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.
Robbins is the sort of guy who is very focused on boundary issues
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
Not just an issue in Westminster, I suspect.
See also the (abolition of) Captain Mainwaring issue in business. The temptation is always to centralise control- it looks more efficient and is technically possible now, thanks to the wonders of the internet. So a whole cadre of people with small local powers has been abolished.
Satisfies the egos of those at the top, and gives a tidy single point of accountability. But as well as creating a malaise in our communities, I'm pretty sure that there's a fairly small limit to what an individual can manage. Managers who can't see the thing they manage aren't actually managing- they're doing something else.
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
Not just an issue in Westminster, I suspect.
See also the (abolition of) Captain Mainwaring issue in business. The temptation is always to centralise control- it looks more efficient and is technically possible now, thanks to the wonders of the internet. So a whole cadre of people with small local powers has been abolished.
Satisfies the egos of those at the top, and gives a tidy single point of accountability. But as well as creating a malaise in our communities, I'm pretty sure that there's a fairly small limit to what an individual can manage. Managers who can't see the thing they manage aren't actually managing- they're doing something else.
I’m increasingly of the view that modern technology has made the world far too complicated for humans to effectively manage.
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.
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.
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.
Oh in this case I agree, my point was more that I think over the past 20 years everything has got centralized to the point that No 10 is swamped - and ends up making decisions that they should be a million miles away from.
Mandelson shows the other end of the issue, if what No 10 says overrides everything else pass every decision to No 10
... 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.
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
Not just an issue in Westminster, I suspect.
See also the (abolition of) Captain Mainwaring issue in business. The temptation is always to centralise control- it looks more efficient and is technically possible now, thanks to the wonders of the internet. So a whole cadre of people with small local powers has been abolished.
Satisfies the egos of those at the top, and gives a tidy single point of accountability. But as well as creating a malaise in our communities, I'm pretty sure that there's a fairly small limit to what an individual can manage. Managers who can't see the thing they manage aren't actually managing- they're doing something else.
I’m increasingly of the view that modern technology has made the world far too complicated for humans to effectively manage.
What's the rule of thumb?
Ten intimates, a hundred friends, a thousand recognisable faces in the crowd? Whatever extra powers electronic data give us, our fleshy brains are still basically the same as centuries ago.
It's a miracle that we haven't all gone madder than we have.
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
"The vetting process was followed in full"
The process was followed, the result was then ignored as it definitely wasn’t acted upon.
Got to say that’s a very lawry turn of phrase being used.
Process was followed (ie to completion) but what exact process are we talking about and what was the end point of that process?
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
Only fools associate themselves with Mandleson.
Most of right wing Labour are fools
and liars
On the subject of Mandelson even the most turquiose PB regular must recognise that Corbyn had him sussed.
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
But Starmer says it never crossed his desk. The only plausible reason for that, is to avoid his own fingerprints being on it when something goes wrong. It’s also now an established pattern of behaviour.
In your scenario, where he’s overwhelmed by the contents of his red box or it’s virtual equivalent, not taking the time to read and respond properly, the PM’s fingerprints would nonetheless be all over it.
I suspect the answer is that there’s someone in No.10 who has the specific job of filtering out anything potentially problematic, at the instruction of the PM himself.
Political titan, Ed Davey. On GMB demanding SKS resigns.
SKS is in serious trouble if he’s lost his Lib Dem cheerleader
We are three weeks from local elections what do you expect from Ed Davey ? Its like my opponent once a sudden desire to clear litter in hi-viz jackets, subsequently paid for by the council when elected. Don't see him doing much litter picking now he has left the council.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ed Davey is filmed on a farm opposing the Inheritance Tax on family farms. To be fair Tim Farron has been good on this, but the silence from behind him on the LD benches and from his leader has been deafening.
But the duel role between higly paid civil servant and politician is a bogus one. How can a future right of centre government have any confidence in a "civil servant" who is married to the first and worst female chancellor in 800 years ?
Kemi has developed the whiny outrage of the class clype into an art form. A crap art form, but nevertheless..
She just managed to blow a perfect Today opportunity to put the boot in to Starmer by allowing herself to get into an argument about her support of Trump in Iran. Most party leaders would have batted it back gently and changed the subject back to Mandelson but she couldn’t help herself.
The process is crap, and the process includes the ability of the FCDO to over rule the UKSV . So the crap process was followed !
This seems to be the Darren Jones defence this morning .
“Jones calls the right for departments to overturn vetting refusal "unacceptable".
But, he says that as that was the process at the time, what Sir Keir Starmer told MPs was correct: "Therefore, the prime minister didn't mislead the House or anyone.”
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….
If these are junior members of staff why the fuck are they being paid as if they were cabinet level thinkers. If they can be over-ruled like this why are we paying them more than a Teaching Assistant ? That appears to be their job comparison level.
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 phone was stolen…
And the significance of the phone miscommunicated so that by the time the seriousness was picked up it was gone
The great thing about conspiracies is that you can make grade A cock ups into bigger and bigger conspiracies when it’s just lockups all the way down the line.
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
Not just an issue in Westminster, I suspect.
See also the (abolition of) Captain Mainwaring issue in business. The temptation is always to centralise control- it looks more efficient and is technically possible now, thanks to the wonders of the internet. So a whole cadre of people with small local powers has been abolished.
Satisfies the egos of those at the top, and gives a tidy single point of accountability. But as well as creating a malaise in our communities, I'm pretty sure that there's a fairly small limit to what an individual can manage. Managers who can't see the thing they manage aren't actually managing- they're doing something else.
Producing PowerPoint slides and other bullshit? AI is great at that!
Kemi has developed the whiny outrage of the class clype into an art form. A crap art form, but nevertheless..
She just managed to blow a perfect Today opportunity to put the boot in to Starmer by allowing herself to get into an argument about her support of Trump in Iran. Most party leaders would have batted it back gently and changed the subject back to Mandelson but she couldn’t help herself.
‘This is not about my crap judgment but the crap judgment of Starmer and I’ll punch anyone who says otherwise!’
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
"The vetting process was followed in full"
Reminds me of Bozo:
"Social distancing guidelines were followed at all times."
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
"The vetting process was followed in full"
The process was followed, the result was then ignored as it definitely wasn’t acted upon.
Got to say that’s a very lawry turn of phrase being used.
Process was followed (ie to completion) but what exact process are we talking about and what was the end point of that process?
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.
Ed M seems to have been the only Labour leader with the sense to swerve Mandelson*
Robbins became Permanent Undersecretary at the Foreign Office about three weeks after Mandelson was appointed
It can’t have crossed his desk
It did because Starmer stupidly appointed him before the UKSV report had been finished . If Robbins had nothing to do with the overruling he wouldn’t have been sacked .
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
Not just an issue in Westminster, I suspect.
See also the (abolition of) Captain Mainwaring issue in business. The temptation is always to centralise control- it looks more efficient and is technically possible now, thanks to the wonders of the internet. So a whole cadre of people with small local powers has been abolished.
Satisfies the egos of those at the top, and gives a tidy single point of accountability. But as well as creating a malaise in our communities, I'm pretty sure that there's a fairly small limit to what an individual can manage. Managers who can't see the thing they manage aren't actually managing- they're doing something else.
The funny thing is that decentralising and empowering others is still often seen as the 'nice' thing to do, so you can up with the dissonance of increased centralisation combined with the rhetoric of decentralisation.
Either can work but you should be honest about which you are choosing.
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
Brown that was definitely the case (there is a famous photo of all the paperwork having piled up), Cameron delegated more but even civil servant who didn't care much for him said was efficient to the correct level, Boris they defniitely didn't trouble himself with such things somebodies else job to actually do work, Starmar whenever it is anything requiring overseas travel to stand on a world stage it does, when it is bad, never.
The process is crap, and the process includes the ability of the FCDO to over rule the UKSV . So the crap process was followed !
This seems to be the Darren Jones defence this morning .
“Jones calls the right for departments to overturn vetting refusal "unacceptable".
But, he says that as that was the process at the time, what Sir Keir Starmer told MPs was correct: "Therefore, the prime minister didn't mislead the House or anyone.”
An ability to overule might be justifiable.
Doing so without clear guidance on why they might overrule, recording which reason they used, and not seeking consent/advice of the relevant minister, is not.
The latter is alleged to be the case, I would hope the former two did not.
81 Reform Councils between 2026-2028. Now that'll be interesting given the range of statutory duties they are mandated to carry out in comparison with the funds required to do it. Hate to rely on Adult Social Care or SEND in any of these councils.
The media seem obsessed with the wrong thing . They should be asking .
Why was Mandelson appointed before the UKSV report had been finalised ?
I think it’s clear from Darren Jones this morning that technically speaking the process was followed , his categorical statements that Starmer didn’t knowingly or unknowingly mislead the House seem unequivocal and he wouldn’t be out there saying this unless Starmer was sure of that position .
Robbins became Permanent Undersecretary at the Foreign Office about three weeks after Mandelson was appointed
It can’t have crossed his desk
It did because Starmer stupidly appointed him before the UKSV report had been finished . If Robbins had nothing to do with the overruling he wouldn’t have been sacked .
Well, we do not know that overruling the UKSV verdict was why Robbins was sacked. It might have been for the subsequent cover-up.
Reform is certainly down from its peak in current polling. However, since for the seats up next month they are essentially starting from zero, they will still be making huge gains.
That 23% Labour retention figure signals an even worse performance than many are predicting.
Maybe I won't finish ahead of the SDP candidate after all.
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
Not just an issue in Westminster, I suspect.
See also the (abolition of) Captain Mainwaring issue in business. The temptation is always to centralise control- it looks more efficient and is technically possible now, thanks to the wonders of the internet. So a whole cadre of people with small local powers has been abolished.
Satisfies the egos of those at the top, and gives a tidy single point of accountability. But as well as creating a malaise in our communities, I'm pretty sure that there's a fairly small limit to what an individual can manage. Managers who can't see the thing they manage aren't actually managing- they're doing something else.
I’m increasingly of the view that modern technology has made the world far too complicated for humans to effectively manage.
It's been very helpful, but expanded our spheres beyond what we can handle.
Reform is certainly down from its peak in current polling. However, since for the seats up next month they are essentially starting from zero, they will still be making huge gains.
That 23% Labour retention figure signals an even worse performance than many are predicting.
Maybe I won't finish ahead of the SDP candidate after all.
So Olly Robbins, a Civil Servant at the heart of government and head of the FO, a Civil Servant who probably has almost daily contact with Starmer, knew that Mandelson had failed his vetting but didn't think to mention this until this week? When the PM is answering questions about this week after week in Parliament? Are we supposed to believe this?
So Olly Robbins, a Civil Servant at the heart of government and head of the FO, a Civil Servant who probably has almost daily contact with Starmer, knew that Mandelson had failed his vetting but didn't think to mention this until this week? When the PM is answering questions about this week after week in Parliament? Are we supposed to believe this?
Remember Malmesbury's (?) anecdotes of the time he tried to be helpful in a meeting and was told off for embarrassing the big boss in public?
Healthy organisations aren't like that, of course. But I suspect that most big organisations aren't healthy, and Whitehall and Westminster haven't been healthy for decades. Hence all of this.
I knew that Starmer would be a crap Prime Minister, but I never imagined that he’d prove it so comprehensively and so quickly
I would say the amount and regularaty of scandals has been surprising. Normally new government had a few years without there being a scandal a month.
I dunno about that. It became a trope in the Observer pretty early in Blair's government to say that it had been, "the worst week yet." Ecclestone, of course, the cut to single-parent benefits, Brown's double-counting of spending increases.
But despite all the other things going on the government had a plan of work that they were able to get through, they were able to get things done, deal with events such as the collapse of Railtrack, etc. Starmer's government everything is so slow and hesitant. Easily blown off course.
Comments
See also the (abolition of) Captain Mainwaring issue in business. The temptation is always to centralise control- it looks more efficient and is technically possible now, thanks to the wonders of the internet. So a whole cadre of people with small local powers has been abolished.
Satisfies the egos of those at the top, and gives a tidy single point of accountability. But as well as creating a malaise in our communities, I'm pretty sure that there's a fairly small limit to what an individual can manage. Managers who can't see the thing they manage aren't actually managing- they're doing something else.
SKS is in serious trouble if he’s lost his Lib Dem cheerleader
Most of right wing Labour are fools
and liars
A more effective needling might have touched on Ed’s hypocrisy given his anger at being lied to by post office officials.
Mandelson shows the other end of the issue, if what No 10 says overrides everything else pass every decision to No 10
Ten intimates, a hundred friends, a thousand recognisable faces in the crowd? Whatever extra powers electronic data give us, our fleshy brains are still basically the same as centuries ago.
It's a miracle that we haven't all gone madder than we have.
Got to say that’s a very lawry turn of phrase being used.
Process was followed (ie to completion) but what exact process are we talking about and what was the end point of that process?
https://x.com/jeremycorbyn/status/2019108611213914242
In your scenario, where he’s overwhelmed by the contents of his red box or it’s virtual equivalent, not taking the time to read and respond properly, the PM’s fingerprints would nonetheless be all over it.
I suspect the answer is that there’s someone in No.10 who has the specific job of filtering out anything potentially problematic, at the instruction of the PM himself.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ed Davey is filmed on a farm opposing the Inheritance Tax on family farms. To be fair Tim Farron has been good on this, but the silence from behind him on the LD benches and from his leader has been deafening.
But the duel role between higly paid civil servant and politician is a bogus one. How can a future right of centre government have any confidence in a "civil servant" who is married to the first and worst female chancellor in 800 years ?
This seems to be the Darren Jones defence this morning .
“Jones calls the right for departments to overturn vetting refusal "unacceptable".
But, he says that as that was the process at the time, what Sir Keir Starmer told MPs was correct: "Therefore, the prime minister didn't mislead the House or anyone.”
It can’t have crossed his desk
The great thing about conspiracies is that you can make grade A cock ups into bigger and bigger conspiracies when it’s just lockups all the way down the line.
🌳 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.
CAN U UNDEFECT??
"Social distancing guidelines were followed at all times."
*Not including Corbyn, that was ideology
RFM: 81 (+66)
LDM: 64(+20)
CON: 29 (-22)
GRN: 20 (+5)
LAB: 17 (-53)
Ind: 9 (-10)
Local: 5 (-6)
PLC: 5 (+1)
SNP: 4 (-1)
Either can work but you should be honest about which you are choosing.
the seats it has been defending since the 2025 Local Elections.
Retention Rates for Other Parties:
LDM: 35/44 (80%)
GRN: 8/15 (53%)
CON: 16/51 (31%)
LAB: 16/70 (23%)
Localist Groups: 1/11 (9%)
Doing so without clear guidance on why they might overrule, recording which reason they used, and not seeking consent/advice of the relevant minister, is not.
The latter is alleged to be the case, I would hope the former two did not.
Diane Abbott - Starmer must consider his position
She says in her Whats apps groups nobody believes Starmer
NEW THREAD
Why was Mandelson appointed before the UKSV report had been finalised ?
I think it’s clear from Darren Jones this morning that technically speaking the process was followed , his categorical statements that Starmer didn’t knowingly or unknowingly mislead the House seem unequivocal and he wouldn’t be out there saying this unless Starmer was sure of that position .
That 23% Labour retention figure signals an even worse performance than many are predicting.
Maybe I won't finish ahead of the SDP candidate after all.
Hence why the AIs will take over!
Find out Tuesday afternoon
Not say anything Tuesday
Attend PMQs as normal and don't say anything
Sound all day Thursday not saying anything.
Gets leaked Thursday PM
Thrash around and find Scapegoat
Sack scapegoat
Release a statement at 6.10pm Thursday that will address Parliament Next week.
Healthy organisations aren't like that, of course. But I suspect that most big organisations aren't healthy, and Whitehall and Westminster haven't been healthy for decades. Hence all of this.
But despite all the other things going on the government had a plan of work that they were able to get through, they were able to get things done, deal with events such as the collapse of Railtrack, etc. Starmer's government everything is so slow and hesitant. Easily blown off course.