered is true, it's certainly concerning but unfortunately we ought to need proof, not speculation, before we hang anyone in politics. though I'm well aware that's far from bening how the world works.
Who then overrruled the original vetting decision and is there a clear audit trail to that decision? Whoever took the final decision is buttered and ready to have some really good marmalade on top. You might argue Starmer, if not actually taking the decision, made it very clear what he wanted that decision to be but, absent any evidence, that's speculation.
House of Commons Library:
Once an individual has been selected, the Foreign Secretary (with the Prime Minister’s approval for senior postings) makes a formal submission to the King recommending their appointment
It is not credible that the FS and PM did not know of the vetting fail and overruled the decision. The power lies nowhere else. In the case of PeterM, even (per impossibile) if they didn't know it is obvious that the question should be asked so that they could find out.
Starmer will be basing his defence on personal incompetence
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
It may be that Starmer has only just found out that the Foreign Office (not Lammy) sat on the failure of the security clearance because it was just too embarrassing as Mandelson had already been appointed. Starmer thought Mandelson had passed the security clearance because he hadn't been told to the contrary. What a cockup. If this is what happened, Starmer will have hit the roof today. Heads will roll.
Yes.
Starmer's.
A few more utterly incompetent civil servants.
Starmer is far more effective than even Cummings and Truss at removing the blob
Westminster and the 5% who have any interest in this ancient non story will masterbate and menstruate over it for the next week whilst the PM continues to protect the UK from another global crisis leading a country utterly destroyed and hollowed out by the Tories, Brexit and Tory Brexit corruption
Someone doesn’t appear to understand menstruation.
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
That's the key one. If he in fact failed the vetting that was a lie to Parliament.
Technically he wasn’t speaking to parliament in that clip.
I think we might be into ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky’ territory now.
Starmer mentions the vetting to the House here. He doesn't, however, actually say he passed it.
If the Foreign office overruled, as the article says, he may not have known it was failed. So just a mistruth, not a lie?
There was a red flag on an absolute key appointment and No 10 did not know???!!!
So it sounds like The Guardian's extraordinary story that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but was overruled by the foreign office is broadly correct - some kind of statement is in the offing
It's not clear what that will say, but the line I've had from a few people is that No 10 was completely unaware - including Starmer. Cabinet Office's PET also said to be unaware. Which seems insane
Morgan McSweeney was said to be unaware. Mandelson himself was said to be unaware
If so it obviously poses big questions for the foreign office and particularly Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary
Never in the history of human endeavor has so little been known by so many.
Other than at the Post Office. Based on that precedent, Starmer, Mandelson and co have nothing to worry about - it doesn't do to hold the right sort of people to account for their actions/inactions.
How many candidates are they fielding in the locals? How many will they have in the GE?
Negligible to bugger all.
We'll see if they are intending to be more than a footnote in the next year I guess.
I’m starting a new party.
Revive
Unlike those ultra woke lefties in Restore, we have a Real Program for Real Patriots.
1) Immigration - instant expulsion without appeal for everyone. The entire population 2) Death Penalty - instant death penalty for everyone 3) Tax - none - see (1) & (2) 4) Budget Deficit - see (1) & (2) 5) House building - see (1) & (2) 6) Infrastructure - see see (1) & (2)
We have the only, fully costed plan to achieve zero taxes and no budget deficit of any of the parties in the U.K.!
I have no idea how Restore gets to 9% (rather than, say, just 1 or 2%) given that as fas as I can tell it's Rupert Lowe pumping out the occasional tweet.
It is hard to believe that 2.6 million voters (9% of the number voting in 2024) plan to vote for a party no-one has heard of. IIRC apart from on PB I have never heard the name of this party mentioned in print or any other media. Do I need to get out more?
You aren't the one targeted by the algorithm. Those who supported Nick Griffin all those years ago are being bombarded with it. They haven't gone away. They just haven't had an outlet for their hate and self loathing.
I feel like the Essex girl going up the M11 and wondering why thousands of cars are driving in the wrong carriageway.
So it sounds like The Guardian's extraordinary story that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but was overruled by the foreign office is broadly correct - some kind of statement is in the offing
It's not clear what that will say, but the line I've had from a few people is that No 10 was completely unaware - including Starmer. Cabinet Office's PET also said to be unaware. Which seems insane
Morgan McSweeney was said to be unaware. Mandelson himself was said to be unaware
If so it obviously poses big questions for the foreign office and particularly Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary
Starmer on 5 Feb: "There was... security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post."
It may be that Starmer has only just found out that the Foreign Office (not Lammy) sat on the failure of the security clearance because it was just too embarrassing as Mandelson had already been appointed. Starmer thought Mandelson had passed the security clearance because he hadn't been told to the contrary. What a cockup. If this is what happened, Starmer will have hit the roof today. Heads will roll.
Yes.
Starmer's.
A few more utterly incompetent civil servants.
Starmer is far more effective than even Cummings and Truss at removing the blob
Westminster and the 5% who have any interest in this ancient non story will masterbate and menstruate over it for the next week whilst the PM continues to protect the UK from another global crisis leading a country utterly destroyed and hollowed out by the Tories, Brexit and Tory Brexit corruption
Someone doesn’t appear to understand menstruation.
A non-story that will reoccur monthly for 40 years sounds pretty serious to me.
Comments
They just do it naturally.
There was vetting.
It gave him clearance for the role.
He's not an eminent Barrister for no reason
He thinks before he speaks.
Other Party Leaders take note
Starmer thought Mandelson had passed the security clearance because he hadn't been told to the contrary.
What a cockup.
If this is what happened, Starmer will have hit the roof today. Heads will roll.
You is welcome.
I have found no evidence of wrongdoing (because I haven’t looked)
Or
These are the standards we expect from X, we expect him to be a copper-bottomed shit who would sell his own granny to make a profit, and he hasn’t disappointed.
The Hunt For Red Keir
Keir Storm Rising
Starmer's.
And Kemi…
"Mandelson was thoroughly vetted and passed the vetting on the basis that I didn't care what it said."
Not sure the circumstances in which this could be safely deployed, but I'm sure they do exist.
EDIT: And then Blair and Brown campaigning at the seaside with ice creams sprung into my head.
Which seemed an ideal description for someone who had to deal with President Trump!
Ed Davey says Keir Starmer has to resign over Peter Mandelson's vetting process
"It looks as though he has misled Parliament and lied to the British public. If that is the case, he must go"
Starmer is far more effective than even Cummings and Truss at removing the blob
Westminster and the 5% who have any interest in this ancient non story will masterbate and menstruate over it for the next week whilst the PM continues to protect the UK from another global crisis leading a country utterly destroyed and hollowed out by the Tories, Brexit and Tory Brexit corruption
He'll be demanding a judge led independent enquiry
What was/were the transgressions that failed Petey's vetting?
Curious minds want to know.
It also has no feel for the towns either.
One of the reason people are turning away from it, like we are, is it offers us very little we want to watch or listen to. It largely talks to itself and like minded people and this is, in part, due to it never having to compete for its income even if it competes against commercial broadcasters. I’d hope the redundancies are a sign this govt is not simply going to hose more of our cash at it.
I did love this. BBC journo interviews a black dude in Swindon, and couldn’t leave fast enough after getting the wrong sort of answers.
https://x.com/realdonkeith/status/2044084720011505741?s=61
Who next?
When was the last time all the opposition parties united to demand a PM resign ?
Johnson ?
Its Hodges, but its Hodges with a point
As for Badenoch she'd do well to keep her powder dry. Demanding a PM resign over something as trivial just emphasises quite what a flaky LOTD we now have.
I'd like him to go but not in a point scoring contest with someone as childish as Badenoch
The Mandelson foolishness was probably survivable. That it was a poor idea is suggested by both Gove and the Mail being enthusiastic about it at the time - but the fact that so many supported the decision the gamble diffuses the blame
Lying to the House about "procedures" which he claimed to have followed, on the other hand, falls on him alone.
The Starmer effect ?
But when Big G of PB fame is also out for his head, he must know his days are numbered.
RFK Jr. once chopped off a dead raccoon's penis to 'study later' while on a family road trip
https://x.com/nypost/status/2044517592153440491
So it sounds like The Guardian's extraordinary story that Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but was overruled by the foreign office is broadly correct - some kind of statement is in the offing
It's not clear what that will say, but the line I've had from a few people is that No 10 was completely unaware - including Starmer. Cabinet Office's PET also said to be unaware. Which seems insane
Morgan McSweeney was said to be unaware. Mandelson himself was said to be unaware
If so it obviously poses big questions for the foreign office and particularly Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary
The Israeli's have not agreed to it, and in fact didn't know about it before his tweet
They were in the process of debating it at the time.
Not happy.
😂😂😂😂
I'd like Starmer gone. He was clearly responsible for Mandelson and as such should go. Nice try, but no cigar.
God help us and it's not that useless fool Milliband. I don't share her politics but I'd take Rayner (if available) any day of the week.
Those who supported Nick Griffin all those years ago are being bombarded with it.
They haven't gone away. They just haven't had an outlet for their hate and self loathing.
Even amongst USA intellectuals, to me they seem to be naive as to what is happening to their country. They have a sort of conditioning inside their heads which is like an unconscious version of manifest destiny.
Two examples:
Here is a very good conversation between constitutional historian Heather Cox Richardson and economist Paul Krugman. Cox-Richardson is well up to date on the politics as she engages every day, but Krugman seems behind and some way behind how the whole world is pivoting away at some pace. That is particularly because of US overreach - such as laws on the Cloud that provide access to EU Country Government owned data, which now is starting to matter as the USA is no longer trustworthy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2OtDhSdE6A
Washington Week with the Atlantic still seems to want to treat US politics as a kind of beltway chess:
https://www.youtube.com/@WashingtonWeekPBS/videos
Then he's really in the poo
Rough journey back from rural Derbyshire - every Highway authority under the sun seems anxious to spend their 2026-27 budget as quickly as possible. I thought I could dodge the lorry fire on the M11 via the A10 and the A120 - the latter had horrendous road works. The epitome of driving from the frying fan into the fire as it turned out.
If what the Guardian has discovered is true, it's certainly concerning but unfortunately we ought to need proof, not speculation, before we hang anyone in politics. though I'm well aware that's far from bening how the world works.
Who then overrruled the original vetting decision and is there a clear audit trail to that decision? Whoever took the final decision is buttered and ready to have some really good marmalade on top. You might argue Starmer, if not actually taking the decision, made it very clear what he wanted that decision to be but, absent any evidence, that's speculation.
Trump is so desperate for a deal with Tehran that he has bounced Tel Aviv - like he in turn was bounced by Bibi.
Heart of stone etc....
If, for example PM and MMcS were 'unaware' of everything, then of course their entire transactions in the relevant period will display that unawareness. It can't do otherwise.
But if all recipients and senders phones are strangely AWOL, I draw my own conclusions. If they are not AWOL then MMcS's communications are all recoverable.
You are joking me? Donald Trump has stopped another war!
A Labour MP texts: "We were at the beginning of the end a while back. This is the end of the end."
‘ A Labour MP texts: "We were at the beginning of the end a while back. This is the end of the end."’
https://x.com/breeallegretti/status/2044816110084571509?s=61
We'll see if they are intending to be more than a footnote in the next year I guess.
I see Taz beat me to that one.
Once an individual has been selected, the Foreign Secretary (with the Prime Minister’s approval for senior postings) makes a formal submission to the King recommending their appointment
It is not credible that the FS and PM did not know of the vetting fail and overruled the decision. The power lies nowhere else. In the case of PeterM, even (per impossibile) if they didn't know it is obvious that the question should be asked so that they could find out.
Just as well Reeves has pissed all the farmers off
It at least has the advantage of credibility
Sounds hogwash to me
Revive
Unlike those ultra woke lefties in Restore, we have a Real Program for Real Patriots.
1) Immigration - instant expulsion without appeal for everyone. The entire population
2) Death Penalty - instant death penalty for everyone
3) Tax - none - see (1) & (2)
4) Budget Deficit - see (1) & (2)
5) House building - see (1) & (2)
6) Infrastructure - see see (1) & (2)
We have the only, fully costed plan to achieve zero taxes and no budget deficit of any of the parties in the U.K.!