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
This exchange between @AphraBrandreth and Olly Robbins is crucial: Starmer wanted Mandelson as US ambassador, so the Foreign Office acted on his orders and waived it through. The buck therefore firmly rests with the Starmer for making the appointment pre vetting.
So yeah, there's no grand conspiracy here. Starmer said hire, civil service made it happen. For that alone Starmer should go. But he won't!
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 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 think most of us initially gave Starmer credit for the way he handled Trump. It was about the only good thing most of us had to say about his record.
In my memory I think there might have been one PBer who questioned why the incumbent Ambassador - who had good relations with the Trump team - was being replaced. I don't remember who it was, unfortunately.
That undermines the story that the Mandelson appointment was a case of appointing a rogue to deal with a rogue. We already had someone in post who could deal well with Trump. I think Mandelson may well have been made Ambassador because he wanted the job, asked for it, and Starmer owed him for some previous favours Mandelson had done for him.
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.
If Mandelson was required, but was that dody, why not make him "Special envoy to the US" or some similar invented job? So he could schmooze the Trump Admin and be give strictly limited inside info.
But of course, Mandleson wanted the prestige of the Ambassadorship and the access to confidential information.
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.
If Mandelson was required, but was that dody, why not make him "Special envoy to the US" or some similar invented job? So he could schmooze the Trump Admin and be give strictly limited inside info.
But of course, Mandleson wanted the prestige of the Ambassadorship and the access to confidential information.
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.
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 think most of us initially gave Starmer credit for the way he handled Trump. It was about the only good thing most of us had to say about his record.
In my memory I think there might have been one PBer who questioned why the incumbent Ambassador - who had good relations with the Trump team - was being replaced. I don't remember who it was, unfortunately.
That undermines the story that the Mandelson appointment was a case of appointing a rogue to deal with a rogue. We already had someone in post who could deal well with Trump. I think Mandelson may well have been made Ambassador because he wanted the job, asked for it, and Starmer owed him for some previous favours Mandelson had done for him.
There were several. Someone else asked it first. But I was far from alone in questioning the idea of a political appointment, rather than a pro.
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.
I work in process all day. It isn't like that in a good place. It sadly is too often.
The thing is, we don't need a process to tell us Mandelson is dodgy as hell. That was already on the public record. So really anything else is immaterial. Starmer chose to hire somebody dodgy as hell on the basis he was dodgy as hell.
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.
He should resign, but he won't.
That's exactly right.
Nice passive aggressive “people are saying”, but who are these people?
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.
If Mandelson was required, but was that dody, why not make him "Special envoy to the US" or some similar invented job? So he could schmooze the Trump Admin and be give strictly limited inside info.
But of course, Mandleson wanted the prestige of the Ambassadorship and the access to confidential information.
Starmer said in his pool interview, "#10 wasn't told he failed his security vetting". This has already proved to be untrue.
Unless it can be proved Starmer received a communication or was told in person that Mandelson had failed his vetting you can't prove what he said to be untrue, certainly on his part
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.
Did she not also lie about it to May ?
Is that why, IIRC, she was actually sacked and not the usual fiction of 'you asked me to resign'?
Starmer said in his pool interview, "#10 wasn't told he failed his security vetting". This has already proved to be untrue.
Unless it can be proved Starmer received a communication or was told in person that Mandelson had failed his vetting you can't prove what he said to be untrue, certainly on his part
#10 wasn't told is proven to be false, journalists have the receipts. The fact Starmer doesn't know this, par for the course, and will probably have to update his claims in due course, to I was not told by my staff in #10, who conveniently left suddenly when McSweeney went to go fishing and never returned.
Boris sacked her predecessor at President Trump's behest.
So someone changed Starmer's mind about who would be best as US Ambassador.
I think the opposition are missing the target by going on about the vetting. The critical question is why Mandelson? Whose idea was it? (Was it Mandelson's?) What does Starmer owe Mandelson for?
Calgie @christiancalgie It really is remarkable the complete across-the-board sheer disbelief about Downing Street’s story - by everyone in the civil service, diplomatic service, people who’ve been through vetting, and who’s ever interacted with Olly Robbins
Starmer said in his pool interview, "#10 wasn't told he failed his security vetting". This has already proved to be untrue.
Unless it can be proved Starmer received a communication or was told in person that Mandelson had failed his vetting you can't prove what he said to be untrue, certainly on his part
A lawyer's argument and true enough, if damaging on the competence and 'should have asked' front.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
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.
Giraffes are an odd sort of shape for an asteroid. I'm struggling to think of something that would be less suitable as a comparison.
The least suitable comparison is an asteroid.
“Asteroid the size of an asteroid strikes Earth”: true, but a useless comparison.
Somewhere in the depths of the internet must be the full non-SI list of agreed comparators. We all know olympic swimming pool, double decker buses etc, but there are so many more!
Starmer said in his pool interview, "#10 wasn't told he failed his security vetting". This has already proved to be untrue.
Unless it can be proved Starmer received a communication or was told in person that Mandelson had failed his vetting you can't prove what he said to be untrue, certainly on his part
#10 wasn't told is proven to be false, journalists have the receipts. The fact Starmer doesn't know this, par for the course, and will probably have to update his claims in due course, to I was not told by my staff in #10, who conveniently left suddenly when McSweeney went to go fishing and never returned.
How absolutely furious will Starmer be when this is what the story changes to ?
There’s no way he’d make that statement to Sky News if there was any way it could be refuted .
His problem is that the civil service was doing his bidding by making sure Mandelson's appointment happened.
Probably but as long as Starmer can prove he wasn’t told then his position is safe for the timebeing .
If only the Prime Minister had known.
It was reported in the Independent seven months ago
Another similarity to partygate, which was in The Times the day after it happened yet only became controversial a year later
One event was, and if that had been the only event, Johnson wouldn’t have had a problem. The problem was that there were well over a dozen events, and most far worse in nature.
Starmer said in his pool interview, "#10 wasn't told he failed his security vetting". This has already proved to be untrue.
Unless it can be proved Starmer received a communication or was told in person that Mandelson had failed his vetting you can't prove what he said to be untrue, certainly on his part
#10 wasn't told is proven to be false, journalists have the receipts. The fact Starmer doesn't know this, par for the course, and will probably have to update his claims in due course, to I was not told by my staff in #10, who conveniently left suddenly when McSweeney went to go fishing and never returned.
How absolutely furious will Starmer be when this is what the story changes to ?
His fury level will be upgraded to Incandescent level....that is just below Tyson level.
The nature of the vetting failure, - China - not Epstein I think might be something that displeases the Trump administration (And not just Trumpites sane members of the US admin too (And Democrats would have been equally uncomfortable with this)) when they come to realise all this (Remember with Chagos it took a while for Trump & Rubio to work out what we were trying to do and then Kibosh it all). Another twist to the tale yet to play out.
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
There’s no way he’d make that statement to Sky News if there was any way it could be refuted .
His problem is that the civil service was doing his bidding by making sure Mandelson's appointment happened.
Probably but as long as Starmer can prove he wasn’t told then his position is safe for the timebeing .
If only the Prime Minister had known.
It was reported in the Independent seven months ago
Another similarity to partygate, which was in The Times the day after it happened yet only became controversial a year later
One event was, and if that had been the only event, Johnson wouldn’t have had a problem. The problem was that there were well over a dozen events, and most far worse in nature.
It was the only one he received a PCN, or whatever it was, for
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.
Not as a waitress in a cocktail bar ?
Replacement parent working as a freelance social entertainment facilitator at maritime adjacent import/export facility?
We know Mandelson was given developed vetting (even though it now emerges he had failed) on 6th January 2025. He was pictured in the street with a DV level pass with that issue date. What has transpired since then?
On 11 September 2025 The Independent’s Political Editor asked Downing Street to comment on claims Mandelson had failed DV. The answer: “vetting done by FCDO in the normal way”…
On 4th February 2026 Starmer appeared at PMQs. Asked whether Mandelson’s “security vetting” contained Esptein allegations, he answered “yes it did“…
The next day, on 5th February 2026, Starmer gave a speech in Hastings where he said: “there was then… security vetting… which gave him clearance for the role“.
Now No10 maintains Starmer only found out Mandelson had failed DV this Tuesday (14th April). No10 claims Starmer ordered an investigation into the issue that day.
But Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper’s team maintains she wasn’t told until The Guardian newspaper ran the story yesterday (16th April).
------------
Its all a bit PartyGate. I knew nothing nor did I ask any obvious questions at any time no matter what the press were asking me e.g. I didn't ask why there was empty bottles of booze piled up in the recycling or how my kids swing got bust late on a Friday night...
Calgie @christiancalgie It really is remarkable the complete across-the-board sheer disbelief about Downing Street’s story - by everyone in the civil service, diplomatic service, people who’ve been through vetting, and who’s ever interacted with Olly Robbins
I am hearing the same, my analogy from last night stacks up.
Bear in mind the level of scrutiny Ed Llewellyn went through when in the space of three months went from Dave’s Chief of Staff to our man in Paris means Number 10’s feels like bull poop.
Fun fact Lord Llewellyn is currently serving at the Foreign Office.
In September 2025 he was appointed Director General, Political at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.
In this role he succeeds Sir Christian Turner who became UK ambassador to the United States.
The DG, Political will act as a "international fixer and strategic foreign policy adviser
I’m sure labours forensic (does anyone remember when SKS was regularly described as such) investigation into foreign influence in our politics will tackle how embedded China are in our politics.
Ukrainian operators remotely controlled a STING interceptor drone from abroad at a distance of about 2000 km using the HORNET VISION Ctrl system, marking a new operational record. Serial deployment of the system has already begun.
Ukrainian operators remotely controlled a STING interceptor drone from abroad at a distance of about 2000 km using the HORNET VISION Ctrl system, marking a new operational record. Serial deployment of the system has already begun.
The future of drone warfare. It's 2,007km between Kyiv and Calais.
So, when one of these things wends its way into Downing Street the operator could be 2k km away? Fantastic. Our security systems are so incredibly vulnerable right now. Its actually terrifying.
I guess Starmer's last remaining hope is that Trump launches some unhinged attack on him (Not about this but Hormuz etc) so he can appear all sane and statesmanlike. Not the aim but it'd be a desirable side effect of today's Paris summit I'm sure for him. It is all Starmer has going for him quite honestly. Dull, forensic and studiously on top of the detail has disappeared forever.
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 think most of us initially gave Starmer credit for the way he handled Trump. It was about the only good thing most of us had to say about his record.
In my memory I think there might have been one PBer who questioned why the incumbent Ambassador - who had good relations with the Trump team - was being replaced. I don't remember who it was, unfortunately.
That undermines the story that the Mandelson appointment was a case of appointing a rogue to deal with a rogue. We already had someone in post who could deal well with Trump. I think Mandelson may well have been made Ambassador because he wanted the job, asked for it, and Starmer owed him for some previous favours Mandelson had done for him.
I pointed out how good the incumbent one was, but I think she wanted to go.
There’s no way he’d make that statement to Sky News if there was any way it could be refuted .
His problem is that the civil service was doing his bidding by making sure Mandelson's appointment happened.
Probably but as long as Starmer can prove he wasn’t told then his position is safe for the timebeing .
If only the Prime Minister had known.
It was reported in the Independent seven months ago
Another similarity to partygate, which was in The Times the day after it happened yet only became controversial a year later
One event was, and if that had been the only event, Johnson wouldn’t have had a problem. The problem was that there were well over a dozen events, and most far worse in nature.
It was the only one he received a PCN, or whatever it was, for
An FPN, fixed penalty notice. Johnson indeed only received one, but his staff received 125, and he was responsible for his staff’s behaviour and what he claimed about their behaviour in comments to the Commons. And, frankly, the police went very easy on them!
By promising not to lie again, a promise he broke within a month.
Boris struggled to tell the truth even when it was obviously the best option for him. A man so addicted to lying he'd forgotten what the truth looked like.
There’s no way he’d make that statement to Sky News if there was any way it could be refuted .
His problem is that the civil service was doing his bidding by making sure Mandelson's appointment happened.
Probably but as long as Starmer can prove he wasn’t told then his position is safe for the timebeing .
If only the Prime Minister had known.
It was reported in the Independent seven months ago
Another similarity to partygate, which was in The Times the day after it happened yet only became controversial a year later
One event was, and if that had been the only event, Johnson wouldn’t have had a problem. The problem was that there were well over a dozen events, and most far worse in nature.
It was the only one he received a PCN, or whatever it was, for
An FPN, fixed penalty notice. Johnson indeed only received one, but his staff received 125, and he was responsible for his staff’s behaviour and what he claimed about their behaviour in comments to the Commons. And, frankly, the police went very easy on them!
Ukrainian operators remotely controlled a STING interceptor drone from abroad at a distance of about 2000 km using the HORNET VISION Ctrl system, marking a new operational record. Serial deployment of the system has already begun.
The future of drone warfare. It's 2,007km between Kyiv and Calais.
So, when one of these things wends its way into Downing Street the operator could be 2k km away? Fantastic. Our security systems are so incredibly vulnerable right now. Its actually terrifying.
You could fly a drone, for years, using an onboard cellphone to communicate with the local cell network. Once you do that, you can be anywhere on the internet.
The change now, is that LEO Satellite data means that you can get a pretty high speed link to/from the drone, anywhere in the world. Previously, mobile connection data was fairly iffy.
Someone remind me again why we don't need an independent LEO mega constellation?
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
Johnson survived all sorts of things that would have brought the careers of Ordinaries to a screeching halt.
The same probably goes for loads of other politicians. In part, that's because really good people opt of of public life (and who can blame them?), leaving the field clear for mediocrities at best, freaks and crooks at worst.
Ukrainian operators remotely controlled a STING interceptor drone from abroad at a distance of about 2000 km using the HORNET VISION Ctrl system, marking a new operational record. Serial deployment of the system has already begun.
The future of drone warfare. It's 2,007km between Kyiv and Calais.
So, when one of these things wends its way into Downing Street the operator could be 2k km away? Fantastic. Our security systems are so incredibly vulnerable right now. Its actually terrifying.
It's actually a bit surprising that we haven't seen an Operation Spiderweb style attack on somewhere like the White House, or the Knesset.
The technology is only getting better and easier to use, and defending against it is hard.
Or in Starmer's world...I was not told what day it was today, nor did I ask, therefore I am unable to tell you what today it is today. The person responsible for not telling me has been fired and we have launched an inquiry on how to reform the process by which the PM is told which day of the week it is.
Giraffes are an odd sort of shape for an asteroid. I'm struggling to think of something that would be less suitable as a comparison.
The least suitable comparison is an asteroid.
“Asteroid the size of an asteroid strikes Earth”: true, but a useless comparison.
Somewhere in the depths of the internet must be the full non-SI list of agreed comparators. We all know olympic swimming pool, double decker buses etc, but there are so many more!
Football pitches, Wales, piece of string, baby elephant, atoms in cup of water, a Scaramucci (unit of time), walking distance, car lengths, cheetah (speed), particles in universe (as compared with number of ways of dealing 52 cards). Lots more.
A 'Starmer' might be a measure of units of deliberate ignorance.
I think he was critically wounded by Partygate, even if the killing blow came from another source. And it was Partygate that saw him leave the Commons.
The thing is, we don't need a process to tell us Mandelson is dodgy as hell. That was already on the public record. So really anything else is immaterial. Starmer chose to hire somebody dodgy as hell on the basis he was dodgy as hell.
But that story is itself a bit naive. It relies upon the notion of Mandelson deploying his dodginess 'in Britain's interest' like a sort of Flashman character. But people like that don't exist outside of fiction or the past. And we saw that when Mandelson casually betrayed the British COTE to the director of a US Bank. The reality is, corrupt people are just corrupt, they are rarely rough diamonds with a heart of gold.
A more likely story is simply that Mandy has the goods on Starmer.
A less likely, but far from impossible story is that they are both part of a corrupt nexus focused around the CCP.
By promising not to lie again, a promise he broke within a month.
Boris struggled to tell the truth even when it was obviously the best option for him. A man so addicted to lying he'd forgotten what the truth looked like.
Like with most politicians you can work out why they're telling a bunch of porky pies (Such as this situation now). Boris seemed to go beyond that. Even when the truth was the most politically expedient option he had an inner drive to lie even then - that's rare, even in politicians.
I think he was critically wounded by Partygate, even if the killing blow came from another source. And it was Partygate that saw him leave the Commons.
Completely agree. Without partygate, he would probably still be PM now
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
By eliminating the deficit, not by reducing it. This is my point. By simply “reducing the deficit” all GO did was stagnate the country with no real benefit through either investment or debt reduction. The worst of all worlds.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
I think he was critically wounded by Partygate, even if the killing blow came from another source. And it was Partygate that saw him leave the Commons.
Completely agree. Without partygate, he would probably still be PM now
I'm less sure. He was always going to feck it up somewhere - its just in his nature.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
The bittersweet joke in energy circles is that the Nobel committee should create a new climate prize to reward Donald Trump for his outstanding services.
Nobody has done more to accelerate the world’s electrotech revolution and pull forward the irreversible collapse of the oil and gas industry
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
By eliminating the deficit, not by reducing it.
And how do you eliminate the deficit when already the left accused him of savage cuts, and blared on about 'austerity". We didn't really do austerity, so if you want to argue Osbourne should have cut government spending by 20% please do.
MP Jon Trickett tells Press Association that “it simply doesn’t sound credible for Keir Starmer to claim that he was unaware that Mandelson had been denied security clearance."
Ukrainian operators remotely controlled a STING interceptor drone from abroad at a distance of about 2000 km using the HORNET VISION Ctrl system, marking a new operational record. Serial deployment of the system has already begun.
The future of drone warfare. It's 2,007km between Kyiv and Calais.
So, when one of these things wends its way into Downing Street the operator could be 2k km away? Fantastic. Our security systems are so incredibly vulnerable right now. Its actually terrifying.
It's actually a bit surprising that we haven't seen an Operation Spiderweb style attack on somewhere like the White House, or the Knesset.
The technology is only getting better and easier to use, and defending against it is hard.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
By eliminating the deficit, not by reducing it.
And how do you eliminate the deficit when already the left accused him of savage cuts, and blared on about 'austerity". We didn't really do austerity, so if you want to argue Osbourne should have cut government spending by 20% please do.
That’s what I am arguing. GO should have either done austerity properly or not at all. The half arsed attempt gave us the worst of all worlds.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
How would you reduce the national debt while you still have an annual deficit?
By eliminating the deficit, not by reducing it.
And how do you eliminate the deficit when already the left accused him of savage cuts, and blared on about 'austerity". We didn't really do austerity, so if you want to argue Osbourne should have cut government spending by 20% please do.
Well, he could have increased taxes. He could have not increased spending on his favoured client groups (like pensioners).
There were lots of options as I argued at the time.
Osborne is head and shoulders above basically everyone that has come since. And I hated a lot of what he did.
He was competently incompetent
I don' think that's true. I suspect he did things you don't agree with politically, which is different.
I don’t think it is. He didn’t really achieve anything other than to rot the country and our armed forces. Any investment from that time would (but for the lack of it) would have been coming to fruit now.
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
Well said.
It was austerity in name only.
I recall Ed M's fruitless efforts to simultaneously complain about cutting too far too fast, and also that the Tories did not cut as much as they'd said they would. Possible but difficult.
I've no idea what the deficit is now, no-one cares anymore, politically.
He hasn't been that angry since he had to re-re-re-re-explain why he took £100k's of freebies and that getting upgraded to luxury box at Arsenal was a disgrace.
Comments
So if you do any vetting, what's the point in telling anyone? He's got the job regardless.
Again, ultimately this is on Starmer.
This exchange between @AphraBrandreth and Olly Robbins is crucial: Starmer wanted Mandelson as US ambassador, so the Foreign Office acted on his orders and waived it through. The buck therefore firmly rests with the Starmer for making the appointment pre vetting.
So yeah, there's no grand conspiracy here. Starmer said hire, civil service made it happen. For that alone Starmer should go. But he won't!
This is potentially about placing a Chinese asset at the heart of Washington. The implications are extremely dire.
In my memory I think there might have been one PBer who questioned why the incumbent Ambassador - who had good relations with the Trump team - was being replaced. I don't remember who it was, unfortunately.
That undermines the story that the Mandelson appointment was a case of appointing a rogue to deal with a rogue. We already had someone in post who could deal well with Trump. I think Mandelson may well have been made Ambassador because he wanted the job, asked for it, and Starmer owed him for some previous favours Mandelson had done for him.
Badenoch asked him in the Commons if “the security vetting he received mention[ed] Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein“. Starmer said it did.
Must have been different security vetting or never crossed his desk and somebody just told hiim that one tiny bit of information, nothing more.
But of course, Mandleson wanted the prestige of the Ambassadorship and the access to confidential information.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/07/george-osborne-was-on-no-10-list-to-be-uk-ambassador-to-us-keir-starmer-biographer-says
He sacked his cabinet - political appointees who serve at the PM’s pleasure. They take that risk knowingly.
Starmer sacks employees - people who report to him. We’ve all met bosses like that and they are complete [forbidden word]
Edit : https://muse.jhu.edu/book/33652/
Dame Karen Pierce successfully navigated Donald Trump’s final year in power in 2020
https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/sir-keir-starmer-impressed-karen-pierce-us-election-2024-k7h6qh797 (£££)
Boris sacked her predecessor at President Trump's behest.
So someone changed Starmer's mind about who would be best as US Ambassador.
I think the opposition are missing the target by going on about the vetting. The critical question is why Mandelson? Whose idea was it? (Was it Mandelson's?) What does Starmer owe Mandelson for?
“Asteroid the size of an asteroid strikes Earth”: true, but a useless comparison.
*odious little creed.
Calgie
@christiancalgie
It really is remarkable the complete across-the-board sheer disbelief about Downing Street’s story - by everyone in the civil service, diplomatic service, people who’ve been through vetting, and who’s ever interacted with Olly Robbins
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/2045094239495741708
Yes he reduced the deficit but he didn’t reduce our national debt. Far from it. It was a half arsed attempt that resulted in the worst or all worlds - no investment and still tons of debt.
I don't know how these things work but it would seem odd to me that Americans wouldn't want some input on any security risks.
https://youtu.be/skqVVIJdOAI?si=a8zCF2dpNhijHKuB
On 11 September 2025 The Independent’s Political Editor asked Downing Street to comment on claims Mandelson had failed DV. The answer: “vetting done by FCDO in the normal way”…
On 4th February 2026 Starmer appeared at PMQs. Asked whether Mandelson’s “security vetting” contained Esptein allegations, he answered “yes it did“…
The next day, on 5th February 2026, Starmer gave a speech in Hastings where he said: “there was then… security vetting… which gave him clearance for the role“.
Now No10 maintains Starmer only found out Mandelson had failed DV this Tuesday (14th April). No10 claims Starmer ordered an investigation into the issue that day.
But Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper’s team maintains she wasn’t told until The Guardian newspaper ran the story yesterday (16th April).
------------
Its all a bit PartyGate. I knew nothing nor did I ask any obvious questions at any time no matter what the press were asking me e.g. I didn't ask why there was empty bottles of booze piled up in the recycling or how my kids swing got bust late on a Friday night...
Bear in mind the level of scrutiny Ed Llewellyn went through when in the space of three months went from Dave’s Chief of Staff to our man in Paris means Number 10’s feels like bull poop.
Fun fact Lord Llewellyn is currently serving at the Foreign Office.
In September 2025 he was appointed Director General, Political at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.
In this role he succeeds Sir Christian Turner who became UK ambassador to the United States.
The DG, Political will act as a "international fixer and strategic foreign policy adviser
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Llewellyn,_Baron_Llewellyn_of_Steep
https://t.me/noel_reports/45208
The future of drone warfare. It's 2,007km between Kyiv and Calais.
@PolitlcsUK
·
13m
🚨 NEW: The Lib Dems have reported Keir Starmer to his own Ethics Adviser for breaching the Ministerial Code
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2045101160135033083
The change now, is that LEO Satellite data means that you can get a pretty high speed link to/from the drone, anywhere in the world. Previously, mobile connection data was fairly iffy.
Someone remind me again why we don't need an independent LEO mega constellation?
The same probably goes for loads of other politicians. In part, that's because really good people opt of of public life (and who can blame them?), leaving the field clear for mediocrities at best, freaks and crooks at worst.
The technology is only getting better and easier to use, and defending against it is hard.
A 'Starmer' might be a measure of units of deliberate ignorance.
A more likely story is simply that Mandy has the goods on Starmer.
A less likely, but far from impossible story is that they are both part of a corrupt nexus focused around the CCP.
But his nature means something else would have done for him.
Nobody has done more to accelerate the world’s electrotech revolution and pull forward the irreversible collapse of the oil and gas industry
Trump is an utter disaster for the world’s oil and gas industry
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/04/17/trump-utter-disaster-for-the-worlds-oil-gas-industry/
The film is crap. But interesting and has a meta coda.
It includes using drones.
I think it would have been north of 100 Tory MPs.
They remembered the backlash with the Owen Paterson palaver.
There were lots of options as I argued at the time.
I've no idea what the deficit is now, no-one cares anymore, politically.