Understand PM will come to HoC on Monday to give statement. He will need to correct the record given that he has given parliament incorrect information.
FCDO spox tonite: “PM has initiated a process to establish the facts of the granting of developed vetting and we are working urgently to comply with that 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.
And then not mention it to the PM/no 10 as he repeatedly (unintentionally in this instance) misled the house and electorate?
Yes Prime Minister
- The trouble today has arisen because of your own error of judgement in making this denial. - What? - You should not have denied something about which you did not know. - But that was your fault, you've just admitted - keeping secrets from the Prime Minister. - Not at all Prime Minister. The system works perfectly well as long as the Prime Minister tells the Civil Service everything he's going to say before he says it.
Also a case where the PM had not been told about something significant by officials, then (in this Starmer case possibly) misled the House by being definitive about facts about which he was unaware.
Hacker survived it by blackmailing an official, let's see Starmer.
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.
OMG Burgon !
As for Ed Miliband the backstabbing Judas . I remain convinced that the decision he made to enter the leadership , winning and being a useless PM candidate enabled the Tories to win the 2015 election. And from there we got the EU ref.
David Miliband would have at least stopped the Tory majority .
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
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.
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.
Government by the chaps for the chaps.
In these enlightened times sometimes there are chapettes. But it is still mostly chaps.
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
So he has so little authority that his minions just tell him what they want him to hear?
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
So he has so little authority that his minions just tell him what they want him to hear?
That might be even worse
Unfortunately it's common viz Trump. It's more damning of the underlings.
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.
Nope. The decision will have been at Olly Robbins level (if we believe this cock and bull story), hes not some junior office clerk having a fit of the vapours like Nick Leeson
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
So he has so little authority that his minions just tell him what they want him to hear?
That might be even worse
Unfortunately it's common viz Trump. It's more damning of the underlings.
So who did forensikeir ask about the vetting result (surely he must have asked , at least?) and who lied to him?
Was McSweeney actually running the country until he was fired?
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
Outside of his Cabinet appointments, was there a bigger a role for the Prime Minister to fill than Ambassador to the United States?
Sorry, but it is straining credulity that he was so incurious about the vetting of the twice "resigned in disgrace" Lord Mandelson - a known friend of Epstein.
REPORTER: Iran is going to execute four more protesters, including the first woman protester. What do you tell Iran?
TRUMP: Tell that to the Pope
Tell it to the Pope Tell me I'm the only one Is this really love or just a game? Tell it to the Pope I can feel my body rock Every time you call my name
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.
Nope. The decision will have been at Olly Robbins level (if we believe this cock and bull story), hes not some junior office clerk having a fit of the vapours like Nick Leeson
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
Outside of his Cabinet appointments, was there a bigger a role for the Prime Minister to fill than Ambassador to the United States?
Sorry, but it is straining credulity that he was so incurious about the vetting of the twice "resigned in disgrace" Lord Mandelson - a known friend of Epstein.
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
So he has so little authority that his minions just tell him what they want him to hear?
That might be even worse
Unfortunately it's common viz Trump. It's more damning of the underlings.
So who did forensikeir ask about the vetting result (surely he must have asked , at least?) and who lied to him?
Was McSweeney actually running the country until he was fired?
If he wasn't told the vetting had failed he might have assumed it had passed. It's a big cock up. His story on Monday will be interesting . It wasn't McSweeney. In this case I think it is Robbins.
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.
It's bigger than that. His check was Developed Vetting (DV), not Security Check (SC). SC lets you look at SECRET stuff and access certain buildings, DV lets you look at TOP SECRET stuff and access some nuclear stuff. DV is high up: they interview you and your referees and go through your health records and bank statements
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
Here are the words of the govt spox today:
“Neither the prime minister, nor any government minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week."
Does anyone - for example Barnesian - believe that is entirely true and the whole relevant truth. Is it not more or less certainly a lie or some ridiculous quibble, perhaps clustering around the meaning of the word 'developed'.
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
So he has so little authority that his minions just tell him what they want him to hear?
That might be even worse
Unfortunately it's common viz Trump. It's more damning of the underlings.
So who did forensikeir ask about the vetting result (surely he must have asked , at least?) and who lied to him?
Was McSweeney actually running the country until he was fired?
If he wasn't told the vetting had failed he might have assumed it had passed. It's a big cock up. His story on Monday will be interesting . It wasn't McSweeney. In this case I think it is Robbins.
His (if you mean Starmer’s) story will be pure bullshit
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
Outside of his Cabinet appointments, was there a bigger a role for the Prime Minister to fill than Ambassador to the United States?
Sorry, but it is straining credulity that he was so incurious about the vetting of the twice "resigned in disgrace" Lord Mandelson - a known friend of Epstein.
The question remains. Did Starmer mislead parliament? If he did (which I doubt- technically) he goes. If he didn't unfortunately he remains.
EVERYONE knows whose decision Mandelson was, and why.
Besides the captain, there was a black pilot, a woman specialist, and a Canadian specialist. The captain, Reid Wiseman, is a widower with two adolescent daughters. The pilot, Victor Glover, is married, has four daughters, and is openly religous. The woman, Christina Koch, is happily married. She and her husband have a rescue dog, who missed her terribly during the mission. The Canadian, Jeremy Hansen, adds to that diversity in several ways.
Hansen is married to Catherine Hansen, a medical doctor and expert in women’s health, and has three children.[5] Hansen is interested in Indigenous knowledge. His mission patch for Artemis II was designed by an Anishinaabe artist by the name of Henry Guimond, of Sagkeeng First Nation and references the Teachings of the Seven Grandfathers.[12] His hobbies include mountain biking, rock climbing, and sailboating.
So, four happy families, showing that men and women can get along, that whites and blacks can get along, and that — the Loser will hate this — that Canadians and Americans can get along.
The American space program has always been about politics, domestic and international. I agree with all the political arguments made by the choices of the members of that team.
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
Here are the words of the govt spox today:
“Neither the prime minister, nor any government minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week."
Does anyone - for example Barnesian - believe that is entirely true and the whole relevant truth. Is it not more or less certainly a lie or some ridiculous quibble, perhaps clustering around the meaning of the word 'developed'.
And when the Mail and Sky put it to government in September that Mandelson had been red flagged, nobody checked? Just denied it without checking?
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
Here are the words of the govt spox today:
“Neither the prime minister, nor any government minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week."
Does anyone - for example Barnesian - believe that is entirely true and the whole relevant truth. Is it not more or less certainly a lie or some ridiculous quibble, perhaps clustering around the meaning of the word 'developed'.
I believe it is true that the PM didn't know that the failure of DV was hidden by the FO until earlier this week and is furious about it. And rightly so. It's the most persuasive explanation of the sequence of events. Otherwise you have to believe that Starmer knowingly and deliberately lied to the to HOC. I just don't believe that.
There won't be a quibble about the word "developed". Developed Vetting has a precise meaning. See Viewcode's post.
Incidentally I'm not a Starmer defender. I'm just intrigued by the actual explanation and trying to assess it dispassionately.
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
Outside of his Cabinet appointments, was there a bigger a role for the Prime Minister to fill than Ambassador to the United States?
Sorry, but it is straining credulity that he was so incurious about the vetting of the twice "resigned in disgrace" Lord Mandelson - a known friend of Epstein.
The question remains. Did Starmer mislead parliament? If he did (which I doubt- technically) he goes. If he didn't unfortunately he remains.
EVERYONE knows whose decision Mandelson was, and why.
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
Here are the words of the govt spox today:
“Neither the prime minister, nor any government minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week."
Does anyone - for example Barnesian - believe that is entirely true and the whole relevant truth. Is it not more or less certainly a lie or some ridiculous quibble, perhaps clustering around the meaning of the word 'developed'.
And when the Mail and Sky put it to government in September that Mandelson had been red flagged, nobody checked? Just denied it without checking?
Call me cynical, but I do not believe it. The only way no minister could have known is:
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
So he has so little authority that his minions just tell him what they want him to hear?
That might be even worse
Unfortunately it's common viz Trump. It's more damning of the underlings.
So who did forensikeir ask about the vetting result (surely he must have asked , at least?) and who lied to him?
Was McSweeney actually running the country until he was fired?
If he wasn't told the vetting had failed he might have assumed it had passed. It's a big cock up. His story on Monday will be interesting . It wasn't McSweeney. In this case I think it is Robbins.
His (if you mean Starmer’s) story will be pure bullshit
The only question which matters in British politics tonight is this: does Oliver Robbins have the receipts? If he told a single person in No10/the private office or any minister, Starmer’s position is untenable
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
So he has so little authority that his minions just tell him what they want him to hear?
That might be even worse
Unfortunately it's common viz Trump. It's more damning of the underlings.
So who did forensikeir ask about the vetting result (surely he must have asked , at least?) and who lied to him?
Was McSweeney actually running the country until he was fired?
If he wasn't told the vetting had failed he might have assumed it had passed. It's a big cock up. His story on Monday will be interesting . It wasn't McSweeney. In this case I think it is Robbins.
His (if you mean Starmer’s) story will be pure bullshit
How do you know that? Is it a guess?
As close to a guess as your supposition that the two-faced liar running the country is actually holier than thou..
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
Here are the words of the govt spox today:
“Neither the prime minister, nor any government minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week."
Does anyone - for example Barnesian - believe that is entirely true and the whole relevant truth. Is it not more or less certainly a lie or some ridiculous quibble, perhaps clustering around the meaning of the word 'developed'.
And when the Mail and Sky put it to government in September that Mandelson had been red flagged, nobody checked? Just denied it without checking?
Call me cynical, but I do not believe it. The only way no minister could have known is:
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
So he has so little authority that his minions just tell him what they want him to hear?
That might be even worse
Unfortunately it's common viz Trump. It's more damning of the underlings.
So who did forensikeir ask about the vetting result (surely he must have asked , at least?) and who lied to him?
Was McSweeney actually running the country until he was fired?
If he wasn't told the vetting had failed he might have assumed it had passed. It's a big cock up. His story on Monday will be interesting . It wasn't McSweeney. In this case I think it is Robbins.
His (if you mean Starmer’s) story will be pure bullshit
How do you know that? Is it a guess?
As close to a guess as your supposition that the two-faced liar running the country is actually holier than thou..
It's hard to be holier than me. I'm not claiming 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."
To say this as a minister and to require anonymity for yourself and decline to resign symbolises our empty and amoral political era.
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.
Starmer is as safe as ever.
As safe as the least liked PM of all time has ever been
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
It's possible he made it clear it didn't want to know if Mandy failed the vetting.
It needn't even be that. It's a much less Nazi version of the "working to the Fuhrer" dynamic. In all organisations, there are things that everybody knows even though nobody ever needs to say them out loud, because it would just be too awkward to acknowledge them. Get me drunk enough in private, and I'll tell you about the ones in education.
For example "Mandy needs to be ambassador precisely because he's a slimeball with slimy connections." The trouble is that, because it's never said explicitly, the boundary of "a slimeball, yes- but not that much of a slimeball" never gets probed.
The only question which matters in British politics tonight is this: does Oliver Robbins have the receipts? If he told a single person in No10/the private office or any minister, Starmer’s position is untenable
I don't believe this wouldn't have been flagged - it was a political decision so an official may have felt it wasn't for them to overule it given the appointment had already been announced, but you can be sure at the very least the Risk would have gone to the minister (Foreign Sec? PM?) - are you sure you are happy to sign off on the risk of xyz happening?
Once again it will be the cover up that does it. Had the original statement when he was appointed said yes we know he's a slimeball and a shit but he has the particular skills we need to manage Trump (diplomatically put of course) then it wouldn't matter.
This latest development in the Mandelson saga provides a convenient excuse for a reverse ferret by those who had claimed that Starmer would survive into the Autumn or even into 2027.
But he was always going to be toast immediately after Labour had lost 1,500+ seats in the May elections, thrown to the wolves by MPs seeing the writing on the wall for their own seats if they didn't force a change at the top. The only question now is whether he even survives into May.
I just drank about £300 worth of Irish whiskey. In 5 glasses. The best stuff is expensive. Luckily I didn't pay
I feel disloyal to my ancestors and to the UK in saying this, but I prefer a cheap Irish whiskey to an expensive Scitch whisky.
I’m still in Britain. Indeed, it turns out Antrim is an exceptionally beautiful part of Britain. I’m glad we held on to it. The Antrim glens are gorgeous, and there is a general air of prosperity, and a total lack of dramatic demographic change
I am now in the Harbourview in Carnlough, once owned by Winston Churchill, and I have an eaten an oyster. Just one. The restaurant is a bit molecular
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
It's possible he made it clear it didn't want to know if Mandy failed the vetting.
This is exactly what I believe happened, but almost certainly not in so many words. If the process has been followed, which I think needed some pretty high level exceptions processing, then how was that pre-handled. A hypothetical "what would happen if..." conversation? And the (informal, thinking of doing this?) announcement prior to the vetting results, was that part of Starmer getting his way?
Whatever, the pattern here is established with Starmer, things do not come across his desk for a reason and the process always takes the apt route for getting the desired result without, directly, implicating the main man. And with each turn of the wheel the pattern becomes more credible and the mishap less so.
I hate to be coming to this conclusion, but I think Charles's Mum was probably right with 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.
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.
Government by the chaps for the chaps.
Be fair.
The NU10K are far more diverse than the Old10K - female, gay, various colours, state schools etc.
Diverse in form, but not in substance.
Listen to Cressida Dick or Paula Vennells give evidence. It’s the same bland denial of responsibility, knowledge, capability, skill & morality that the fat white male examples give.
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
What does Starmer *do* all day?
He seems never to know anything that is going on in his government.
This latest development in the Mandelson saga provides a convenient excuse for a reverse ferret by those who had claimed that Starmer would survive into the Autumn or even into 2027.
But he was always going to be toast immediately after Labour had lost 1,500+ seats in the May elections, thrown to the wolves by MPs seeing the writing on the wall for their own seats if they didn't force a change at the top. The only question now is whether he even survives into May.
This latest development in the Mandelson saga provides a convenient excuse for a reverse ferret by those who had claimed that Starmer would survive into the Autumn or even into 2027.
But he was always going to be toast immediately after Labour had lost 1,500+ seats in the May elections, thrown to the wolves by MPs seeing the writing on the wall for their own seats if they didn't force a change at the top. The only question now is whether he even survives into May.
I think he could be persuaded to take on the role of Foreign Secretary with Angela as PM. Yvette could take over as Chancellor and give Angela a well deserved rest.
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).
The cars' braking systems may be better but people's reaction times might well be worse.
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
What does Starmer *do* all day?
He seems never to know anything that is going on in his government.
It takes A LOT of effort to not know as much as Starmer doesn't.
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
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.
Makes no sense at all. It’s a volcanically hot potato and everyone at the FO from the newbie graduates to the top mandarins will have been desperately palming it off to someone, anyone - and making sure there was a record of them doing so.
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
What does Starmer *do* all day?
He seems never to know anything that is going on in his government.
It takes A LOT of effort to not know as much as Starmer doesn't.
It sounds like the premise for a comedy sketch: "Number 10 crisis as somebody accidentally informs Starmer about something".
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
What does Starmer *do* all day?
He seems never to know anything that is going on in his government.
It takes A LOT of effort to not know as much as Starmer doesn't.
It sounds like the premise for a comedy sketch: "Number 10 crisis as somebody accidentally informs Starmer about something".
David Mitchell as Starmer, Robert Webb as the foolish Civil Servant?
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).
The cars' braking systems may be better but people's reaction times might well be worse.
Though they are a smaller proportion of the stopping distance at high speed. OTOH, you carry a lot more energy at 80 v 70.
Motorways are exceptionally safe, little risk of flattening a pedestrian or cyclist, so I think in quiet rural areas 80mph is probably reasonable.
I just drank about £300 worth of Irish whiskey. In 5 glasses. The best stuff is expensive. Luckily I didn't pay
I feel disloyal to my ancestors and to the UK in saying this, but I prefer a cheap Irish whiskey to an expensive Scitch whisky.
I’m still in Britain. Indeed, it turns out Antrim is an exceptionally beautiful part of Britain. I’m glad we held on to it. The Antrim glens are gorgeous, and there is a general air of prosperity, and a total lack of dramatic demographic change
I am now in the Harbourview in Carnlough, once owned by Winston Churchill, and I have an eaten an oyster. Just one. The restaurant is a bit molecular
You are not in (Great) Britain, which is England, Wales, Scotland.
You are in the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
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
What does Starmer *do* all day?
He seems never to know anything that is going on in his government.
It takes A LOT of effort to not know as much as Starmer doesn't.
It sounds like the premise for a comedy sketch: "Number 10 crisis as somebody accidentally informs Starmer about something".
I can see Rayner taking over here. I read an article today (FT, Tele or Spec, Soz I forget I’m on a food and booze freebie assignment so I am drunk the whole time) which said she would immediately raise Defence Spending to 3.5%, no fucking about like Skyr and Tiny Tears
That sounds like a woman on serious maneuvers. Also she could bring it off. The no nonsense working class woman with basic common sense and patriotism, unlike the odious creep Starmer. She would junk shit like Chagos, and all the human rights lawyer crap, and she would unite the party. If she appointed Streeting Chancellor that would add to her lustre
Labour should go for it. Rayner as PM, Streeting in Number 11. Do it now, the nettle is better seized ASAP
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).
The cars' braking systems may be better but people's reaction times might well be worse.
At 70mph, the official braking distance is 320 feet, made up up of 70 feet thinking and 250 feet braking. This is at least 60 years old. I remember it from taking my driving test in 1961. I suspect the actual braking distance in dry weather with good tyres and modern brakes is more like 150 feet. So even if the thinking time has gone up to say 100 feet, the total distance is much less than 320 feet, even at 80 mph.
I just drank about £300 worth of Irish whiskey. In 5 glasses. The best stuff is expensive. Luckily I didn't pay
I feel disloyal to my ancestors and to the UK in saying this, but I prefer a cheap Irish whiskey to an expensive Scitch whisky.
I’m still in Britain. Indeed, it turns out Antrim is an exceptionally beautiful part of Britain. I’m glad we held on to it. The Antrim glens are gorgeous, and there is a general air of prosperity, and a total lack of dramatic demographic change
I am now in the Harbourview in Carnlough, once owned by Winston Churchill, and I have an eaten an oyster. Just one. The restaurant is a bit molecular
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
Here are the words of the govt spox today:
“Neither the prime minister, nor any government minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week."
Does anyone - for example Barnesian - believe that is entirely true and the whole relevant truth. Is it not more or less certainly a lie or some ridiculous quibble, perhaps clustering around the meaning of the word 'developed'.
And when the Mail and Sky put it to government in September that Mandelson had been red flagged, nobody checked? Just denied it without checking?
Call me cynical, but I do not believe it. The only way no minister could have known is:
A, The official misled them. B, They never asked.
Neither of those scenarios seems plausible to me.
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent vetting process?"
Telling the boss something, directly and provably, is often taken as dumb insolence - “trying to pass responsibility to your betters, eh?”
So a civil servant might have thought it his job to -*not* tell the PM. Which would make the problem public and embracing - since if the PM knew, Mandy couldn’t get the job, and it would end up in the Press.
@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".
I wasn't triggered so much as astonished by the stupidity and ignorance.
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 you're making point about private education, it's a silly one because most of the people who failed in both cases were not in that 7% but ordinary people who were just incompetent at their job, evasive to those they were meant to serve and unwilling to accept responsibility.
There are lots of second rate people around and systems designed to reward them and frustrate those who try to do their job well and with some sense of responsibility and professionalism.
Does anyone believe that the truth is important to Starmer?
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
Yes. That's the most likely explanation. Otherwise you have to believe that he deliberately lied knowing that the truth would come out. I don't believe he would do that.
Here are the words of the govt spox today:
“Neither the prime minister, nor any government minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week."
Does anyone - for example Barnesian - believe that is entirely true and the whole relevant truth. Is it not more or less certainly a lie or some ridiculous quibble, perhaps clustering around the meaning of the word 'developed'.
I believe it is true that the PM didn't know that the failure of DV was hidden by the FO until earlier this week and is furious about it. And rightly so. It's the most persuasive explanation of the sequence of events. Otherwise you have to believe that Starmer knowingly and deliberately lied to the to HOC. I just don't believe that.
There won't be a quibble about the word "developed". Developed Vetting has a precise meaning. See Viewcode's post.
Incidentally I'm not a Starmer defender. I'm just intrigued by the actual explanation and trying to assess it dispassionately.
I don't know. Prime who aren't used to lying will sometimes tell absolute whoppers when their backs are against the wall and, because they don't make a habit of it, they're normally much worse at it.
Imagine if Stranger had told the House that Mandelson had failed vetting, that it had been overruled, and that he'd known about that. I think they would have been very problematic to admit to. If that is what happened he might have felt trapped into lying and hoping it could be covered up.
I don't think you can assume good faith and logical thinking on his part.
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).
The cars' braking systems may be better but people's reaction times might well be worse.
At 70mph, the official braking distance is 320 feet, made up up of 70 feet thinking and 250 feet braking. This is at least 60 years old. I remember it from taking my driving test in 1961. I suspect the actual braking distance in dry weather with good tyres and modern brakes is more like 150 feet. So even if the thinking time has gone up to say 100 feet, the total distance is much less than 320 feet, even at 80 mph.
This gives an average of 130 feet braking distance at 60mph.
Comments
Is it possible that he was never told that Mandy failed the vetting?
https://x.com/BethRigby/status/2044842661421461953
Understand PM will come to HoC on Monday to give statement. He will need to correct the record given that he has given parliament incorrect information.
FCDO spox tonite: “PM has initiated a process to establish the facts of the granting of developed vetting and we are working urgently to comply with that process.”
- The trouble today has arisen because of your own error of judgement in making this denial.
- What?
- You should not have denied something about which you did not know.
- But that was your fault, you've just admitted - keeping secrets from the Prime Minister.
- Not at all Prime Minister. The system works perfectly well as long as the Prime Minister tells the Civil Service everything he's going to say before he says it.
Also a case where the PM had not been told about something significant by officials, then (in this Starmer case possibly) misled the House by being definitive about facts about which he was unaware.
Hacker survived it by blackmailing an official, let's see Starmer.
As for Ed Miliband the backstabbing Judas . I remain convinced that the decision he made to enter the leadership , winning and being a useless PM candidate enabled the Tories to win the 2015 election. And from there we got the EU ref.
David Miliband would have at least stopped the Tory majority .
That might be even worse
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/06/28/robert-jenricks-secret-weapon-being-a-lawyer-as-the-country-loves-lawyers/
REPORTER: Iran is going to execute four more protesters, including the first woman protester. What do you tell Iran?
TRUMP: Tell that to the Pope
Was McSweeney actually running the country until he was fired?
Sorry, but it is straining credulity that he was so incurious about the vetting of the twice "resigned in disgrace" Lord Mandelson - a known friend of Epstein.
Tell me I'm the only one
Is this really love or just a game?
Tell it to the Pope
I can feel my body rock
Every time you call my name
His story on Monday will be interesting .
It wasn't McSweeney. In this case I think it is Robbins.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/united-kingdom-security-vetting-clearance-levels/national-security-vetting-clearance-levels
“Neither the prime minister, nor any government minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week."
Does anyone - for example Barnesian - believe that is entirely true and the whole relevant truth. Is it not more or less certainly a lie or some ridiculous quibble, perhaps clustering around the meaning of the word 'developed'.
EVERYONE knows whose decision Mandelson was, and why.
You can see the political thinking in this welcome home video: https://www.today.com/video/hear-what-the-artemis-ii-crew-said-after-their-return-to-earth-261225029681
Besides the captain, there was a black pilot, a woman specialist, and a Canadian specialist. The captain, Reid Wiseman, is a widower with two adolescent daughters. The pilot, Victor Glover, is married, has four daughters, and is openly religous. The woman, Christina Koch, is happily married. She and her husband have a rescue dog, who missed her terribly during the mission. The Canadian, Jeremy Hansen, adds to that diversity in several ways. So, four happy families, showing that men and women can get along, that whites and blacks can get along, and that — the Loser will hate this — that Canadians and Americans can get along.
The American space program has always been about politics, domestic and international. I agree with all the political arguments made by the choices of the members of that team.
The excuses here don't pass the smell test.
There won't be a quibble about the word "developed". Developed Vetting has a precise meaning. See Viewcode's post.
Incidentally I'm not a Starmer defender. I'm just intrigued by the actual explanation and trying to assess it dispassionately.
A, The official misled them.
B, They never asked.
Neither of those scenarios seems plausible to me.
The only question which matters in British politics tonight is this: does Oliver Robbins have the receipts? If he told a single person in No10/the private office or any minister, Starmer’s position is untenable
Officials: Yes, boss.
(Later)
Starmer: Not like that, idiot!
His best play, but not great.
For example "Mandy needs to be ambassador precisely because he's a slimeball with slimy connections." The trouble is that, because it's never said explicitly, the boundary of "a slimeball, yes- but not that much of a slimeball" never gets probed.
Once again it will be the cover up that does it. Had the original statement when he was appointed said yes we know he's a slimeball and a shit but he has the particular skills we need to manage Trump (diplomatically put of course) then it wouldn't matter.
But he was always going to be toast immediately after Labour had lost 1,500+ seats in the May elections, thrown to the wolves by MPs seeing the writing on the wall for their own seats if they didn't force a change at the top. The only question now is whether he even survives into May.
I am now in the Harbourview in Carnlough, once owned by Winston Churchill, and I have an eaten an oyster. Just one. The restaurant is a bit molecular
Whatever, the pattern here is established with Starmer, things do not come across his desk for a reason and the process always takes the apt route for getting the desired result without, directly, implicating the main man. And with each turn of the wheel the pattern becomes more credible and the mishap less so.
I hate to be coming to this conclusion, but I think Charles's Mum was probably right with Starmer.
The NU10K are far more diverse than the Old10K - female, gay, various colours, state schools etc.
Diverse in form, but not in substance.
Listen to Cressida Dick or Paula Vennells give evidence. It’s the same bland denial of responsibility, knowledge, capability, skill & morality that the fat white male examples give.
He seems never to know anything that is going on in his government.
NEW THREAD
Motorways are exceptionally safe, little risk of flattening a pedestrian or cyclist, so I think in quiet rural areas 80mph is probably reasonable.
You are in the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
(We swon't get into the British Isles...)
That sounds like a woman on serious maneuvers. Also she could bring it off. The no nonsense working class woman with basic common sense and patriotism, unlike the odious creep Starmer. She would junk shit like Chagos, and all the human rights lawyer crap, and she would unite the party. If she appointed Streeting Chancellor that would add to her lustre
Labour should go for it. Rayner as PM, Streeting in Number 11. Do it now, the nettle is better seized ASAP
I suspect the actual braking distance in dry weather with good tyres and modern brakes is more like 150 feet. So even if the thinking time has gone up to say 100 feet, the total distance is much less than 320 feet, even at 80 mph.
Telling the boss something, directly and provably, is often taken as dumb insolence - “trying to pass responsibility to your betters, eh?”
So a civil servant might have thought it his job to -*not* tell the PM. Which would make the problem public and embracing - since if the PM knew, Mandy couldn’t get the job, and it would end up in the Press.
There are lots of second rate people around and systems designed to reward them and frustrate those who try to do their job well and with some sense of responsibility and professionalism.
Imagine if Stranger had told the House that Mandelson had failed vetting, that it had been overruled, and that he'd known about that. I think they would have been very problematic to admit to. If that is what happened he might have felt trapped into lying and hoping it could be covered up.
I don't think you can assume good faith and logical thinking on his part.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-safety/best-and-worst-braking-distances-a2960086475/
Heavier cars have a longer braking distance in general.