And we are still supposed to believe that the civil service who are the ultimate arse covering when it comes to making decisions, not only didn't pass information to #10 but also not to Lammy or any political figure close to him, all without any instruction from anybody? They just totally went rogue on this and ok'ed the overruling of a failed vetting for an extreme senior and sensitive position after failure of top secret vetting clearance?
If al that is true, well we have a massive problem with the civil service.
Apparently there is *still* a debate going on in the FCO about whether to obey the order from Parliament for full details: to be released to the Committee:
It's hard to imagine the justification for resistance, is it not? Possibly if we have a spy in a senior position in the American administration?? Otherwise, civil servants have no excuse for disobeying a direct order from Parliament.
I think it is to do with this (and/or avoiding a repeat of this.)
Sir Kim Darroch has resigned as UK ambassador to the US, as a row over leaked emails critical of President Trump's administration escalates.
Theresa May said Sir Kim's departure was "a matter of deep regret" after the ambassador said it was "impossible" for him to continue.
Tory leadership candidate Boris Johnson has faced strong criticism for failing to fully support him. President Trump said on Monday that the US would not deal with Sir Kim.
The US president had branded him "a very stupid guy" after confidential emails emerged where the ambassador had called his administration "clumsy and inept".
And we are still supposed to believe that the civil service who are the ultimate arse covering when it comes to making decisions, not only didn't pass information to #10 but also not to Lammy or any political figure close to him, all without any instruction from anybody? They just totally went rogue on this and ok'ed the overruling of a failed vetting for an extreme senior and sensitive position after failure of top secret vetting clearance?
If al that is true, well we have a massive problem with the civil service.
Apparently there is *still* a debate going on in the FCO about whether to obey the order from Parliament for full details: to be released to the Committee:
It's hard to imagine the justification for resistance, is it not? Possibly if we have a spy in a senior position in the American administration?? Otherwise, civil servants have no excuse for disobeying a direct order from Parliament.
Or that others had spies in senior positions in the UK during the various Mandelson-in-Gov years and he was linked to them.
I suspect that the appointment of unsuitable people to positions in the Foreign Office had become so routine that so had the overruling of failed vetting, and the FCO doesn't want to have to admit that.
The issue with those coming under asylum rules isn’t race per se.
It’s, in general:
[...] 2. That people are claiming asylum when they are actually economic refugees. They’re not under threat, in fact many travel back ‘home’ regularly.
Since first arriving in the UK, around half of all adults (53%) have visited Ukraine; the most reported reasons were to visit friends or family (75%) or to receive medical or dental treatment (64%).
So, Sandpit, should we revoke the refugee stats of 53% of the Ukrainians in the UK for visiting Ukraine? Or can we accept that it is possible to be in danger in your home country, but for it still to be worth the risk of visiting?
There are more details in the full report. The exec summary reads:
Around 9 in 10 (88%) adults who responded plan to apply for the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme, extending their permission to stay in the UK, when their current visa expires.
When asked to think about a future in which they feel it is safe to return to Ukraine, around 7 in 10 (68%) adults said they wanted to remain living in the UK.
Over half (60%) of those who want to remain living in the UK said this is because there are more work opportunities in the UK.
Of those who have experienced difficulties finding work in the UK, half (50%) said this was because their English language skills did not meet job requirements.
Since first arriving in the UK, around half of all adults (53%) have visited Ukraine; the most reported reasons were to visit friends or family (75%) or to receive medical or dental treatment (64%).
I think you make the case re Ukraine that it is very different to someone fleeing say a strict Muslim country when they claim to be homosexual and under threat of execution if they go back.
I'd also suggest that there is a case for saying to Ukranians - actually, we are helping with the war, which your country appears to be at the worst not losing, and hopefully slowly gaining the upper hand. Time to think about going back.
Few asylum seekers are claiming to be homosexual and fleeing a Muslim country (about 750 in 2023). Lots of asylum seekers are fleeing countries at war, like Afghanistan (8508 in 2024), Sudan (4833) or Syria (6680), which seem broadly similar circumstances to Ukrainians fleeing Ukraine (~217000 in total).
I was under the impression that for asylum to be granted there needs to be a substantial threat to the claimant in their country of origin. That doesn't fit with going back 'home'. Ukraine is different as others have posted.
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
Really ?
The problem with Labour's constant blame shifting and deflections is they give the impression they do not own the problem. They are the government and behaving like they are still in opposition just undermines. their credibility
They need to grasp the nettle and behave like a governing party.
This is something I've always thought about Labour - like most ideologically based parties, they are happiest when in opposition, powerlessly whining from the sidelines. Opposition for Labour has the huge advantage that they don't have to confront the fact that their ideology doesn't actually work, as has been completely obvious since 1989. Whereas, as a senior Conservative MP once said to me, the Tories have always been more about power than principles.
But government, with its inevitable compromises and messiness doesn't really suit them. The only time it worked was for the few years under Blair, when the flourishing economy bequeathed by the Conservatives gave them enough money to bribe their supporters while keeping tax rises to an acceptable level.
No doubt it will apply in spades to the Greens, if - God forbid - they ever get anywhere near power.
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
Hang on, that's not the issue. Indeed, this whole episode wouldn't be a big deal if they'd stood by Mandelson and said all the bad stuff about him was worth it.
The scandal is that they now think that the decision to appoint him was wrong for a number of reasons. And the question now is, who made the bad call?
Also, Starmer knew about this on Tuesday night. First question to him is, when was he planning on telling us?
+1 - Mandelson had known problems so the fact he failed vetting and was still appointed isn’t that surprising. The question becomes who ignored the vetting as it should have been left for SKS so the decision maker was the obvious correct one.
I still want Starmer to be asked why, when he was intending to appoint the most important ambassadorial post to someone who had a known history of dodgy behaviour, Starmer’s very own choice outside of the normal protocols, didn’t Starmer have the bandwidth or sense to insist that he is informed directly asap in advance of appointment of anything that could be bad and damaging, maybe for example failing vetting.
He is fucking useless and it makes his arrogance and misplaced self belief when LotO even more of an embarrassment for him.
The issue with those coming under asylum rules isn’t race per se.
It’s, in general:
[...] 2. That people are claiming asylum when they are actually economic refugees. They’re not under threat, in fact many travel back ‘home’ regularly.
Since first arriving in the UK, around half of all adults (53%) have visited Ukraine; the most reported reasons were to visit friends or family (75%) or to receive medical or dental treatment (64%).
So, Sandpit, should we revoke the refugee stats of 53% of the Ukrainians in the UK for visiting Ukraine? Or can we accept that it is possible to be in danger in your home country, but for it still to be worth the risk of visiting?
There are more details in the full report. The exec summary reads:
Around 9 in 10 (88%) adults who responded plan to apply for the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme, extending their permission to stay in the UK, when their current visa expires.
When asked to think about a future in which they feel it is safe to return to Ukraine, around 7 in 10 (68%) adults said they wanted to remain living in the UK.
Over half (60%) of those who want to remain living in the UK said this is because there are more work opportunities in the UK.
Of those who have experienced difficulties finding work in the UK, half (50%) said this was because their English language skills did not meet job requirements.
Since first arriving in the UK, around half of all adults (53%) have visited Ukraine; the most reported reasons were to visit friends or family (75%) or to receive medical or dental treatment (64%).
What?
I’m not aware of anyone requesting or being granted asylum from Ukraine.
They’re temporary refugees, almost all women and children, allowed into the UK under a special arrangement because, you know, there’s a war going on in Ukraine right now.
What, exactly, is the point you’re trying to make?
We have a special scheme for refugees for Ukraine, so they don't have to request asylum, but they are broadly in the same situation: refugees we let into the country for humanitarian reasons, because there's a war on.
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
What would Badenoch know about appointments made by someone else to an office totally unrelated to her own?
Because the shadow Foreign Secretary receives briefings from the government on Privy Council terms the LOTO is informed if the Shadow Foreign Secretary has ever failed vetting or was was considered a risk relating to why she was sacked by Theresa May.
But presumably they will have passed? Even if the security vetting advised they failed. That is the implication of Darren Jones' today interview, the FO had an override button as part of their vetting process that predated Mandelson. If it had been used before then Patel is an obvious candidate.
The security clearance for ministers in political positions is different to civil servants, as Mandelson was as ambassador. So it doesn't work as an attack anyway.
The PM will get advice from the security services on appointment of ministers to sensitive positions, they don't require DV. Problem with this line of attack, if used, is that No.10 knew the security services had concerns with Mandelson and they appointed him anyway. Even if they didn't know he specifically failed DV.
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
Badenoch instincts to always go two footed at every opportunity means when the big scandals hit it just Kemi being Kemi. She really needs an attack dog or two, to go out to the media and stick the boot in on regular basis, while she waits for the big blow up. If you do it that way, if you do attack something that doesn't quite pan out right, the leadership can say we always said wait and see for more information and much more impact from the leader of the oppostion comes and says I normally don't do this, but this is very serious matter.
Kemi's problem is that she's well-suited to being the big attack dog, and enjoys it.
It's possible that she realises the game she is playing- not to be PM but to keep the party alive until after 2029. But it's not the manner of a PM in waiting.
Kemi would have been an ideal party chairman, Jenrick or Cleverly were the more natural party leaders in 2024 but we will see how she does in May. Jenrick obviously is now only an option for next Reform leader not next Tory leader anyway
How does the Labour Party benefit from retaining Starmer as PM?
A new leader by conference, then two and a half years to turn things round, and do some good for the country while they are at it.
The problem is the obvious contenders for PM aren't currently in a position to move so things need to continue as they are.
While we complain about how the Tory party can remove a PM, at least the Tory Party have a mechanism that can do so...
Do the current rules allow stalking horses? Can the field widen if a challenger comes forwards?
That’s the key one for me. If for instance someone like Richard Burgeon got the nominations and challenged Starmer after May, does the party have the time for other challengers to emerge/seek nominations.
If so it’s much easier to see someone going for it: “I didn’t want to challenge the PM but regretfully my duty requires me to stand” etc etc.
The rules pretty much require a stalking horse. 81 Lab MPs (20%) need to nominate someone for the contest, as the first point in the process. Starmer, as incumbent, is automatically on the ballot if he wishes to be.
So the question becomes how easily can the rules be changed, if the NEC wants to change them?
The rules for the election that Corbyn won were only introduced the year before and both the Tory and Labour parties have in recent years tweaked (not significantly overhauled) the rules immediately prior to a contest too, eg changing pre-determined thresholds rules.
The last 5 Tory leadership elections in a row have all had the rules changed immediately prior to the election itself (mainly regarding nomination and round thresholds).
If Starmer resigns and hundreds of Labour MPs declare "we need Burnham" for example, could the NEC abolish the rule of needing a candidate to be an MP in time for the election?
Under Labour's rules, if Starmer resigned effective immediately, the Cabinet (in 'consultation' with the NEC), would choose his immediate successor from themselves.
Powell & Rayner wouldn't be eligible.
That PM, under Labour's rules, wouldn't be allowed to reshuffle the Cabinet
So little appears to cross the PM’s desk, that he must have someone in No.10 with the specific job of filtering out anything potentially problematic from Starmer’s red box (or it’s digital equivalent).
This is now a clear pattern of behaviour, going back to the Jimmy Savile scandal when he was DPP.
His excuse today reminds me of Gordon Brown’s “I accept full responsibility, and the person responsible has been fired”, except that Starmer never accepts responsibility for anything.
He has a desk which considers what should cross his main desk. This didn't even cross that desk.
Its uncrossed desks all the way down
Perhaps the truth is that Starmer doesn’t have a desk.
He doesn’t need one.
The forcefield that appears to protect his desk should certainly be studied by our missile defence procurement team.
And we are still supposed to believe that the civil service who are the ultimate arse covering when it comes to making decisions, not only didn't pass information to #10 but also not to Lammy or any political figure close to him, all without any instruction from anybody? They just totally went rogue on this and ok'ed the overruling of a failed vetting for an extreme senior and sensitive position after failure of top secret vetting clearance?
If al that is true, well we have a massive problem with the civil service.
Apparently there is *still* a debate going on in the FCO about whether to obey the order from Parliament for full details: to be released to the Committee:
It's hard to imagine the justification for resistance, is it not? Possibly if we have a spy in a senior position in the American administration?? Otherwise, civil servants have no excuse for disobeying a direct order from Parliament.
Or that others had spies in senior positions in the UK during the various Mandelson-in-Gov years and he was linked to them.
I suspect that the appointment of unsuitable people to positions in the Foreign Office had become so routine that so had the overruling of failed vetting, and the FCO doesn't want to have to admit that.
Oh for the days when the likes of Kim Philby (one of the greatest spies in history) worked in our embassy in Washington.
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
How does the Labour Party benefit from retaining Starmer as PM?
A new leader by conference, then two and a half years to turn things round, and do some good for the country while they are at it.
Starmer will likely be gone by the next general election but may survive May, the London results should still see Labour top even with some losses and in Scotland it looks like Labour could be back in second (though Sarwar has done that distancing himself from the PM).
Next year though London isn't up and it is mainly English provincial councils voting where Labour will face near wipe out
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
What would Badenoch know about appointments made by someone else to an office totally unrelated to her own?
Because the shadow Foreign Secretary receives briefings from the government on Privy Council terms the LOTO is informed if the Shadow Foreign Secretary has ever failed vetting or was was considered a risk relating to why she was sacked by Theresa May.
But presumably they will have passed? Even if the security vetting advised they failed. That is the implication of Darren Jones' today interview, the FO had an override button as part of their vetting process that predated Mandelson. If it had been used before then Patel is an obvious candidate.
The security clearance for ministers in political positions is different to civil servants as Mandelson was as ambassador. So it doesn't work as an attack anyway.
The PM will get advice from the security services on appointment of ministers to sensitive positions, they don't require DV. Problem if this line of attack was used is that No.10 knew the security services had concerns with Mandelson and they appointed him any even if they didn't know he specifically failed DV.
This is the key point. It wasn't an appointment as third secretary to the embassy in Caracas. Mandelson was a political appointment imposed by No 10 over a career diplomat that would otherwise have got the appointment. The PM is perfectly within his rights to do so, but he's then fully responsible for the decision. Starmer saying he wasn't responsible doesn't cut it, regardless of what he knew or didn't know. It's his job to be in possession of the facts and ask any necessary questions.
I still think a process to overrule could in theory make sense, but there would surely need to be a record of who personally did so, for what reason, and who they consulted. Many organisations have simple templates to ensure they capture such details.
Said record indicating they did not consult any political leader would be very useful for the PM right now. If they just made the call through email as the record that's very careless.
As it stands, SKS is proving Truss right - the unelected, out of control blob are at the wheel and democracy is a sham. Or, Keir is a lying toerag. One or t'other
Not exactly. Starmer made the decision to appoint a seriously dodgy individual, not the Blob.
If Starmer is telling the truth (YMMV), they decided off their own bat to ensure the decision went through by deep sixing the vetting result.
I am guessing that there was perhaps a conversation between FS and PM about appointing Mandelson, despite/because he was a wrongun - but a Trump adjacent wrongun. And Robbins/the blob took this as an implicit instruction that vetting was not to stand in the way.
So little appears to cross the PM’s desk, that he must have someone in No.10 with the specific job of filtering out anything potentially problematic from Starmer’s red box (or it’s digital equivalent).
This is now a clear pattern of behaviour, going back to the Jimmy Savile scandal when he was DPP.
His excuse today reminds me of Gordon Brown’s “I accept full responsibility, and the person responsible has been fired”, except that Starmer never accepts responsibility for anything.
He has a desk which considers what should cross his main desk. This didn't even cross that desk.
Its uncrossed desks all the way down
Perhaps the truth is that Starmer doesn’t have a desk.
He doesn’t need one.
The forcefield that appears to protect his desk should certainly be studied by our missile defence procurement team.
Appears to be impentrable from drones aka civil servants.
So little appears to cross the PM’s desk, that he must have someone in No.10 with the specific job of filtering out anything potentially problematic from Starmer’s red box (or it’s digital equivalent).
This is now a clear pattern of behaviour, going back to the Jimmy Savile scandal when he was DPP.
His excuse today reminds me of Gordon Brown’s “I accept full responsibility, and the person responsible has been fired”, except that Starmer never accepts responsibility for anything.
He has a desk which considers what should cross his main desk. This didn't even cross that desk.
Its uncrossed desks all the way down
Perhaps the truth is that Starmer doesn’t have a desk.
He doesn’t need one.
The forcefield that appears to protect his desk should certainly be studied by our missile defence procurement team.
Appears to be impentrable from drones aka civil servants.
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
What would Badenoch know about appointments made by someone else to an office totally unrelated to her own?
Because the shadow Foreign Secretary receives briefings from the government on Privy Council terms the LOTO is informed if the Shadow Foreign Secretary has ever failed vetting or was was considered a risk relating to why she was sacked by Theresa May.
But presumably they will have passed? Even if the security vetting advised they failed. That is the implication of Darren Jones' today interview, the FO had an override button as part of their vetting process that predated Mandelson. If it had been used before then Patel is an obvious candidate.
It's not an implication. It's a straightforward statement that they had the power. ..Earlier on ITV’s Good Morning Britain programme, Jones said he had suspended the rights of the Foreign Office to overrule security vetting recommendations. He said:
As soon as I found out last night that the Foreign Office and a small number of other organisations have the right to ignore the recommendation… I immediately suspended those rights and ordered an urgent audit...
All of a sudden Farage really cares about the poor Olly Robbins .
"It is totally unbelievable," Farage says, and describes Olly Robbins - the top official at the Foreign Office who is leaving his role as a result - as the "sacrificial lamb".
He describes Robbins as one of the most professional civil servants in the UK and says there is "no way" he would have decided to lie to Starmer over the vetting failure.
Farage says he is in "no doubt" that Starmer misled the House of Commons.”
After calling him basically a traitor during the Brexit negotiations and saying he should be sacked .
How does the Labour Party benefit from retaining Starmer as PM?
A new leader by conference, then two and a half years to turn things round, and do some good for the country while they are at it.
The problem is the obvious contenders for PM aren't currently in a position to move so things need to continue as they are.
While we complain about how the Tory party can remove a PM, at least the Tory Party have a mechanism that can do so...
Do the current rules allow stalking horses? Can the field widen if a challenger comes forwards?
That’s the key one for me. If for instance someone like Richard Burgeon got the nominations and challenged Starmer after May, does the party have the time for other challengers to emerge/seek nominations.
If so it’s much easier to see someone going for it: “I didn’t want to challenge the PM but regretfully my duty requires me to stand” etc etc.
The rules pretty much require a stalking horse. 81 Lab MPs (20%) need to nominate someone for the contest, as the first point in the process. Starmer, as incumbent, is automatically on the ballot if he wishes to be.
So the question becomes how easily can the rules be changed, if the NEC wants to change them?
The rules for the election that Corbyn won were only introduced the year before and both the Tory and Labour parties have in recent years tweaked (not significantly overhauled) the rules immediately prior to a contest too, eg changing pre-determined thresholds rules.
The last 5 Tory leadership elections in a row have all had the rules changed immediately prior to the election itself (mainly regarding nomination and round thresholds).
If Starmer resigns and hundreds of Labour MPs declare "we need Burnham" for example, could the NEC abolish the rule of needing a candidate to be an MP in time for the election?
It doesn't matter. In order to be Prime Minister, Burnham would need to be an MP so the rest is moot.
The issue with those coming under asylum rules isn’t race per se.
It’s, in general:
[...] 2. That people are claiming asylum when they are actually economic refugees. They’re not under threat, in fact many travel back ‘home’ regularly.
Since first arriving in the UK, around half of all adults (53%) have visited Ukraine; the most reported reasons were to visit friends or family (75%) or to receive medical or dental treatment (64%).
So, Sandpit, should we revoke the refugee stats of 53% of the Ukrainians in the UK for visiting Ukraine? Or can we accept that it is possible to be in danger in your home country, but for it still to be worth the risk of visiting?
There are more details in the full report. The exec summary reads:
Around 9 in 10 (88%) adults who responded plan to apply for the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme, extending their permission to stay in the UK, when their current visa expires.
When asked to think about a future in which they feel it is safe to return to Ukraine, around 7 in 10 (68%) adults said they wanted to remain living in the UK.
Over half (60%) of those who want to remain living in the UK said this is because there are more work opportunities in the UK.
Of those who have experienced difficulties finding work in the UK, half (50%) said this was because their English language skills did not meet job requirements.
Since first arriving in the UK, around half of all adults (53%) have visited Ukraine; the most reported reasons were to visit friends or family (75%) or to receive medical or dental treatment (64%).
I think you make the case re Ukraine that it is very different to someone fleeing say a strict Muslim country when they claim to be homosexual and under threat of execution if they go back.
I'd also suggest that there is a case for saying to Ukranians - actually, we are helping with the war, which your country appears to be at the worst not losing, and hopefully slowly gaining the upper hand. Time to think about going back.
Few asylum seekers are claiming to be homosexual and fleeing a Muslim country (about 750 in 2023). Lots of asylum seekers are fleeing countries at war, like Afghanistan (8508 in 2024), Sudan (4833) or Syria (6680), which seem broadly similar circumstances to Ukrainians fleeing Ukraine (~217000 in total).
I was under the impression that for asylum to be granted there needs to be a substantial threat to the claimant in their country of origin. That doesn't fit with going back 'home'. Ukraine is different as others have posted.
GOV.UK says, "To stay in the UK as a refugee you must be unable to live safely in any part of your own country because you fear persecution there." There is a difference perhaps between "live [...] in" and "visit".
What is different about Ukraine? We took in Ukrainian refugees because it wasn't safe for them in their own country, didn't we?
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
It slightly surprises me that you pass or fail DV. I can't believe it is not a bit more nuanced than that. I would expect such an assessment to highlight issues, to raise possible concerns but ultimately leave the decision to the decision maker in light of the information provided. That is what seems to have happened here. I do wonder if even now this story is proceeding on a slightly false premise.
So. to take an example, if I was subject to DV they might highlight some of my dafter posts on here but it would be the person who was making the appointment who would decide what weight to give to that.
Kind of, David, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The Vetters give a thumbs down, perhaps qualified but certainly not a pass. The Head Honcho says, 'Nah, that's ok, he'll do.' He then fails to notify his boss of the concerns, or anybody in authority of the reasons for overriding the Vetters? Possible, yes. Plausible, no.
I appreciate that the resignation/sacking of Robbins must have come as a terrible disappointment to all the Starmer haters who thought they had their man, but until we know why Robbins lied it seems the PM's neck is out of the noose, for the moment.
None of this makes sense Peter. In a world with clear lines of responsibility, efficiency and organisation this simply wouldn't happen.
We are, after all, talking about the appointment of our most senior Ambassador who is going to have to deal with a lunatic and his coterie of slavering hounds, someone who is going to have to represent the government's political position when there is all the tension between America First and Europe. This is not something trivial. And the government has, exceptionally gone out of the ranks of the professionals for the appointment. Which, as we have all learned, is a political risk. And there are concerns. And the PM is not told? I just don't believe it I am afraid.
That's healthy scepticism, David. Meanwhile, we await more facts.
Where's that journalist from the Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
Questions for Boris, Truss and Sunak not Kemi
Who appointed her Shadow Foreign Secretary?
Nothing Priti has done I can see is against government rules
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
Questions for Boris, Truss and Sunak not Kemi
Who appointed her Shadow Foreign Secretary?
Nothing Priti has done I can see is against government rules
Did you miss the time she was sacked from the cabinet for running her own private foreign policy?
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
Questions for Boris, Truss and Sunak not Kemi
Who appointed her Shadow Foreign Secretary?
Nothing Priti has done I can see is against government rules
And we are still supposed to believe that the civil service who are the ultimate arse covering when it comes to making decisions, not only didn't pass information to #10 but also not to Lammy or any political figure close to him, all without any instruction from anybody? They just totally went rogue on this and ok'ed the overruling of a failed vetting for an extreme senior and sensitive position after failure of top secret vetting clearance?
If al that is true, well we have a massive problem with the civil service.
Apparently there is *still* a debate going on in the FCO about whether to obey the order from Parliament for full details: to be released to the Committee:
It's hard to imagine the justification for resistance, is it not? Possibly if we have a spy in a senior position in the American administration?? Otherwise, civil servants have no excuse for disobeying a direct order from Parliament.
I think it is to do with this (and/or avoiding a repeat of this.)
Sir Kim Darroch has resigned as UK ambassador to the US, as a row over leaked emails critical of President Trump's administration escalates.
Theresa May said Sir Kim's departure was "a matter of deep regret" after the ambassador said it was "impossible" for him to continue.
Tory leadership candidate Boris Johnson has faced strong criticism for failing to fully support him. President Trump said on Monday that the US would not deal with Sir Kim.
The US president had branded him "a very stupid guy" after confidential emails emerged where the ambassador had called his administration "clumsy and inept".
Possibly - impossible to release details without revealing criticism of Trump? But frankly Trump will not be surprised to learn that some Brits are critical of him.
Provisionally, I think that resistance boils down to avoiding temporary embarassment. That should not override a direct instruction from Parliament.
The issue with those coming under asylum rules isn’t race per se.
It’s, in general:
[...] 2. That people are claiming asylum when they are actually economic refugees. They’re not under threat, in fact many travel back ‘home’ regularly.
Since first arriving in the UK, around half of all adults (53%) have visited Ukraine; the most reported reasons were to visit friends or family (75%) or to receive medical or dental treatment (64%).
So, Sandpit, should we revoke the refugee stats of 53% of the Ukrainians in the UK for visiting Ukraine? Or can we accept that it is possible to be in danger in your home country, but for it still to be worth the risk of visiting?
There are more details in the full report. The exec summary reads:
Around 9 in 10 (88%) adults who responded plan to apply for the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme, extending their permission to stay in the UK, when their current visa expires.
When asked to think about a future in which they feel it is safe to return to Ukraine, around 7 in 10 (68%) adults said they wanted to remain living in the UK.
Over half (60%) of those who want to remain living in the UK said this is because there are more work opportunities in the UK.
Of those who have experienced difficulties finding work in the UK, half (50%) said this was because their English language skills did not meet job requirements.
Since first arriving in the UK, around half of all adults (53%) have visited Ukraine; the most reported reasons were to visit friends or family (75%) or to receive medical or dental treatment (64%).
What?
I’m not aware of anyone requesting or being granted asylum from Ukraine.
They’re temporary refugees, almost all women and children, allowed into the UK under a special arrangement because, you know, there’s a war going on in Ukraine right now.
What, exactly, is the point you’re trying to make?
We have a special scheme for refugees for Ukraine, so they don't have to request asylum, but they are broadly in the same situation: refugees we let into the country for humanitarian reasons, because there's a war on.
As of 2024, since 2021, the following are the Ukrainian asylum stats
Category
Count
Claims
1,305
Initial Decisions
935
Initial: Grants of Protection
67
Initial: Grants of Other Leave
23
Initial: Refusals
845
Initial: Withdrawals
350
Initial: Administrative Outcomes
20
Initial: Not yet known
0
Enforced Returns
392
Voluntary Returns
176
Assisted Returns (Subset of Voluntary Returns)
56
Controlled Returns (Subset of Voluntary Returns)
79
Other Verified Returns (Subset of Voluntary Returns)
41
Latest: Grants of Protection
223
Latest: Grants of Other Leave
48
Latest: Refusals
648
Latest: Withdrawals
365
Latest: Administrative Outcomes
21
Latest: Not yet known
0
in the same period there were 302,397 Ukrainians granted refugee status under the special scheme
I still think a process to overrule could in theory make sense, but there would surely need to be a record of who personally did so, for what reason, and who they consulted. Many organisations have simple templates to ensure they capture such details.
Said record indicating they did not consult any political leader would be very useful for the PM right now. If they just made the call through email as the record that's very careless.
As it stands, SKS is proving Truss right - the unelected, out of control blob are at the wheel and democracy is a sham. Or, Keir is a lying toerag. One or t'other
Not exactly. Starmer made the decision to appoint a seriously dodgy individual, not the Blob.
If Starmer is telling the truth (YMMV), they decided off their own bat to ensure the decision went through by deep sixing the vetting result.
I am guessing that there was perhaps a conversation between FS and PM about appointing Mandelson, despite/because he was a wrongun - but a Trump adjacent wrongun. And Robbins/the blob took this as an implicit instruction that vetting was not to stand in the way.
All very plausible, except that it doesn't explain why Robbins has been resigned.
All of a sudden Farage really cares about the poor Olly Robbins .
"It is totally unbelievable," Farage says, and describes Olly Robbins - the top official at the Foreign Office who is leaving his role as a result - as the "sacrificial lamb".
He describes Robbins as one of the most professional civil servants in the UK and says there is "no way" he would have decided to lie to Starmer over the vetting failure.
Farage says he is in "no doubt" that Starmer misled the House of Commons.”
After calling him basically a traitor during the Brexit negotiations and saying he should be sacked .
His job is to fight with the events he has, not the events he wishes he had.
The issue with those coming under asylum rules isn’t race per se.
It’s, in general:
[...] 2. That people are claiming asylum when they are actually economic refugees. They’re not under threat, in fact many travel back ‘home’ regularly.
Since first arriving in the UK, around half of all adults (53%) have visited Ukraine; the most reported reasons were to visit friends or family (75%) or to receive medical or dental treatment (64%).
So, Sandpit, should we revoke the refugee stats of 53% of the Ukrainians in the UK for visiting Ukraine? Or can we accept that it is possible to be in danger in your home country, but for it still to be worth the risk of visiting?
There are more details in the full report. The exec summary reads:
Around 9 in 10 (88%) adults who responded plan to apply for the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme, extending their permission to stay in the UK, when their current visa expires.
When asked to think about a future in which they feel it is safe to return to Ukraine, around 7 in 10 (68%) adults said they wanted to remain living in the UK.
Over half (60%) of those who want to remain living in the UK said this is because there are more work opportunities in the UK.
Of those who have experienced difficulties finding work in the UK, half (50%) said this was because their English language skills did not meet job requirements.
Since first arriving in the UK, around half of all adults (53%) have visited Ukraine; the most reported reasons were to visit friends or family (75%) or to receive medical or dental treatment (64%).
I think you make the case re Ukraine that it is very different to someone fleeing say a strict Muslim country when they claim to be homosexual and under threat of execution if they go back.
I'd also suggest that there is a case for saying to Ukranians - actually, we are helping with the war, which your country appears to be at the worst not losing, and hopefully slowly gaining the upper hand. Time to think about going back.
Few asylum seekers are claiming to be homosexual and fleeing a Muslim country (about 750 in 2023). Lots of asylum seekers are fleeing countries at war, like Afghanistan (8508 in 2024), Sudan (4833) or Syria (6680), which seem broadly similar circumstances to Ukrainians fleeing Ukraine (~217000 in total).
I was under the impression that for asylum to be granted there needs to be a substantial threat to the claimant in their country of origin. That doesn't fit with going back 'home'. Ukraine is different as others have posted.
GOV.UK says, "To stay in the UK as a refugee you must be unable to live safely in any part of your own country because you fear persecution there." There is a difference perhaps between "live [...] in" and "visit".
What is different about Ukraine? We took in Ukrainian refugees because it wasn't safe for them in their own country, didn't we?
You’ve persuaded Roger. That’s sure to be the limit of your bizarre argument
Incidentally, I actually like Mandelson - I found him interesting and intelligent, a Minister who had logical arguments for his position and engaged with criticism. The current revelations about his indiscrections are enough to make the appointment as Amassador a serious mistake but we shouldn't deal with him as though he was a monster.
1. He sacked Mandelson last September as soon as the latest Epstein revelations became known - so it's not as if he tried to hang on to him.
2. Despite what most people are saying, Starmer did (in January, I think, following the financial leak revelations) issue a mea culpa for appointing him, and admitted it had been a significant error - so he did take responsibility for the error of judgement.
Unless it can be proved that he lied to Parliament, he'll hang on. I think.
Incidentally, I actually like Mandelson - I found him interesting and intelligent, a Minister who had logical arguments for his position and engaged with criticism. The current revelations about his indiscrections are enough to make the appointment as Amassador a serious mistake but we shouldn't deal with him as though he was a monster.
He sold secrets to a foreign intelligent asset who was also a paedo (whom he remained friends with for years), on top of the 87 other scandals he just tripped and fell into, but he ain't a bad lad really.....It admit its not quite up there in seriousness of I got caught watching tactor pron on my ipad in HoC because I have an addiction to looking at errh big bouncy tractors.
You do come out with some right nonense sometimes.
The issue with those coming under asylum rules isn’t race per se.
It’s, in general:
[...] 2. That people are claiming asylum when they are actually economic refugees. They’re not under threat, in fact many travel back ‘home’ regularly.
Since first arriving in the UK, around half of all adults (53%) have visited Ukraine; the most reported reasons were to visit friends or family (75%) or to receive medical or dental treatment (64%).
So, Sandpit, should we revoke the refugee stats of 53% of the Ukrainians in the UK for visiting Ukraine? Or can we accept that it is possible to be in danger in your home country, but for it still to be worth the risk of visiting?
There are more details in the full report. The exec summary reads:
Around 9 in 10 (88%) adults who responded plan to apply for the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme, extending their permission to stay in the UK, when their current visa expires.
When asked to think about a future in which they feel it is safe to return to Ukraine, around 7 in 10 (68%) adults said they wanted to remain living in the UK.
Over half (60%) of those who want to remain living in the UK said this is because there are more work opportunities in the UK.
Of those who have experienced difficulties finding work in the UK, half (50%) said this was because their English language skills did not meet job requirements.
Since first arriving in the UK, around half of all adults (53%) have visited Ukraine; the most reported reasons were to visit friends or family (75%) or to receive medical or dental treatment (64%).
I think you make the case re Ukraine that it is very different to someone fleeing say a strict Muslim country when they claim to be homosexual and under threat of execution if they go back.
I'd also suggest that there is a case for saying to Ukranians - actually, we are helping with the war, which your country appears to be at the worst not losing, and hopefully slowly gaining the upper hand. Time to think about going back.
Few asylum seekers are claiming to be homosexual and fleeing a Muslim country (about 750 in 2023). Lots of asylum seekers are fleeing countries at war, like Afghanistan (8508 in 2024), Sudan (4833) or Syria (6680), which seem broadly similar circumstances to Ukrainians fleeing Ukraine (~217000 in total).
I was under the impression that for asylum to be granted there needs to be a substantial threat to the claimant in their country of origin. That doesn't fit with going back 'home'. Ukraine is different as others have posted.
GOV.UK says, "To stay in the UK as a refugee you must be unable to live safely in any part of your own country because you fear persecution there." There is a difference perhaps between "live [...] in" and "visit".
What is different about Ukraine? We took in Ukrainian refugees because it wasn't safe for them in their own country, didn't we?
And once again we can see why the concept of asylum is breaking down. Just after the second world war, when the current rules were coming into being, you couldn't hop on an Easyjet back to the country that you had fled. In 2026 travel worldwide is much easier (although maybe not for much longer) and such trips are thus as easy as me going to Appledore for a week.
The expectation of the general public is that if you have claimed asylum from country A (for valid reasons) then you would fear to set foot back in country A. If that is not the case then frankly its time to look again at who and why we allow asylum.
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
Questions for Boris, Truss and Sunak not Kemi
Who appointed her Shadow Foreign Secretary?
Nothing Priti has done I can see is against government rules
I still think a process to overrule could in theory make sense, but there would surely need to be a record of who personally did so, for what reason, and who they consulted. Many organisations have simple templates to ensure they capture such details.
Said record indicating they did not consult any political leader would be very useful for the PM right now. If they just made the call through email as the record that's very careless.
As it stands, SKS is proving Truss right - the unelected, out of control blob are at the wheel and democracy is a sham. Or, Keir is a lying toerag. One or t'other
Not exactly. Starmer made the decision to appoint a seriously dodgy individual, not the Blob.
If Starmer is telling the truth (YMMV), they decided off their own bat to ensure the decision went through by deep sixing the vetting result.
I am guessing that there was perhaps a conversation between FS and PM about appointing Mandelson, despite/because he was a wrongun - but a Trump adjacent wrongun. And Robbins/the blob took this as an implicit instruction that vetting was not to stand in the way.
All very plausible, except that it doesn't explain why Robbins has been resigned.
Presumably (and again, only if you assume for a moment that Starmer is telling the truth) that ministers were unaware of the system, and believe they should have been told about it far sooner.
The issue with those coming under asylum rules isn’t race per se.
It’s, in general:
[...] 2. That people are claiming asylum when they are actually economic refugees. They’re not under threat, in fact many travel back ‘home’ regularly.
Since first arriving in the UK, around half of all adults (53%) have visited Ukraine; the most reported reasons were to visit friends or family (75%) or to receive medical or dental treatment (64%).
So, Sandpit, should we revoke the refugee stats of 53% of the Ukrainians in the UK for visiting Ukraine? Or can we accept that it is possible to be in danger in your home country, but for it still to be worth the risk of visiting?
There are more details in the full report. The exec summary reads:
Around 9 in 10 (88%) adults who responded plan to apply for the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme, extending their permission to stay in the UK, when their current visa expires.
When asked to think about a future in which they feel it is safe to return to Ukraine, around 7 in 10 (68%) adults said they wanted to remain living in the UK.
Over half (60%) of those who want to remain living in the UK said this is because there are more work opportunities in the UK.
Of those who have experienced difficulties finding work in the UK, half (50%) said this was because their English language skills did not meet job requirements.
Since first arriving in the UK, around half of all adults (53%) have visited Ukraine; the most reported reasons were to visit friends or family (75%) or to receive medical or dental treatment (64%).
What?
I’m not aware of anyone requesting or being granted asylum from Ukraine.
They’re temporary refugees, almost all women and children, allowed into the UK under a special arrangement because, you know, there’s a war going on in Ukraine right now.
What, exactly, is the point you’re trying to make?
We have a special scheme for refugees for Ukraine, so they don't have to request asylum, but they are broadly in the same situation: refugees we let into the country for humanitarian reasons, because there's a war on.
No, they’re totally different situations. The Ukranian visas are temporary, granted in advance of travel, and are almost exclusively for women and children.
Asylum rules are for those fleeing their own governments, not simply escaping a war.
Incidentally, I actually like Mandelson - I found him interesting and intelligent, a Minister who had logical arguments for his position and engaged with criticism. The current revelations about his indiscrections are enough to make the appointment as Amassador a serious mistake but we shouldn't deal with him as though he was a monster.
Plenty of people are personable.
In Finance, I've met some people who are wonderful characters, interesting, intelligent and lots of arguments about why you should invest in the their ideas.
A couple of them have figured in national newspapers. And not in a good way.
If you think about it, it takes those skills to get into the room in the first place. Very few Top People are unpleasant or anti-social on a certain level of acquaintance. And no con men.
1. He sacked Mandelson last September as soon as the latest Epstein revelations became known - so it's not as if he tried to hang on to him.
2. Despite what most people are saying, Starmer did (in January, I think, following the financial leak revelations) issue a mea culpa for appointing him, and admitted it had been a significant error - so he did take responsibility for the error of judgement.
Unless it can be proved that he lied to Parliament, he'll hang on. I think.
He literally did try to hang on to him, but events moved very fast and was swept away. He was defending him for several days.
Considering this article is from September last year, I'd say it's pretty much curtains for No.10's defence that they found out this week.
"Serious concerns have been raised that newly sacked US ambassador Peter Mandelson did not clear security vetting for the role – but the prime minister pushed through his appointment anyway.
Sources have told The Independent that MI6 failed to clear the Labour peer largely because of concerns over his business links to China."
1. He sacked Mandelson last September as soon as the latest Epstein revelations became known - so it's not as if he tried to hang on to him.
2. Despite what most people are saying, Starmer did (in January, I think, following the financial leak revelations) issue a mea culpa for appointing him, and admitted it had been a significant error - so he did take responsibility for the error of judgement.
Unless it can be proved that he lied to Parliament, he'll hang on. I think.
I think Starmer's true greatness is to know exactly, EXACTLY, how much of a lie he can get away with by distorting words and meanings.
I used to think he would be good at politics. I think he was bang to rights over currygate but played the Police incredibly well. He essentially said that if he was given a minor caution (which was warranted, I think) then it would bring him down. The police clearly didn't want that on their hands. As I said - I thought he played it well there.
Trouble is people are heartily sick of the half truths and distortions, and, shades of Boris, the every changing story. Boris was felled because he asked ministers and colleagues to go to the media with a line that they had no confidence would still be the line by the time they were trotting it out. Starmer is getting close to that.
People say there is no-one else. Burnham can't yet, Ange could (if only HMRC would sort things out) but I think Cooper could so the job (plenty of government and ministerial experience) and, much as I loath her, Lady Nugee would do well too.
Considering this article is from September last year, I'd say it's pretty much curtains for No.10's defence that they found out this week.
"Serious concerns have been raised that newly sacked US ambassador Peter Mandelson did not clear security vetting for the role – but the prime minister pushed through his appointment anyway.
Sources have told The Independent that MI6 failed to clear the Labour peer largely because of concerns over his business links to China."
I am surprised the second time his blew up that the media didn't really go for the kill after the FT proved he was lying about what he knew because they directly asked him a question about vetting on the record at time of appointment and he waved it away, then claimed nobody had ever told him nuffin ever about such stuff, despite the FT having posed the question several months previous.
I still think a process to overrule could in theory make sense, but there would surely need to be a record of who personally did so, for what reason, and who they consulted. Many organisations have simple templates to ensure they capture such details.
Said record indicating they did not consult any political leader would be very useful for the PM right now. If they just made the call through email as the record that's very careless.
As it stands, SKS is proving Truss right - the unelected, out of control blob are at the wheel and democracy is a sham. Or, Keir is a lying toerag. One or t'other
Not exactly. Starmer made the decision to appoint a seriously dodgy individual, not the Blob.
If Starmer is telling the truth (YMMV), they decided off their own bat to ensure the decision went through by deep sixing the vetting result.
I am guessing that there was perhaps a conversation between FS and PM about appointing Mandelson, despite/because he was a wrongun - but a Trump adjacent wrongun. And Robbins/the blob took this as an implicit instruction that vetting was not to stand in the way.
All very plausible, except that it doesn't explain why Robbins has been resigned.
Presumably (and again, only if you assume for a moment that Starmer is telling the truth) that ministers were unaware of the system, and believe they should have been told about it far sooner.
This may sound like dancing on a pinhead, but it’s one of those moments where language really matters. As a KC and former DPP, Starmer knows that better than most.
On the narrow question everyone is now arguing about, I’m struggling to see how or where he misled Parliament. The media focus is on his answer at PMQs in September 2025, where he said “full due process” was followed. But “process” here is doing a lot of work. The process is to submit a candidate for vetting; the appointment itself is a political decision taken in light of that vetting. On that reading, the process was followed.
Looking back at Hansard, at no point was Starmer asked the key question: did Mandelson pass or fail vetting? And on what we now understand, even if he had been asked directly, it’s not clear he could have answered - because it’s entirely plausible he didn’t know. That goes to the point James Heale raises about why Starmer didn’t correct the record in line with Erskine May. But correct what, exactly? He didn’t say Mandelson had passed vetting. He said due process had been followed. Those are not the same claim.
Even his comments to journalists in Hastings in February don’t obviously change the picture. He said vetting was carried out independently and “gave clearance for the role.” If he had not been told that Mandelson failed vetting, then again, it’s hard to say he knowingly misled anyone. And in any event, that exchange was with journalists, not Parliament.
The more interesting question, to my mind, is institutional rather than semantic. How does this actually work in practice? The Prime Minister asks: “Where are we on Mandelson?” The FCO replies: “The vetting has been completed.” For those of you who appreciate a little Jed Bartlett on a Friday morning: what are the next ten words? Is it incumbent on the Prime Minister to probe - “Is there anything I need to know?” - or on officials to say plainly, “There is an issue,” or “This candidate has not passed”?
I’m not defending Starmer here. For a KC, it all feels a bit thin - either a lack of curiosity or something closer to plausible deniability. Either way, it has the unmistakable scent of political craft rather than straightforward candour.
Incidentally, I actually like Mandelson - I found him interesting and intelligent, a Minister who had logical arguments for his position and engaged with criticism. The current revelations about his indiscrections are enough to make the appointment as Amassador a serious mistake but we shouldn't deal with him as though he was a monster.
Plenty of people are personable.
In Finance, I've met some people who are wonderful characters, interesting, intelligent and lots of arguments about why you should invest in the their ideas.
A couple of them have figured in national newspapers. And not in a good way.
If you think about it, it takes those skills to get into the room in the first place. Very few Top People are unpleasant or anti-social on a certain level of acquaintance. And no con men.
Con men...confidence trickster...they don't get where they get to by not appearing to be seemingly lovely enaging people.
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
Questions for Boris, Truss and Sunak not Kemi
Who appointed her Shadow Foreign Secretary?
Nothing Priti has done I can see is against government rules
Priti Patel has resigned as UK international development secretary amid controversy over her unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials.
She was ordered back from an official trip in Africa by the PM and summoned to Downing Street over the row.
In her resignation letter, Ms Patel said her actions "fell below the standards of transparency and openness that I have promoted and advocated".
She met some Israeli officials on holiday without a civil servant present is hardly very significant and certainly not for someone now a Shadow Spokesman where it would be fine
How does the Labour Party benefit from retaining Starmer as PM?
A new leader by conference, then two and a half years to turn things round, and do some good for the country while they are at it.
The problem is the obvious contenders for PM aren't currently in a position to move so things need to continue as they are.
While we complain about how the Tory party can remove a PM, at least the Tory Party have a mechanism that can do so...
Do the current rules allow stalking horses? Can the field widen if a challenger comes forwards?
That’s the key one for me. If for instance someone like Richard Burgeon got the nominations and challenged Starmer after May, does the party have the time for other challengers to emerge/seek nominations.
If so it’s much easier to see someone going for it: “I didn’t want to challenge the PM but regretfully my duty requires me to stand” etc etc.
The rules pretty much require a stalking horse. 81 Lab MPs (20%) need to nominate someone for the contest, as the first point in the process. Starmer, as incumbent, is automatically on the ballot if he wishes to be.
This from the Guardian in relation talking with Emily Thornberry .
She also pointed to the careful language in a letter she received from Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper on the vetting process, which noted that: “The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO.”
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?
And Starmer never asked for a full debrief over the last 6 months? Nothing more than a phone call, we did the vetting process, yes, good. Not very forensic.
Starmer doesn't do detail. Starmer doesn't do the big picture vision thing. Starmer doesn't do inspiration. Starmer doesn't do persuasion. Starmer doesn't do accountability. Starmer doesn't do decisions. Starmer doesn't do delegation.
Starmer is neither use nor ornament. Starmer is in no way a guiding beacon, nor is Starmer even a black hole. Starmer is simply a void, an aching emptiness at the heart of government where a leader is required.
Incidentally, I actually like Mandelson - I found him interesting and intelligent, a Minister who had logical arguments for his position and engaged with criticism. The current revelations about his indiscrections are enough to make the appointment as Amassador a serious mistake but we shouldn't deal with him as though he was a monster.
Plenty of people are personable.
In Finance, I've met some people who are wonderful characters, interesting, intelligent and lots of arguments about why you should invest in the their ideas.
A couple of them have figured in national newspapers. And not in a good way.
If you think about it, it takes those skills to get into the room in the first place. Very few Top People are unpleasant or anti-social on a certain level of acquaintance. And no con men.
True. You can't get ahead in politics without being personable to at least a lot of people on your particular side of the political spectrum.
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
It slightly surprises me that you pass or fail DV. I can't believe it is not a bit more nuanced than that. I would expect such an assessment to highlight issues, to raise possible concerns but ultimately leave the decision to the decision maker in light of the information provided. That is what seems to have happened here. I do wonder if even now this story is proceeding on a slightly false premise.
So. to take an example, if I was subject to DV they might highlight some of my dafter posts on here but it would be the person who was making the appointment who would decide what weight to give to that.
Kind of, David, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The Vetters give a thumbs down, perhaps qualified but certainly not a pass. The Head Honcho says, 'Nah, that's ok, he'll do.' He then fails to notify his boss of the concerns, or anybody in authority of the reasons for overriding the Vetters? Possible, yes. Plausible, no.
I appreciate that the resignation/sacking of Robbins must have come as a terrible disappointment to all the Starmer haters who thought they had their man, but until we know why Robbins lied it seems the PM's neck is out of the noose, for the moment.
The vetting process was a sham, I think. Everyone would have already understood, without it needing to be said (Mandelson was already in post, after all) that it didn't matter what the vetting turned up.
This is like so much what in Britain. There is a process. The process is followed (and here's the paperwork to prove it). But the process is a sham. It exists solely to absolve the people involved from responsibility for their decisions.
Incidentally, I actually like Mandelson - I found him interesting and intelligent, a Minister who had logical arguments for his position and engaged with criticism. The current revelations about his indiscrections are enough to make the appointment as Amassador a serious mistake but we shouldn't deal with him as though he was a monster.
Plenty of people are personable.
In Finance, I've met some people who are wonderful characters, interesting, intelligent and lots of arguments about why you should invest in the their ideas.
A couple of them have figured in national newspapers. And not in a good way.
If you think about it, it takes those skills to get into the room in the first place. Very few Top People are unpleasant or anti-social on a certain level of acquaintance. And no con men.
Incidentally, I actually like Mandelson - I found him interesting and intelligent, a Minister who had logical arguments for his position and engaged with criticism. The current revelations about his indiscrections are enough to make the appointment as Amassador a serious mistake but we shouldn't deal with him as though he was a monster.
Plenty of people are personable.
In Finance, I've met some people who are wonderful characters, interesting, intelligent and lots of arguments about why you should invest in the their ideas.
A couple of them have figured in national newspapers. And not in a good way.
If you think about it, it takes those skills to get into the room in the first place. Very few Top People are unpleasant or anti-social on a certain level of acquaintance. And no con men.
True. You can't get ahead in politics without being personable to at least a lot of people on your particular side of the political spectrum.
More you can still get ahead in politics with few social skills if intellectually brilliant or very competent. Few would say Gordon Brown or Ted Heath were very personable yet both highly intelligent but to be a top tier leader and win elections consistently as a party leader you need some charisma and social skills as well
Incidentally, I actually like Mandelson - I found him interesting and intelligent, a Minister who had logical arguments for his position and engaged with criticism. The current revelations about his indiscrections are enough to make the appointment as Amassador a serious mistake but we shouldn't deal with him as though he was a monster.
Plenty of people are personable.
In Finance, I've met some people who are wonderful characters, interesting, intelligent and lots of arguments about why you should invest in the their ideas.
A couple of them have figured in national newspapers. And not in a good way.
If you think about it, it takes those skills to get into the room in the first place. Very few Top People are unpleasant or anti-social on a certain level of acquaintance. And no con men.
Trump?
Has charisma and can be charming when he wants something from you
Incidentally, I actually like Mandelson - I found him interesting and intelligent, a Minister who had logical arguments for his position and engaged with criticism. The current revelations about his indiscrections are enough to make the appointment as Amassador a serious mistake but we shouldn't deal with him as though he was a monster.
Plenty of people are personable.
In Finance, I've met some people who are wonderful characters, interesting, intelligent and lots of arguments about why you should invest in the their ideas.
A couple of them have figured in national newspapers. And not in a good way.
If you think about it, it takes those skills to get into the room in the first place. Very few Top People are unpleasant or anti-social on a certain level of acquaintance. And no con men.
Trump?
Trump can play the room when he wants. Like a number of people who got to the very top, he thinks he is free to express his inner arsehole now.
It is interesting to observe, with him, that every now and then, he feels inferior to someone. And the old buttering-up-the-other-person resurfaces.
The Telegraph points out out that Robbins only got the FCDO top job after Mandelson was appointed, so if a decision was made to withold information from No. 10, it wasn't him.
Just pointing out that I broke the story 7 months ago that Mandelson failed vetting from the security services and put it to Downing Street...so the idea that Downing Street only found out on Tuesday is complete nonsense.
I don't normally publish conversations with Downing Street but this was my initial exchange with Downing Street's then director of communications over Mandelson failing vetting on 11 September last year.
Just pointing out that I broke the story 7 months ago that Mandelson failed vetting from the security services and put it to Downing Street...so the idea that Downing Street only found out on Tuesday is complete nonsense.
I don't normally publish conversations with Downing Street but this was my initial exchange with Downing Street's then director of communications over Mandelson failing vetting on 11 September last year.
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?
Olly Robbins wouldn't be meeting Starmer on a daily basis. He'd meet Lammy/Cooper all the time, but not Starmer.
The Telegraph points out out that Robbins only got the FCDO top job after Mandelson was appointed, so if a decision was made to withold information from No. 10, it wasn't him.
The DT are clueless as to the timeline regarding the UKSV .
Mandelson was appointed before the report was issued . Robbins was there when the report was received and then overruled.
The Telegraph points out out that Robbins only got the FCDO top job after Mandelson was appointed, so if a decision was made to withold information from No. 10, it wasn't him.
The DT are clueless as to the timeline regarding the UKSV .
Mandelson was appointed before the report was issued . Robbins was there when the report was received and then overruled.
The letter from Cooper and Robbins says that the process "concluded" with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO before he was appointed.
The Telegraph points out out that Robbins only got the FCDO top job after Mandelson was appointed, so if a decision was made to withold information from No. 10, it wasn't him.
I will be interested to see if the line - "People who have left government shouldn't be forced to appear in from the of the Commons Committee" - is used
Just pointing out that I broke the story 7 months ago that Mandelson failed vetting from the security services and put it to Downing Street...so the idea that Downing Street only found out on Tuesday is complete nonsense.
I don't normally publish conversations with Downing Street but this was my initial exchange with Downing Street's then director of communications over Mandelson failing vetting on 11 September last year.
I will be interested to see if the line - "People who have left government shouldn't be forced to appear in from the of the Commons Committee" - is used
I still think a process to overrule could in theory make sense, but there would surely need to be a record of who personally did so, for what reason, and who they consulted. Many organisations have simple templates to ensure they capture such details.
Said record indicating they did not consult any political leader would be very useful for the PM right now. If they just made the call through email as the record that's very careless.
As it stands, SKS is proving Truss right - the unelected, out of control blob are at the wheel and democracy is a sham. Or, Keir is a lying toerag. One or t'other
Not exactly. Starmer made the decision to appoint a seriously dodgy individual, not the Blob.
If Starmer is telling the truth (YMMV), they decided off their own bat to ensure the decision went through by deep sixing the vetting result.
I am guessing that there was perhaps a conversation between FS and PM about appointing Mandelson, despite/because he was a wrongun - but a Trump adjacent wrongun. And Robbins/the blob took this as an implicit instruction that vetting was not to stand in the way.
All very plausible, except that it doesn't explain why Robbins has been resigned.
Presumably (and again, only if you assume for a moment that Starmer is telling the truth) that ministers were unaware of the system, and believe they should have been told about it far sooner.
Mebbe. We just don't know, yet.
I'm genuinely fascinated to see how this plays out; it will provide some new insight into the workings of government.
I don't really care if Starmer has to resign or not. A great deal of the criticism of him is entirely justified - and a great deal (eg the Mail, blatantly so, along with not a few Tories) is quite hypocritical.
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
Questions for Boris, Truss and Sunak not Kemi
Who appointed her Shadow Foreign Secretary?
Nothing Priti has done I can see is against government rules
Priti Patel has resigned as UK international development secretary amid controversy over her unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials.
She was ordered back from an official trip in Africa by the PM and summoned to Downing Street over the row.
In her resignation letter, Ms Patel said her actions "fell below the standards of transparency and openness that I have promoted and advocated".
She met some Israeli officials on holiday without a civil servant present is hardly very significant and certainly not for someone now a Shadow Spokesman where it would be fine
LOL!!, accept that PP is whataboutery to the Mandelson discussion but she was a Govt minister when she was meeting with the Israelis. She was fired by May for good reason.
I will be interested to see if the line - "People who have left government shouldn't be forced to appear in from the of the Commons Committee" - is used
They might try but the FCDO Committee won't take it lying down. Whilst their hard enforcement options are limited they can put considerable public pressure on an individual to appear. Few are able to resist the reputational damage that ignoring a Select Committee invitation can cause for long. I think that Philip Green tried to hold out for a while over the collapse of BHS but eventually gave in and appeared. Ellie Robbins would want to appear and I don't think Starmer has the spine to let the FO block it for too long.
Starmer continues: "That I wasn't told that he'd failed security vetting when I was telling Parliament that due process had been followed is unforgivable Not only was I not told, no minister was told and I'm absolutely furious about it."
I will be interested to see if the line - "People who have left government shouldn't be forced to appear in from the of the Commons Committee" - is used
They might try but the FCDO Committee won't take it lying down. Whilst their hard enforcement options are limited they can put considerable public pressure on an individual to appear. Few are able to resist the reputational damage that ignoring a Select Committee invitation can cause for long. I think that Philip Green tried to hold out for a while over the collapse of BHS but eventually gave in and appeared. Ellie Robbins would want to appear and I don't think Starmer has the spine to let the FO block it for too long.
Ha!
If I was on the committee, we'd pop back in the commons and get a paragraph long bill passed, making deliberate non-appearance in front of a committee punishable by life imprisonment. And an unlimited fine.
I will be interested to see if the line - "People who have left government shouldn't be forced to appear in from the of the Commons Committee" - is used
They might try but the FCDO Committee won't take it lying down. Whilst their hard enforcement options are limited they can put considerable public pressure on an individual to appear. Few are able to resist the reputational damage that ignoring a Select Committee invitation can cause for long. I think that Philip Green tried to hold out for a while over the collapse of BHS but eventually gave in and appeared. Ellie Robbins would want to appear and I don't think Starmer has the spine to let the FO block it for too long.
Seems to me he'd be very keen to appear if it's true he wasn't in post when all this happened.
If I were advising Starmer to blunt Badenoch I'd start asking questions about the vetting process for when Priti Patel was appointed Home Secretary, also the time Suella Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary.
Questions for Boris, Truss and Sunak not Kemi
Who appointed her Shadow Foreign Secretary?
Nothing Priti has done I can see is against government rules
Priti Patel has resigned as UK international development secretary amid controversy over her unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials.
She was ordered back from an official trip in Africa by the PM and summoned to Downing Street over the row.
In her resignation letter, Ms Patel said her actions "fell below the standards of transparency and openness that I have promoted and advocated".
She met some Israeli officials on holiday without a civil servant present is hardly very significant and certainly not for someone now a Shadow Spokesman where it would be fine
LOL!!, accept that PP is whataboutery to the Mandelson discussion but she was a Govt minister when she was meeting with the Israelis. She was fired by May for good reason.
Comments
Sir Kim Darroch has resigned as UK ambassador to the US, as a row over leaked emails critical of President Trump's administration escalates.
Theresa May said Sir Kim's departure was "a matter of deep regret" after the ambassador said it was "impossible" for him to continue.
Tory leadership candidate Boris Johnson has faced strong criticism for failing to fully support him.
President Trump said on Monday that the US would not deal with Sir Kim.
The US president had branded him "a very stupid guy" after confidential emails emerged where the ambassador had called his administration "clumsy and inept".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48937120
But government, with its inevitable compromises and messiness doesn't really suit them. The only time it worked was for the few years under Blair, when the flourishing economy bequeathed by the Conservatives gave them enough money to bribe their supporters while keeping tax rises to an acceptable level.
No doubt it will apply in spades to the Greens, if - God forbid - they ever get anywhere near power.
He is fucking useless and it makes his arrogance and misplaced self belief when LotO even more of an embarrassment for him.
The PM will get advice from the security services on appointment of ministers to sensitive positions, they don't require DV. Problem with this line of attack, if used, is that No.10 knew the security services had concerns with Mandelson and they appointed him anyway. Even if they didn't know he specifically failed DV.
Powell & Rayner wouldn't be eligible.
That PM, under Labour's rules, wouldn't be allowed to reshuffle the Cabinet
https://x.com/richardmarcj/status/2045010815242142000?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Next year though London isn't up and it is mainly English provincial councils voting where Labour will face near wipe out
Starmer made the decision to appoint a seriously dodgy individual, not the Blob.
If Starmer is telling the truth (YMMV), they decided off their own bat to ensure the decision went through by deep sixing the vetting result.
I am guessing that there was perhaps a conversation between FS and PM about appointing Mandelson, despite/because he was a wrongun - but a Trump adjacent wrongun.
And Robbins/the blob took this as an implicit instruction that vetting was not to stand in the way.
It's a straightforward statement that they had the power.
..Earlier on ITV’s Good Morning Britain programme, Jones said he had suspended the rights of the Foreign Office to overrule security vetting recommendations. He said:
As soon as I found out last night that the Foreign Office and a small number of other organisations have the right to ignore the recommendation… I immediately suspended those rights and ordered an urgent audit...
"It is totally unbelievable," Farage says, and describes Olly Robbins - the top official at the Foreign Office who is leaving his role as a result - as the "sacrificial lamb".
He describes Robbins as one of the most professional civil servants in the UK and says there is "no way" he would have decided to lie to Starmer over the vetting failure.
Farage says he is in "no doubt" that Starmer misled the House of Commons.”
After calling him basically a traitor during the Brexit negotiations and saying he should be sacked .
What is different about Ukraine? We took in Ukrainian refugees because it wasn't safe for them in their own country, didn't we?
Where's that journalist from the Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
I'd be very interested in finding out when.
Priti Patel has resigned as UK international development secretary amid controversy over her unauthorised meetings with Israeli officials.
She was ordered back from an official trip in Africa by the PM and summoned to Downing Street over the row.
In her resignation letter, Ms Patel said her actions "fell below the standards of transparency and openness that I have promoted and advocated".
Provisionally, I think that resistance boils down to avoiding temporary embarassment. That should not override a direct instruction from Parliament.
in the same period there were 302,397 Ukrainians granted refugee status under the special scheme
Starmer is travelling to Paris today to host joint talks with French President Emmanuel Macron over the conflict in the Middle East.
Convenient.
One question that needs pondering, who leaked this info to the Guardian, why, and why now....
1. He sacked Mandelson last September as soon as the latest Epstein revelations became known - so it's not as if he tried to hang on to him.
2. Despite what most people are saying, Starmer did (in January, I think, following the financial leak revelations) issue a mea culpa for appointing him, and admitted it had been a significant error - so he did take responsibility for the error of judgement.
Unless it can be proved that he lied to Parliament, he'll hang on. I think.
You do come out with some right nonense sometimes.
The expectation of the general public is that if you have claimed asylum from country A (for valid reasons) then you would fear to set foot back in country A. If that is not the case then frankly its time to look again at who and why we allow asylum.
Asylum rules are for those fleeing their own governments, not simply escaping a war.
In Finance, I've met some people who are wonderful characters, interesting, intelligent and lots of arguments about why you should invest in the their ideas.
A couple of them have figured in national newspapers. And not in a good way.
If you think about it, it takes those skills to get into the room in the first place. Very few Top People are unpleasant or anti-social on a certain level of acquaintance. And no con men.
Considering this article is from September last year, I'd say it's pretty much curtains for No.10's defence that they found out this week.
"Serious concerns have been raised that newly sacked US ambassador Peter Mandelson did not clear security vetting for the role – but the prime minister pushed through his appointment anyway.
Sources have told The Independent that MI6 failed to clear the Labour peer largely because of concerns over his business links to China."
I used to think he would be good at politics. I think he was bang to rights over currygate but played the Police incredibly well. He essentially said that if he was given a minor caution (which was warranted, I think) then it would bring him down. The police clearly didn't want that on their hands. As I said - I thought he played it well there.
Trouble is people are heartily sick of the half truths and distortions, and, shades of Boris, the every changing story. Boris was felled because he asked ministers and colleagues to go to the media with a line that they had no confidence would still be the line by the time they were trotting it out. Starmer is getting close to that.
People say there is no-one else. Burnham can't yet, Ange could (if only HMRC would sort things out) but I think Cooper could so the job (plenty of government and ministerial experience) and, much as I loath her, Lady Nugee would do well too.
On the narrow question everyone is now arguing about, I’m struggling to see how or where he misled Parliament. The media focus is on his answer at PMQs in September 2025, where he said “full due process” was followed. But “process” here is doing a lot of work. The process is to submit a candidate for vetting; the appointment itself is a political decision taken in light of that vetting. On that reading, the process was followed.
Looking back at Hansard, at no point was Starmer asked the key question: did Mandelson pass or fail vetting? And on what we now understand, even if he had been asked directly, it’s not clear he could have answered - because it’s entirely plausible he didn’t know.
That goes to the point James Heale raises about why Starmer didn’t correct the record in line with Erskine May. But correct what, exactly? He didn’t say Mandelson had passed vetting. He said due process had been followed. Those are not the same claim.
Even his comments to journalists in Hastings in February don’t obviously change the picture. He said vetting was carried out independently and “gave clearance for the role.” If he had not been told that Mandelson failed vetting, then again, it’s hard to say he knowingly misled anyone. And in any event, that exchange was with journalists, not Parliament.
The more interesting question, to my mind, is institutional rather than semantic. How does this actually work in practice? The Prime Minister asks: “Where are we on Mandelson?” The FCO replies: “The vetting has been completed.” For those of you who appreciate a little Jed Bartlett on a Friday morning: what are the next ten words? Is it incumbent on the Prime Minister to probe - “Is there anything I need to know?” - or on officials to say plainly, “There is an issue,” or “This candidate has not passed”?
I’m not defending Starmer here. For a KC, it all feels a bit thin - either a lack of curiosity or something closer to plausible deniability. Either way, it has the unmistakable scent of political craft rather than straightforward candour.
Starmer is neither use nor ornament. Starmer is in no way a guiding beacon, nor is Starmer even a black hole. Starmer is simply a void, an aching emptiness at the heart of government where a leader is required.
This is like so much what in Britain. There is a process. The process is followed (and here's the paperwork to prove it). But the process is a sham. It exists solely to absolve the people involved from responsibility for their decisions.
Robot chases wild boar
It is interesting to observe, with him, that every now and then, he feels inferior to someone. And the old buttering-up-the-other-person resurfaces.
https://x.com/davidpbmaddox/status/2045052586936389649?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
I don't normally publish conversations with Downing Street but this was my initial exchange with Downing Street's then director of communications over Mandelson failing vetting on 11 September last year.
https://x.com/davidpbmaddox/status/2045068443293036688?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Mandelson was appointed before the report was issued . Robbins was there when the report was received and then overruled.
The Prime Minister has today confirmed the appointment of Lord Peter Mandelson to be the next British Ambassador to the United States of America.
From:
Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street, The Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC MP and The Rt Hon David Lammy MP
Published
20 December 2024
Sir Olly Robbins
KCMG CB
Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Affairs
Head of HM Diplomatic Service
In office
8 January 2025 – 16 April 2026
Bizarre that there isn't more curiosity about this discrepancy of timeline tbh.
Or are appointments "confirmed" and then vetted.
Seems the wrong way round, enhanced DBS wouldn't be done AFTER someone is made a L3 childcare provider at my daughter's nursery for example !
When I was in No10, somebody failed developed vetting before their proposed appointment to a sensitive post.
We were told immediately, and were advised - correctly - that this person could not be appointed.
Who gave that advice? Sue Gray - later Starmer’s chief of staff.
My new adventure has begun..
Oh, no my mistake, he wasn't DVed
Labour does seem to have an issue with Chinese influence.
https://x.com/AphraBrandreth/status/2045056616236515434?s=20
To paraphrase slightly:
Aphra: Did the FCDO have a different view about who should be recommended for the posting?
Robbins: "Clear PM wanted to make this appointment himself" "FCDO informed and acted on it, via FS to KC3"
I suspect the standing orders of the House would be amended.
I don't really care if Starmer has to resign or not. A great deal of the criticism of him is entirely justified - and a great deal (eg the Mail, blatantly so, along with not a few Tories) is quite hypocritical.
An astonishing lack of insight and self reflection. And a complete ignorance of history. Remarkable stuff.
Will only take one or two cabinet resignations with accompanying call for a new leader and it is over me thinks.
Jeremy Corbyn, Piers Morgan, Keir Starmer, and Osama bin Laden.
Edit apologies to three of those people, one of those names doesn’t belong in there.
My deepest apologies to Jeremy Corbyn, Keir Starmer, and Osama bin Laden for comparing them to Piers Morgan.
If I was on the committee, we'd pop back in the commons and get a paragraph long bill passed, making deliberate non-appearance in front of a committee punishable by life imprisonment. And an unlimited fine.
Just for the LOLs
Piers Corbyn