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.
Convincing analysis, except for the last six words. You really have to be joking. Ms Thornbery is Mrs Condescension personified, never mind Lady Nugee. Just imagine presenting her to a Red Wall focus group.
The Leader and Deputy Leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP...
So the leader of the Labour party has to be an MP.
Now, obviously, Labour party rules do not constrain MPs in Parliament. If Labour MPs in Parliament were determined that Burnham become PM, then he could be made a Lord and PM.
But there would be messy consequences. Maybe they'd need a special conference to amend Labour Party rules to make Burnham leader. Maybe they'd need to find him a Commons seat after he'd become PM and make him an MP and Labour leader afterwards. And he'd have to resign as Mayor, so there would need to be an election for that, which Reform might win. And Britain hasn't had a PM in the Lords for a long time, so it could be incredibly unpopular with the public.
The main reason it's not going to happen is that there are enough MPs who prefer a different leader, or fancy their own chances, that there isn't the overwhelming support and imperative for remaking the rules to make it happen.
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.
He got the FO job after Mandelson was appointed but before the DV was completed. Unlucky timing for him. You can just imagine his "oh shit" moment when he got the DV recommendation.
Could the 'problem' of Mr Burnham not being an MP be overcome by making him a Lord? Or would his mayoralty still stand in the way?
Yes - how would he do PMQs are equivalent when he can't go into the commons..
It would be an interesting one. Historically it would be the Leader of the House of Commons who would take questions in the Commons. There have been some pretty powerful LotH when the PM has been a peer. W H Smith (of bookseller fame) was Leader of the House and First Lord of the Treasury under Lord Salisbury. Hard to see it working today but I suppose you could make the Deputy Prime Minister Leader of the House. The Tories would probably have to appoint a serious heavyweight to question the PM in the Lords. It might actually work in the Tories favour if they could find someone with no leadership ambitions who would be good at monstering Lord Burnham in the Upper House.
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."
Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.....
(Does this pass the smell test? THere's something remarkably like bullshit filling my nostrils.)
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."
Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.....
(Does this pass the smell test? THere's something remarkably like bullshit filling my nostrils.)
I buy it. It's what I first thought when the story broke.
The Leader and Deputy Leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP...
So the leader of the Labour party has to be an MP.
Now, obviously, Labour party rules do not constrain MPs in Parliament. If Labour MPs in Parliament were determined that Burnham become PM, then he could be made a Lord and PM.
But there would be messy consequences. Maybe they'd need a special conference to amend Labour Party rules to make Burnham leader. Maybe they'd need to find him a Commons seat after he'd become PM and make him an MP and Labour leader afterwards. And he'd have to resign as Mayor, so there would need to be an election for that, which Reform might win. And Britain hasn't had a PM in the Lords for a long time, so it could be incredibly unpopular with the public.
The main reason it's not going to happen is that there are enough MPs who prefer a different leader, or fancy their own chances, that there isn't the overwhelming support and imperative for remaking the rules to make it happen.
If you think Starmer will recommend Burnham for the Lords when he won't even allow his allies on the NEC to make him an approved Labour parliamentary candidate before the next general election I think you need a rethink!
The Leader and Deputy Leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP...
So the leader of the Labour party has to be an MP.
Now, obviously, Labour party rules do not constrain MPs in Parliament. If Labour MPs in Parliament were determined that Burnham become PM, then he could be made a Lord and PM.
But there would be messy consequences. Maybe they'd need a special conference to amend Labour Party rules to make Burnham leader. Maybe they'd need to find him a Commons seat after he'd become PM and make him an MP and Labour leader afterwards. And he'd have to resign as Mayor, so there would need to be an election for that, which Reform might win. And Britain hasn't had a PM in the Lords for a long time, so it could be incredibly unpopular with the public.
The main reason it's not going to happen is that there are enough MPs who prefer a different leader, or fancy their own chances, that there isn't the overwhelming support and imperative for remaking the rules to make it happen.
I rather like the idea of the House of Lords becoming the centre-piece of British public life. The standard of debate would certainly be higher, and the behaviour more decorous. A good example would be set for everybody. And, certainly, the last time a peer was PM - the great Marquess of Salisbury - we were better governed. Sadly, a pipe dream. The rotters in the Commons won't allow it.
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.
He got the FO job after Mandelson was appointed but before the DV was completed. Unlucky timing for him. You can just imagine his "oh shit" moment when he got the DV recommendation.
Why would he have held that information back ? He's got no candle for Mandelson and the decision to appoint after DV failure is Starmer's. He's not a politician I can't see what possible benefit not mentioning the DV failure would have to him ?!?
Am I missing something ?
His answers indicate the appointment was "Clearly the PMs choice". Civil servants are not in the business of deciding !
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."
He's right to be furious if that's true.
If it's not true it's a very stupid lie to tell because all Olly Robins has to do is forward an email to a newspaper and he is screwed.
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.
He got the FO job after Mandelson was appointed but before the DV was completed. Unlucky timing for him. You can just imagine his "oh shit" moment when he got the DV recommendation.
Based on what we know Robbins should also be fired. The reason is different from Starmer. Robbins for not following process; Starmer for not taking responsibility for his decision.
My daughter told me yesterday about Inuit names for asteroids that hit, er, Greenland I think, which were named after the thing which was the size of the asteroid - they were called 'dog', 'woman', 'man' and 'tent' (Greenland, I suppose, being poorer in things like giraffes, okapis and double decker buses).
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.
He got the FO job after Mandelson was appointed but before the DV was completed. Unlucky timing for him. You can just imagine his "oh shit" moment when he got the DV recommendation.
Why would he have held that information back ? He's got no candle for Mandelson and the decision to appoint after DV failure is Starmer's. He's not a politician I can't see what possible benefit not mentioning the DV failure would have to him ?!?
Am I missing something ?
His answers indicate the appointment was "Clearly the PMs choice". Civil servants are not in the business of deciding !
Starmer had already appointed Mandelson. I don't know why he didn't wait for DV clearance. But Robbins, just appointed by Starmer to the top job in the FO, is protecting Starmer, not realising that the whole thing would blow up when the Epstein files were released. That was his motive I think.
His mistake was not informing Starmer after the Epstein files were released when Starmer was facing questions in the HOC. I guess he felt he was in too deep. But that's why he was fired.
"Civil servants are not in the business of deciding !" But they were. That was the process - until that was removed from them last night.
Whilst all the attention is on Starmer, I’m curious on what grounds Mandelson failed the security vetting. Is this what we already know about or something else?
The events reported of true do suggest a structural disconnect between the civil service and ministers, echoing the frustrations of previous administrations.
These points are arguably more interesting than the standard opposition calls for resignation.
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."
He's right to be furious if that's true.
If it's not true it's a very stupid lie to tell because all Olly Robins has to do is forward an email to a newspaper and he is screwed.
I am sure it will be true, with Starmer you have to be very careful exactly the words he uses and what he doesn't say that is important.
The Leader and Deputy Leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP...
So the leader of the Labour party has to be an MP.
Now, obviously, Labour party rules do not constrain MPs in Parliament. If Labour MPs in Parliament were determined that Burnham become PM, then he could be made a Lord and PM.
But there would be messy consequences. Maybe they'd need a special conference to amend Labour Party rules to make Burnham leader. Maybe they'd need to find him a Commons seat after he'd become PM and make him an MP and Labour leader afterwards. And he'd have to resign as Mayor, so there would need to be an election for that, which Reform might win. And Britain hasn't had a PM in the Lords for a long time, so it could be incredibly unpopular with the public.
The main reason it's not going to happen is that there are enough MPs who prefer a different leader, or fancy their own chances, that there isn't the overwhelming support and imperative for remaking the rules to make it happen.
I rather like the idea of the House of Lords becoming the centre-piece of British public life. The standard of debate would certainly be higher, and the behaviour more decorous. A good example would be set for everybody. And, certainly, the last time a peer was PM - the great Marquess of Salisbury - we were better governed. Sadly, a pipe dream. The rotters in the Commons won't allow it.
The Marquess was a genuine hereditary peer and aristocrat though ie with a family peerage dating back to Elizabethan times and a stately home in Hertfordshire, not a life peer appointed as he was a supporter of the PM. Now the last hereditary peers are being removed from the Lords that is no longer an option, unless for the handful staying as life peers.
As a result proper toff PMs are more likely going forward to be elected to the Commons anyway eg like Viscount Thurso, as they can now stand as MPs in their local area but no longer get seats in the Lords
The Leader and Deputy Leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP...
So the leader of the Labour party has to be an MP.
Now, obviously, Labour party rules do not constrain MPs in Parliament. If Labour MPs in Parliament were determined that Burnham become PM, then he could be made a Lord and PM.
But there would be messy consequences. Maybe they'd need a special conference to amend Labour Party rules to make Burnham leader. Maybe they'd need to find him a Commons seat after he'd become PM and make him an MP and Labour leader afterwards. And he'd have to resign as Mayor, so there would need to be an election for that, which Reform might win. And Britain hasn't had a PM in the Lords for a long time, so it could be incredibly unpopular with the public.
The main reason it's not going to happen is that there are enough MPs who prefer a different leader, or fancy their own chances, that there isn't the overwhelming support and imperative for remaking the rules to make it happen.
I rather like the idea of the House of Lords becoming the centre-piece of British public life. The standard of debate would certainly be higher, and the behaviour more decorous. A good example would be set for everybody. And, certainly, the last time a peer was PM - the great Marquess of Salisbury - we were better governed. Sadly, a pipe dream. The rotters in the Commons won't allow it.
The Marquess was a genuine hereditary peer and aristocrat though ie with a family peerage dating back to Elizabethan times and a stately home in Hertfordshire, not a life peer appointed as he was a supporter of the PM. Now the last hereditary peers are being removed from the Lords that is no longer an option, unless for the handful staying as life peers.
As a result proper toff PMs are more likely going forward to be elected to the Commons anyway eg like Viscount Thurso, as they can now stand as MPs in their local area but no longer get seats in the Lords
The Leader and Deputy Leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP...
So the leader of the Labour party has to be an MP.
Now, obviously, Labour party rules do not constrain MPs in Parliament. If Labour MPs in Parliament were determined that Burnham become PM, then he could be made a Lord and PM.
But there would be messy consequences. Maybe they'd need a special conference to amend Labour Party rules to make Burnham leader. Maybe they'd need to find him a Commons seat after he'd become PM and make him an MP and Labour leader afterwards. And he'd have to resign as Mayor, so there would need to be an election for that, which Reform might win. And Britain hasn't had a PM in the Lords for a long time, so it could be incredibly unpopular with the public.
The main reason it's not going to happen is that there are enough MPs who prefer a different leader, or fancy their own chances, that there isn't the overwhelming support and imperative for remaking the rules to make it happen.
If you think Starmer will recommend Burnham for the Lords when he won't even allow his allies on the NEC to make him an approved Labour parliamentary candidate before the next general election I think you need a rethink!
If, say, Starmer had already announced his intention to resign, and was staying on as PM while the Labour party elected a new leader to take over as PM, and the Cabinet came to him and said, "the PLP is unanimous in wanting Andy Burnham to become PM, be a good chap and send this note to the King," then of course it would happen.
The stumbling block is that there wouldn't be unanimous support for it.
My wife's applied for and got a job at the Home Office in Liverpool. She started the process in January this year and passed security vetting in March. She was told explicitly if she failed, she wouldn't get the job.
I should've told her to change her name by deed poll to 'Peter Mandelson', then she could've avoided a two month delay to starting.
The Leader and Deputy Leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP...
So the leader of the Labour party has to be an MP.
Now, obviously, Labour party rules do not constrain MPs in Parliament. If Labour MPs in Parliament were determined that Burnham become PM, then he could be made a Lord and PM.
But there would be messy consequences. Maybe they'd need a special conference to amend Labour Party rules to make Burnham leader. Maybe they'd need to find him a Commons seat after he'd become PM and make him an MP and Labour leader afterwards. And he'd have to resign as Mayor, so there would need to be an election for that, which Reform might win. And Britain hasn't had a PM in the Lords for a long time, so it could be incredibly unpopular with the public.
The main reason it's not going to happen is that there are enough MPs who prefer a different leader, or fancy their own chances, that there isn't the overwhelming support and imperative for remaking the rules to make it happen.
I rather like the idea of the House of Lords becoming the centre-piece of British public life. The standard of debate would certainly be higher, and the behaviour more decorous. A good example would be set for everybody. And, certainly, the last time a peer was PM - the great Marquess of Salisbury - we were better governed. Sadly, a pipe dream. The rotters in the Commons won't allow it.
The Marquess was a genuine hereditary peer and aristocrat though ie with a family peerage dating back to Elizabethan times and a stately home in Hertfordshire, not a life peer appointed as he was a supporter of the PM. Now the last hereditary peers are being removed from the Lords that is no longer an option, unless for the handful staying as life peers.
As a result proper toff PMs are more likely going forward to be elected to the Commons anyway eg like Viscount Thurso, as they can now stand as MPs in their local area but no longer get seats in the Lords
We live in decayed times, do we not?
"I never saw so many shocking bad hats in my life.” - The Duke of Wellington on seeing the first reformed parliament
The Leader and Deputy Leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP...
So the leader of the Labour party has to be an MP.
Now, obviously, Labour party rules do not constrain MPs in Parliament. If Labour MPs in Parliament were determined that Burnham become PM, then he could be made a Lord and PM.
But there would be messy consequences. Maybe they'd need a special conference to amend Labour Party rules to make Burnham leader. Maybe they'd need to find him a Commons seat after he'd become PM and make him an MP and Labour leader afterwards. And he'd have to resign as Mayor, so there would need to be an election for that, which Reform might win. And Britain hasn't had a PM in the Lords for a long time, so it could be incredibly unpopular with the public.
The main reason it's not going to happen is that there are enough MPs who prefer a different leader, or fancy their own chances, that there isn't the overwhelming support and imperative for remaking the rules to make it happen.
I rather like the idea of the House of Lords becoming the centre-piece of British public life. The standard of debate would certainly be higher, and the behaviour more decorous. A good example would be set for everybody. And, certainly, the last time a peer was PM - the great Marquess of Salisbury - we were better governed. Sadly, a pipe dream. The rotters in the Commons won't allow it.
The Marquess was a genuine hereditary peer and aristocrat though ie with a family peerage dating back to Elizabethan times and a stately home in Hertfordshire, not a life peer appointed as he was a supporter of the PM. Now the last hereditary peers are being removed from the Lords that is no longer an option, unless for the handful staying as life peers.
As a result proper toff PMs are more likely going forward to be elected to the Commons anyway eg like Viscount Thurso, as they can now stand as MPs in their local area but no longer get seats in the Lords
We live in decayed times, do we not?
We are getting to the stage you are more likely to find genuine toffs eg Lord Brocket or the Duke of Marlborough spending some time in prison than in the Lords
Whilst all the attention is on Starmer, I’m curious on what grounds Mandelson failed the security vetting. Is this what we already know about or something else?
The events reported of true do suggest a structural disconnect between the civil service and ministers, echoing the frustrations of previous administrations.
These points are arguably more interesting than the standard opposition calls for resignation.
Links to China.
I also believe as somebody who also had to resign from the cabinet twice over financial impropriety and influence grounds then those were red flags.
As Ambassador to the USA he would have access to intelligence briefings that most of the cabinet don’t have.
The elephant in the room would be the links to Epstein.
Whilst all the attention is on Starmer, I’m curious on what grounds Mandelson failed the security vetting. Is this what we already know about or something else?
The events reported of true do suggest a structural disconnect between the civil service and ministers, echoing the frustrations of previous administrations.
These points are arguably more interesting than the standard opposition calls for resignation.
David Maddox was told it related to China rather than Epstein.
One thing that's clear is that 'process' in general gives the civil service a lot of power over elected ministers, both in terms of blocking things and making things happen that shouldn't.
My wife's applied for and got a job at the Home Office in Liverpool. She started the process in January this year and passed security vetting in March. She was told explicitly if she failed, she wouldn't get the job.
I should've told her to change her name by deed poll to 'Peter Mandelson', then she could've avoided a two month delay to starting.
Her failure is life was to achieve a certain level. That level can be measured by the following -
If she fails in a way that kills people, destroys the whole organisation or creates a public enquiry, does she lose her job within the day and become unemployable, or does she getter a better job (quietly after the fuss has died down a bit) ?
My daughter told me yesterday about Inuit names for asteroids that hit, er, Greenland I think, which were named after the thing which was the size of the asteroid - they were called 'dog', 'woman', 'man' and 'tent' (Greenland, I suppose, being poorer in things like giraffes, okapis and double decker buses).
I was absolutely furious....I was so furious that I had misled parliament, I waited until the day after somebody leaked it to the Guardian to say anything....imagine if they hadn't how long would he have been furious until we would have heard about it?
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.
He got the FO job after Mandelson was appointed but before the DV was completed. Unlucky timing for him. You can just imagine his "oh shit" moment when he got the DV recommendation.
Why would he have held that information back ? He's got no candle for Mandelson and the decision to appoint after DV failure is Starmer's. He's not a politician I can't see what possible benefit not mentioning the DV failure would have to him ?!?
Am I missing something ?
His answers indicate the appointment was "Clearly the PMs choice". Civil servants are not in the business of deciding !
Starmer had already appointed Mandelson. I don't know why he didn't wait for DV clearance. But Robbins, just appointed by Starmer to the top job in the FO, is protecting Starmer, not realising that the whole thing would blow up when the Epstein files were released. That was his motive I think.
His mistake was not informing Starmer after the Epstein files were released when Starmer was facing questions in the HOC. I guess he felt he was in too deep. But that's why he was fired.
DV clearance is often very very slow. Certainly a risk to appoint in advance but I suppose it was urgent given Trump was coming in.
Kind of crazy if Robbins and Barton (his predecessor) didn't flag this risk at the time though.
As a matter of employment law fact, Olly Robbins has been in post less than 2 years. So he is not eligible for an unfair dismissal claim. So his "payout" ought to be that simply stipulated by the notice in his contract.
If Starmer was 100% sure of his position.
Edit: Although he joined the civil service in 2014 so it might be based off that (Which would be convienient for Starrmer as justification for a decent payoff tbh)
My wife's applied for and got a job at the Home Office in Liverpool. She started the process in January this year and passed security vetting in March. She was told explicitly if she failed, she wouldn't get the job.
I should've told her to change her name by deed poll to 'Peter Mandelson', then she could've avoided a two month delay to starting.
Her failure is life was to achieve a certain level. That level can be measured by the following -
If she fails in a way that kills people, destroys the whole organisation or creates a public enquiry, does she lose her job within the day and become unemployable, or does she getter a better job (quietly after the fuss has died down a bit) ?
Probably loses her job but gets another job eventually after the fuss has died down unless serious criminal actions
There’s no way he’d make that statement to Sky News if there was any way it could be refuted .
I still don't see how he stays. I see Badenoch is rowing back from "Starmer mislead the House" to Starmer lied at a press conference and broke the ministerial code". None of this matters.
Where does the buck stop? Starmer should be held to higher account than Johnson, Truss, Braverman and Patel, and even they had to go in the end.
He can say he's going but will remain in place until Angela Rayner is made Labour Party leader at the September Party Conference*
Based on what we know, Ollie Robbins should be sacked. He will have overruled advice without an explicit direction from the Prime Minister to do so. Doesn't protect Starmer from the same fate however.
If an official overruled the objections without expressly confirming that instruction with the FS/PM, then it feels to me the larger question is around the culture that sat behind this appointment that made them decide that it wasn’t appropriate to raise it.
It gives off the strong vibes that someone, somewhere, has made it clear that the appointment will happen one way or the other, so nobody is to be troubled with anything to do with it. That is in many ways even worse.
Absolutely. Starmer has to take responsibility for his decisions. If he overrules advice, the permanent secretary should make him aware of the fact if only to protect Starmer. It just requires an email, "Prime Minister, I think you should be aware...". If Starmer indicates he doesn't want such reminders, Robbins can decide to send them anyway, resign, or make sure there's a conversation or communication where Starmer has actually said he doesn't want reminders. This is on Robbins and justifies his high position in the Civil Service.
As a matter of employment law fact, Olly Robbins has been in post less than 2 years. So he is not eligible for an unfair dismissal claim. So his "payout" ought to be that simply stipulated by the notice in his contract.
If Starmer was 100% sure of his position.
Edit: Although he joined the civil service in 2014 so it might be based off that (Which would be convienient for Starrmer as justification for a decent payoff tbh)
He has been employed as a civil servant for a lot longer, I think. When you're promoted within an organisation it doesn't restart the employment law clock.
The Leader and Deputy Leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP...
So the leader of the Labour party has to be an MP.
Now, obviously, Labour party rules do not constrain MPs in Parliament. If Labour MPs in Parliament were determined that Burnham become PM, then he could be made a Lord and PM.
But there would be messy consequences. Maybe they'd need a special conference to amend Labour Party rules to make Burnham leader. Maybe they'd need to find him a Commons seat after he'd become PM and make him an MP and Labour leader afterwards. And he'd have to resign as Mayor, so there would need to be an election for that, which Reform might win. And Britain hasn't had a PM in the Lords for a long time, so it could be incredibly unpopular with the public.
The main reason it's not going to happen is that there are enough MPs who prefer a different leader, or fancy their own chances, that there isn't the overwhelming support and imperative for remaking the rules to make it happen.
As a matter of employment law fact, Olly Robbins has been in post less than 2 years. So he is not eligible for an unfair dismissal claim. So his "payout" ought to be that simply stipulated by the notice in his contract.
If Starmer was 100% sure of his position.
Edit: Although he joined the civil service in 2014 so it might be based off that (Which would be convienient for Starrmer as justification for a decent payoff tbh)
He has been employed as a civil servant for a lot longer, I think. When you're promoted within an organisation it doesn't restart the employment law clock.
He left the civil service in 2019 and came back in late 2024/early 2025.
My wife's applied for and got a job at the Home Office in Liverpool. She started the process in January this year and passed security vetting in March. She was told explicitly if she failed, she wouldn't get the job.
I should've told her to change her name by deed poll to 'Peter Mandelson', then she could've avoided a two month delay to starting.
Her failure is life was to achieve a certain level. That level can be measured by the following -
If she fails in a way that kills people, destroys the whole organisation or creates a public enquiry, does she lose her job within the day and become unemployable, or does she getter a better job (quietly after the fuss has died down a bit) ?
Probably loses her job but gets another job eventually after the fuss has died down unless serious criminal actions
I know of a couple of people who can't get jobs n banks. They were involved, but not responsible for, in disasters.
The people who caused the disasters (at senior management level) are successful and still have very senior roles. In other banks.
Whilst all the attention is on Starmer, I’m curious on what grounds Mandelson failed the security vetting. Is this what we already know about or something else?
The events reported of true do suggest a structural disconnect between the civil service and ministers, echoing the frustrations of previous administrations.
These points are arguably more interesting than the standard opposition calls for resignation.
Links to China.
I also believe as somebody who also had to resign from the cabinet twice over financial impropriety and influence grounds then those were red flags.
As Ambassador to the USA he would have access to intelligence briefings that most of the cabinet don’t have.
The elephant in the room would be the links to Epstein.
The reason Mandelson was in the room is because of his links to Epstein and others. The only reason he was the option is because of those links..
As a matter of employment law fact, Olly Robbins has been in post less than 2 years. So he is not eligible for an unfair dismissal claim. So his "payout" ought to be that simply stipulated by the notice in his contract.
If Starmer was 100% sure of his position.
Edit: Although he joined the civil service in 2014 so it might be based off that (Which would be convienient for Starrmer as justification for a decent payoff tbh)
He has been employed as a civil servant for a lot longer, I think. When you're promoted within an organisation it doesn't restart the employment law clock.
He left the civil service in 2019 and came back in late 2024/early 2025.
My daughter told me yesterday about Inuit names for asteroids that hit, er, Greenland I think, which were named after the thing which was the size of the asteroid - they were called 'dog', 'woman', 'man' and 'tent' (Greenland, I suppose, being poorer in things like giraffes, okapis and double decker buses).
As a matter of employment law fact, Olly Robbins has been in post less than 2 years. So he is not eligible for an unfair dismissal claim. So his "payout" ought to be that simply stipulated by the notice in his contract.
If Starmer was 100% sure of his position.
Edit: Although he joined the civil service in 2014 so it might be based off that (Which would be convienient for Starrmer as justification for a decent payoff tbh)
He has been employed as a civil servant for a lot longer, I think. When you're promoted within an organisation it doesn't restart the employment law clock.
He left the civil service in 2019 and came back in late 2024/early 2025.
Under 2 years then. Should be stat (Or contractually obliged) notice then, unless Starmer isn't as sure in a court of law about his position as he seems to be this morning.
As a matter of employment law fact, Olly Robbins has been in post less than 2 years. So he is not eligible for an unfair dismissal claim. So his "payout" ought to be that simply stipulated by the notice in his contract.
If Starmer was 100% sure of his position.
Edit: Although he joined the civil service in 2014 so it might be based off that (Which would be convienient for Starrmer as justification for a decent payoff tbh)
He has been employed as a civil servant for a lot longer, I think. When you're promoted within an organisation it doesn't restart the employment law clock.
The civil service handbook treats the movement between Departments as continuity of tenure for things like mat leave etc.
As a matter of employment law fact, Olly Robbins has been in post less than 2 years. So he is not eligible for an unfair dismissal claim. So his "payout" ought to be that simply stipulated by the notice in his contract.
If Starmer was 100% sure of his position.
Edit: Although he joined the civil service in 2014 so it might be based off that (Which would be convienient for Starrmer as justification for a decent payoff tbh)
Has he been dismissed from the Civil Service or just lost his post within the Civil Service?
Whilst all the attention is on Starmer, I’m curious on what grounds Mandelson failed the security vetting. Is this what we already know about or something else?
The events reported of true do suggest a structural disconnect between the civil service and ministers, echoing the frustrations of previous administrations.
These points are arguably more interesting than the standard opposition calls for resignation.
Links to China.
I also believe as somebody who also had to resign from the cabinet twice over financial impropriety and influence grounds then those were red flags.
As Ambassador to the USA he would have access to intelligence briefings that most of the cabinet don’t have.
The elephant in the room would be the links to Epstein.
The reason Mandelson was in the room is because of his links to Epstein and others. The only reason he was the option is because of those links..
Do we know that's the case?
When we also heard that Mandelson was involved in selecting Labour Party candidates for GE2024, it became obvious that he's much more enmeshed in Starmer's informal leadership team than we were aware.
Maybe he was appointed US Ambassador because he asked for the job and Starmer was under an obligation to him. That seems to fit with the way that Epstein and Mandelson saw the world - as being run by a web of good friends who all owed each other favours.
I think it's possible that Starmer was a lot more deeply involved in this sort of web of mutual back-scratching then he wants us to know.
As a matter of employment law fact, Olly Robbins has been in post less than 2 years. So he is not eligible for an unfair dismissal claim. So his "payout" ought to be that simply stipulated by the notice in his contract.
If Starmer was 100% sure of his position.
Edit: Although he joined the civil service in 2014 so it might be based off that (Which would be convienient for Starrmer as justification for a decent payoff tbh)
He has been employed as a civil servant for a lot longer, I think. When you're promoted within an organisation it doesn't restart the employment law clock.
He left the civil service in 2019 and came back in late 2024/early 2025.
I am corrected.
He was working for Goldman Sachs when I met him in 2022.
As a matter of employment law fact, Olly Robbins has been in post less than 2 years. So he is not eligible for an unfair dismissal claim. So his "payout" ought to be that simply stipulated by the notice in his contract.
If Starmer was 100% sure of his position.
Edit: Although he joined the civil service in 2014 so it might be based off that (Which would be convienient for Starrmer as justification for a decent payoff tbh)
He has been employed as a civil servant for a lot longer, I think. When you're promoted within an organisation it doesn't restart the employment law clock.
The civil service handbook treats the movement between Departments as continuity of tenure for things like mat leave etc.
As a matter of employment law fact, Olly Robbins has been in post less than 2 years. So he is not eligible for an unfair dismissal claim. So his "payout" ought to be that simply stipulated by the notice in his contract.
If Starmer was 100% sure of his position.
Edit: Although he joined the civil service in 2014 so it might be based off that (Which would be convienient for Starrmer as justification for a decent payoff tbh)
It's the latter unless there was a break in service.
On a related point, the law changes on 1st January 2027 to make it 6 months and not 2 years so clearing out will be happening between now and early June.
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
Honestly - do you think Starmer has done anything wrong?
100% he's done something wrong and should have resigned months ago. But that wasn't my point, it's that he isn't going to resign and all the people here saying he will have said so the previous eight times.
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
Honestly - do you think Starmer has done anything wrong?
100% he's done something wrong and should have resigned months ago. But that wasn't my point, it's that he isn't going to resign and all the people here saying he will have said so the previous eight times.
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
Honestly - do you think Starmer has done anything wrong?
100% he's done something wrong and should have resigned months ago. But that wasn't my point, it's that he isn't going to resign and all the people here saying he will have said so the previous eight times.
the thing about shenzhen that changed everything for me is the access, makerspaces everywhere open to anyone, components available in any quantity at any hour, hardware meetups and deeptech demo nights happening every single day where founders show up with actual physical prototypes & get torn apart by engineers who’ve been shipping products for 20y
+++ investor sessions where VCs ask about your thermal dissipation strategy before they ask about yourt revenue, the density of ambitious people building physical things in one city is something I’ve never experienced anywhere else on earth
and the education pipeline feeding all of this is staggering, chinese kids start building robots & programming microcontrollers in middle school as part of the national curriculum by high school they’re doing projects in machine vision& embedded systems
tsinghua, USTC & zhejiang these universities produce researchers who go from publishing a paper to founding a startup with gov backed seed funding in a matter of months…
the pipeline from fundamental research to applied engineering to company creation is seamless here in a way that would make any european researcher cry
and what most people in the west completely miss is the role of the tech giants as ecosystem builders, juawei alibaba, tencent & baidu are operating as deeptech accelerators at a scale that has 0 equivalent in the west..
...meanwhile the west is spending trillions on a war in the middle east and debating whether AI needs another ethics committee
As a matter of employment law fact, Olly Robbins has been in post less than 2 years. So he is not eligible for an unfair dismissal claim. So his "payout" ought to be that simply stipulated by the notice in his contract.
If Starmer was 100% sure of his position.
Edit: Although he joined the civil service in 2014 so it might be based off that (Which would be convienient for Starrmer as justification for a decent payoff tbh)
He has been employed as a civil servant for a lot longer, I think. When you're promoted within an organisation it doesn't restart the employment law clock.
The civil service handbook treats the movement between Departments as continuity of tenure for things like mat leave etc.
It's a long old pat leave that !
A fair number of Irish politicians were teachers before entering full-time politics, and there's an unrestricted right to take a career break from teaching, and so they still have the security of their teaching job to fall back on if the TD pension isn't enough for them.
The current Taoiseach was a history teacher for about a year before entering full-time politics in 1985, and may well have been on a career break for 41 years now.
My wife's applied for and got a job at the Home Office in Liverpool. She started the process in January this year and passed security vetting in March. She was told explicitly if she failed, she wouldn't get the job.
I should've told her to change her name by deed poll to 'Peter Mandelson', then she could've avoided a two month delay to starting.
Her failure is life was to achieve a certain level. That level can be measured by the following -
If she fails in a way that kills people, destroys the whole organisation or creates a public enquiry, does she lose her job within the day and become unemployable, or does she getter a better job (quietly after the fuss has died down a bit) ?
Probably loses her job but gets another job eventually after the fuss has died down unless serious criminal actions
I know of a couple of people who can't get jobs n banks. They were involved, but not responsible for, in disasters.
The people who caused the disasters (at senior management level) are successful and still have very senior roles. In other banks.
Some do, some don't. Dick Fuld, Chair and CEO of Lehmans in 2008 is now at Matrix Private Capital. Viscount Ridley, chairman of Northern Rock in 2007, now writes for the Times and Adam Applegarth, Northern Rock's final CEO now runs a small property business and plays cricket for Sunderland 2nd XI
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
Honestly - do you think Starmer has done anything wrong?
100% he's done something wrong and should have resigned months ago. But that wasn't my point, it's that he isn't going to resign and all the people here saying he will have said so the previous eight times.
I'm a bit on the fence. I think he will try to ride it out, and tbh there will be MP's who want him gone but want him to carry the can for the locals next month. So unless things really ramp up over the weekend (and there are few Labour ministers who are brave enough) then I think he is safe until after the locals.
Even then he will try the "we have listened, and we have learned line."
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 9m Spoken to a number of current and former Westminster officials. They have served over multiple governments. Not a single one of them believes it's credible Robbins would have unilaterally overturned the DV decision. Never mind having done so without consultation with No.10.
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
Honestly - do you think Starmer has done anything wrong?
100% he's done something wrong and should have resigned months ago. But that wasn't my point, it's that he isn't going to resign and all the people here saying he will have said so the previous eight times.
I'm a bit on the fence. I think he will try to ride it out, and tbh there will be MP's who want him gone but want him to carry the can for the locals next month. So unless things really ramp up over the weekend (and there are few Labour ministers who are brave enough) then I think he is safe until after the locals.
Even then he will try the "we have listened, and we have learned line."
The thing is - as I keep trying to explain on here - the Labour Party is not like the Tories. People keep trying to say what happened to Johnson and co will happen here when it won't.
I have absolutely 100% confidence that Sir Keir will not fight the next general election for Labour. However, he will resign of his own volition. There will not be any real challenge.
If Burnham was in Parliament things would be different in terms of theatrics, although the result would still be the same: MPs will anonymously brief and brief and brief but they aren't going to do any more than that.
The local elections are basically priced in at this point. Everyone knows it is going to be a disaster but Labour MPs concluded a long time ago that nobody in the running would be doing any better.
When Burnham re-enters Parliament, things will change. And he will, no doubt about that. I think he will be a terrible PM but that is neither here nor there really.
the thing about shenzhen that changed everything for me is the access, makerspaces everywhere open to anyone, components available in any quantity at any hour, hardware meetups and deeptech demo nights happening every single day where founders show up with actual physical prototypes & get torn apart by engineers who’ve been shipping products for 20y
+++ investor sessions where VCs ask about your thermal dissipation strategy before they ask about yourt revenue, the density of ambitious people building physical things in one city is something I’ve never experienced anywhere else on earth
and the education pipeline feeding all of this is staggering, chinese kids start building robots & programming microcontrollers in middle school as part of the national curriculum by high school they’re doing projects in machine vision& embedded systems
tsinghua, USTC & zhejiang these universities produce researchers who go from publishing a paper to founding a startup with gov backed seed funding in a matter of months…
the pipeline from fundamental research to applied engineering to company creation is seamless here in a way that would make any european researcher cry
and what most people in the west completely miss is the role of the tech giants as ecosystem builders, juawei alibaba, tencent & baidu are operating as deeptech accelerators at a scale that has 0 equivalent in the west..
...meanwhile the west is spending trillions on a war in the middle east and debating whether AI needs another ethics committee
My son just WhatsApped from a Muji in Urumqi asking if his little sister would like some stationery because it’s a 10th of the price of the UK.
Not that this has much to do with Chinese AI, but it seems his first day among the Uighurs is currently being spent in shopping malls.
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 9m Spoken to a number of current and former Westminster officials. They have served over multiple governments. Not a single one of them believes it's credible Robbins would have unilaterally overturned the DV decision. Never mind having done so without consultation with No.10.
Dan Hodges has predicted the last 20 Starmer resignations.
There is a far simpler explanation for the appointment of Mandelson. The Foreign Office knew the Prime Minister wanted it to happen despite concerns raised directly with him about Epstein & business links with China and Russia so they delivered what the boss wanted.
It's basically this. The real reason Mandelson was chosen was because he was a snake but crucially our snake. He's as dodgy as they come but exactly what was apparently wanted to deal with Trump.
Dan Hodges said exactly this when he was appointed.
Starmer should resign - but people are ascribing way too much to this story when it's been clear for months that anything was going to be done to give him this job. That is ultimately Starmer's fault and he should go for that. But on the other hand lots of journalists supported it at the time too and many PBers.
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 9m Spoken to a number of current and former Westminster officials. They have served over multiple governments. Not a single one of them believes it's credible Robbins would have unilaterally overturned the DV decision. Never mind having done so without consultation with No.10.
Dan Hodges has predicted the last 20 Starmer resignations.
Hidges doesn't matter but what does is the call across the opposiion for him to resign and which he will face on Monday
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 9m Spoken to a number of current and former Westminster officials. They have served over multiple governments. Not a single one of them believes it's credible Robbins would have unilaterally overturned the DV decision. Never mind having done so without consultation with No.10.
We'll hear Robbins' side of the story at the Commons foreign affairs committee on Tuesday next week. He had the right to overturn the DV recommendation without consultation. But not anymore. Fascinating.
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 9m Spoken to a number of current and former Westminster officials. They have served over multiple governments. Not a single one of them believes it's credible Robbins would have unilaterally overturned the DV decision. Never mind having done so without consultation with No.10.
Dan Hodges has predicted the last 20 Starmer resignations.
Saying that someone should resign is not the same as predicting their resignation
I haven’t read anyone, here or anywhere else, predicting his resignation
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 9m Spoken to a number of current and former Westminster officials. They have served over multiple governments. Not a single one of them believes it's credible Robbins would have unilaterally overturned the DV decision. Never mind having done so without consultation with No.10.
The oracle has spoken ! He still hasn’t got over Currygate !
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 9m Spoken to a number of current and former Westminster officials. They have served over multiple governments. Not a single one of them believes it's credible Robbins would have unilaterally overturned the DV decision. Never mind having done so without consultation with No.10.
Dan Hodges has predicted the last 20 Starmer resignations.
Saying that someone should resign is not the same as predicting their resignation
I haven’t read anyone, here or anywhere else, predicting his resignation
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 9m Spoken to a number of current and former Westminster officials. They have served over multiple governments. Not a single one of them believes it's credible Robbins would have unilaterally overturned the DV decision. Never mind having done so without consultation with No.10.
Dan Hodges has predicted the last 20 Starmer resignations.
Saying that someone should resign is not the same as predicting their resignation
I haven’t read anyone, here or anywhere else, predicting his resignation
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 9m Spoken to a number of current and former Westminster officials. They have served over multiple governments. Not a single one of them believes it's credible Robbins would have unilaterally overturned the DV decision. Never mind having done so without consultation with No.10.
Dan Hodges has predicted the last 20 Starmer resignations.
Saying that someone should resign is not the same as predicting their resignation
I haven’t read anyone, here or anywhere else, predicting his resignation
It would be much more interesting to chart a course to getting Burnham into Parliament. In my view this is what a lot of MPs are probably waiting for before they brief in a non-anonymous context.
Starmer can block him again. But Starmer also said Burnham can run in 2028 when his term expires.
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 9m Spoken to a number of current and former Westminster officials. They have served over multiple governments. Not a single one of them believes it's credible Robbins would have unilaterally overturned the DV decision. Never mind having done so without consultation with No.10.
Dan Hodges has predicted the last 20 Starmer resignations.
Having originally declared the Mandelson appointment genius.
I keep coming back in my mind to that Kemi Badenoch interview on Today this morning. I cannot believe how badly she fluffed the opportunity of a lifetime.
Starmer’s greatest career scalp was surely the way he slowly, deliberately turned the screw on Boris Johnson leading to his eventual defenestration. It was a masterclass in prosecution.
Not only does that now look hypocritical, but it gives Kemi the perfect template for how to bring down a vulnerable leader. This could be her moment. Yet it’s Ed Davey so far who’s getting the media quotes, not the LOTO. And Today was an illustration of why.
She seems incapable of sticking to a clear, compelling message without getting sidetracked into a street fight. Of course the interviewer was going to try some whataboutery, that’s political interview 101. Yet she fell into the trap. She had an open goal - a shifty PM presiding over a major scandal - and fluffed it.
This leaves the party in a quandary. Want outrage over woke or immigration? Calling Nigel. Want full throated anti-Trump and anti-Israel? Get Zak on. And now it seems if you want that not angry just disappointed righteous indignation over a scandal, then notwithstanding his post office history you get it from Davey.
What’s left? Surely it’s the Tory lodestone: tax cuts.
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 9m Spoken to a number of current and former Westminster officials. They have served over multiple governments. Not a single one of them believes it's credible Robbins would have unilaterally overturned the DV decision. Never mind having done so without consultation with No.10.
Dan Hodges has predicted the last 20 Starmer resignations.
Having originally declared the Mandelson appointment genius.
My gut feeling says Dan Hodges has some extremely weak sources inside the Labour Party.
I know people hate him because he's up Starmer's arsehole but Tom Baldwin is a far more reliable narrator of what Starmer is actually doing.
My wife's applied for and got a job at the Home Office in Liverpool. She started the process in January this year and passed security vetting in March. She was told explicitly if she failed, she wouldn't get the job.
I should've told her to change her name by deed poll to 'Peter Mandelson', then she could've avoided a two month delay to starting.
Her failure is life was to achieve a certain level. That level can be measured by the following -
If she fails in a way that kills people, destroys the whole organisation or creates a public enquiry, does she lose her job within the day and become unemployable, or does she getter a better job (quietly after the fuss has died down a bit) ?
Probably loses her job but gets another job eventually after the fuss has died down unless serious criminal actions
I know of a couple of people who can't get jobs n banks. They were involved, but not responsible for, in disasters.
The people who caused the disasters (at senior management level) are successful and still have very senior roles. In other banks.
Some do, some don't. Dick Fuld, Chair and CEO of Lehmans in 2008 is now at Matrix Private Capital. Viscount Ridley, chairman of Northern Rock in 2007, now writes for the Times and Adam Applegarth, Northern Rock's final CEO now runs a small property business and plays cricket for Sunderland 2nd XI
Ridley went on to plenty of non-job jobs and is semi retired now.
There is a far simpler explanation for the appointment of Mandelson. The Foreign Office knew the Prime Minister wanted it to happen despite concerns raised directly with him about Epstein & business links with China and Russia so they delivered what the boss wanted.
It's basically this. The real reason Mandelson was chosen was because he was a snake but crucially our snake. He's as dodgy as they come but exactly what was apparently wanted to deal with Trump.
Dan Hodges said exactly this when he was appointed.
Starmer should resign - but people are ascribing way too much to this story when it's been clear for months that anything was going to be done to give him this job. That is ultimately Starmer's fault and he should go for that. But on the other hand lots of journalists supported it at the time too and many PBers.
So far all the people that have predicted Starmer's last eight resignations are calling for him to resign again. Anyone new?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 9m Spoken to a number of current and former Westminster officials. They have served over multiple governments. Not a single one of them believes it's credible Robbins would have unilaterally overturned the DV decision. Never mind having done so without consultation with No.10.
Dan Hodges has predicted the last 20 Starmer resignations.
Saying that someone should resign is not the same as predicting their resignation
I haven’t read anyone, here or anywhere else, predicting his resignation
Comments
So the leader of the Labour party has to be an MP.
Now, obviously, Labour party rules do not constrain MPs in Parliament. If Labour MPs in Parliament were determined that Burnham become PM, then he could be made a Lord and PM.
But there would be messy consequences. Maybe they'd need a special conference to amend Labour Party rules to make Burnham leader. Maybe they'd need to find him a Commons seat after he'd become PM and make him an MP and Labour leader afterwards. And he'd have to resign as Mayor, so there would need to be an election for that, which Reform might win. And Britain hasn't had a PM in the Lords for a long time, so it could be incredibly unpopular with the public.
The main reason it's not going to happen is that there are enough MPs who prefer a different leader, or fancy their own chances, that there isn't the overwhelming support and imperative for remaking the rules to make it happen.
Unlucky timing for him.
You can just imagine his "oh shit" moment when he got the DV recommendation.
Asteroid half the size of a giraffe strikes Earth
https://x.com/DailyMail/status/1503680447418707969
Why didn't they use a whole okapi ?
(Does this pass the smell test? THere's something remarkably like bullshit filling my nostrils.)
There’s no way he’d make that statement to Sky News if there was any way it could be refuted .
Am I missing something ?
His answers indicate the appointment was "Clearly the PMs choice". Civil servants are not in the business of deciding !
If it's not true it's a very stupid lie to tell because all Olly Robins has to do is forward an email to a newspaper and he is screwed.
But Robbins, just appointed by Starmer to the top job in the FO, is protecting Starmer, not realising that the whole thing would blow up when the Epstein files were released. That was his motive I think.
His mistake was not informing Starmer after the Epstein files were released when Starmer was facing questions in the HOC. I guess he felt he was in too deep. But that's why he was fired.
"Civil servants are not in the business of deciding !" But they were. That was the process - until that was removed from them last night.
The events reported of true do suggest a structural disconnect between the civil service and ministers, echoing the frustrations of previous administrations.
These points are arguably more interesting than the standard opposition calls for resignation.
As a result proper toff PMs are more likely going forward to be elected to the Commons anyway eg like Viscount Thurso, as they can now stand as MPs in their local area but no longer get seats in the Lords
The stumbling block is that there wouldn't be unanimous support for it.
I should've told her to change her name by deed poll to 'Peter Mandelson', then she could've avoided a two month delay to starting.
I begin to see his point.
@JAHeale
Bafflement in Whitehall about the apparent inertia in the 48 hours between Starmer being told Tuesday evening and the No. 10 statement Thursday night.
One aide: “PM flips out and you just - what - go back to your desk? And hope it sorts itself out?”
Lammy only told yesterday…
https://x.com/JAHeale/status/2045074726679175244
I also believe as somebody who also had to resign from the cabinet twice over financial impropriety and influence grounds then those were red flags.
As Ambassador to the USA he would have access to intelligence briefings that most of the cabinet don’t have.
The elephant in the room would be the links to Epstein.
One thing that's clear is that 'process' in general gives the civil service a lot of power over elected ministers, both in terms of blocking things and making things happen that shouldn't.
If she fails in a way that kills people, destroys the whole organisation or creates a public enquiry, does she lose her job within the day and become unemployable, or does she getter a better job (quietly after the fuss has died down a bit) ?
Kind of crazy if Robbins and Barton (his predecessor) didn't flag this risk at the time though.
If Starmer was 100% sure of his position.
Edit: Although he joined the civil service in 2014 so it might be based off that (Which would be convienient for Starrmer as justification for a decent payoff tbh)
Where does the buck stop? Starmer should be held to higher account than Johnson, Truss, Braverman and Patel, and even they had to go in the end.
He can say he's going but will remain in place until Angela Rayner is made Labour Party leader at the September Party Conference*
* No Ed Milliband..
Extraordinary mess.
Another similarity to partygate, which was in The Times the day after it happened yet only became controversial a year later
The people who caused the disasters (at senior management level) are successful and still have very senior roles. In other banks.
What if Robbins spoke to someone in No 10 who then didn’t pass on the info .
That'll be the real tell.
https://x.com/magyarpeterMP/status/2045038363900559553
When we also heard that Mandelson was involved in selecting Labour Party candidates for GE2024, it became obvious that he's much more enmeshed in Starmer's informal leadership team than we were aware.
Maybe he was appointed US Ambassador because he asked for the job and Starmer was under an obligation to him. That seems to fit with the way that Epstein and Mandelson saw the world - as being run by a web of good friends who all owed each other favours.
I think it's possible that Starmer was a lot more deeply involved in this sort of web of mutual back-scratching then he wants us to know.
On a related point, the law changes on 1st January 2027 to make it 6 months and not 2 years so clearing out will be happening between now and early June.
https://x.com/BetterCallMedhi/status/2044926552245416024
this is exactly why I moved back to china and I genuinely think most people reading this from the west have no idea what it actually feels like to build here
the thing about shenzhen that changed everything for me is the access, makerspaces everywhere open to anyone, components available in any quantity at any hour, hardware meetups and deeptech demo nights happening every single day where founders show up with actual physical prototypes & get torn apart by engineers who’ve been shipping products for 20y
+++ investor sessions where VCs ask about your thermal dissipation strategy before they ask about yourt revenue, the density of ambitious people building physical things in one city is something I’ve never experienced anywhere else on earth
and the education pipeline feeding all of this is staggering, chinese kids start building robots & programming microcontrollers in middle school as part of the national curriculum by high school they’re doing projects in machine vision& embedded systems
tsinghua, USTC & zhejiang these universities produce researchers who go from publishing a paper to founding a startup with gov backed seed funding in a matter of months…
the pipeline from fundamental research to applied engineering to company creation is seamless here in a way that would make any european researcher cry
and what most people in the west completely miss is the role of the tech giants as ecosystem builders, juawei alibaba, tencent & baidu are operating as deeptech accelerators at a scale that has 0 equivalent in the west..
...meanwhile the west is spending trillions on a war in the middle east and debating whether AI needs another ethics committee
The current Taoiseach was a history teacher for about a year before entering full-time politics in 1985, and may well have been on a career break for 41 years now.
Even then he will try the "we have listened, and we have learned line."
@DPJHodges
·
9m
Spoken to a number of current and former Westminster officials. They have served over multiple governments. Not a single one of them believes it's credible Robbins would have unilaterally overturned the DV decision. Never mind having done so without consultation with No.10.
I have absolutely 100% confidence that Sir Keir will not fight the next general election for Labour. However, he will resign of his own volition. There will not be any real challenge.
If Burnham was in Parliament things would be different in terms of theatrics, although the result would still be the same: MPs will anonymously brief and brief and brief but they aren't going to do any more than that.
The local elections are basically priced in at this point. Everyone knows it is going to be a disaster but Labour MPs concluded a long time ago that nobody in the running would be doing any better.
When Burnham re-enters Parliament, things will change. And he will, no doubt about that. I think he will be a terrible PM but that is neither here nor there really.
Not that this has much to do with Chinese AI, but it seems his first day among the Uighurs is currently being spent in shopping malls.
Simon Clarke
@SirSimonClarke
So key questions this morning
1) Will Ollie Robbins accept being hung out to dry?
https://x.com/SirSimonClarke/status/2045043637101207851
There is a far simpler explanation for the appointment of Mandelson. The Foreign Office knew the Prime Minister wanted it to happen despite concerns raised directly with him about Epstein & business links with China and Russia so they delivered what the boss wanted.
It's basically this. The real reason Mandelson was chosen was because he was a snake but crucially our snake. He's as dodgy as they come but exactly what was apparently wanted to deal with Trump.
Dan Hodges said exactly this when he was appointed.
Starmer should resign - but people are ascribing way too much to this story when it's been clear for months that anything was going to be done to give him this job. That is ultimately Starmer's fault and he should go for that. But on the other hand lots of journalists supported it at the time too and many PBers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn53pnd5wr0t?post=asset:6e968fd6-6836-4588-8f2d-8ad59ad58ff5#post
He had the right to overturn the DV recommendation without consultation. But not anymore.
Fascinating.
I haven’t read anyone, here or anywhere else, predicting his resignation
Starmer can block him again. But Starmer also said Burnham can run in 2028 when his term expires.
Starmer’s greatest career scalp was surely the way he slowly, deliberately turned the screw on Boris Johnson leading to his eventual defenestration. It was a masterclass in prosecution.
Not only does that now look hypocritical, but it gives Kemi the perfect template for how to bring down a vulnerable leader. This could be her moment. Yet it’s Ed Davey so far who’s getting the media quotes, not the LOTO. And Today was an illustration of why.
She seems incapable of sticking to a clear, compelling message without getting sidetracked into a street fight. Of course the interviewer was going to try some whataboutery, that’s political interview 101. Yet she fell into the trap. She had an open goal - a shifty PM presiding over a major scandal - and fluffed it.
This leaves the party in a quandary. Want outrage over woke or immigration? Calling Nigel. Want full
throated anti-Trump and anti-Israel? Get Zak on. And now it seems if you want that not angry just disappointed righteous indignation over a scandal, then notwithstanding his post office history you get it from Davey.
What’s left? Surely it’s the Tory lodestone: tax cuts.
I know people hate him because he's up Starmer's arsehole but Tom Baldwin is a far more reliable narrator of what Starmer is actually doing.
Adam Applegarth similar.
HitlerStarmer.