If Starmer is smart, then there will be nothing in writing about him overruling vetting decision.
And it will have been Morgan McSweeney who gave the order and everyone interpreting that this is what Starmer wanted.
Edit - It does seem a bit ironic that he has come a cropper the one time he probably should have followed due process...
I don’t think that works . If he over ruled the original decision there would be a paper trail.
Starmer needs to hold a news conference or come to the Commons and explain fully what’s happened .
Well I really would like to know what happened here.
It comes as a surprise to me that the FO has the authority to overrule the Vetting Committee and apparently without notifying the PM.
Somebody is effing well lying. We need to be told who, and just as important, why.
I can believe it is technically possible. I just don't know for what reason officials at the FO would ever actually do it.
"The PM really wants this guy appointed, so we've got to find some way to do it" is the best I can think of, if they didn't technically notify the PM, but I'd put that reasoning in writing to someone. And it would open you up to so much potential risk.
If Starmer is smart, then there will be nothing in writing about him overruling vetting decision.
And it will have been Morgan McSweeney who gave the order and everyone interpreting that this is what Starmer wanted.
Edit - It does seem a bit ironic that he has come a cropper the one time he probably should have followed due process...
I don’t think that works . If he over ruled the original decision there would be a paper trail.
Starmer needs to hold a news conference or come to the Commons and explain fully what’s happened .
Well I really would like to know what happened here.
It comes as a surprise to me that the FO has the authority to overrule the Vetting Committee and apparently without notifying the PM.
Somebody is effing well lying. We need to be told who, and just as important, why.
All that had to be said was "Mandelson was a friend of Epstein, Trump was a friend of Epstein, they moved in the same circles, that is why we are rolling the dice on Mandelson".
It would be true too.
But he couldn't say that without appearing to criticise Trump, and keeping Trump sweet was the point of the exercise.
Can you imagine if a leader of say a school had hired a sex offender to a very senior role hired diectly by the head despite not really having the correct qualifications, and then revealed that they had failed their DBR check but were hired anyway and the head claims never knew, never asked, never checked, even after it was revealed in the press they had hired a nonce and had sacked them.....
We have massive problems either way. Either this is a lying Trumpian style government, or Whitehall is just doing whatever the fuck it likes with no accountability to ministers.
I've had some trouble seeing comments so couldn't respond to feedback on my header yesterday.
Putting my partisan hat on, it could really be for the best for Labour in the medium term, if this scandal forces Starmer out. While I'm on the right, I'd much rather have a moderate Labour government than a hard left Green government, which we are at risk of, if Labour don't get a grip.
If Starmer is smart, then there will be nothing in writing about him overruling vetting decision.
And it will have been Morgan McSweeney who gave the order and everyone interpreting that this is what Starmer wanted.
Edit - It does seem a bit ironic that he has come a cropper the one time he probably should have followed due process...
I don’t think that works . If he over ruled the original decision there would be a paper trail.
Starmer needs to hold a news conference or come to the Commons and explain fully what’s happened .
Well I really would like to know what happened here.
It comes as a surprise to me that the FO has the authority to overrule the Vetting Committee and apparently without notifying the PM.
Somebody is effing well lying. We need to be told who, and just as important, why.
I can believe it is technically possible. I just don't know for what reason officials at the FO would ever actually do it.
"The PM really wants this guy appointed, so we've got to find some way to do it" is the best I can think of, if they didn't technically notify the PM, but I'd put that reasoning in writing to someone. And it would open you up to so much potential risk.
Lets say that is true, and I can kind of see that. But post scandal, which we have had 3 time this scandal has raised its head with new information, but at no point has Starmer or Lammy, asked officials give me everything we have on Mandy, so I don't get caught out by a journalist asking if we know about x or y. But we are supposed to believe that they only actually found out a week ago.
Can you imagine if a leader of say a school had hired a sex offender to a very senior role hired diectly by the head despite not really having the correct qualifications, and then revealed that they had failed their DBR check but were hired anyway and the head claims never knew, never asked, never checked, even after it was revealed in the press they had hired a nonce and had sacked them.....
This analogy breaks down on the fact that Mandelson is not a sex offender but a friend of a sex offender. It's also not at all obvious he was unqualified for the role.
Can you imagine if a leader of say a school had hired a sex offender to a very senior role hired diectly by the head despite not really having the correct qualifications, and then revealed that they had failed their DBR check but were hired anyway and the head claims never knew, never asked, never checked, even after it was revealed in the press they had hired a nonce and had sacked them.....
This analogy breaks down on the fact that Mandelson is not a sex offender but a friend of a sex offender. It's also not at all obvious he was unqualified for the role.
I didn't say Mandy was a sex offender. He failed security check, that is very similar to failing your DRB check. Unqualified, if you want to be picky lets say a unusual appointment and known to have a lot of baggage so even more important to dot the i's and cross the t's. Which apparently nobody did. And now we are led to believe at no point over the 6+ months with constant media attention the person who appointed him didn't ask for any debrief.
If Starmer is smart, then there will be nothing in writing about him overruling vetting decision.
And it will have been Morgan McSweeney who gave the order and everyone interpreting that this is what Starmer wanted.
Edit - It does seem a bit ironic that he has come a cropper the one time he probably should have followed due process...
I don’t think that works . If he over ruled the original decision there would be a paper trail.
Starmer needs to hold a news conference or come to the Commons and explain fully what’s happened .
Well I really would like to know what happened here.
It comes as a surprise to me that the FO has the authority to overrule the Vetting Committee and apparently without notifying the PM.
Somebody is effing well lying. We need to be told who, and just as important, why.
I can believe it is technically possible. I just don't know for what reason officials at the FO would ever actually do it.
"The PM really wants this guy appointed, so we've got to find some way to do it" is the best I can think of, if they didn't technically notify the PM, but I'd put that reasoning in writing to someone. And it would open you up to so much potential risk.
Not likely is it? If nobody loses their job in the Civil Service, we will know Starmer's talking nonsense.
I've had some trouble seeing comments so couldn't respond to feedback on my header yesterday.
Putting my partisan hat on, it could really be for the best for Labour in the medium term, if this scandal forces Starmer out. While I'm on the right, I'd much rather have a moderate Labour government than a hard left Green government, which we are at risk of, if Labour don't get a grip.
I forgot to say thanks for the thread. It was excellent as ever.
Rachel Reeves told reporters in Washington: “I didn’t know anything about the vetting process. I’m the Chancellor, I’m not the foreign secretary, and I’m not 10 Downing Street, so I can’t give you any more information on that.”
Aubrey from the Times tweets A Labour MP texts: "We were at the beginning of the end a while back. This is the end of the end."
Yawn. Wake me up when Labour MPs actually start to come for him on the record.
They were like this at the end of the Brown era too - relentless hand-wringing around how doomed they were, but never actually trying to do anything about it.
And the Corbyn era. Endless whinges from off the record types.
One of whom may have been Starmer (or at least his coterie).
Still, could be worse for Labour, postal votes could be dropping this week..... oh
The timing on the day when the revised growth figures were the best in 3 years and every independent expert was beginning to suggest the Reeves plan was working is very suspicious.
Of course along came Trump, Netanyahu and Iran and Farage and Farage in a skirt urgent rush to war... Scuppering all hope of the growing positive vibes.
The reality is that 95% don't give a shit about Mandelson, marginally fewer than Chagos, and the rest of the right wing show boating gesture political cronies.
Labour will take a beating in 3 weeks time, the Tories will take a beating in 3 weeks time, that's a fact.
The real question is will Trump and Netsnhayu created a 1930s crisis or not?
@Brixian59 has mentioned a lady's monthly issue that quite clearly triggered another poster. I was reminded of this:
A guy and a girl are getting on very well at the nightclub's final slow dance. "Would you like to come home with me?" asks the guy. "I'm sorry" she replies "but I am on my menstrual cycle". "Don't worry" says the lad "you can follow me home, I'm on my scooter".
Rachel Reeves told reporters in Washington: “I didn’t know anything about the vetting process. I’m the Chancellor, I’m not the foreign secretary, and I’m not 10 Downing Street, so I can’t give you any more information on that.”
Rachel Reeves told reporters in Washington: “I didn’t know anything about the vetting process. I’m the Chancellor, I’m not the foreign secretary, and I’m not 10 Downing Street, so I can’t give you any more information on that.”
Rachel Reeves told reporters in Washington: “I didn’t know anything about the vetting process. I’m the Chancellor, I’m not the foreign secretary, and I’m not 10 Downing Street, so I can’t give you any more information on that.”
A minister texts: "This is a tipping point. There can be no more excuses; we're past apologies and there cannot be another fall person in the form of Olly Robbins. The PM must go."
Rachel Reeves told reporters in Washington: “I didn’t know anything about the vetting process. I’m the Chancellor, I’m not the foreign secretary, and I’m not 10 Downing Street, so I can’t give you any more information on that.”
Is Starmer ever aware of anything going on? Does he just sit in a cupboard all day and not talk to anybody nor ever recieve any information about anything. It certainly seems that way.
Well you have posted all sorts of shite that Starmer delegates EVERYTHING, so the fact he was unaware is not beyond the realm of reality.
I'd still like him to go. He has managed to turn the Government's best news day in almost two years into an absolute fiasco.
Being bad at politics isn't good enough for a Prime Minister.
He's been tutored in the Arsene Wenger "I did not see that" school
A minister texts: "This is a tipping point. There can be no more excuses; we're past apologies and there cannot be another fall person in the form of Olly Robbins. The PM must go."
Ultimately if a minister says that he or she should resign in protest
Far more interesting than this story is the report on the Southport murders and the Nottingham Public Inquiry into the murders by Valdo Calocane. Eye popping testimony in the letter which shows the police(again), the IOPC, the psychiatrists and even the prosecuting barrister in a very bad light.
I can do nothing better than echo the words of Professor Lucy Easthope - "This inquiry seems to have been able somehow to crystallise in excruciating detail the malaise, the slow, malicious incompetence and “we will need to move those answers to the next meeting” that has completely engulfed public sector and health governance in last ten years. And people die. The villains in “state death” are not winged and horned beasties but personable grown ups who get paid a shed load to wild swim and order team building lunches from Pret….and simply do not connect their lack of action and conscience to what happens next."
The only thing she is wrong about is saying that this happened in the last 10 years. It has been going on for far longer.
This is what Sheila Lewis, mother of one of the children killed Aberfan said: "“What I heard there was very difficult for me to accept. Because most people who were brought to the stand seemed to think it was somebody else’s fault. Not theirs at all. I believe one of the engineers got on the stand and he didn’t seem to realise his dreadful part in this happening. And when I heard what he had to say it made me feel sick because it looked to me as though he couldn’t have cared less about what had happened on account of his neglect.
It was a good thing I think that I wasn’t on the stand or wasn’t talking to him, you know, because I’d have floored him.”
Her words have been echoed by the mother of Barney Webber, killed by Calocane, and could be echoed by so many other victims of state misfeasance.
Rachel Reeves told reporters in Washington: “I didn’t know anything about the vetting process. I’m the Chancellor, I’m not the foreign secretary, and I’m not 10 Downing Street, so I can’t give you any more information on that.”
That's throwing Starmer to the wolves
No she hasn't.
You defending Starmer now ?
Read what I have written throughout this thread. In this instance I am defending Reeves, useless as she is.
You and your fellow travellers are getting far too excited. If it happens and he falls on his sword it will be the Guardian and not your useless Party that brought him down.
A minister texts: "This is a tipping point. There can be no more excuses; we're past apologies and there cannot be another fall person in the form of Olly Robbins. The PM must go."
Ultimately if a minister says that he or she should resign in protest
Anas will be out to head up another one man coup whilst the rest dither
Can you imagine if a leader of say a school had hired a sex offender to a very senior role hired diectly by the head despite not really having the correct qualifications, and then revealed that they had failed their DBR check but were hired anyway and the head claims never knew, never asked, never checked, even after it was revealed in the press they had hired a nonce and had sacked them.....
This analogy breaks down on the fact that Mandelson is not a sex offender but a friend of a sex offender. It's also not at all obvious he was unqualified for the role.
I didn't say Mandy was a sex offender. He failed security check, that is very similar to failing your DRB check. Unqualified, if you want to be picky lets say a unusual appointment and known to have a lot of baggage so even more important to dot the i's and cross the t's. Which apparently nobody did. And now we are led to believe at no point over the 6+ months with constant media attention the person who appointed him didn't ask for any debrief.
I didn't say you did, I'm just pointing out some places your analogy falls down.
Can you imagine if a leader of say a school had hired a sex offender to a very senior role hired diectly by the head despite not really having the correct qualifications, and then revealed that they had failed their DBR check but were hired anyway and the head claims never knew, never asked, never checked, even after it was revealed in the press they had hired a nonce and had sacked them.....
This analogy breaks down on the fact that Mandelson is not a sex offender but a friend of a sex offender. It's also not at all obvious he was unqualified for the role.
I didn't say Mandy was a sex offender. He failed security check, that is very similar to failing your DRB check. Unqualified, if you want to be picky lets say a unusual appointment and known to have a lot of baggage so even more important to dot the i's and cross the t's. Which apparently nobody did. And now we are led to believe at no point over the 6+ months with constant media attention the person who appointed him didn't ask for any debrief.
I didn't say you did, I'm just pointing out some places your analogy falls down.
The analogy is that Mandelson isn't someone who could be trusted around secrets.
Rachel Reeves told reporters in Washington: “I didn’t know anything about the vetting process. I’m the Chancellor, I’m not the foreign secretary, and I’m not 10 Downing Street, so I can’t give you any more information on that.”
That's throwing Starmer to the wolves
No she hasn't.
You defending Starmer now ?
Read what I have written throughout this thread. In this instance I am defending Reeves, useless as she is.
You and your fellow travellers are getting far too excited. If it happens and he falls on his sword it will be the Guardian and not your useless Party that brought him down.
I can understand the bitterness by Labour supporters but it is quite ironic that yesterday Lord Robertson accused Starmer and Reeves of putting benefits before defence and today the Guardian publish this explosive detail
A minister texts: "This is a tipping point. There can be no more excuses; we're past apologies and there cannot be another fall person in the form of Olly Robbins. The PM must go."
Ultimately if a minister says that he or she should resign in protest
Unless he's a Minister in the Church of Scotland...
Far more interesting than this story is the report on the Southport murders and the Nottingham Public Inquiry into the murders by Valdo Calocane. Eye popping testimony in the letter which shows the police(again), the IOPC, the psychiatrists and even the prosecuting barrister in a very bad light.
I can do nothing better than echo the words of Professor Lucy Easthope - "This inquiry seems to have been able somehow to crystallise in excruciating detail the malaise, the slow, malicious incompetence and “we will need to move those answers to the next meeting” that has completely engulfed public sector and health governance in last ten years. And people die. The villains in “state death” are not winged and horned beasties but personable grown ups who get paid a shed load to wild swim and order team building lunches from Pret….and simply do not connect their lack of action and conscience to what happens next."
The only thing she is wrong about is saying that this happened in the last 10 years. It has been going on for far longer.
This is what Sheila Lewis, mother of one of the children killed Aberfan said: "“What I heard there was very difficult for me to accept. Because most people who were brought to the stand seemed to think it was somebody else’s fault. Not theirs at all. I believe one of the engineers got on the stand and he didn’t seem to realise his dreadful part in this happening. And when I heard what he had to say it made me feel sick because it looked to me as though he couldn’t have cared less about what had happened on account of his neglect.
It was a good thing I think that I wasn’t on the stand or wasn’t talking to him, you know, because I’d have floored him.”
Her words have been echoed by the mother of Barney Webber, killed by Calocane, and could be echoed by so many other victims of state misfeasance.
If you start holding people responsible for legal responsibilities they willingly and knowingly assumed when they took their jobs…
How on Earth would we get Proper People to run things.
It’s quite alright to send junior people to prison for a mistake with accounts, but a Top Chap getting more than a better job elsewhere?
Career ending for Starmer I think. Someone overruled the vetting and it is implausible that he didn't at the very least know about it. Even if he didn't know about it at the point of decision he would have known about it before today given the big fuss about Mandelson. And in that case he would have an explanation why it wasn't him who made that decision.
Rachel Reeves told reporters in Washington: “I didn’t know anything about the vetting process. I’m the Chancellor, I’m not the foreign secretary, and I’m not 10 Downing Street, so I can’t give you any more information on that.”
That's throwing Starmer to the wolves
No she hasn't.
You defending Starmer now ?
Read what I have written throughout this thread. In this instance I am defending Reeves, useless as she is.
You and your fellow travellers are getting far too excited. If it happens and he falls on his sword it will be the Guardian and not your useless Party that brought him down.
I can understand the bitterness by Labour supporters but it is quite ironic that yesterday Lord Robertson accused Starmer and Reeves of putting benefits before defence and today the Guardian publish this explosive detail
Both fully paid up labour supporters of influence
There is no doubt an existence of significant jeopardy for Starmer, but your interpretation is simply wish casting, as it was yesterday with the Robertson speech.
A minister texts: "This is a tipping point. There can be no more excuses; we're past apologies and there cannot be another fall person in the form of Olly Robbins. The PM must go."
Ultimately if a minister says that he or she should resign in protest
And I bet that Minister berates the Republicans in Congress for being spineless in not standing up to Trump...
If Starmer goes, a leaderless Labour might actually do better at the locals. Might be a good chance to get rid and save some seats without a replacement leader being the fall guy.
If Starmer goes, a leaderless Labour might actually do better at the locals. Might be a good chance to get rid and save some seats without a replacement leader being the fall guy.
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.
They are also over social media, I regularly get promoted tweets by Restore in my feed.
They are for that subset who think Nigel Farage is a woke lefty who wants to Islamify Britain.
And that is 9% of the population? Are we sure this democracy thing is a good idea?
I'd vote to increase the speed limit to 80mph on motorways. Go Rupert (who I happen to know is amassing some substantial backers and backing, fwiw). Who's with me.
Yes, I would agree with that one. The safety improvements and braking capacity of modern cars make 80 now a lot safer than 70 was 20 years ago. Not going to vote for Rupert though (if I even get the option, which seems unlikely).
I'd go along with 80mph for electric cars, 70mph for ICE cars (60mph when Brent crude is above $75).
If Starmer goes, a leaderless Labour might actually do better at the locals. Might be a good chance to get rid and save some seats without a replacement leader being the fall guy.
Someone very senior at the Foreign Office has to be sacked. No, it won't stop people questioning Starmer's place, but if no official is sacked then the whole story makes no sense, so it's the only viable move.
If Starmer goes, a leaderless Labour might actually do better at the locals. Might be a good chance to get rid and save some seats without a replacement leader being the fall guy.
Not if it is that knob Milliband.
As shit as Starmer is and as poor as his judgement has been on this I still think he’s probably the best any of the main parties can offer as leader.
If Starmer goes, a leaderless Labour might actually do better at the locals. Might be a good chance to get rid and save some seats without a replacement leader being the fall guy.
Not if it is that knob Milliband.
As shit as Starmer is and as poor as his judgement has been on this I still think he’s probably the best any of the main parties can offer as leader.
No, he's not very good. There are far better. Milliband is not the one, or at least this particular Milliband.
Far more interesting than this story is the report on the Southport murders and the Nottingham Public Inquiry into the murders by Valdo Calocane. Eye popping testimony in the letter which shows the police(again), the IOPC, the psychiatrists and even the prosecuting barrister in a very bad light.
I can do nothing better than echo the words of Professor Lucy Easthope - "This inquiry seems to have been able somehow to crystallise in excruciating detail the malaise, the slow, malicious incompetence and “we will need to move those answers to the next meeting” that has completely engulfed public sector and health governance in last ten years. And people die. The villains in “state death” are not winged and horned beasties but personable grown ups who get paid a shed load to wild swim and order team building lunches from Pret….and simply do not connect their lack of action and conscience to what happens next."
The only thing she is wrong about is saying that this happened in the last 10 years. It has been going on for far longer.
This is what Sheila Lewis, mother of one of the children killed Aberfan said: "“What I heard there was very difficult for me to accept. Because most people who were brought to the stand seemed to think it was somebody else’s fault. Not theirs at all. I believe one of the engineers got on the stand and he didn’t seem to realise his dreadful part in this happening. And when I heard what he had to say it made me feel sick because it looked to me as though he couldn’t have cared less about what had happened on account of his neglect.
It was a good thing I think that I wasn’t on the stand or wasn’t talking to him, you know, because I’d have floored him.”
Her words have been echoed by the mother of Barney Webber, killed by Calocane, and could be echoed by so many other victims of state misfeasance.
If you start holding people responsible for legal responsibilities they willingly and knowingly assumed when they took their jobs…
How on Earth would we get Proper People to run things.
It’s quite alright to send junior people to prison for a mistake with accounts, but a Top Chap getting more than a better job elsewhere?
That’s anarchy!
Be fair, sometimes they don't get a better job elsewhere, they just get a nice pension and a peaceful retirement. They might even face a few snide comments at the Club. Horrors!
Rachel Reeves told reporters in Washington: “I didn’t know anything about the vetting process. I’m the Chancellor, I’m not the foreign secretary, and I’m not 10 Downing Street, so I can’t give you any more information on that.”
Lots of 3 monkeys going on on this govt. Time to ask Larry the cat!
Change of subject - 3 weeks to go to the Local Elections and I've never had so many leaflets before in an entire campaign, let alone this far out from polling day! Normally by now I would have had one Tory leaflet, if that.
My ward in Havering was split last time between two Residents Association and one Conservative. To add to the confusion neither RA Councillor is standing again, but the Tory switched sides at some point last year and is now standing again for the RA.
Leading the delivery race so far are the RAs, with 3 hand delivered ward leaflets. That's 3 more than I've received from them since moving here over 3 years ago/ (I'm not impressed as I would have thought the RAs would be the most likely to be in touch between elections). All three are very locally focussed, highlighting the candidates, defending the record of the council, the most informative - local people, local issues. Curiously, none of them lives in the ward.
Next is Reform, with two separate postal deliveries (they must have plenty of money) and also a calling card from canvassing - they came in the middle of the day which shows that they don't expect their target voters to be out at work. One letter and leaflet from Farage, only one of the 5 pledges has anything to do with the Council. Another letter from Rosindell defending his defection.
Just one leaflet from the Tories so far, with details on local candidates and focussed on local policies. A separate borough-wide flyer came with it to scare voters about the impact of Reform's plan to leave London, on the increased cost of commuting and losing the Freedom Pass. They have also canvassed while I was out. And unlike the RAs they get a point for having had a leaflet drop every quarter since I moved here (and for 20 years in my previous ward).
One generic borough 'newspaper' from the Greens. Probably not trying here, haven't heard from them outside the GE.
One leaflet from Labour, with details of candidates. Unfortunately it is for the wrong ward (the boundary is in the middle of the road).
So far I'm minded to give my anti-Reform votes to the Tories, as a reward for their consistency, rather than the RAs, as politically there isn't much difference, and I can't tell who is more likely to win.
If I'm uncertain then rewarding those that at least pretend to mention some local issues is a tie breaker.
Interestingly the Tory leaflet is much more focussed on council matters than in the past. Previously they consisted mostly of photos of Rosindell campaigning, often on national issues.
Whereas the Reform leaflets are packed with Rosser, and his obsessions (Hexit, flags, that's about it).
I haven't had any 'ordinary' ones yet. Which maybe points to a lack of manpower on the ground; I would have thought they were in a good position here, lots of flags around.
Someone very senior at the Foreign Office has to be sacked. No, it won't stop people questioning Starmer's place, but if no official is sacked then the whole story makes no sense, so it's the only viable move.
I still don’t see how an official could make that decision without someone in the elected government, somewhere, being at least made aware of it. If that really was the case, it is an utterly seismic error of judgment by officials, thinking as we are of sensitive matters of national security.
Someone very senior at the Foreign Office has to be sacked. No, it won't stop people questioning Starmer's place, but if no official is sacked then the whole story makes no sense, so it's the only viable move.
I still don’t see how an official could make that decision without someone in the elected government, somewhere, being at least made aware of it. If that really was the case, it is an utterly seismic error of judgment by officials, thinking as we are of sensitive matters of national security.
The elephant in the room is that 'vetting' is for the little people. Once you get to Mandelson's level, it's an irrelevant box-ticking exercise.
If Starmer goes, a leaderless Labour might actually do better at the locals. Might be a good chance to get rid and save some seats without a replacement leader being the fall guy.
Not if it is that knob Milliband.
As shit as Starmer is and as poor as his judgement has been on this I still think he’s probably the best any of the main parties can offer as leader.
No, he's not very good. There are far better. Milliband is not the one, or at least this particular Milliband.
David Miliband is unimpressive
Who, in Labour in parliament at the moment, or any other party, do you think would be an improvement. ?
Someone very senior at the Foreign Office has to be sacked. No, it won't stop people questioning Starmer's place, but if no official is sacked then the whole story makes no sense, so it's the only viable move.
I still don’t see how an official could make that decision without someone in the elected government, somewhere, being at least made aware of it. If that really was the case, it is an utterly seismic error of judgment by officials, thinking as we are of sensitive matters of national security.
No official I know would be so reckless on matters far less serious.
Reminds me a little of Sam Bankman-Fried's defence during his fraud trial. All his co-conspiritors had pled guilty and said he was involved and directing them, so his defence was he knew nothing about what was going on (despite endless promotion about being a genius), and that the others must have done all that fraud on their own even though as the main owner (some of the others did not own any of the main business) he was the one who benefitted. So they frauded to help him, without telling him.
This is not "Live" but is being frequently edited.
Didn't cross his desk.
The phrase beloved of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dealing with fresh evidence from crook's mates in appeals is 'not capable of belief'. The ex DPP knows what it means. It feels to apply here.
This SKS incident sounds potentially like the Rory Stewart failed attempt to countermand that development project in Afghanistan that he thought would (and did) benefit the Taliban, when he was undermined by Civil Servants.
Someone very senior at the Foreign Office has to be sacked. No, it won't stop people questioning Starmer's place, but if no official is sacked then the whole story makes no sense, so it's the only viable move.
I still don’t see how an official could make that decision without someone in the elected government, somewhere, being at least made aware of it. If that really was the case, it is an utterly seismic error of judgment by officials, thinking as we are of sensitive matters of national security.
The elephant in the room is that 'vetting' is for the little people. Once you get to Mandelson's level, it's an irrelevant box-ticking exercise.
Quite so. The rich and connected still, despite all evidence to the contrary, get imbued with a presumed state of alright-ness.
Career ending for Starmer I think. Someone overruled the vetting and it is implausible that he didn't at the very least know about it. Even if he didn't know about it at the point of decision he would have known about it before today given the big fuss about Mandelson. And in that case he would have an explanation why it wasn't him who made that decision.
It's not cricket for him to blame civil servants for overruling, as no-one in the civil service takes a risk against due process.
If there's evidence he knew (and it comes out) I agree he's gone.
Someone very senior at the Foreign Office has to be sacked. No, it won't stop people questioning Starmer's place, but if no official is sacked then the whole story makes no sense, so it's the only viable move.
I still don’t see how an official could make that decision without someone in the elected government, somewhere, being at least made aware of it. If that really was the case, it is an utterly seismic error of judgment by officials, thinking as we are of sensitive matters of national security.
There's that scene in the first episode of Yes, Minister, where Jim Hacker is presented with a comically huge pile of information, decisions and requests for replies.
It seems extremely plausible that things fall through the gaps all the time, and I suspect the demands on Number Ten exceed capacity even more now than then.
But this is an extremely bad thing to fall through the gaps.
I bet Starmer survives for now, but the reputation for competence has come apart very quickly in this government, and even if it is genuine civil service cock ups that's not a solid protection.
Someone very senior at the Foreign Office has to be sacked. No, it won't stop people questioning Starmer's place, but if no official is sacked then the whole story makes no sense, so it's the only viable move.
I still don’t see how an official could make that decision without someone in the elected government, somewhere, being at least made aware of it. If that really was the case, it is an utterly seismic error of judgment by officials, thinking as we are of sensitive matters of national security.
There's that scene in the first episode of Yes, Minister, where Jim Hacker is presented with a comically huge pile of information, decisions and requests for replies.
It seems extremely plausible that things fall through the gaps all the time, and I suspect the demands on Number Ten exceed capacity even more now than then.
But this is an extremely bad thing to fall through the gaps.
On the back of an extremely bad phone to get stolen its a real doozy of a pickle
Someone very senior at the Foreign Office has to be sacked. No, it won't stop people questioning Starmer's place, but if no official is sacked then the whole story makes no sense, so it's the only viable move.
I still don’t see how an official could make that decision without someone in the elected government, somewhere, being at least made aware of it. If that really was the case, it is an utterly seismic error of judgment by officials, thinking as we are of sensitive matters of national security.
There's that scene in the first episode of Yes, Minister, where Jim Hacker is presented with a comically huge pile of information, decisions and requests for replies.
It seems extremely plausible that things fall through the gaps all the time, and I suspect the demands on Number Ten exceed capacity even more now than then.
But this is an extremely bad thing to fall through the gaps.
One of the hardest things for a minister must be time management, and not being bounced into certain decisions before you are ready, because some things are time critical and so many things might be politically significant that you want to be involved, but there's no space to do it.
Which in one part explains why other matters which could be decided earlier are not, as ministers drag them to a halt to try to correct for all the times they sign off on lots of things they have no real time to process.
Someone very senior at the Foreign Office has to be sacked. No, it won't stop people questioning Starmer's place, but if no official is sacked then the whole story makes no sense, so it's the only viable move.
I still don’t see how an official could make that decision without someone in the elected government, somewhere, being at least made aware of it. If that really was the case, it is an utterly seismic error of judgment by officials, thinking as we are of sensitive matters of national security.
i think a senior official could do that, indeed did do that, to avoid embarrassment for the PM who had already announced the appointment. They just wouldn't have realised how it would blow up.
Far more interesting than this story is the report on the Southport murders and the Nottingham Public Inquiry into the murders by Valdo Calocane. Eye popping testimony in the letter which shows the police(again), the IOPC, the psychiatrists and even the prosecuting barrister in a very bad light.
I can do nothing better than echo the words of Professor Lucy Easthope - "This inquiry seems to have been able somehow to crystallise in excruciating detail the malaise, the slow, malicious incompetence and “we will need to move those answers to the next meeting” that has completely engulfed public sector and health governance in last ten years. And people die. The villains in “state death” are not winged and horned beasties but personable grown ups who get paid a shed load to wild swim and order team building lunches from Pret….and simply do not connect their lack of action and conscience to what happens next."
The only thing she is wrong about is saying that this happened in the last 10 years. It has been going on for far longer.
This is what Sheila Lewis, mother of one of the children killed Aberfan said: "“What I heard there was very difficult for me to accept. Because most people who were brought to the stand seemed to think it was somebody else’s fault. Not theirs at all. I believe one of the engineers got on the stand and he didn’t seem to realise his dreadful part in this happening. And when I heard what he had to say it made me feel sick because it looked to me as though he couldn’t have cared less about what had happened on account of his neglect.
It was a good thing I think that I wasn’t on the stand or wasn’t talking to him, you know, because I’d have floored him.”
Her words have been echoed by the mother of Barney Webber, killed by Calocane, and could be echoed by so many other victims of state misfeasance.
This is what happens when you have a two-tier education system where 7% of children get an inflated chance of getting the top jobs - a lot of second rate people in positions of power and influence.
If Starmer goes, a leaderless Labour might actually do better at the locals. Might be a good chance to get rid and save some seats without a replacement leader being the fall guy.
Not if it is that knob Milliband.
As shit as Starmer is and as poor as his judgement has been on this I still think he’s probably the best any of the main parties can offer as leader.
No, he's not very good. There are far better. Milliband is not the one, or at least this particular Milliband.
David Miliband is unimpressive
Who, in Labour in parliament at the moment, or any other party, do you think would be an improvement. ?
Darren Jones, Alistair Carns, at a push Streeting and if she is available Rayner.
I suspect it's a bit too early for the first two.
I'd prefer Burgon to Milliband, and Burgon really is the bottom of the barrel.
If Starmer goes, a leaderless Labour might actually do better at the locals. Might be a good chance to get rid and save some seats without a replacement leader being the fall guy.
Agreed - just a reminder that Lab is polling about 5 points better than Starmer
Someone very senior at the Foreign Office has to be sacked. No, it won't stop people questioning Starmer's place, but if no official is sacked then the whole story makes no sense, so it's the only viable move.
I still don’t see how an official could make that decision without someone in the elected government, somewhere, being at least made aware of it. If that really was the case, it is an utterly seismic error of judgment by officials, thinking as we are of sensitive matters of national security.
i think a senior official could do that, indeed did do that, to avoid embarrassment for the PM who had already announced the appointment. They just wouldn't have realised how it would blow up.
And then not mention it to the PM/no 10 as he repeatedly (unintentionally in this instance) misled the house and electorate?
A minister texts: "This is a tipping point. There can be no more excuses; we're past apologies and there cannot be another fall person in the form of Olly Robbins. The PM must go."
To say this as a minister and to require anonymity for yourself and decline to resign symbolises our empty and amoral political era.
If Starmer goes, a leaderless Labour might actually do better at the locals. Might be a good chance to get rid and save some seats without a replacement leader being the fall guy.
Not if it is that knob Milliband.
As shit as Starmer is and as poor as his judgement has been on this I still think he’s probably the best any of the main parties can offer as leader.
No, he's not very good. There are far better. Milliband is not the one, or at least this particular Milliband.
David Miliband is unimpressive
Who, in Labour in parliament at the moment, or any other party, do you think would be an improvement. ?
Rachel Reeves told reporters in Washington: “I didn’t know anything about the vetting process. I’m the Chancellor, I’m not the foreign secretary, and I’m not 10 Downing Street, so I can’t give you any more information on that.”
That's throwing Starmer to the wolves
No she hasn't.
You defending Starmer now ?
Read what I have written throughout this thread. In this instance I am defending Reeves, useless as she is.
You and your fellow travellers are getting far too excited. If it happens and he falls on his sword it will be the Guardian and not your useless Party that brought him down.
If Starmer goes, it is pretty nailed on that Reeves goes too.
Someone very senior at the Foreign Office has to be sacked. No, it won't stop people questioning Starmer's place, but if no official is sacked then the whole story makes no sense, so it's the only viable move.
I still don’t see how an official could make that decision without someone in the elected government, somewhere, being at least made aware of it. If that really was the case, it is an utterly seismic error of judgment by officials, thinking as we are of sensitive matters of national security.
The elephant in the room is that 'vetting' is for the little people. Once you get to Mandelson's level, it's an irrelevant box-ticking exercise.
Quite so. The rich and connected still, despite all evidence to the contrary, get imbued with a presumed state of alright-ness.
Someone very senior at the Foreign Office has to be sacked. No, it won't stop people questioning Starmer's place, but if no official is sacked then the whole story makes no sense, so it's the only viable move.
I still don’t see how an official could make that decision without someone in the elected government, somewhere, being at least made aware of it. If that really was the case, it is an utterly seismic error of judgment by officials, thinking as we are of sensitive matters of national security.
The elephant in the room is that 'vetting' is for the little people. Once you get to Mandelson's level, it's an irrelevant box-ticking exercise.
Quite so. The rich and connected still, despite all evidence to the contrary, get imbued with a presumed state of alright-ness.
Someone very senior at the Foreign Office has to be sacked. No, it won't stop people questioning Starmer's place, but if no official is sacked then the whole story makes no sense, so it's the only viable move.
I still don’t see how an official could make that decision without someone in the elected government, somewhere, being at least made aware of it. If that really was the case, it is an utterly seismic error of judgment by officials, thinking as we are of sensitive matters of national security.
The elephant in the room is that 'vetting' is for the little people. Once you get to Mandelson's level, it's an irrelevant box-ticking exercise.
Quite so. The rich and connected still, despite all evidence to the contrary, get imbued with a presumed state of alright-ness.
Someone very senior at the Foreign Office has to be sacked. No, it won't stop people questioning Starmer's place, but if no official is sacked then the whole story makes no sense, so it's the only viable move.
I still don’t see how an official could make that decision without someone in the elected government, somewhere, being at least made aware of it. If that really was the case, it is an utterly seismic error of judgment by officials, thinking as we are of sensitive matters of national security.
i think a senior official could do that, indeed did do that, to avoid embarrassment for the PM who had already announced the appointment. They just wouldn't have realised how it would blow up.
And then not mention it to the PM/no 10 as he repeatedly (unintentionally in this instance) misled the house and electorate?
Put yourself in this official's shoes. He's in deep shit. Heart beating furiously. Sweats. Just hoping it will blow over. This is a very sad human story which will play out over the next few days.
Rachel Reeves told reporters in Washington: “I didn’t know anything about the vetting process. I’m the Chancellor, I’m not the foreign secretary, and I’m not 10 Downing Street, so I can’t give you any more information on that.”
That's throwing Starmer to the wolves
No she hasn't.
You defending Starmer now ?
Read what I have written throughout this thread. In this instance I am defending Reeves, useless as she is.
You and your fellow travellers are getting far too excited. If it happens and he falls on his sword it will be the Guardian and not your useless Party that brought him down.
If Starmer goes, it is pretty nailed on that Reeves goes too.
Comments
"The PM really wants this guy appointed, so we've got to find some way to do it" is the best I can think of, if they didn't technically notify the PM, but I'd put that reasoning in writing to someone. And it would open you up to so much potential risk.
I'll bet you one Welsh sheep (in he absence of a local currency where you live) that you can't prove this claim.
I've had some trouble seeing comments so couldn't respond to feedback on my header yesterday.
Putting my partisan hat on, it could really be for the best for Labour in the medium term, if this scandal forces Starmer out. While I'm on the right, I'd much rather have a moderate Labour government than a hard left Green government, which we are at risk of, if Labour don't get a grip.
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2044827130807128086
Number 10 is said to have been told by the foreign office that Lord Mandelson had *cleared* his security vetting
Starmer is expected to make a statement to the Commons on Monday. Unclear if he will apologise. There's fury in No 10
Rachel Reeves told reporters in Washington: “I didn’t know anything about the vetting process. I’m the Chancellor, I’m not the foreign secretary, and I’m not 10 Downing Street, so I can’t give you any more information on that.”
Of course along came Trump, Netanyahu and Iran and Farage and Farage in a skirt urgent rush to war... Scuppering all hope of the growing positive vibes.
The reality is that 95% don't give a shit about Mandelson, marginally fewer than Chagos, and the rest of the right wing show boating gesture political cronies.
Labour will take a beating in 3 weeks time, the Tories will take a beating in 3 weeks time, that's a fact.
The real question is will Trump and Netsnhayu created a 1930s crisis or not?
A guy and a girl are getting on very well at the nightclub's final slow dance. "Would you like to come home with me?" asks the guy. "I'm sorry" she replies "but I am on my menstrual cycle". "Don't worry" says the lad "you can follow me home, I'm on my scooter".
A minister texts: "This is a tipping point. There can be no more excuses; we're past apologies and there cannot be another fall person in the form of Olly Robbins. The PM must go."
Keir Starmer found out Mandelson failed his vetting on Tuesday evening, person familiar with the matter says
Means he’ll have known for two days his previous public statements were untrue
No10 says he was making plans to tell the Commons
Unfortunate it came out via Guardian…
I can do nothing better than echo the words of Professor Lucy Easthope - "This inquiry seems to have been able somehow to crystallise in excruciating detail the malaise, the slow, malicious incompetence and “we will need to move those answers to the next meeting” that has completely engulfed public sector and health governance in last ten years. And people die. The villains in “state death” are not winged and horned beasties but personable grown ups who get paid a shed load to wild swim and order team building lunches from Pret….and simply do not connect their lack of action and conscience to what happens next."
The only thing she is wrong about is saying that this happened in the last 10 years. It has been going on for far longer.
This is what Sheila Lewis, mother of one of the children killed Aberfan said: "“What I heard there was very difficult for me to accept. Because most people who were brought to the stand seemed to think it was somebody else’s fault. Not theirs at all. I believe one of the engineers got on the stand and he didn’t seem to realise his dreadful part in this happening. And when I heard what he had to say it made me feel sick because it looked to me as though he couldn’t have cared less about what had happened on account of his neglect.
It was a good thing I think that I wasn’t on the stand or wasn’t talking to him, you know, because I’d have floored him.”
Her words have been echoed by the mother of Barney Webber, killed by Calocane, and could be echoed by so many other victims of state misfeasance.
3 times a week on average.
Missy hissy fitty
You and your fellow travellers are getting far too excited. If it happens and he falls on his sword it will be the Guardian and not your useless Party that brought him down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiMrrleH_hI
Both fully paid up labour supporters of influence
AHH, my coat...
https://x.com/Acyn/status/2044833423903334490
Reporter: Do you think it’s appropriate for King George to meet with members?
Boebert: I wouldn’t meet with him.
Reporter: Why not?
Boebert: 1776. I have nothing to do with King George or the royal family. I am an American first.
How on Earth would we get Proper People to run things.
It’s quite alright to send junior people to prison for a mistake with accounts, but a Top Chap getting more than a better job elsewhere?
That’s anarchy!
The one I can recommend (and I've certainly NOT tried them all) Is Hell's Stone from Perranporth. Sublime.
‘ JUST IN: Bluesky experiences major outage, dozens of users impacted’
https://x.com/polymarket/status/2044753041367179384?s=61
Who, in Labour in parliament at the moment, or any other party, do you think would be an improvement. ?
Reminds me a little of Sam Bankman-Fried's defence during his fraud trial. All his co-conspiritors had pled guilty and said he was involved and directing them, so his defence was he knew nothing about what was going on (despite endless promotion about being a genius), and that the others must have done all that fraud on their own even though as the main owner (some of the others did not own any of the main business) he was the one who benefitted. So they frauded to help him, without telling him.
Or it could be different.
If there's evidence he knew (and it comes out) I agree he's gone.
Ruins my bet, but events dear boy events.
It seems extremely plausible that things fall through the gaps all the time, and I suspect the demands on Number Ten exceed capacity even more now than then.
But this is an extremely bad thing to fall through the gaps.
Which in one part explains why other matters which could be decided earlier are not, as ministers drag them to a halt to try to correct for all the times they sign off on lots of things they have no real time to process.
I suspect it's a bit too early for the first two.
I'd prefer Burgon to Milliband, and Burgon really is the bottom of the barrel.
A new broom sweeps clean.
https://www.leathercult.com/products/leather-chaps?currency=USD&variant=42052254466132&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Google Shopping&stkn=53986914dc99&srsltid=AfmBOoqABmVerxN4YwEBWixY7oHn3Wz7ksv4hgAkxUm_zrb8miEvL36XRwA
Just hoping it will blow over.
This is a very sad human story which will play out over the next few days.