Powell is Deputy Leader, and that must count for something.
It's an interesting question as to who would step up to be interim PM in the event that Starmer resigns in the near future over the Mandelson vetting scandal. That's because Lammy the Deputy PM was the Foreign Secretary at the time, that is Ollie Robbins boss, and it's stretching credibility too far to think that he wasn't in the know if Starmer was.
We would then be in uncharted waters. There must be a path for Powell the Deputy Leader of the governing party to be next in line to assume the office of PM, on an interim basis pending an election. And there would be nothing to stop her putting her hat in the ring to carry on as PM, and with a bit of added credibility thanks to doing the job on an interim basis already, to end up being elected.
I'm sceptical as to whether any of that could really happen. But odds of 50/1 on Powell are enough to cover the chance that it just might. And they are certainly much better value odds than the 50/1 on Lammy!
This question often comes up and then the resigning PM always stays on after announcing their intention to resign while a permanent replacement is selected. If there's pressure for this to be done quickly it normally results in the process being curtailed by not having a contest.
Why do people expect it to be different, every time, and for there to be an interim PM?
Who was the last PM to actually leave office when the announced their resignation? Eden?
Powell is Deputy Leader, and that must count for something.
It's an interesting question as to who would step up to be interim PM in the event that Starmer resigns in the near future over the Mandelson vetting scandal. That's because Lammy the Deputy PM was the Foreign Secretary at the time, that is Ollie Robbins boss, and it's stretching credibility too far to think that he wasn't in the know if Starmer was.
We would then be in uncharted waters. There must be a path for Powell the Deputy Leader of the governing party to be next in line to assume the office of PM, on an interim basis pending an election. And there would be nothing to stop her putting her hat in the ring to carry on as PM, and with a bit of added credibility thanks to doing the job on an interim basis already, to end up being elected.
I'm sceptical as to whether any of that could really happen. But odds of 50/1 on Powell are enough to cover the chance that it just might. And they are certainly much better value odds than the 50/1 on Lammy!
This question often comes up and then the resigning PM always stays on after announcing their intention to resign while a permanent replacement is selected. If there's pressure for this to be done quickly it normally results in the process being curtailed by not having a contest.
Why do people expect it to be different, every time, and for there to be an interim PM?
More exciting.
Makes for more uncertainty in a theoretical 'hit by a bus' scenario, but even there ways can be made clear - some people seemed baffled when Boris was to be out of action that they could make it clear who would be deputising, and therefore if the worst had happen who would probably be selected as a pseodo-interim PM.
See also politicians reversing position on whether a GE should happen when PMs change midterm, forgetting everything theyve previously said.
Powell is Deputy Leader, and that must count for something.
It's an interesting question as to who would step up to be interim PM in the event that Starmer resigns in the near future over the Mandelson vetting scandal. That's because Lammy the Deputy PM was the Foreign Secretary at the time, that is Ollie Robbins boss, and it's stretching credibility too far to think that he wasn't in the know if Starmer was.
We would then be in uncharted waters. There must be a path for Powell the Deputy Leader of the governing party to be next in line to assume the office of PM, on an interim basis pending an election. And there would be nothing to stop her putting her hat in the ring to carry on as PM, and with a bit of added credibility thanks to doing the job on an interim basis already, to end up being elected.
I'm sceptical as to whether any of that could really happen. But odds of 50/1 on Powell are enough to cover the chance that it just might. And they are certainly much better value odds than the 50/1 on Lammy!
Surely Lammy’s jacket must also be on a shoogly peg.
... taking on the persona of @Leon and SAYING For What Is Is Worth, clearing throat deeply, and saying: I HAD DRINKS TONIGHT with someone who is absolutely steeped and totally in the Labour party and worked at top level for the biggest labour unions and their view is now:
Burnham.
Our very own Deep Throat has spoken... 👀
As I say bet accordingly.
This is DYOR time.
It's been a while since we've had a Prime Minister from the Lords.
... taking on the persona of @Leon and SAYING For What Is Is Worth, clearing throat deeply, and saying: I HAD DRINKS TONIGHT with someone who is absolutely steeped and totally in the Labour party and worked at top level for the biggest labour unions and their view is now:
Burnham.
That unfortunately does not say much for the person you had drinks with. Burnham is not an MP. Burnham has no route to becoming an MP.
If your drinking partner is correct then it implies that Starmer remains in post indefinitely, as people wait impotently for Burnham to become an MP.
One of the things that is repeatedly forgotten about Lab politics is that the unions have their people and their fingers in every single breathing monent.
As I say DYOR.
I'm sticking more £ on Burghnam based on this everning.
My god Starmer gets even more grotesque. He’s a c***
At what point do Labour MPs rebel on the very basic grounds that they are led by a fat faced dimwit careerist loser who would extract the last bone marrow of his living mother to get a brief erection?
My god Starmer gets even more grotesque. He’s a c***
At what point do Labour MPs rebel on the very basic grounds that they are led by a fat faced dimwit careerist loser who would extract the last bone marrow of his living mother to get a brief erection?
Now tell us what you *REALLY* think about Two Tier....
My god Starmer gets even more grotesque. He’s a c***
At what point do Labour MPs rebel on the very basic grounds that they are led by a fat faced dimwit careerist loser who would extract the last bone marrow of his living mother to get a brief erection?
He would rather have an erection than an election.
My god Starmer gets even more grotesque. He’s a c***
At what point do Labour MPs rebel on the very basic grounds that they are led by a fat faced dimwit careerist loser who would extract the last bone marrow of his living mother to get a brief erection?
If Labour come third or below in May but Rayner would be the only likely alternative members elect at the moment otherwise Starmer stays as Burnham is not eligible as not back in parliament
A mirage of the top Whitehall official resigning. Decent payoff, probably another great and good job once everything has settled down I'll bet; Starmer saved by throwing him under the bus.
A mirage of the top Whitehall official resigning. Decent payoff, probably another great and good job once everything has settled down I'll bet; Starmer saved by throwing him under the bus.
New More in Common shock Holyrood poll has the SNP collapsing to just 32% of the vote on the constituency vote, 27% on the list and just 48 seats. There would be a Unionist majority for the first time since 2007 with Labour second on 21 seats, Reform third on 20, the Tories on 16 and LDs on 13, giving 70 Unionist MSPs
interesting as that contradicts some of the recent MRPs
Yep, the thing we dont know is what happens to the Green constituency vote in polls where they are getting 6/7% (they are only standing in 6 constituencies)
Turnout will be lower that's for certain.
Interestingly Ladbrokes have an SNP constituency vote %, the bands are over 39.5% (4/5) and under 39.5% (evens) ... for me the buy is on the under band
MiC has only included Green candidates confirmed as standing
No, Luke Tryl confirmed the poll straddled nominations so Greens are included generally but in future polls and an upcoming MRP they will just include the 6 candidates
There must surely be a paper trail if Robbins over ruled the security check. I know it’s not popular in here but I tend to think Starmer thought Mandelson passed the checks when he gave that statement in the Commons .
I don’t think he’d just lie knowing that he’d eventually get found out.
There must surely be a paper trail if Robbins over ruled the security check. I know it’s not popular in here but I tend to think Starmer thought Mandelson passed the checks when he gave that statement in the Commons .
I don’t think he’d just lie knowing that he’d eventually get found out.
He's being summonsed to a select committee to explain himself, I think?
There must surely be a paper trail if Robbins over ruled the security check. I know it’s not popular in here but I tend to think Starmer thought Mandelson passed the checks when he gave that statement in the Commons .
I don’t think he’d just lie knowing that he’d eventually get found out.
He's being summonsed to a select committee to explain himself, I think?
Does he still have to go now that he’s no longer in post ?
My god Starmer gets even more grotesque. He’s a c***
At what point do Labour MPs rebel on the very basic grounds that they are led by a fat faced dimwit careerist loser who would extract the last bone marrow of his living mother to get a brief erection?
He would rather have an erection than an election.
Ah, so I have something in common with him then. One day perhaps.
There must surely be a paper trail if Robbins over ruled the security check. I know it’s not popular in here but I tend to think Starmer thought Mandelson passed the checks when he gave that statement in the Commons .
I don’t think he’d just lie knowing that he’d eventually get found out.
He's being summonsed to a select committee to explain himself, I think?
Does he still have to go now that he’s no longer in post ?
I would think so, as Parliament is the highest court in the land, isn't it?
There must surely be a paper trail if Robbins over ruled the security check. I know it’s not popular in here but I tend to think Starmer thought Mandelson passed the checks when he gave that statement in the Commons .
I don’t think he’d just lie knowing that he’d eventually get found out.
He's being summonsed to a select committee to explain himself, I think?
Does he still have to go now that he’s no longer in post ?
I would think so, as Parliament is the highest court in the land, isn't it?
There must surely be a paper trail if Robbins over ruled the security check. I know it’s not popular in here but I tend to think Starmer thought Mandelson passed the checks when he gave that statement in the Commons .
I don’t think he’d just lie knowing that he’d eventually get found out.
He's being summonsed to a select committee to explain himself, I think?
Does he still have to go now that he’s no longer in post ?
Depends on the inquiry and in what capacity. If it's 'Work of the Foreign Office' then he'd be off the hook as soon as he left. If it's in his capacity as a person of interest in the Mandleson affair then the Select Committee would probably still insist. Of course although in theory Select Committees have the right to compell people or papers their ability to enforce this is limited in practice.
Aphra Brandreth: Did the FCDO have a different view about who should be recommended for the posting?
Sir Oliver Robbins: By the time we are describing, it was clear that the Prime Minister wanted to make this appointment himself. Therefore, I understand, the FCDO was informed of his decision and acted on it, and, via the Foreign Secretary, sought and obtained the King’s approval for the appointment. In this case, as Chris explained, the Prime Minister took advice and formed a view himself, and we then acted on that view.
... taking on the persona of @Leon and SAYING For What Is Is Worth, clearing throat deeply, and saying: I HAD DRINKS TONIGHT with someone who is absolutely steeped and totally in the Labour party and worked at top level for the biggest labour unions and their view is now:
Burnham.
That unfortunately does not say much for the person you had drinks with. Burnham is not an MP. Burnham has no route to becoming an MP.
If your drinking partner is correct then it implies that Starmer remains in post indefinitely, as people wait impotently for Burnham to become an MP.
One of the things that is repeatedly forgotten about Lab politics is that the unions have their people and their fingers in every single breathing monent.
As I say DYOR.
I'm sticking more £ on Burghnam based on this everning.
Burnham has to have an MP stand down, then stand down as Mayor so he can be selected, then win the by-election. All with the risk that the voters elect the Green for a laugh.
So Starmer is so forensic he didn’t think to check anything. He can be stupid or a liar. All his bollocks attacks on Sunak look terrible now.
If only Rishi were still an MP he could bring that up.
He is still an MP I think. Surprised everyone by sticking around in Westminster.
Rishi and his wife have a net work of 3/4 of a billion pounds anyway so he didn't need to leave Parliament to make money as many other ex PMs have, though he has done some work with AI firms
New More in Common shock Holyrood poll has the SNP collapsing to just 32% of the vote on the constituency vote, 27% on the list and just 48 seats. There would be a Unionist majority for the first time since 2007 with Labour second on 21 seats, Reform third on 20, the Tories on 16 and LDs on 13, giving 70 Unionist MSPs
interesting as that contradicts some of the recent MRPs
Yep, the thing we dont know is what happens to the Green constituency vote in polls where they are getting 6/7% (they are only standing in 6 constituencies)
Turnout will be lower that's for certain.
Interestingly Ladbrokes have an SNP constituency vote %, the bands are over 39.5% (4/5) and under 39.5% (evens) ... for me the buy is on the under band
MiC has only included Green candidates confirmed as standing
No, Luke Tryl confirmed the poll straddled nominations so Greens are included generally but in future polls and an upcoming MRP they will just include the 6 candidates
The seat forecaster already accounts for that. It is a disastrous poll for the SNP, Swinney will hope MiC is not for him the foreteller of doom in this Holyrood campaign Survation proved to be in the 2017 UK GE campaign for May.
'My Seat Model (Accounts for lack of Greens in Constituency Seats):
Cramlington result really interesting. Although an area of such rapid house building it's almost a different electorate even from last year, the Labour vote has fallen by much less than the Reform vote. And the Tories have "won" back the seat from third.*
*The Tories had the seat, but it was split in two. Resulting in a very small population ward for 2025 when Reform won from Labour with Tories third. This bit contains two huge housing developments which aren't finished yet. But the population is growing by the week. Difficult to draw any conclusions, but they aren't good for Reform.
Area of massive new house builds to support the hospital workforce and those who can't afford to buy in the Toon. Electorate has gone up by 20% since last May. Should be a Ward which trends less and less for Reform.
... taking on the persona of @Leon and SAYING For What Is Is Worth, clearing throat deeply, and saying: I HAD DRINKS TONIGHT with someone who is absolutely steeped and totally in the Labour party and worked at top level for the biggest labour unions and their view is now:
Burnham.
That unfortunately does not say much for the person you had drinks with. Burnham is not an MP. Burnham has no route to becoming an MP.
If your drinking partner is correct then it implies that Starmer remains in post indefinitely, as people wait impotently for Burnham to become an MP.
One of the things that is repeatedly forgotten about Lab politics is that the unions have their people and their fingers in every single breathing monent.
As I say DYOR.
I'm sticking more £ on Burghnam based on this everning.
Burnham has to have an MP stand down, then stand down as Mayor so he can be selected, then win the by-election. All with the risk that the voters elect the Green for a laugh.
Search me as to how it happens but my mole in the depths of Lab/unions says this is what will happen.
Conservative GAIN from Reform UK. Changes w/ 2025.
11% swing Reform to Conservative since last year.
That's going to shake things up if replicated nationwide next month!
Though in this case the Reform councillor was the incumbent the protest vote was against
That's a bit harsh. They were disbarred for non attendance citing ill health. Plenty of moaning. Turns out they have kidney cancer. There's actually a right to left swing too. As I said earlier. Difficult to draw conclusions. This ward is sui generis.
Area of massive new house builds to support the hospital workforce and those who can't afford to buy in the Toon. Electorate has gone up by 20% since last May. Should be a Ward which trends less and less for Reform.
But not on then you would expect to be trending Tory?!
Second by-election tonight showing the Conservative vote share up while Reform vote share is down.
7.2% swing Reform to Conservatives since last year.
It will be interesting to see if Kemi Badenoch's improving personal ratings begins to have an impact at the polling station along with the fracturing of Reform's membership/voter base as some return to the Conservatives or switch to the Advance/Restore parties.
Area of massive new house builds to support the hospital workforce and those who can't afford to buy in the Toon. Electorate has gone up by 20% since last May. Should be a Ward which trends less and less for Reform.
But not on then you would expect to be trending Tory?!
The Tories have done well in Northumberland for a while. They held out against Reform last year. Very well organised in Cramlington in particular. It's a good result for them, yes.
Keir Starmer is now personally texting MPs the full statement sent to journalists and the background info from Number 10.
His message:
"Hi all, I just wanted to share the following for anyone who does not know the facts of what has happened:
“The security vetting process for Peter Mandelson was sponsored by the FCDO. The decision to grant Developed Vetting to Peter Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting was taken by officials in the FCDO.
“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.
“Once the Prime Minister was informed he immediately instructed officials to establish the facts about why the Developed Vetting was granted, in order to enact plans to update the House of Commons.
“The Government is committed to complying with the Humble Address in full as soon as possible. Any documentation within the scope of the Humble Address that requires redaction on the basis of national security or international relations will be provided to the ISC. This will include documents provided to the FCDO by UK Security Vetting.”
For further background in case helpful:
The security vetting information from UK Security Vetting was obtained by officials undertaking the process in order to comply fully with the Humble Address. Once they received this information, the officials that obtained the information, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary agreed that there should be an exercise to establish the facts and that the information should be made public.
The FCDO is a “make recommendation customer” for UK Security Vetting. This means that the FCDO is the ultimate decision making authority on Developed Vetting cases, based on a non-binding recommendation from UK Security Vetting."
Keir Starmer is now personally texting MPs the full statement sent to journalists and the background info from Number 10.
His message:
"Hi all, I just wanted to share the following for anyone who does not know the facts of what has happened:
“The security vetting process for Peter Mandelson was sponsored by the FCDO. The decision to grant Developed Vetting to Peter Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting was taken by officials in the FCDO.
“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.
“Once the Prime Minister was informed he immediately instructed officials to establish the facts about why the Developed Vetting was granted, in order to enact plans to update the House of Commons.
“The Government is committed to complying with the Humble Address in full as soon as possible. Any documentation within the scope of the Humble Address that requires redaction on the basis of national security or international relations will be provided to the ISC. This will include documents provided to the FCDO by UK Security Vetting.”
For further background in case helpful:
The security vetting information from UK Security Vetting was obtained by officials undertaking the process in order to comply fully with the Humble Address. Once they received this information, the officials that obtained the information, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary agreed that there should be an exercise to establish the facts and that the information should be made public.
The FCDO is a “make recommendation customer” for UK Security Vetting. This means that the FCDO is the ultimate decision making authority on Developed Vetting cases, based on a non-binding recommendation from UK Security Vetting."
This sentence is a superb example of a desperate midwit trying to make a bunch of lies sound like procedure being exhaustively followed
“Once the Prime Minister was informed he immediately instructed officials to establish the facts about why the Developed Vetting was granted, in order to enact plans to update the House of Commons.”
IN ORDER TO ENACT PLANS TO UPDATE
It's the sort of meaningless verbiage that gives lawyers a bad name. If there was ever a time to speak plainly this is it but he reverts to form.
Lawyerly verbiage is not meaningless, it justifies a £400 an hour charge.
£400 an hour gets you the 5 year qualified associate who can self-regulate and also probably knows what they're doing. For guaranteed meaningless verbiage you need the 30 year qualified but these days slightly bewildered partner on £600 an hour
Perhaps opposition politicians should call for a police investigation into Robbins. If Robbins did unilaterally overrule the vetting outcome, that is the behaviour of a traitor and he’s probably a spy for a hostile power.
Perhaps opposition politicians should call for a police investigation into Robbins. If Robbins did unilaterally overrule the vetting outcome, that is the behaviour of a traitor and he’s probably a spy for a hostile power.
Hardly. It seems to be built into the process that the vetting committee is advisory only.
And incidentally, do we know if Robbins did take that decision or is just being blamed for not being candid after the scandal blew up?
Starmer is now very much fair game over Jimmy Saville. The pattern of behaviour has been established.
Don't be hysterical. No doubt some fringe figures will go there but there is nothing to find. Kemi (and other opponents) need to focus on the Mandelson appointment process and not get bogged down in the weeds of curry or Savile.
Starmer is now very much fair game over Jimmy Saville. The pattern of behaviour has been established.
He is the most slippery and ruthless politician we've had since Blair, but without a fraction of Blair's charisma or political judgement. Still, don't underestimate his ability to slither his way out of this.
He would be dangerous if he were more competent, but luckily he's a one-man shitshow.
Perhaps opposition politicians should call for a police investigation into Robbins. If Robbins did unilaterally overrule the vetting outcome, that is the behaviour of a traitor and he’s probably a spy for a hostile power.
I hold no candle for Robbins but I bet he's been asked to taken the fall in Operation Save Big Dog.
Perhaps opposition politicians should call for a police investigation into Robbins. If Robbins did unilaterally overrule the vetting outcome, that is the behaviour of a traitor and he’s probably a spy for a hostile power.
I hold no candle for Robbins but I bet he's been asked to taken the fall in Operation Save Big Dog.
The whole thing stinks.
And the reality is he had no choice
If he said “no” and Starmer survived his career would be measured in seconds
If he said “no” and Starmer fell he might last minutes
So he said “yes” and hoped for the payoff and a new role.
Starmer is a deeply unpleasant man. At some point he needs to be held accountable for decisions that happen on his watch
Having scanned all the posts, could anyone explain what was in the vetting that made Mandy fail. Was it the person or is there something in the information collected they don't want to see the light of day.
Area of massive new house builds to support the hospital workforce and those who can't afford to buy in the Toon. Electorate has gone up by 20% since last May. Should be a Ward which trends less and less for Reform.
There does seem to be a lot of new building going on along the A19 both North Tyneside and Northumberland in general, coming up to Cramlington as well.
Having scanned all the posts, could anyone explain what was in the vetting that made Mandy fail. Was it the person or is there something in the information collected they don't want to see the light of day.
As to the process itself, meh...
That will never be made public . For anyone given it reveals how vetting works at the top level. It is unlikely Mandy even knows why
Having scanned all the posts, could anyone explain what was in the vetting that made Mandy fail. Was it the person or is there something in the information collected they don't want to see the light of day.
As to the process itself, meh...
Foreign office takes urinating in the street as a red flag ?
Having scanned all the posts, could anyone explain what was in the vetting that made Mandy fail. Was it the person or is there something in the information collected they don't want to see the light of day.
As to the process itself, meh...
That will never be made public . For anyone given it reveals how vetting works at the top level. It is unlikely Mandy even knows why
Powell is Deputy Leader, and that must count for something.
It's an interesting question as to who would step up to be interim PM in the event that Starmer resigns in the near future over the Mandelson vetting scandal. That's because Lammy the Deputy PM was the Foreign Secretary at the time, that is Ollie Robbins boss, and it's stretching credibility too far to think that he wasn't in the know if Starmer was.
We would then be in uncharted waters. There must be a path for Powell the Deputy Leader of the governing party to be next in line to assume the office of PM, on an interim basis pending an election. And there would be nothing to stop her putting her hat in the ring to carry on as PM, and with a bit of added credibility thanks to doing the job on an interim basis already, to end up being elected.
I'm sceptical as to whether any of that could really happen. But odds of 50/1 on Powell are enough to cover the chance that it just might. And they are certainly much better value odds than the 50/1 on Lammy!
This question often comes up and then the resigning PM always stays on after announcing their intention to resign while a permanent replacement is selected. If there's pressure for this to be done quickly it normally results in the process being curtailed by not having a contest.
Why do people expect it to be different, every time, and for there to be an interim PM?
Who was the last PM to actually leave office when the announced their resignation? Eden?
Eden technically remained in office until Macmillan's appointment although he was on sick leave at the time. I would think it was actually Lloyd George in 1922.
Perhaps opposition politicians should call for a police investigation into Robbins. If Robbins did unilaterally overrule the vetting outcome, that is the behaviour of a traitor and he’s probably a spy for a hostile power.
I hold no candle for Robbins but I bet he's been asked to taken the fall in Operation Save Big Dog.
The whole thing stinks.
And the reality is he had no choice
If he said “no” and Starmer survived his career would be measured in seconds
If he said “no” and Starmer fell he might last minutes
So he said “yes” and hoped for the payoff and a new role.
Starmer is a deeply unpleasant man. At some point he needs to be held accountable for decisions that happen on his watch
His career didn;t even last an episode of Newsnight though. A late-night firing that had "Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck! Do SOMETHING!" written all over it.
Having scanned all the posts, could anyone explain what was in the vetting that made Mandy fail. Was it the person or is there something in the information collected they don't want to see the light of day.
As to the process itself, meh...
If you want to construct a messy cock-up scenario, it probably goes like this.
Mandy's vetting uncovered the relatively trivial stuff that any of us could have said- the resignations, the unhealthy interest in money and power, the historic friendship.with Epstein.
That would have ruled out a normal, but it was the whole point of appointing Mandy. Robbins would have been pretty justified in overlooking that given the obvious politics that the PM wanted PM as Ambassador. It's New Ten Thousand, but let's face it- that's a thing.
The harder bit is the newer and worse stuff. The ongoing friendship and the 2010(?) leaking of financially sensitive stuff. That should have been deal-breaking. Either it wasn't uncovered, or its significance was underplayed. Because the 'overlook his known faults' thing was probably implicit, Robbins didn't think of the boundary where stuff couldn't be overlooked any more.
Number Ten asked him 'is everything OK?' (which they shouldn't, because it puts a thumb on the scale to not say 'no'), he said 'yes' (which he shouldn't, because it wasn't) and the rest is history.
I'm not saying this did happen, and it's still appalling for the Starmer government if it did. But it wouldn't shock me if that was the rough timeline.
We've said for a while that our Jim Hackers aren't up to the job of running the country. Maybe (see ydoethur on the DfE) we have to think the same of our Sir Humphries.
This is getting a little bit silly. The pattern is well established now: something happens, Starmer says some words, nobody challenges him, he remains PM, life goes on. Nobody in Cabinet has the balls to actively move against him, all they do is palace gossip. He is wildly unsuitable to be PM (see my previous posts), but everybody in the top Labour echelons think preserving their jobs in the short term is more important than the good of the country, so they do nothing. They are bad people.
This is getting a little bit silly. The pattern is well established now: something happens, Starmer says some words, nobody challenges him, he remains PM, life goes on. Nobody in Cabinet has the balls to actively move against him, all they do is palace gossip. He is wildly unsuitable to be PM (see my previous posts), but everybody in the top Labour echelons think preserving their jobs in the short term is more important than the good of the country, so they do nothing. They are bad people.
This is getting a little bit silly. The pattern is well established now: something happens, Starmer says some words, nobody challenges him, he remains PM, life goes on. Nobody in Cabinet has the balls to actively move against him, all they do is palace gossip. He is wildly unsuitable to be PM (see my previous posts), but everybody in the top Labour echelons think preserving their jobs in the short term is more important than the good of the country, so they do nothing. They are bad people.
Trouble is that Starmer is a) wildly unsuitable to be PM and b) better than all the available and semi-available alternatives, both within his party and without.
At some point the body politc needs to pause and reflect on why it keeps throwing up such terrible people for the top jobs.
Mandelson again, oh dear, the gift that keeps giving.
If nothing ever crosses the PM’s desk, what exactly is the point of him?
Imagine the Labour and media outrage if civil servants rather than ministers were taking the hit under a Conservative government.
The good news is that not all the papers have been released yet
What's in these is the intriguing bit
*Aliens run the White House? * There is a paedophile cabal in the EU Parliament? * There's no money left?
It may not be his US history that's the issue. There may be something from his time in Brussels as well as his time in the last Labour government. So many options.
Mandelson again, oh dear, the gift that keeps giving.
If nothing ever crosses the PM’s desk, what exactly is the point of him?
Imagine the Labour and media outrage if civil servants rather than ministers were taking the hit under a Conservative government.
The good news is that not all the papers have been released yet
In the case of Mandelson I can’t imagine there is more incriminating evident than what already exists. What exactly is worse than sending Government secrets to a third party within an hour of receiving them?
Mandelson again, oh dear, the gift that keeps giving.
If nothing ever crosses the PM’s desk, what exactly is the point of him?
Imagine the Labour and media outrage if civil servants rather than ministers were taking the hit under a Conservative government.
The good news is that not all the papers have been released yet
In the case of Mandelson I can’t imagine there is more incriminating evident than what already exists. What exactly is worse than sending Government secrets to a third party within an hour of receiving them?
Oh you gullible fool. It's Mandy, he always surprises.
We'll probably get photos of him out dogging with Ed Miliband
Mandelson again, oh dear, the gift that keeps giving.
If nothing ever crosses the PM’s desk, what exactly is the point of him?
Imagine the Labour and media outrage if civil servants rather than ministers were taking the hit under a Conservative government.
The good news is that not all the papers have been released yet
In the case of Mandelson I can’t imagine there is more incriminating evident than what already exists. What exactly is worse than sending Government secrets to a third party within an hour of receiving them?
Oh you gullible fool. It's Mandy, he always surprises.
We'll probably get photos of him out dogging with Ed Miliband
Hang on, him dogging with Ed Milliband would raise him in my estimation.
Mandelson again, oh dear, the gift that keeps giving.
If nothing ever crosses the PM’s desk, what exactly is the point of him?
Imagine the Labour and media outrage if civil servants rather than ministers were taking the hit under a Conservative government.
I wonder if we actually have the opposite problem, so much ends up I the PMs desk that nothing is given the time needed to deal with it.
Remember we’ve centralized more and more to central government and PMs have decided they need their final say about everything so it’s likely everything is going into No 10 with way to much being passed up to look at
Mandelson again, oh dear, the gift that keeps giving.
If nothing ever crosses the PM’s desk, what exactly is the point of him?
Imagine the Labour and media outrage if civil servants rather than ministers were taking the hit under a Conservative government.
The good news is that not all the papers have been released yet
In the case of Mandelson I can’t imagine there is more incriminating evident than what already exists. What exactly is worse than sending Government secrets to a third party within an hour of receiving them?
Oh you gullible fool. It's Mandy, he always surprises.
We'll probably get photos of him out dogging with Ed Miliband
Hang on, him dogging with Ed Milliband would raise him in my estimation.
The joy of Mandy is not that he damages his reputation, but he trashes those associated with him.
Cant you in your heart find some sympathy for the chihuahua ?
WRT the vetting saga, a question to examine on Starmer's credibility. Barking and non barking dogs.
Outside parliament Starmer said explicitly (February I think) that PeterM has passed the vetting process.
Yesterday we were told the PM knew nothing of the vetting fail until Tuesday.
However, in parliament as of yesterday the PM had used a formula: 'all due process had been followed'.
Knowingly misleading outside parliament is silly and damaging, but does not require resignation. In the HoC, resignation is expected. he is more careful in the HoC.
The formula used in the HoC is arguably legally correct. The words used outside are obviously wrong.
Why the difference?
The most likely explanation is that Starmer either knew weeks ago that PeterM had failed the vetting or knew that he had not been told, so had to use a formula in the HoC. For what other reason would he not have said that he had passed the vetting in the HoC when he had said it outside?
The PM's non barking in the HoC is damaging and needs an explanation.
Mandelson again, oh dear, the gift that keeps giving.
If nothing ever crosses the PM’s desk, what exactly is the point of him?
Imagine the Labour and media outrage if civil servants rather than ministers were taking the hit under a Conservative government.
The good news is that not all the papers have been released yet
What's in these is the intriguing bit
*Aliens run the White House? * There is a paedophile cabal in the EU Parliament? * There's no money left?
It may not be his US history that's the issue. There may be something from his time in Brussels as well as his time in the last Labour government. So many options.
If it's what I've heard, you wouldn't want him anywhere near our diplomatic relations...
Having scanned all the posts, could anyone explain what was in the vetting that made Mandy fail. Was it the person or is there something in the information collected they don't want to see the light of day.
As to the process itself, meh...
If you want to construct a messy cock-up scenario, it probably goes like this.
Mandy's vetting uncovered the relatively trivial stuff that any of us could have said- the resignations, the unhealthy interest in money and power, the historic friendship.with Epstein.
That would have ruled out a normal, but it was the whole point of appointing Mandy. Robbins would have been pretty justified in overlooking that given the obvious politics that the PM wanted PM as Ambassador. It's New Ten Thousand, but let's face it- that's a thing.
The harder bit is the newer and worse stuff. The ongoing friendship and the 2010(?) leaking of financially sensitive stuff. That should have been deal-breaking. Either it wasn't uncovered, or its significance was underplayed. Because the 'overlook his known faults' thing was probably implicit, Robbins didn't think of the boundary where stuff couldn't be overlooked any more.
Number Ten asked him 'is everything OK?' (which they shouldn't, because it puts a thumb on the scale to not say 'no'), he said 'yes' (which he shouldn't, because it wasn't) and the rest is history.
I'm not saying this did happen, and it's still appalling for the Starmer government if it did. But it wouldn't shock me if that was the rough timeline.
We've said for a while that our Jim Hackers aren't up to the job of running the country. Maybe (see ydoethur on the DfE) we have to think the same of our Sir Humphries.
The leaking to Epstein was only uncovered by the release of the Epstein files, AIUI, so presumably wouldn't have been found in the vetting. I suspect that Mandelson really wanted the job and leveraged his relationships with Starmer's advisors to get them to persuade Starmer to appoint him. Terrible decision by Starmer to do it, his survival will depend on whether he was complicit in ignoring the vetting
Mandelson again, oh dear, the gift that keeps giving.
If nothing ever crosses the PM’s desk, what exactly is the point of him?
Imagine the Labour and media outrage if civil servants rather than ministers were taking the hit under a Conservative government.
I wonder if we actually have the opposite problem, so much ends up I the PMs desk that nothing is given the time needed to deal with it.
Remember we’ve centralized more and more to central government and PMs have decided they need their final say about everything so it’s likely everything is going into No 10 with way to much being passed up to look at
Nah, Starmer deliberately chose Mandelson as US ambassador. He owns the decision. Everything else is chaff.
Perhaps opposition politicians should call for a police investigation into Robbins. If Robbins did unilaterally overrule the vetting outcome, that is the behaviour of a traitor and he’s probably a spy for a hostile power.
I hold no candle for Robbins but I bet he's been asked to taken the fall in Operation Save Big Dog.
The whole thing stinks.
And the reality is he had no choice
If he said “no” and Starmer survived his career would be measured in seconds
If he said “no” and Starmer fell he might last minutes
So he said “yes” and hoped for the payoff and a new role.
Starmer is a deeply unpleasant man. At some point he needs to be held accountable for decisions that happen on his watch
Is there any info on whether Robbins had previous with Mandelson?
There are so many questions surrounding the Mandelson saga .
Why was he appointed before the UKSV had finished its report ?
Even if he passed that security clearance it’s not acceptable to appoint someone before they’ve got that clearance .
Was pressure put on the FCDO to over rule the UKSV ?
Given the high profile of the job is it possible not a single person in No 10 wasn’t made aware of the security fail ?
Starmer needs to produce all communications with the FCDO regarding Mandelson.
The vetting was irrelevant - SKS wants a person with known flaws to be the ambassador - if the vetting repeats the known flaws what exactly do you do as a junior member of staff.
So at some point the information reaches a level where it didn’t go any higher. Question is who didn’t send it higher and was that because they never read the email (perfectly possible given the x,000 emails some people get per day) or because they read it and thought not surprising.
The thing is I can easily see someone opening the report and going what a surprise but SKS won’t care….
Comments
Makes for more uncertainty in a theoretical 'hit by a bus' scenario, but even there ways can be made clear - some people seemed baffled when Boris was to be out of action that they could make it clear who would be deputising, and therefore if the worst had happen who would probably be selected as a pseodo-interim PM.
See also politicians reversing position on whether a GE should happen when PMs change midterm, forgetting everything theyve previously said.
As I say DYOR.
I'm sticking more £ on Burghnam based on this everning.
At what point do Labour MPs rebel on the very basic grounds that they are led by a fat faced dimwit careerist loser who would extract the last bone marrow of his living mother to get a brief erection?
Everyone happy
https://x.com/i/status/2044812453649747978
There must surely be a paper trail if Robbins over ruled the security check. I know it’s not popular in here but I tend to think Starmer thought Mandelson passed the checks when he gave that statement in the Commons .
I don’t think he’d just lie knowing that he’d eventually get found out.
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/16673/html/
Aphra Brandreth: Did the FCDO have a different view about who should be recommended for the posting?
Sir Oliver Robbins: By the time we are describing, it was clear that the Prime Minister wanted to make this appointment himself. Therefore, I understand, the FCDO was informed of his decision and acted on it, and, via the Foreign Secretary, sought and obtained the King’s approval for the appointment. In this case, as Chris explained, the Prime Minister took advice and formed a view himself, and we then acted on that view.
'My Seat Model (Accounts for lack of Greens in Constituency Seats):
SNP: 48 (-16)
LAB: 21 (-1)
RFM: 20 (+20)
CON: 16 (-15)
LDM: 13 (+9)
GRN: 11 (+3)
Changes w/ 2021.'
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2044793769204105560?s=20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGJH_-S_MGs
New: Fury in the Foreign Office tonight at how Olly Robbins has been treated. Even his sworn opponents calling it "bullshit"
Tories 2nd and Greens 3rd both close behind but not close enough!
Although an area of such rapid house building it's almost a different electorate even from last year, the Labour vote has fallen by much less than the Reform vote.
And the Tories have "won" back the seat from third.*
*The Tories had the seat, but it was split in two. Resulting in a very small population ward for 2025 when Reform won from Labour with Tories third. This bit contains two huge housing developments which aren't finished yet. But the population is growing by the week.
Difficult to draw any conclusions, but they aren't good for Reform.
➡️ RFM: 33.0% (-9.3)
🌳 CON: 29.6% (+5.1)
🌍 GRN: 28.2% (+13.4)
🔶 LDM: 4.3% (-3.6)
🌹 LAB: 4.0% (-4.8)
✅ ADV: 0.9% (New)
No Ind (-1.7) as previous.
Reform UK HOLD.
Changes w/ 2025.
Yebbut how?
🌳 CON: 34.2% (+9.0)
➡️ RFM: 26.1% (-13.3)
🌹 LAB: 23.0% (-5.8)
🌍 GRN: 14.3% (New)
🙋 Ind: 1.6% (New)
🔶 LDM: 0.9% (New)
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2044907158983107072?s=20
Election Maps UK@ElectionMapsUK·1h
Cramlington South West (Northumberland) Council By-Election Result:
🌳 CON: 34.2% (+9.0)
➡️ RFM: 26.1% (-13.3)
🌹 LAB: 23.0% (-5.8)
🌍 GRN: 14.3% (New)
🙋 Ind: 1.6% (New)
🔶 LDM: 0.9% (New)
No SDP (-6.6) as previous.
Conservative GAIN from Reform UK.
Changes w/ 2025.
That's going to shake things up if replicated nationwide next month!
Electorate has gone up by 20% since last May.
Should be a Ward which trends less and less for Reform.
They were disbarred for non attendance citing ill health. Plenty of moaning.
Turns out they have kidney cancer.
There's actually a right to left swing too.
As I said earlier. Difficult to draw conclusions. This ward is sui generis.
Come on Trump, break that ceasefire.
And incidentally, do we know if Robbins did take that decision or is just being blamed for not being candid after the scandal blew up?
He would be dangerous if he were more competent, but luckily he's a one-man shitshow.
The whole thing stinks.
If he said “no” and Starmer survived his career would be measured in seconds
If he said “no” and Starmer fell he might last minutes
So he said “yes” and hoped for the payoff and a new role.
Starmer is a deeply unpleasant man. At some point he needs to be held accountable for decisions that happen on his watch
But why?
Having scanned all the posts, could anyone explain what was in the vetting that made Mandy fail. Was it the person or is there something in the information collected they don't want to see the light of day.
As to the process itself, meh...
I wonder... might Starmer's refusal to send ships to help Trump's madness help mitigate/outweigh the resurgence of this Mandelson story?
Where's Joe Friday when you need him.
Mandy's vetting uncovered the relatively trivial stuff that any of us could have said- the resignations, the unhealthy interest in money and power, the historic friendship.with Epstein.
That would have ruled out a normal, but it was the whole point of appointing Mandy. Robbins would have been pretty justified in overlooking that given the obvious politics that the PM wanted PM as Ambassador. It's New Ten Thousand, but let's face it- that's a thing.
The harder bit is the newer and worse stuff. The ongoing friendship and the 2010(?) leaking of financially sensitive stuff. That should have been deal-breaking. Either it wasn't uncovered, or its significance was underplayed. Because the 'overlook his known faults' thing was probably implicit, Robbins didn't think of the boundary where stuff couldn't be overlooked any more.
Number Ten asked him 'is everything OK?' (which they shouldn't, because it puts a thumb on the scale to not say 'no'), he said 'yes' (which he shouldn't, because it wasn't) and the rest is history.
I'm not saying this did happen, and it's still appalling for the Starmer government if it did. But it wouldn't shock me if that was the rough timeline.
We've said for a while that our Jim Hackers aren't up to the job of running the country. Maybe (see ydoethur on the DfE) we have to think the same of our Sir Humphries.
If nothing ever crosses the PM’s desk, what exactly is the point of him?
Imagine the Labour and media outrage if civil servants rather than ministers were taking the hit under a Conservative government.
They are weak people.
At some point the body politc needs to pause and reflect on why it keeps throwing up such terrible people for the top jobs.
*Aliens run the White House?
* There is a paedophile cabal in the EU Parliament?
* There's no money left?
It may not be his US history that's the issue. There may be something from his time in Brussels as well as his time in the last Labour government. So many options.
Why was he appointed before the UKSV had finished its report ?
Even if he passed that security clearance it’s not acceptable to appoint someone before they’ve got that clearance .
Was pressure put on the FCDO to over rule the UKSV ?
Given the high profile of the job is it possible not a single person in No 10 wasn’t made aware of the security fail ?
Starmer needs to produce all communications with the FCDO regarding Mandelson.
We'll probably get photos of him out dogging with Ed Miliband
Remember we’ve centralized more and more to central government and PMs have decided they need their final say about everything so it’s likely everything is going into No 10 with way to much being passed up to look at
Cant you in your heart find some sympathy for the chihuahua ?
Outside parliament Starmer said explicitly (February I think) that PeterM has passed the vetting process.
Yesterday we were told the PM knew nothing of the vetting fail until Tuesday.
However, in parliament as of yesterday the PM had used a formula: 'all due process had been followed'.
Knowingly misleading outside parliament is silly and damaging, but does not require resignation. In the HoC, resignation is expected. he is more careful in the HoC.
The formula used in the HoC is arguably legally correct. The words used outside are obviously wrong.
Why the difference?
The most likely explanation is that Starmer either knew weeks ago that PeterM had failed the vetting or knew that he had not been told, so had to use a formula in the HoC. For what other reason would he not have said that he had passed the vetting in the HoC when he had said it outside?
The PM's non barking in the HoC is damaging and needs an explanation.
I suspect that Mandelson really wanted the job and leveraged his relationships with Starmer's advisors to get them to persuade Starmer to appoint him.
Terrible decision by Starmer to do it, his survival will depend on whether he was complicit in ignoring the vetting
So at some point the information reaches a level where it didn’t go any higher. Question is who didn’t send it higher and was that because they never read the email (perfectly possible given the x,000 emails some people get per day) or because they read it and thought not surprising.
The thing is I can easily see someone opening the report and going what a surprise but SKS won’t care….