I just spoke to the President on the phone. He said Iran has agreed to an “unlimited” suspension of its nuclear program and that the US is not going to release any frozen Iranian funds.
"Speaking to the President on the phone" is of no more information value than reading his social media posts. All it does is convey slightly more (unjustified) credibility. It certainly isn't journalism.
The line that No. 10 is getting loyal MPs to trot out this evening is "Starmer's kept us out of a war". That is correct, but it's independent of his appointment of Mandelson. Being right in one case doesn't magically cancel out a serious error of judgement, or even worse lying to Parliament.
If anyone at No. 10 is reading, this deflection doesn't work, generally it just makes people even more annoyed.
That would be effective if all his leadership rivals would have supported getting into a war but whether Starmer, Miliband, Rayner or Burnham had been PM the UK wouldn’t have joined in.
Dubai Police said the arrest took place on April 15. They said Kinahan, who has been based in the UAE for over a decade, was arrested within 48 hours of the warrant being issued by the Irish government.
The line that No. 10 is getting loyal MPs to trot out this evening is "Starmer's kept us out of a war". That is correct, but it's independent of his appointment of Mandelson. Being right in one case doesn't magically cancel out a serious error of judgement, or even worse lying to Parliament.
If anyone at No. 10 is reading, this deflection doesn't work, generally it just makes people even more annoyed.
Last time it was, Starmer, he cares a lot about women and girls.....
Well, not the young ones being taken advantage in...never mind, won't go there.
My former student Jacob Hall has a piece out in the European Review of Economic History where he measures travel speeds in Medieval Europe using "itinerant kings" who moved around with their courts.
The line that No. 10 is getting loyal MPs to trot out this evening is "Starmer's kept us out of a war". That is correct, but it's independent of his appointment of Mandelson. Being right in one case doesn't magically cancel out a serious error of judgement, or even worse lying to Parliament.
If anyone at No. 10 is reading, this deflection doesn't work, generally it just makes people even more annoyed.
It's very late-stage Gordon Brown. "He's respected abroad... This is no time for a novice..."
Ipsos polling. LD recovery, more evidence of Reform decline
Reform 25% (-3) Labour 19% (-2) Conservative 19% (+2) Greens 17% (No change) Lib Dems 14% (+5) Others 7% (-1)
9-15 April
Well, Sir Ed will be happier with this but I thought the 9% an outlier.
I'm quite happy to join the view Reform are now off the top but as others have and will point out, there are still gains for them to be made in May though the May 2026 results won't be as good in terms of vote shares as the May 2025 results were and it will be interesting to see or try to determine how many seats Reform will fail to win in three weeks because of their decline in share.
The Greens will do well though how well remains to be seen. Newham (and if everyone continues to behave badly,I'll put up a thread for @TSE to consider on the election in my backyard (metaphorically not literally) won't see the Green gains other Inner London Boroughs (Hackney, Lewisham) are likely to see but they could still win 6-8 seats and might become the kingmakers in a hung council.
Reform will gain plenty for sure. Winning most wards om the night will be an interestimg benchmark (imake that somewhere in the 1000 to 1400 gains range . But also wont as yiu say br as good as May 2025. If we look at Narborough last night as an example, a similar sort of pattern last May would have had them well short of largest party in Leicestershire (Narborough was by far their best ward in Blaby) and maybe theyd have been falling just short of majority or largest party elsewhere too.... if that is what happens this year we eill see what sort of narrative comes out of it
Well, yes, and while extrapolating from local council by-elections isn't always the best approach, what I think we may see in three weeks is a stronger Conservative performance in their areas of known strength (but poor elsewhere) and ditto for the Liberal Democrats.
That might mean less change in London for example than some have been suggesting.
Yeah, agree. Tories certainly will be looking at the likes of Solihull for some hoped for comfort. I'm getting less confdent of much resilence in much of Norfolk. But a bit more than some of the prediction sites predict
Have you seen the flegs in Greater Solihull? I would imagine Chelmsley Wood is Reform Central.
I used to do my shopping at the Tesco in Chelmsley Wood when I lived in what our landlord creativity described as "North Solihull".
Kemi has gone all Vinnie Jones + Harry Maguire, two footed, ball grabbing, hair pulling, Starmer is a liar etc etc etc.
Very unwise I would suggest.
Nah. The vast bulk have had enough of him and many are starting to see him as venal and that the 'but hes a good man' stuff is bull. Its time to drive him out of our lives and politics. A clean amputation. Better days ahead with him behind us etc
Others will disagree but the 'decent man' stuff is looking very old hat and clapped out.
That isn't Badenoch's real problem.
IF this is the end of the conflict and life returning to what passes for normal, the opportunity to get rid of Starmer has likely passed. Let's say Labour do slightly less badly and the Conservatives slightly more badly than is generally baked in and the pressure is back on her.
IF we get six months of relative calm and petrol prices fall back, the only one getting the credit will be Starmer.
To be fair, the continuing implosion of Reform still offers the Conservatives the possibility of remaining in second place (and therefore the credible alternative Government) after the next election and we still have the thick end of three years of "events, dear boy, events" as someone once said to navigate..
Im not sure why the end of a war between the US and Iran would affect Starmers chances of surviving. He isnt as popular as the clap due to Iran/US but a litany of other things.and Labour, likewise, are struggling due to those same things,
Here I think you're confusing political nerdery with the general public which has the memory of a gnat and a similar attention span.
On the one hand, you can't, as a Conservative, whitewash what your Party didn't achieve in 14 years of leading the Government and expect the public to run back to the blue rosette while at the same time expecting everyone to remember every detail of what Starmer did from July 2024.
An example - the Thatcher Government teetered on the brink during Westland when Heseltine theatrically walked out of Cabinet - there was a real sense of crisis over what had happened and oddly enough had a forensic Starmer rather than a verbally incontinent Kinnock been at the Dispatch Box it's possible the Government might have fallen. A little over a year later and a re-election with a majority of 101.
You and I might remember the minutiae - most people don't. I'll be blunt - if the perception is immigration under control and the economy doing all right, Starmer will win re-election. If the perception is things aren't going well and immigration is still perceived as being out of control, there'll be a different result.
I dont disagree on Labours chances next time. What i take issue with is the idea that the end of the Iran US war somehow ends the chance of Starmer being ousted as you suggested. It will make zero difference. Other factors will determine that.
My view last night and today is until there's a "smoking gun" showing Starmer intervened to overrule the vetting and then lied about it to Parliament, he's safe.
IF Starmer inadvertently misled Parliament on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information, then an apology is warranted but no more. IF, however, he knowingly misled Parliament, that's a hanging offence (metaphorically not literally) and he will have to resign.
I can't believe he doesn't know that so unless there's clear and indisputable evidence, it looks like incompetence anmd miscommunication and that'sdamaging but not fatally.
He knew, but "unofficially" so can deny it
It's all a pathetic storm in a desperate right wing chocolate tea cup.
Olly Robins has confirmed he followed procedure.
Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed he was not told until Tuesday this week
Both are entirely compatible.
Just a load of hot air that 95% of the population frankly don't give a shit about.
Excellent NHS results relative to recent past 5 yrars
Highest monthly growth in nearky 4 years in February
Starmer keeping UK out of a global war.
Thats real life talking points.
Badenoch and Farage are desperate for Starmer to go, if course they are, the former is fading faster than Arsenal and the latter is about as relevant as a wet fart.
The line that No. 10 is getting loyal MPs to trot out this evening is "Starmer's kept us out of a war". That is correct, but it's independent of his appointment of Mandelson. Being right in one case doesn't magically cancel out a serious error of judgement, or even worse lying to Parliament.
If anyone at No. 10 is reading, this deflection doesn't work, generally it just makes people even more annoyed.
It's very late-stage Gordon Brown. "He's respected abroad... This is no time for a novice..."
It was the classic double argument that means you never change parties - if things are good, why would you change, and if things are not good then don't change either as no time for a novice.
Kemi has gone all Vinnie Jones + Harry Maguire, two footed, ball grabbing, hair pulling, Starmer is a liar etc etc etc.
Very unwise I would suggest.
Nah. The vast bulk have had enough of him and many are starting to see him as venal and that the 'but hes a good man' stuff is bull. Its time to drive him out of our lives and politics. A clean amputation. Better days ahead with him behind us etc
Others will disagree but the 'decent man' stuff is looking very old hat and clapped out.
That isn't Badenoch's real problem.
IF this is the end of the conflict and life returning to what passes for normal, the opportunity to get rid of Starmer has likely passed. Let's say Labour do slightly less badly and the Conservatives slightly more badly than is generally baked in and the pressure is back on her.
IF we get six months of relative calm and petrol prices fall back, the only one getting the credit will be Starmer.
To be fair, the continuing implosion of Reform still offers the Conservatives the possibility of remaining in second place (and therefore the credible alternative Government) after the next election and we still have the thick end of three years of "events, dear boy, events" as someone once said to navigate..
Im not sure why the end of a war between the US and Iran would affect Starmers chances of surviving. He isnt as popular as the clap due to Iran/US but a litany of other things.and Labour, likewise, are struggling due to those same things,
Here I think you're confusing political nerdery with the general public which has the memory of a gnat and a similar attention span.
On the one hand, you can't, as a Conservative, whitewash what your Party didn't achieve in 14 years of leading the Government and expect the public to run back to the blue rosette while at the same time expecting everyone to remember every detail of what Starmer did from July 2024.
An example - the Thatcher Government teetered on the brink during Westland when Heseltine theatrically walked out of Cabinet - there was a real sense of crisis over what had happened and oddly enough had a forensic Starmer rather than a verbally incontinent Kinnock been at the Dispatch Box it's possible the Government might have fallen. A little over a year later and a re-election with a majority of 101.
You and I might remember the minutiae - most people don't. I'll be blunt - if the perception is immigration under control and the economy doing all right, Starmer will win re-election. If the perception is things aren't going well and immigration is still perceived as being out of control, there'll be a different result.
I dont disagree on Labours chances next time. What i take issue with is the idea that the end of the Iran US war somehow ends the chance of Starmer being ousted as you suggested. It will make zero difference. Other factors will determine that.
My view last night and today is until there's a "smoking gun" showing Starmer intervened to overrule the vetting and then lied about it to Parliament, he's safe.
IF Starmer inadvertently misled Parliament on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information, then an apology is warranted but no more. IF, however, he knowingly misled Parliament, that's a hanging offence (metaphorically not literally) and he will have to resign.
I can't believe he doesn't know that so unless there's clear and indisputable evidence, it looks like incompetence anmd miscommunication and that'sdamaging but not fatally.
He knew, but "unofficially" so can deny it
It's all a pathetic storm in a desperate right wing chocolate tea cup.
Olly Robins has confirmed he followed procedure.
Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed he was not told until Tuesday this week
Both are entirely compatible.
Just a load of hot air that 95% of the population frankly don't give a shit about.
Excellent NHS results relative to recent past 5 yrars
Highest monthly growth in nearky 4 years in February
Starmer keeping UK out of a global war.
Thats real life talking points.
Badenoch and Farage are desperate for Starmer to go, if course they are, the former is fading faster than Arsenal and the latter is about as relevant as a wet fart.
Making sure you're taking Vitamin D supplements in the bunker.
Kemi has gone all Vinnie Jones + Harry Maguire, two footed, ball grabbing, hair pulling, Starmer is a liar etc etc etc.
Very unwise I would suggest.
Nah. The vast bulk have had enough of him and many are starting to see him as venal and that the 'but hes a good man' stuff is bull. Its time to drive him out of our lives and politics. A clean amputation. Better days ahead with him behind us etc
Others will disagree but the 'decent man' stuff is looking very old hat and clapped out.
That isn't Badenoch's real problem.
IF this is the end of the conflict and life returning to what passes for normal, the opportunity to get rid of Starmer has likely passed. Let's say Labour do slightly less badly and the Conservatives slightly more badly than is generally baked in and the pressure is back on her.
IF we get six months of relative calm and petrol prices fall back, the only one getting the credit will be Starmer.
To be fair, the continuing implosion of Reform still offers the Conservatives the possibility of remaining in second place (and therefore the credible alternative Government) after the next election and we still have the thick end of three years of "events, dear boy, events" as someone once said to navigate..
Im not sure why the end of a war between the US and Iran would affect Starmers chances of surviving. He isnt as popular as the clap due to Iran/US but a litany of other things.and Labour, likewise, are struggling due to those same things,
Here I think you're confusing political nerdery with the general public which has the memory of a gnat and a similar attention span.
On the one hand, you can't, as a Conservative, whitewash what your Party didn't achieve in 14 years of leading the Government and expect the public to run back to the blue rosette while at the same time expecting everyone to remember every detail of what Starmer did from July 2024.
An example - the Thatcher Government teetered on the brink during Westland when Heseltine theatrically walked out of Cabinet - there was a real sense of crisis over what had happened and oddly enough had a forensic Starmer rather than a verbally incontinent Kinnock been at the Dispatch Box it's possible the Government might have fallen. A little over a year later and a re-election with a majority of 101.
You and I might remember the minutiae - most people don't. I'll be blunt - if the perception is immigration under control and the economy doing all right, Starmer will win re-election. If the perception is things aren't going well and immigration is still perceived as being out of control, there'll be a different result.
I dont disagree on Labours chances next time. What i take issue with is the idea that the end of the Iran US war somehow ends the chance of Starmer being ousted as you suggested. It will make zero difference. Other factors will determine that.
My view last night and today is until there's a "smoking gun" showing Starmer intervened to overrule the vetting and then lied about it to Parliament, he's safe.
IF Starmer inadvertently misled Parliament on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information, then an apology is warranted but no more. IF, however, he knowingly misled Parliament, that's a hanging offence (metaphorically not literally) and he will have to resign.
I can't believe he doesn't know that so unless there's clear and indisputable evidence, it looks like incompetence anmd miscommunication and that'sdamaging but not fatally.
He knew, but "unofficially" so can deny it
It's all a pathetic storm in a desperate right wing chocolate tea cup.
Olly Robins has confirmed he followed procedure.
Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed he was not told until Tuesday this week
Both are entirely compatible.
Just a load of hot air that 95% of the population frankly don't give a shit about.
Excellent NHS results relative to recent past 5 yrars
Highest monthly growth in nearky 4 years in February
Starmer keeping UK out of a global war.
Thats real life talking points.
Badenoch and Farage are desperate for Starmer to go, if course they are, the former is fading faster than Arsenal and the latter is about as relevant as a wet fart.
I like the guy personally. I voted Labour at the last election for the first time since 2010. But he has to go.
I mean, seriously, would you work for this man? So many of those who chose to have been thrown under @TSE's bus. Its never his fault. Someone else, possibly you if you were so foolish, will take the blame. It's the way he works.
Sue Gray, Chris Wormald, Morgan McSweeney, Olly Robbins. All to blame, apparently.
Below is a summary of how and when the PM was told on Tuesday evening that “the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson” (DV = security clearance to be US ambassador or any sensitive government position that has access to secret material)
From: Dan York-Smith Sent: 15 April 2026 13:38 To: Antonia Romeo <[email address]>; Catherine Little <[email address]> Cc: [JCS] <[email address]>; Vidhya Alakeson <[email address]>; PM Private Office Support Team - Internal <[email address]>; Symes, Elkie - CO (OFF-SEN) <[email address]> Subject: LIMDIS Readout of PM meeting on vetting
Antonia, Cat
Thanks for coming to see the PM (joined by Vidhya and me) on Tuesday evening to update him on the Humble Address and security vetting.
Cat set out that the vetting process involved UKSV in the Cabinet Office producing a vetting file which included a recommendation on whether DV should be granted, which was then passed to the sponsor department, in this case FCDO. As part of the Humble Address process, that file had been shared with Cat.
On reviewing the file she had therefore learned that the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. There is some discretion for departments to proceed with clearance and the FCDO had exercised it in this case, granting Mandelson vetting clearance. Cat had not seen the audit trail for this decision so we did not yet know on what basis the decision had been taken, contrary to the recommendation.
The PM was not aware of any of this before the meeting, including that it was even possible to grant clearance against the advice of UKSV. There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV before the document was shared with CO to comply with the Humble Address.
We said that we had wanted to make him aware of the situation at the earliest opportunity.
Our advice to the PM was that further fact finding was required, to understand the FCDO decision making process and reasons for granting clearance and to determine whether ministers, having been provided (incorrectly) with assurances about the process, had inadvertently misled Parliament when commenting on the process which had been followed.
The terms of review into the vetting system that has already been announced would also need considering in light of the new information on the circumstances around Mandelson's clearance.
The PM agreed with this advice and asked for the facts to be established urgently and advice on how to proceed from there including in terms of informing Parliament.
Dan Dan York-Smith | Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister | 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA | [Phone Number]
Kemi has gone all Vinnie Jones + Harry Maguire, two footed, ball grabbing, hair pulling, Starmer is a liar etc etc etc.
Very unwise I would suggest.
Nah. The vast bulk have had enough of him and many are starting to see him as venal and that the 'but hes a good man' stuff is bull. Its time to drive him out of our lives and politics. A clean amputation. Better days ahead with him behind us etc
Others will disagree but the 'decent man' stuff is looking very old hat and clapped out.
That isn't Badenoch's real problem.
IF this is the end of the conflict and life returning to what passes for normal, the opportunity to get rid of Starmer has likely passed. Let's say Labour do slightly less badly and the Conservatives slightly more badly than is generally baked in and the pressure is back on her.
IF we get six months of relative calm and petrol prices fall back, the only one getting the credit will be Starmer.
To be fair, the continuing implosion of Reform still offers the Conservatives the possibility of remaining in second place (and therefore the credible alternative Government) after the next election and we still have the thick end of three years of "events, dear boy, events" as someone once said to navigate..
Im not sure why the end of a war between the US and Iran would affect Starmers chances of surviving. He isnt as popular as the clap due to Iran/US but a litany of other things.and Labour, likewise, are struggling due to those same things,
Here I think you're confusing political nerdery with the general public which has the memory of a gnat and a similar attention span.
On the one hand, you can't, as a Conservative, whitewash what your Party didn't achieve in 14 years of leading the Government and expect the public to run back to the blue rosette while at the same time expecting everyone to remember every detail of what Starmer did from July 2024.
An example - the Thatcher Government teetered on the brink during Westland when Heseltine theatrically walked out of Cabinet - there was a real sense of crisis over what had happened and oddly enough had a forensic Starmer rather than a verbally incontinent Kinnock been at the Dispatch Box it's possible the Government might have fallen. A little over a year later and a re-election with a majority of 101.
You and I might remember the minutiae - most people don't. I'll be blunt - if the perception is immigration under control and the economy doing all right, Starmer will win re-election. If the perception is things aren't going well and immigration is still perceived as being out of control, there'll be a different result.
I dont disagree on Labours chances next time. What i take issue with is the idea that the end of the Iran US war somehow ends the chance of Starmer being ousted as you suggested. It will make zero difference. Other factors will determine that.
My view last night and today is until there's a "smoking gun" showing Starmer intervened to overrule the vetting and then lied about it to Parliament, he's safe.
IF Starmer inadvertently misled Parliament on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information, then an apology is warranted but no more. IF, however, he knowingly misled Parliament, that's a hanging offence (metaphorically not literally) and he will have to resign.
I can't believe he doesn't know that so unless there's clear and indisputable evidence, it looks like incompetence anmd miscommunication and that'sdamaging but not fatally.
He knew, but "unofficially" so can deny it
It's all a pathetic storm in a desperate right wing chocolate tea cup.
Olly Robins has confirmed he followed procedure.
Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed he was not told until Tuesday this week
Both are entirely compatible.
Just a load of hot air that 95% of the population frankly don't give a shit about.
Excellent NHS results relative to recent past 5 yrars
Highest monthly growth in nearky 4 years in February
Starmer keeping UK out of a global war.
Thats real life talking points.
Badenoch and Farage are desperate for Starmer to go, if course they are, the former is fading faster than Arsenal and the latter is about as relevant as a wet fart.
They probably are, but not because Starmer is a threat to them.
It's just that turning a resignation demand into an actual resignation is one of the few ways that an opposition politician can make their mark on history.
Bad thing happens- opposition calls for resignation-nothing happens is very much the default setting.
Below is a summary of how and when the PM was told on Tuesday evening that “the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson” (DV = security clearance to be US ambassador or any sensitive government position that has access to secret material)
From: Dan York-Smith Sent: 15 April 2026 13:38 To: Antonia Romeo <[email address]>; Catherine Little <[email address]> Cc: [JCS] <[email address]>; Vidhya Alakeson <[email address]>; PM Private Office Support Team - Internal <[email address]>; Symes, Elkie - CO (OFF-SEN) <[email address]> Subject: LIMDIS Readout of PM meeting on vetting
Antonia, Cat
Thanks for coming to see the PM (joined by Vidhya and me) on Tuesday evening to update him on the Humble Address and security vetting.
Cat set out that the vetting process involved UKSV in the Cabinet Office producing a vetting file which included a recommendation on whether DV should be granted, which was then passed to the sponsor department, in this case FCDO. As part of the Humble Address process, that file had been shared with Cat.
On reviewing the file she had therefore learned that the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. There is some discretion for departments to proceed with clearance and the FCDO had exercised it in this case, granting Mandelson vetting clearance. Cat had not seen the audit trail for this decision so we did not yet know on what basis the decision had been taken, contrary to the recommendation.
The PM was not aware of any of this before the meeting, including that it was even possible to grant clearance against the advice of UKSV. There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV before the document was shared with CO to comply with the Humble Address.
We said that we had wanted to make him aware of the situation at the earliest opportunity.
Our advice to the PM was that further fact finding was required, to understand the FCDO decision making process and reasons for granting clearance and to determine whether ministers, having been provided (incorrectly) with assurances about the process, had inadvertently misled Parliament when commenting on the process which had been followed.
The terms of review into the vetting system that has already been announced would also need considering in light of the new information on the circumstances around Mandelson's clearance.
The PM agreed with this advice and asked for the facts to be established urgently and advice on how to proceed from there including in terms of informing Parliament.
Dan Dan York-Smith | Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister | 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA | [Phone Number]
My former student Jacob Hall has a piece out in the European Review of Economic History where he measures travel speeds in Medieval Europe using "itinerant kings" who moved around with their courts.
Dom has weighed in. Long tweet on the Mandelson DV decision.
Including:
"Also hacks shd be asking:
Who officially authorised Mandelson for STRAP clearance? You don't get to read very sensitive material, like transcripts of intercepted calls between important people, just because you've got DV - you *also* need STRAP.
Either a) an official cleared Mandy for STRAP or else b) the requirement / 3+ month delay was waived by the PM, or c) we're supposed to believe Mandy wasn't shown STRAP material? So which official authorised it or did the PM waive it? When?"
Below is a summary of how and when the PM was told on Tuesday evening that “the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson” (DV = security clearance to be US ambassador or any sensitive government position that has access to secret material)
From: Dan York-Smith Sent: 15 April 2026 13:38 To: Antonia Romeo <[email address]>; Catherine Little <[email address]> Cc: [JCS] <[email address]>; Vidhya Alakeson <[email address]>; PM Private Office Support Team - Internal <[email address]>; Symes, Elkie - CO (OFF-SEN) <[email address]> Subject: LIMDIS Readout of PM meeting on vetting
Antonia, Cat
Thanks for coming to see the PM (joined by Vidhya and me) on Tuesday evening to update him on the Humble Address and security vetting.
Cat set out that the vetting process involved UKSV in the Cabinet Office producing a vetting file which included a recommendation on whether DV should be granted, which was then passed to the sponsor department, in this case FCDO. As part of the Humble Address process, that file had been shared with Cat.
On reviewing the file she had therefore learned that the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. There is some discretion for departments to proceed with clearance and the FCDO had exercised it in this case, granting Mandelson vetting clearance. Cat had not seen the audit trail for this decision so we did not yet know on what basis the decision had been taken, contrary to the recommendation.
The PM was not aware of any of this before the meeting, including that it was even possible to grant clearance against the advice of UKSV. There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV before the document was shared with CO to comply with the Humble Address.
We said that we had wanted to make him aware of the situation at the earliest opportunity.
Our advice to the PM was that further fact finding was required, to understand the FCDO decision making process and reasons for granting clearance and to determine whether ministers, having been provided (incorrectly) with assurances about the process, had inadvertently misled Parliament when commenting on the process which had been followed.
The terms of review into the vetting system that has already been announced would also need considering in light of the new information on the circumstances around Mandelson's clearance.
The PM agreed with this advice and asked for the facts to be established urgently and advice on how to proceed from there including in terms of informing Parliament.
Dan Dan York-Smith | Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister | 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA | [Phone Number]
Deliberate leak.
not seen the audit trail for this decision so we did not yet know on what basis the decision had been taken, contrary to the recommendation.
Having seen the decision (apparently), why was it not easy to quickly find the reason?
Dom has weighed in. Long tweet on the Mandelson DV decision.
Including:
"Also hacks shd be asking:
Who officially authorised Mandelson for STRAP clearance? You don't get to read very sensitive material, like transcripts of intercepted calls between important people, just because you've got DV - you *also* need STRAP.
Either a) an official cleared Mandy for STRAP or else b) the requirement / 3+ month delay was waived by the PM, or c) we're supposed to believe Mandy wasn't shown STRAP material? So which official authorised it or did the PM waive it? When?"
Below is a summary of how and when the PM was told on Tuesday evening that “the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson” (DV = security clearance to be US ambassador or any sensitive government position that has access to secret material)
From: Dan York-Smith Sent: 15 April 2026 13:38 To: Antonia Romeo <[email address]>; Catherine Little <[email address]> Cc: [JCS] <[email address]>; Vidhya Alakeson <[email address]>; PM Private Office Support Team - Internal <[email address]>; Symes, Elkie - CO (OFF-SEN) <[email address]> Subject: LIMDIS Readout of PM meeting on vetting
Antonia, Cat
Thanks for coming to see the PM (joined by Vidhya and me) on Tuesday evening to update him on the Humble Address and security vetting.
Cat set out that the vetting process involved UKSV in the Cabinet Office producing a vetting file which included a recommendation on whether DV should be granted, which was then passed to the sponsor department, in this case FCDO. As part of the Humble Address process, that file had been shared with Cat.
On reviewing the file she had therefore learned that the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. There is some discretion for departments to proceed with clearance and the FCDO had exercised it in this case, granting Mandelson vetting clearance. Cat had not seen the audit trail for this decision so we did not yet know on what basis the decision had been taken, contrary to the recommendation.
The PM was not aware of any of this before the meeting, including that it was even possible to grant clearance against the advice of UKSV. There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV before the document was shared with CO to comply with the Humble Address.
We said that we had wanted to make him aware of the situation at the earliest opportunity.
Our advice to the PM was that further fact finding was required, to understand the FCDO decision making process and reasons for granting clearance and to determine whether ministers, having been provided (incorrectly) with assurances about the process, had inadvertently misled Parliament when commenting on the process which had been followed.
The terms of review into the vetting system that has already been announced would also need considering in light of the new information on the circumstances around Mandelson's clearance.
The PM agreed with this advice and asked for the facts to be established urgently and advice on how to proceed from there including in terms of informing Parliament.
Dan Dan York-Smith | Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister | 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA | [Phone Number]
Deliberate leak.
not seen the audit trail for this decision so we did not yet know on what basis the decision had been taken, contrary to the recommendation.
Having seen the decision (apparently), why was it not easy to quickly find the reason?
Robbins himself said on the record that he was appointed on the basis that Starmer wanted him to be appointed, so that's obviously also the basis on which the necessry clearance was granted.
Below is a summary of how and when the PM was told on Tuesday evening that “the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson” (DV = security clearance to be US ambassador or any sensitive government position that has access to secret material)
From: Dan York-Smith Sent: 15 April 2026 13:38 To: Antonia Romeo <[email address]>; Catherine Little <[email address]> Cc: [JCS] <[email address]>; Vidhya Alakeson <[email address]>; PM Private Office Support Team - Internal <[email address]>; Symes, Elkie - CO (OFF-SEN) <[email address]> Subject: LIMDIS Readout of PM meeting on vetting
Antonia, Cat
Thanks for coming to see the PM (joined by Vidhya and me) on Tuesday evening to update him on the Humble Address and security vetting.
Cat set out that the vetting process involved UKSV in the Cabinet Office producing a vetting file which included a recommendation on whether DV should be granted, which was then passed to the sponsor department, in this case FCDO. As part of the Humble Address process, that file had been shared with Cat.
On reviewing the file she had therefore learned that the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. There is some discretion for departments to proceed with clearance and the FCDO had exercised it in this case, granting Mandelson vetting clearance. Cat had not seen the audit trail for this decision so we did not yet know on what basis the decision had been taken, contrary to the recommendation.
The PM was not aware of any of this before the meeting, including that it was even possible to grant clearance against the advice of UKSV. There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV before the document was shared with CO to comply with the Humble Address.
We said that we had wanted to make him aware of the situation at the earliest opportunity.
Our advice to the PM was that further fact finding was required, to understand the FCDO decision making process and reasons for granting clearance and to determine whether ministers, having been provided (incorrectly) with assurances about the process, had inadvertently misled Parliament when commenting on the process which had been followed.
The terms of review into the vetting system that has already been announced would also need considering in light of the new information on the circumstances around Mandelson's clearance.
The PM agreed with this advice and asked for the facts to be established urgently and advice on how to proceed from there including in terms of informing Parliament.
Dan Dan York-Smith | Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister | 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA | [Phone Number]
Deliberate leak.
not seen the audit trail for this decision so we did not yet know on what basis the decision had been taken, contrary to the recommendation.
Having seen the decision (apparently), why was it not easy to quickly find the reason?
Robbins himself said on the record that he was appointed on the basis that Starmer wanted him to be appointed, so that's obviously also the basis on which the necessry clearance was granted.
Probably, but if I were making that call I'd make sure to put that in writing very clearly.
Starmer isn't going to resign immediately, even if he did resign he would almost certainly stay PM until a new Labour leader is elected. More likely he would contest any leadership contest against say Rayner or Streeting too
Dom has weighed in. Long tweet on the Mandelson DV decision.
Including:
"Also hacks shd be asking:
Who officially authorised Mandelson for STRAP clearance? You don't get to read very sensitive material, like transcripts of intercepted calls between important people, just because you've got DV - you *also* need STRAP.
Either a) an official cleared Mandy for STRAP or else b) the requirement / 3+ month delay was waived by the PM, or c) we're supposed to believe Mandy wasn't shown STRAP material? So which official authorised it or did the PM waive it? When?"
Below is a summary of how and when the PM was told on Tuesday evening that “the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson” (DV = security clearance to be US ambassador or any sensitive government position that has access to secret material)
From: Dan York-Smith Sent: 15 April 2026 13:38 To: Antonia Romeo <[email address]>; Catherine Little <[email address]> Cc: [JCS] <[email address]>; Vidhya Alakeson <[email address]>; PM Private Office Support Team - Internal <[email address]>; Symes, Elkie - CO (OFF-SEN) <[email address]> Subject: LIMDIS Readout of PM meeting on vetting
Antonia, Cat
Thanks for coming to see the PM (joined by Vidhya and me) on Tuesday evening to update him on the Humble Address and security vetting.
Cat set out that the vetting process involved UKSV in the Cabinet Office producing a vetting file which included a recommendation on whether DV should be granted, which was then passed to the sponsor department, in this case FCDO. As part of the Humble Address process, that file had been shared with Cat.
On reviewing the file she had therefore learned that the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. There is some discretion for departments to proceed with clearance and the FCDO had exercised it in this case, granting Mandelson vetting clearance. Cat had not seen the audit trail for this decision so we did not yet know on what basis the decision had been taken, contrary to the recommendation.
The PM was not aware of any of this before the meeting, including that it was even possible to grant clearance against the advice of UKSV. There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV before the document was shared with CO to comply with the Humble Address.
We said that we had wanted to make him aware of the situation at the earliest opportunity.
Our advice to the PM was that further fact finding was required, to understand the FCDO decision making process and reasons for granting clearance and to determine whether ministers, having been provided (incorrectly) with assurances about the process, had inadvertently misled Parliament when commenting on the process which had been followed.
The terms of review into the vetting system that has already been announced would also need considering in light of the new information on the circumstances around Mandelson's clearance.
The PM agreed with this advice and asked for the facts to be established urgently and advice on how to proceed from there including in terms of informing Parliament.
Dan Dan York-Smith | Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister | 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA | [Phone Number]
Wow , that totally exonerates Starmer in terms of knowing about this beforehand . Poor Kemi !
When the Party is in government and the Party leader is prime minister and the Party leader, for whatever reason, becomes permanently unavailable, the Cabinet shall, in consultation with the NEC, appoint one of its members to serve as Party leader until a ballot under these rules can be carried out."
So while Powell is not in Cabinet, she is on the NEC. The wording in the rulebook is a bit ambiguous but could be interpreted to mean that NEC members are also eligible to be Leader.
The rules also state that this is a temporary measure until a formal leadership contest takes place.
IMHO the grammar, syntax and punctuation means that 'its' means Cabinet, so only they qualify, not NEC members. It must be read:
The Cabinet shall appoint one of its members, in consultation with the NEC
I mean, seriously, would you work for this man? So many of those who chose to have been thrown under @TSE's bus. Its never his fault. Someone else, possibly you if you were so foolish, will take the blame. It's the way he works.
And of course he explicitly promised the Labour membership that he never throws his staff under the bus.
I know Boris was a liar as well, but you would have thought intelligent people wouldn't just suppose that his enemy was straight just because he told them so.
Kemi has gone all Vinnie Jones + Harry Maguire, two footed, ball grabbing, hair pulling, Starmer is a liar etc etc etc.
Very unwise I would suggest.
Nah. The vast bulk have had enough of him and many are starting to see him as venal and that the 'but hes a good man' stuff is bull. Its time to drive him out of our lives and politics. A clean amputation. Better days ahead with him behind us etc
Others will disagree but the 'decent man' stuff is looking very old hat and clapped out.
That isn't Badenoch's real problem.
IF this is the end of the conflict and life returning to what passes for normal, the opportunity to get rid of Starmer has likely passed. Let's say Labour do slightly less badly and the Conservatives slightly more badly than is generally baked in and the pressure is back on her.
IF we get six months of relative calm and petrol prices fall back, the only one getting the credit will be Starmer.
To be fair, the continuing implosion of Reform still offers the Conservatives the possibility of remaining in second place (and therefore the credible alternative Government) after the next election and we still have the thick end of three years of "events, dear boy, events" as someone once said to navigate..
Im not sure why the end of a war between the US and Iran would affect Starmers chances of surviving. He isnt as popular as the clap due to Iran/US but a litany of other things.and Labour, likewise, are struggling due to those same things,
Here I think you're confusing political nerdery with the general public which has the memory of a gnat and a similar attention span.
On the one hand, you can't, as a Conservative, whitewash what your Party didn't achieve in 14 years of leading the Government and expect the public to run back to the blue rosette while at the same time expecting everyone to remember every detail of what Starmer did from July 2024.
An example - the Thatcher Government teetered on the brink during Westland when Heseltine theatrically walked out of Cabinet - there was a real sense of crisis over what had happened and oddly enough had a forensic Starmer rather than a verbally incontinent Kinnock been at the Dispatch Box it's possible the Government might have fallen. A little over a year later and a re-election with a majority of 101.
You and I might remember the minutiae - most people don't. I'll be blunt - if the perception is immigration under control and the economy doing all right, Starmer will win re-election. If the perception is things aren't going well and immigration is still perceived as being out of control, there'll be a different result.
I dont disagree on Labours chances next time. What i take issue with is the idea that the end of the Iran US war somehow ends the chance of Starmer being ousted as you suggested. It will make zero difference. Other factors will determine that.
My view last night and today is until there's a "smoking gun" showing Starmer intervened to overrule the vetting and then lied about it to Parliament, he's safe.
IF Starmer inadvertently misled Parliament on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information, then an apology is warranted but no more. IF, however, he knowingly misled Parliament, that's a hanging offence (metaphorically not literally) and he will have to resign.
I can't believe he doesn't know that so unless there's clear and indisputable evidence, it looks like incompetence anmd miscommunication and that'sdamaging but not fatally.
He knew, but "unofficially" so can deny it
It's all a pathetic storm in a desperate right wing chocolate tea cup.
Olly Robins has confirmed he followed procedure.
Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed he was not told until Tuesday this week
Both are entirely compatible.
Just a load of hot air that 95% of the population frankly don't give a shit about.
Excellent NHS results relative to recent past 5 yrars
Highest monthly growth in nearky 4 years in February
Starmer keeping UK out of a global war.
Thats real life talking points.
Badenoch and Farage are desperate for Starmer to go, if course they are, the former is fading faster than Arsenal and the latter is about as relevant as a wet fart.
How is The Guardian "a right wing chocolate tea cup"?
Below is a summary of how and when the PM was told on Tuesday evening that “the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson” (DV = security clearance to be US ambassador or any sensitive government position that has access to secret material)
From: Dan York-Smith Sent: 15 April 2026 13:38 To: Antonia Romeo <[email address]>; Catherine Little <[email address]> Cc: [JCS] <[email address]>; Vidhya Alakeson <[email address]>; PM Private Office Support Team - Internal <[email address]>; Symes, Elkie - CO (OFF-SEN) <[email address]> Subject: LIMDIS Readout of PM meeting on vetting
Antonia, Cat
Thanks for coming to see the PM (joined by Vidhya and me) on Tuesday evening to update him on the Humble Address and security vetting.
Cat set out that the vetting process involved UKSV in the Cabinet Office producing a vetting file which included a recommendation on whether DV should be granted, which was then passed to the sponsor department, in this case FCDO. As part of the Humble Address process, that file had been shared with Cat.
On reviewing the file she had therefore learned that the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. There is some discretion for departments to proceed with clearance and the FCDO had exercised it in this case, granting Mandelson vetting clearance. Cat had not seen the audit trail for this decision so we did not yet know on what basis the decision had been taken, contrary to the recommendation.
The PM was not aware of any of this before the meeting, including that it was even possible to grant clearance against the advice of UKSV. There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV before the document was shared with CO to comply with the Humble Address.
We said that we had wanted to make him aware of the situation at the earliest opportunity.
Our advice to the PM was that further fact finding was required, to understand the FCDO decision making process and reasons for granting clearance and to determine whether ministers, having been provided (incorrectly) with assurances about the process, had inadvertently misled Parliament when commenting on the process which had been followed.
The terms of review into the vetting system that has already been announced would also need considering in light of the new information on the circumstances around Mandelson's clearance.
The PM agreed with this advice and asked for the facts to be established urgently and advice on how to proceed from there including in terms of informing Parliament.
Dan Dan York-Smith | Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister | 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA | [Phone Number]
I mean, seriously, would you work for this man? So many of those who chose to have been thrown under @TSE's bus. Its never his fault. Someone else, possibly you if you were so foolish, will take the blame. It's the way he works.
And of course he explicitly promised the Labour membership that he never throws his staff under the bus.
I know Boris was a liar as well, but you would have thought intelligent people wouldn't just suppose that his enemy was straight just because he told them so.
Perhaps the person who keeps appointing such terrible advisers to the govt should step down.
My former student Jacob Hall has a piece out in the European Review of Economic History where he measures travel speeds in Medieval Europe using "itinerant kings" who moved around with their courts.
15 miles a day in the medieval period is by no means insanely slowly. The roads were poor to non existent, most of the King's caravan would be travelling on foot and there would be no need to rush.
The Roman army travelled aproximately 20 miles a day along well made roads and they were fit and trained to do it.
To be honest 15 miles a day for the King's caravan is positively speedy.
My former student Jacob Hall has a piece out in the European Review of Economic History where he measures travel speeds in Medieval Europe using "itinerant kings" who moved around with their courts.
15 miles a day in the medieval period is by no means insanely slowly. The roads were poor to non existent, most of the King's caravan would be travelling on foot and there would be no need to rush.
The Roman army travelled aproximately 20 miles a day along well made roads and they were fit and trained to do it.
To be honest 15 miles a day for the King's caravan is positively speedy.
I assume they meant insanely slow to us. I'm frankly surprised it was so far given all the stuff they'd probably bring with them.
My former student Jacob Hall has a piece out in the European Review of Economic History where he measures travel speeds in Medieval Europe using "itinerant kings" who moved around with their courts.
15 miles a day in the medieval period is by no means insanely slowly. The roads were poor to non existent, most of the King's caravan would be travelling on foot and there would be no need to rush.
The Roman army travelled aproximately 20 miles a day along well made roads and they were fit and trained to do it.
To be honest 15 miles a day for the King's caravan is positively speedy.
Below is a summary of how and when the PM was told on Tuesday evening that “the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson” (DV = security clearance to be US ambassador or any sensitive government position that has access to secret material)
From: Dan York-Smith Sent: 15 April 2026 13:38 To: Antonia Romeo <[email address]>; Catherine Little <[email address]> Cc: [JCS] <[email address]>; Vidhya Alakeson <[email address]>; PM Private Office Support Team - Internal <[email address]>; Symes, Elkie - CO (OFF-SEN) <[email address]> Subject: LIMDIS Readout of PM meeting on vetting
Antonia, Cat
Thanks for coming to see the PM (joined by Vidhya and me) on Tuesday evening to update him on the Humble Address and security vetting.
Cat set out that the vetting process involved UKSV in the Cabinet Office producing a vetting file which included a recommendation on whether DV should be granted, which was then passed to the sponsor department, in this case FCDO. As part of the Humble Address process, that file had been shared with Cat.
On reviewing the file she had therefore learned that the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. There is some discretion for departments to proceed with clearance and the FCDO had exercised it in this case, granting Mandelson vetting clearance. Cat had not seen the audit trail for this decision so we did not yet know on what basis the decision had been taken, contrary to the recommendation.
The PM was not aware of any of this before the meeting, including that it was even possible to grant clearance against the advice of UKSV. There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV before the document was shared with CO to comply with the Humble Address.
We said that we had wanted to make him aware of the situation at the earliest opportunity.
Our advice to the PM was that further fact finding was required, to understand the FCDO decision making process and reasons for granting clearance and to determine whether ministers, having been provided (incorrectly) with assurances about the process, had inadvertently misled Parliament when commenting on the process which had been followed.
The terms of review into the vetting system that has already been announced would also need considering in light of the new information on the circumstances around Mandelson's clearance.
The PM agreed with this advice and asked for the facts to be established urgently and advice on how to proceed from there including in terms of informing Parliament.
Dan Dan York-Smith | Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister | 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA | [Phone Number]
Starmer's get out of jail card
I just don’t buy any of this growing mountain of total bullshit. It’s gaslighting. You have to believe the entire British civil service conspired to keep the prime minister in the dark that his personally chosen and controversial appointee for our most important diplomatic job failed the fundamental vetting test. And all of this at the same time that the prime minister KNEW that the same controversial man remained friends with a known pedophile and child sex offender after the pedo was convicted
Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence
It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives
It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK
The line that No. 10 is getting loyal MPs to trot out this evening is "Starmer's kept us out of a war". That is correct, but it's independent of his appointment of Mandelson. Being right in one case doesn't magically cancel out a serious error of judgement, or even worse lying to Parliament.
If anyone at No. 10 is reading, this deflection doesn't work, generally it just makes people even more annoyed.
Last time it was, Starmer, he cares a lot about women and girls.....
Well, not the young ones being taken advantage in...never mind, won't go there.
Well, now.
This time last year I was in hospital. During my stay the Supreme Court judgment on the proper interpretation of the Equality Act came out - on 16 April 2025. A year later the government has yet to issue the guidance to help service providers. It has said it will do so in May which means that it may not come into force until September, a year and a half after the judgment of the UK's top court. This delay puts service providers at legal risk, though of course they should be taking legal advice on the law, and it has given those who don't want to comply an excuse for not doing so. Even the UN has stated that British women and girls have been "left exposed" by the government's failure.
This behaviour shows utter contempt for Britain's women, the Supreme Court and the rule of law itself. Remarkably, it is happening under a government led by a piously self-regarding human rights lawyer with an Attorney-General insistent on compliance with every dot and comma of international law but blithely unconcerned with the government's failure to comply with domestic law. Taking its cue from this, the civil service has refused to withdraw its current unlawful internal policies, presumably on the basis that if the government can't be arsed with paying attention to the law, why should they be.
So I may write to him and point out that - 1. Invasive lobular breast cancer, which I have, is the 2nd most common type of breast cancer. 2. The current screening programme is ineffective at detecting it - either with mammograms, ultrasound or physical examination. 3. Women are not told this when they go for screening. They are given false reassurance, as I was, for many years. So that barely a year after a screening which told me there was no problem, I was told that not only had I had it for some time but it had progressed to Stage 4 and was now in my spine, ribs and pelvis. It is incurable. This false reassurance - and dismal outcome - is probably happening to other women right now, some of whom will be your wives, daughters, sisters, mothers etc.,. 4. Is this an example of the medical misogyny he is talking about and, if so, what is he proposing to do about this?
I am very happy to raise my voice on this but given that I first raised this issue with my health trust last November and got a reply at the end of March, how serious is he. Because frankly whatever Ministers from the PM down say about women & girls strikes me as so much hot air with little action behind it.
If U.S. naval blockade persists, Tehran will consider it a violation of the ceasefire and will close the Strait of Hormuz, an Iranian official tells Fars News.
The line that No. 10 is getting loyal MPs to trot out this evening is "Starmer's kept us out of a war". That is correct, but it's independent of his appointment of Mandelson. Being right in one case doesn't magically cancel out a serious error of judgement, or even worse lying to Parliament.
If anyone at No. 10 is reading, this deflection doesn't work, generally it just makes people even more annoyed.
It's very late-stage Gordon Brown. "He's respected abroad... This is no time for a novice..."
We've done the whole of Labour's last period in government in under 24 months. The world really has sped up.
My former student Jacob Hall has a piece out in the European Review of Economic History where he measures travel speeds in Medieval Europe using "itinerant kings" who moved around with their courts.
15 miles a day in the medieval period is by no means insanely slowly. The roads were poor to non existent, most of the King's caravan would be travelling on foot and there would be no need to rush.
The Roman army travelled aproximately 20 miles a day along well made roads and they were fit and trained to do it.
To be honest 15 miles a day for the King's caravan is positively speedy.
Movinmg out of London to say Berkshire would have been faster because of travelling a chunk of the way along the Thames. So Henry VIII travelling to Ewelme outside Reading might be 50 miles, but doable in a day.
Comments
All it does is convey slightly more (unjustified) credibility. It certainly isn't journalism.
(Not really, of course)
My former student Jacob Hall has a piece out in the European Review of Economic History where he measures travel speeds in Medieval Europe using "itinerant kings" who moved around with their courts.
The TLDR is that they travelled at roughly 15 miles per day -- insanely slow. There was huge variance but globally pretty slow.
https://nitter.poast.org/VincentGeloso/status/2045183073256398905#m
Olly Robins has confirmed he followed procedure.
Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed he was not told until Tuesday this week
Both are entirely compatible.
Just a load of hot air that 95% of the population frankly don't give a shit about.
Excellent NHS results relative to recent past 5 yrars
Highest monthly growth in nearky 4 years in February
Starmer keeping UK out of a global war.
Thats real life talking points.
Badenoch and Farage are desperate for Starmer to go, if course they are, the former is fading faster than Arsenal and the latter is about as relevant as a wet fart.
Transparent and ludicrous.
PBers, as well as Starmer and Michael Gove seem utterly flabbergasted that Mandelson was a wrong 'un.
https://x.com/Peston/status/2045194038165258700
Below is a summary of how and when the PM was told on Tuesday evening that “the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to
Peter Mandelson” (DV = security clearance to be US ambassador or any sensitive government position that has access to secret material)
From: Dan York-Smith
Sent: 15 April 2026 13:38
To: Antonia Romeo <[email address]>; Catherine Little <[email address]>
Cc: [JCS] <[email address]>; Vidhya Alakeson <[email address]>; PM Private Office Support
Team - Internal <[email address]>; Symes, Elkie - CO (OFF-SEN) <[email address]>
Subject: LIMDIS Readout of PM meeting on vetting
Antonia, Cat
Thanks for coming to see the PM (joined by Vidhya and me) on Tuesday evening to update him on the Humble Address and security vetting.
Cat set out that the vetting process involved UKSV in the Cabinet Office producing a vetting file which included a recommendation on whether DV should be granted, which was then passed to the sponsor department, in this case FCDO. As part of the Humble Address
process, that file had been shared with Cat.
On reviewing the file she had therefore learned that the recommendation from the vetting officer had been that DV should not be granted to Peter Mandelson. There is some discretion for departments to proceed with clearance and
the FCDO had exercised it in this case, granting Mandelson vetting clearance. Cat had not seen the audit trail for this decision so we did not yet know on what basis the decision had been taken, contrary to the recommendation.
The PM was not aware of any of this before the meeting, including that it was even possible to grant clearance against the advice of UKSV. There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV before the document was shared with CO to comply with the Humble Address.
We said that we had wanted to make him aware of the situation at the earliest opportunity.
Our advice to the PM was that further fact finding was required, to understand the FCDO decision making process and reasons for granting clearance and to determine whether
ministers, having been provided (incorrectly) with assurances about the process, had inadvertently misled Parliament when commenting on the process which had been followed.
The terms of review into the vetting system that has already been announced would also need considering in light of the new information on the circumstances around Mandelson's clearance.
The PM agreed with this advice and asked for the facts to be established urgently and
advice on how to proceed from there including in terms of informing Parliament.
Dan
Dan York-Smith | Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister | 10 Downing Street,
London, SW1A 2AA | [Phone Number]
It's just that turning a resignation demand into an actual resignation is one of the few ways that an opposition politician can make their mark on history.
Bad thing happens- opposition calls for resignation-nothing happens is very much the default setting.
We so should have called the non-metro Mayors, Counts.
Including:
"Also hacks shd be asking:
Who officially authorised Mandelson for STRAP clearance?
You don't get to read very sensitive material, like transcripts of intercepted calls between important people, just because you've got DV - you *also* need STRAP.
Either a) an official cleared Mandy for STRAP or else b) the requirement / 3+ month delay was waived by the PM, or c) we're supposed to believe Mandy wasn't shown STRAP material?
So which official authorised it or did the PM waive it? When?"
https://x.com/Dominic2306/status/2045188506541003081
Having seen the decision (apparently), why was it not easy to quickly find the reason?
And asking how long before he resigned in a scandal. Because he always did, in his other government jobs.
The Cabinet shall appoint one of its members, in consultation with the NEC
I know Boris was a liar as well, but you would have thought intelligent people wouldn't just suppose that his enemy was straight just because he told them so.
Or just stop making shit up about random, unnamed posters
LDs getting their usual pre local elections bounce but still fifth
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/17/keir-starmer-kept-in-dark-peter-mandelson-vetting-two-top-civil-servants
The Roman army travelled aproximately 20 miles a day along well made roads and they were fit and trained to do it.
To be honest 15 miles a day for the King's caravan is positively speedy.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/apr/17/government-grant-wrexham-afc-ryan-reynolds-rob-mac
Apparently the chowder is ace
I’m also fuckin knackered. These road trips are intense
The public: Oh! Right, the LDs exist, I remember now.
1 month after:
The public: Who the f*ck are the LDs?
NEW THREAD
Whole civil service seems to have known. But not Keir
Meanwhile the PM’s aide’s phone containing all the most important messages was miraculously stolen at the best possible moment to hide that evidence
It’s utterly ridiculous. Now they’re trying to muddy the water with endless long confusing emails they’ve made up and ridiculous screeds of boring verbiage in the hope we all get bored and confused and somehow Skyr survives
It might even work. But every day Skyr survives as the least popular premier in history, getting even less popular by the hour, damages the Labour Party, hampers the government, makes their re-election even less likely and is a sad state of affairs for the UK
This time last year I was in hospital. During my stay the Supreme Court judgment on the proper interpretation of the Equality Act came out - on 16 April 2025. A year later the government has yet to issue the guidance to help service providers. It has said it will do so in May which means that it may not come into force until September, a year and a half after the judgment of the UK's top court. This delay puts service providers at legal risk, though of course they should be taking legal advice on the law, and it has given those who don't want to comply an excuse for not doing so. Even the UN has stated that British women and girls have been "left exposed" by the government's failure.
This behaviour shows utter contempt for Britain's women, the Supreme Court and the rule of law itself. Remarkably, it is happening under a government led by a piously self-regarding human rights lawyer with an Attorney-General insistent on compliance with every dot and comma of international law but blithely unconcerned with the government's failure to comply with domestic law. Taking its cue from this, the civil service has refused to withdraw its current unlawful internal policies, presumably on the basis that if the government can't be arsed with paying attention to the law, why should they be.
Still Streeting came out with a renewed Women's Health Strategy on Tuesday - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/womens-voices-to-be-at-the-heart-of-renewed-health-strategy - because of the terrible effects of misogyny in the NHS.
Which is lovely.
So I may write to him and point out that -
1. Invasive lobular breast cancer, which I have, is the 2nd most common type of breast cancer.
2. The current screening programme is ineffective at detecting it - either with mammograms, ultrasound or physical examination.
3. Women are not told this when they go for screening. They are given false reassurance, as I was, for many years. So that barely a year after a screening which told me there was no problem, I was told that not only had I had it for some time but it had progressed to Stage 4 and was now in my spine, ribs and pelvis. It is incurable. This false reassurance - and dismal outcome - is probably happening to other women right now, some of whom will be your wives, daughters, sisters, mothers etc.,.
4. Is this an example of the medical misogyny he is talking about and, if so, what is he proposing to do about this?
I am very happy to raise my voice on this but given that I first raised this issue with my health trust last November and got a reply at the end of March, how serious is he. Because frankly whatever Ministers from the PM down say about women & girls strikes me as so much hot air with little action behind it.
If U.S. naval blockade persists, Tehran will consider it a violation of the ceasefire and will close the Strait of Hormuz, an Iranian official tells Fars News.