Has Burnham given any indication as to what he would do differently as PM or all his energies concentrated on the process of becoming PM ?
Who was the last PM to have a meaningful idea of what they would do in office before they got to it? Cameron and Blair were essentially soundbites. Johnson was a chameleon. Sunak was a technocrat. Starmer likewise. Callaghan and Major too. Truss I will give you but her ideas turned out to be insane and she only lasted six weeks. Thatcher claimed to have a plan in her memoirs but she gave little indication of it before coming in and there's always a suspicion that she made it up as she went along. Heath had a plan but never tried to implement it.
Do we have to go back to Wilson before Truss? And before him Attlee?
That speaks to something more fundamental than simply the character (or lack of it) of a PrimeMInister.
The more worrying answer is simply there was no plan because there is no plan. I called it "the death of ideology" a while back - Thatcher had a plan of sorts though it was really the 1983 victory which allowed her to pursue it. Attlee had circumstances quite unlike anything before or since.
Before that, perhaps Asquith in 1906 - the three radical reforming Governments of the 20th century.
Now, there is no radical, reforming ideology out there - the centre left has had no economic policy since 2008, the centre right knows austerity (whatever that means) doesn't work and has no ideas. The populists have filled the gap but their plans are fiscally incoherent.
To her credit, Badenoch has started to see a way forward but unfortunately, in order to win power, she has to get votes and that means uncosted promises so she too will end up having questions to answer about the financial viability of her party's proposals.
So, successive Prime Ministers are in office but not in power to use a hackneyed old expression. There's a worrying retreat into ethno-nationalism on all sides -the old sense of "looking after our own" (however that is defined). The adversarial nature of modern politics prevents the kind of cross-cutting concensus which might drive forward meaningful reform.
No one wants to touch pensioner benefits because pensioners vote and in large numbers whereas, it seems, younger people don't. The other side of that is the aspirational minority are also ignored - those who simply want better lives for themselves and their families (yes, they are praised and called "hard working" but that's often not through choice).
The "solutions" peddled round on sites like this become increasingly nonsensical - some have argued cutting benefits by 50%. No Government is going to do that, ever.
Asquith was not leader in 1906, but yes, I agree with your general point.
With Thatcher, (also a reply to @DavidL ) I think her ideas were mostly slogans. She talked, for example, about curbing the unions but at first had little idea of how to go about it. Indeed, if anything they did it to themselves with the disastrous strike at British Steel. She also talked about stemming inflation but her policies on how to do it were fairly unclear. It is true she did eventually come up with some ideas to turn them into some form of reality but they often seemed to be rather a long way from what she talked about.
Indeed, Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman led the Liberals to the great landslide of 1906. He was also the most radical figure in the party- opposed to the Boer war and determined to launch real social and economic change. Although he died only a couple of years after coming to office and has often been called "the unknown Prime Minister", there is certainly a case for him being seen as the most consequential figure in the politics of his time. Lloyd George and Churchill were both devotees of this remarkable man.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
We should remember Grenfell was deemed to be completely safe as a result of the process followed despite the fact all parts of the material failed safety checks.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
Very eloquently put and i agree 100% The only reason i can think of thats likely is deliberately not asking so that 1) appointnent can proceed and 2) plausible deniability
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
I think Robbins' motive in over riding the vetting result and keeping quiet about it, was to avoid embarrassing the PM. That didn't go well!
When Starmer asked about the vetting result (and I think he almost certainly did) there were two possible answers. The original vetting conclusion and the override conclusion. He was given the latter without reference to the former.
Has Burnham given any indication as to what he would do differently as PM or all his energies concentrated on the process of becoming PM ?
Who was the last PM to have a meaningful idea of what they would do in office before they got to it? Cameron and Blair were essentially soundbites. Johnson was a chameleon. Sunak was a technocrat. Starmer likewise. Callaghan and Major too. Truss I will give you but her ideas turned out to be insane and she only lasted six weeks. Thatcher claimed to have a plan in her memoirs but she gave little indication of it before coming in and there's always a suspicion that she made it up as she went along. Heath had a plan but never tried to implement it.
Do we have to go back to Wilson before Truss? And before him Attlee?
That speaks to something more fundamental than simply the character (or lack of it) of a PrimeMInister.
The more worrying answer is simply there was no plan because there is no plan. I called it "the death of ideology" a while back - Thatcher had a plan of sorts though it was really the 1983 victory which allowed her to pursue it. Attlee had circumstances quite unlike anything before or since.
Before that, perhaps Asquith in 1906 - the three radical reforming Governments of the 20th century.
Now, there is no radical, reforming ideology out there - the centre left has had no economic policy since 2008, the centre right knows austerity (whatever that means) doesn't work and has no ideas. The populists have filled the gap but their plans are fiscally incoherent.
To her credit, Badenoch has started to see a way forward but unfortunately, in order to win power, she has to get votes and that means uncosted promises so she too will end up having questions to answer about the financial viability of her party's proposals.
So, successive Prime Ministers are in office but not in power to use a hackneyed old expression. There's a worrying retreat into ethno-nationalism on all sides -the old sense of "looking after our own" (however that is defined). The adversarial nature of modern politics prevents the kind of cross-cutting concensus which might drive forward meaningful reform.
No one wants to touch pensioner benefits because pensioners vote and in large numbers whereas, it seems, younger people don't. The other side of that is the aspirational minority are also ignored - those who simply want better lives for themselves and their families (yes, they are praised and called "hard working" but that's often not through choice).
The "solutions" peddled round on sites like this become increasingly nonsensical - some have argued cutting benefits by 50%. No Government is going to do that, ever.
Asquith was not leader in 1906, but yes, I agree with your general point.
With Thatcher, (also a reply to @DavidL ) I think her ideas were mostly slogans. She talked, for example, about curbing the unions but at first had little idea of how to go about it. Indeed, if anything they did it to themselves with the disastrous strike at British Steel. She also talked about stemming inflation but her policies on how to do it were fairly unclear. It is true she did eventually come up with some ideas to turn them into some form of reality but they often seemed to be rather a long way from what she talked about.
Indeed, Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman led the Liberals to the great landslide of 1906. He was also the most radical figure in the party- opposed to the Boer war and determined to launch real social and economic change. Although he died only a couple of years after coming to office and has often been called "the unknown Prime Minister", there is certainly a case for him being seen as the most consequential figure in the politics of his time. Lloyd George and Churchill were both devotees of this remarkable man.
That was Bonar Law - a name ironically given to him by Asquith (who loathed him).
'It is fitting we have buried the unknown Prime Minister next to the unknown soldier.'
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Has Burnham given any indication as to what he would do differently as PM or all his energies concentrated on the process of becoming PM ?
Who was the last PM to have a meaningful idea of what they would do in office before they got to it? Cameron and Blair were essentially soundbites. Johnson was a chameleon. Sunak was a technocrat. Starmer likewise. Callaghan and Major too. Truss I will give you but her ideas turned out to be insane and she only lasted six weeks. Thatcher claimed to have a plan in her memoirs but she gave little indication of it before coming in and there's always a suspicion that she made it up as she went along. Heath had a plan but never tried to implement it.
Do we have to go back to Wilson before Truss? And before him Attlee?
That speaks to something more fundamental than simply the character (or lack of it) of a PrimeMInister.
The more worrying answer is simply there was no plan because there is no plan. I called it "the death of ideology" a while back - Thatcher had a plan of sorts though it was really the 1983 victory which allowed her to pursue it. Attlee had circumstances quite unlike anything before or since.
Before that, perhaps Asquith in 1906 - the three radical reforming Governments of the 20th century.
Now, there is no radical, reforming ideology out there - the centre left has had no economic policy since 2008, the centre right knows austerity (whatever that means) doesn't work and has no ideas. The populists have filled the gap but their plans are fiscally incoherent.
To her credit, Badenoch has started to see a way forward but unfortunately, in order to win power, she has to get votes and that means uncosted promises so she too will end up having questions to answer about the financial viability of her party's proposals.
So, successive Prime Ministers are in office but not in power to use a hackneyed old expression. There's a worrying retreat into ethno-nationalism on all sides -the old sense of "looking after our own" (however that is defined). The adversarial nature of modern politics prevents the kind of cross-cutting concensus which might drive forward meaningful reform.
No one wants to touch pensioner benefits because pensioners vote and in large numbers whereas, it seems, younger people don't. The other side of that is the aspirational minority are also ignored - those who simply want better lives for themselves and their families (yes, they are praised and called "hard working" but that's often not through choice).
The "solutions" peddled round on sites like this become increasingly nonsensical - some have argued cutting benefits by 50%. No Government is going to do that, ever.
Asquith was not leader in 1906, but yes, I agree with your general point.
With Thatcher, (also a reply to @DavidL ) I think her ideas were mostly slogans. She talked, for example, about curbing the unions but at first had little idea of how to go about it. Indeed, if anything they did it to themselves with the disastrous strike at British Steel. She also talked about stemming inflation but her policies on how to do it were fairly unclear. It is true she did eventually come up with some ideas to turn them into some form of reality but they often seemed to be rather a long way from what she talked about.
Knowing what you want to achieve is a good step in the right (=correct) direction.
Has Burnham given any indication as to what he would do differently as PM or all his energies concentrated on the process of becoming PM ?
Who was the last PM to have a meaningful idea of what they would do in office before they got to it? Cameron and Blair were essentially soundbites. Johnson was a chameleon. Sunak was a technocrat. Starmer likewise. Callaghan and Major too. Truss I will give you but her ideas turned out to be insane and she only lasted six weeks. Thatcher claimed to have a plan in her memoirs but she gave little indication of it before coming in and there's always a suspicion that she made it up as she went along. Heath had a plan but never tried to implement it.
Do we have to go back to Wilson before Truss? And before him Attlee?
I think that is a little harsh. Thatcherism had real political heft behind it and clear objectives. These included reform of our labour laws in a way not really challenged since. Remember flying pickets and the violence (as well as the self destructive nature of so many disputes)? She was very into sound money and monetarism. Both of those were there from the start. I accept these themes got embellished as she went along and not always in good ways but there was a plan.
Blair also had plans although many of the more significant ones came from Brown. Independence for the BoE, Surestart, a focus on failing schools that had largely been ignored before. Lots of other silly stuff as well of course.
Cameron inherited an absolute disaster zone which I think threw most of his ambitions into the bin. Everything was driven by the need to restore our finances but his "fix the roof while the sun is shining" drove his government. Socially liberal too with gay marriage etc.
Sunak faced almost as bad a situation as Cameron. The lack of money for any ambition has been a common theme for all PMs since 2010.
and yet we spend a decade faffing around with the dead end of brexit
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
We should remember Grenfell was deemed to be completely safe as a result of the process followed despite the fact all parts of the material failed safety checks.
Good point, and it does suggest that something is rotten in the system as a whole. Maybe there is a case for Polanski or Farage. Although experience suggests that corruption and incompetence would be far worse under the latter.
The only “big” call Starmer got right was Iran. But that was a very big call.
Imagine we’d been dragged into that. What would people be saying now?
Yes, I'd grant that he got that call right and it was tricky because he still has to maintain a working relationship with Trump, whether he likes it or not. What I'd really like to know though is why he was so keen to have Mandelson as Ambassador. I think if we understood that we'd understand a lot of things.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to hearing what Sir Olly has to say on Tuesday. I read what he said to the Foreign Affairs Committee when questioned previously about the vetting and although you could say that technically he did not lie he was certainly being extremely economical with the truth. He now has the opportunity to tell us all exactly why he thought it was right to withhold the vital information from the PM.
On topic, Burnham is clearly not suited to greater things as he is singularly incapable of ensuring that all his secret plotting remains secret. Unless, of course, the journalists have made an error in their definition of 'secret'.
No humans in the action. The Russians surrendered to machines made of metal and plastic.
Ukraine are forming more drone units with a minimum number of human soldiers.
If they'd listened to the Biden administration they would have conscripted all their young men and sent them to the front to die instead of developing machines to do the fighting for them.
Early in the war I was mocked for suggesting that Ukraine might end up chasing Russia out of Ukraine with drones. That possibility comes closer to becoming reality.
Another 1,070 Russian troops and 87 artillery pieces/MLRS not reporting for duty in Ukraine today.
The artillery has been hammered this week - 464 pieces whacked. It seems as soon as they open up, the drones now locate and destroy them, using operators many miles distant. The chance of the Russians hitting back at those attackers are minimal. Destroying Russian artillery ends Russia's ability to wage war the way it likes: flatten a town with artillery, send in troops to capture the rubble, advance the artillery, repeat. Drones now mean grey areas tens of miles wide. Any advance into that grey area ends in carnage - before the Russians even see a Ukrainian position. Hence you get reported kill ratios of 25:1.
Any rational army would retreat, knowing it is beaten.
Under Putin, any rational generals would be sent to lead from the front.
Meanwhile, the schools, hospitals, markets, residential tower blocks of the Ukainian populace get hit - because that is the only war Russia can now wage: terror.
If the Ukrainians were to respond in kind and flatten Moscow and St. Petersburg schools, hospitals, markets, tower blocks, then Putin would have only himself to blame. But rather tha terrorising the Russian population, Ukraine is doing something far more effective: destroying the Russian economy.
In 1914-21 the Russian economy managed to sustain seven years of war, but was an absolute wreck at the end of it - economic activity as a whole down 79%, grain harvest down 52%, steel production down by 98%, brick production down by an even more staggering 99.99%.
The war is into its fifth year. Where is this going for Russia? Wheat harvests look set to be up this year on last year's absolute disaster but they are still down 10% on before the war. Oil production has rebounded from the absolute crash in mid-2022 but is still down about 8%. Oil exports are down more, at closer to 10%. Gold production is down 14% too.
Russia's economy has survived much better than expected but it is still not doing well. Two more years of this would not be helpful for it although Trump is doing his best to support them.
Their oil export numbers are now way down on those figures, since August of last year.
Ukraine has spent a long time destroying irreplaceable air defence kit. It is now getting to the point where Ukraine can bust its way through to almost anywhere west of the Urals. And is. Strategic manufacturing - weapons, chemicals, specialist metals and electronics, explosives - all are taking a real hammering, night after night.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
$150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.
People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.
lol
Have you been to America? If only our country was as broken as theirs. Jeez
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
I think Robbins' motive in over riding the vetting result and keeping quiet about it, was to avoid embarrassing the PM. That didn't go well!
When Starmer asked about the vetting result (and I think he almost certainly did) there were two possible answers. The original vetting conclusion and the override conclusion. He was given the latter without reference to the former.
Then Robbins has to say that on Tuesday. He also has to explain his actions. Now I think we can safely assume he is not a jerk, but frankly I find it difficult to understand what good reason he can have had. I guess I may find out soon.
The only “big” call Starmer got right was Iran. But that was a very big call.
Imagine we’d been dragged into that. What would people be saying now?
Yes, I'd grant that he got that call right and it was tricky because he still has to maintain a working relationship with Trump, whether he likes it or not. What I'd really like to know though is why he was so keen to have Mandelson as Ambassador. I think if we understood that we'd understand a lot of things.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to hearing what Sir Olly has to say on Tuesday. I read what he said to the Foreign Affairs Committee when questioned previously about the vetting and although you could say that technically he did not lie he was certainly being extremely economical with the truth. He now has the opportunity to tell us all exactly why he thought it was right to withhold the vital information from the PM.
Fascinating.
It will be somewhat ironic if Starmer thinks he has survived Monday, only for his minimalist mea culpa to the House to be shot full of holes by Sir Olly the very next day. I mean, what has he got to lose?
There's a fine line between tenacity and self-delusion and I would put Burnham on the wrong side of it.
I have no doubt Burnham will end up being PM.
But like Starmer, there is this idea he will be a good one just because he isn’t Starmer. Burnham’s previous attempts at running for leader were pretty bad.
Now maybe he’s improved a lot since then but I’m not really seeing this cabinet of ideas others are. No doubt he’s a significantly better speaker than Starmer though and I suspect Labour will lead the polls if he takes over. But it may well be a very short honeymoon as reality bites.
His comments on the markets though give me great cause for concern.
I count myself as a Burnham-sceptic, but in his favour he can credibly claim to have been a successful Mayor of Greater Manchester.
What can Starmer claim to have been good at? His stint as DPP looks poor. As leader of the opposition he almost bungled the election campaign, saved by being so far ahead.
I see the “most read” article in the Spectator is an absurd disquisition about the grossness of British toilets. The trivialisation of our public life continues
On topic, Burnham is clearly not suited to greater things as he is singularly incapable of ensuring that all his secret plotting remains secret. Unless, of course, the journalists have made an error in their definition of 'secret'.
Well we know he wants to return to Parliament because he said it publicly. For what other purpose?
The only “big” call Starmer got right was Iran. But that was a very big call.
Imagine we’d been dragged into that. What would people be saying now?
Yes, I'd grant that he got that call right and it was tricky because he still has to maintain a working relationship with Trump, whether he likes it or not. What I'd really like to know though is why he was so keen to have Mandelson as Ambassador. I think if we understood that we'd understand a lot of things.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to hearing what Sir Olly has to say on Tuesday. I read what he said to the Foreign Affairs Committee when questioned previously about the vetting and although you could say that technically he did not lie he was certainly being extremely economical with the truth. He now has the opportunity to tell us all exactly why he thought it was right to withhold the vital information from the PM.
Fascinating.
It will be somewhat ironic if Starmer thinks he has survived Monday, only for his minimalist mea culpa to the House to be shot full of holes by Sir Olly the very next day. I mean, what has he got to lose?
Hmmm...he may be looking forward to some lucrative directorship, in which case he wouldn't want to tarnish his reputation by shooting his mouth of. But I think his scope for further sophistry of the type he indulged in before the FAC is pretty limited.
If he's going to tell fibs, they are going to have to be believable.
I see the “most read” article in the Spectator is an absurd disquisition about the grossness of British toilets. The trivialisation of our public life continues
There's a fine line between tenacity and self-delusion and I would put Burnham on the wrong side of it.
I have no doubt Burnham will end up being PM.
But like Starmer, there is this idea he will be a good one just because he isn’t Starmer. Burnham’s previous attempts at running for leader were pretty bad.
Now maybe he’s improved a lot since then but I’m not really seeing this cabinet of ideas others are. No doubt he’s a significantly better speaker than Starmer though and I suspect Labour will lead the polls if he takes over. But it may well be a very short honeymoon as reality bites.
His comments on the markets though give me great cause for concern.
I count myself as a Burnham-sceptic, but in his favour he can credibly claim to have been a successful Mayor of Greater Manchester.
What can Starmer claim to have been good at? His stint as DPP looks poor. As leader of the opposition he almost bungled the election campaign, saved by being so far ahead.
I think he ran a very good opposition campaign in all honesty, one of the better ones in recent years.
As for Burnham yes that’s true and the main thing that makes me question if I am being too unfair. But his record as a minster is poor.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
The only “big” call Starmer got right was Iran. But that was a very big call.
Imagine we’d been dragged into that. What would people be saying now?
Yes, I'd grant that he got that call right and it was tricky because he still has to maintain a working relationship with Trump, whether he likes it or not. What I'd really like to know though is why he was so keen to have Mandelson as Ambassador. I think if we understood that we'd understand a lot of things.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to hearing what Sir Olly has to say on Tuesday. I read what he said to the Foreign Affairs Committee when questioned previously about the vetting and although you could say that technically he did not lie he was certainly being extremely economical with the truth. He now has the opportunity to tell us all exactly why he thought it was right to withhold the vital information from the PM.
Fascinating.
It will be somewhat ironic if Starmer thinks he has survived Monday, only for his minimalist mea culpa to the House to be shot full of holes by Sir Olly the very next day. I mean, what has he got to lose?
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
"Has he passed the vetting?" "Yes" Not "Yes, but we ignored the vetting"
I think Starmer's problems start with McSweeney, that led to The "Ming vase" strategy which has resulted in no underlying purpose to Starmer's premiership, just getting elected and reacting to the press Control of PPCs leading to selection of more ambitious, less ideological, candidates rather than those with a reason to be an MP The "Blue Labour" BS Ousting of Sue Gray Appointment of Mandelson as ambassador
McSweeney had a very long association with Mandelson, so making McSweeney his Chief of Staff seems to have resulted in Mandelson having unseen influence in Starmer's office and I'm sure Mandelson would have had Starmer's advisors lobbying for Mandelson to be US ambassador.
Maguire and Pogrund "McSweeney and his acolytes saw themselves as insurgents within the Labour Party. As long as Starmer’s private office was functional, they could control the party’s politics themselves — without interference from small-minded Westminster villagers. They knew that Starmer’s real life — his true self — was not the work they shared with him. Their political project was predicated on this unpolitical leader doing as he was told."
Has Burnham given any indication as to what he would do differently as PM or all his energies concentrated on the process of becoming PM ?
Who was the last PM to have a meaningful idea of what they would do in office before they got to it? Cameron and Blair were essentially soundbites. Johnson was a chameleon. Sunak was a technocrat. Starmer likewise. Callaghan and Major too. Truss I will give you but her ideas turned out to be insane and she only lasted six weeks. Thatcher claimed to have a plan in her memoirs but she gave little indication of it before coming in and there's always a suspicion that she made it up as she went along. Heath had a plan but never tried to implement it.
Do we have to go back to Wilson before Truss? And before him Attlee?
That speaks to something more fundamental than simply the character (or lack of it) of a PrimeMInister.
The more worrying answer is simply there was no plan because there is no plan. I called it "the death of ideology" a while back - Thatcher had a plan of sorts though it was really the 1983 victory which allowed her to pursue it. Attlee had circumstances quite unlike anything before or since.
Before that, perhaps Asquith in 1906 - the three radical reforming Governments of the 20th century.
Now, there is no radical, reforming ideology out there - the centre left has had no economic policy since 2008, the centre right knows austerity (whatever that means) doesn't work and has no ideas. The populists have filled the gap but their plans are fiscally incoherent.
To her credit, Badenoch has started to see a way forward but unfortunately, in order to win power, she has to get votes and that means uncosted promises so she too will end up having questions to answer about the financial viability of her party's proposals.
So, successive Prime Ministers are in office but not in power to use a hackneyed old expression. There's a worrying retreat into ethno-nationalism on all sides -the old sense of "looking after our own" (however that is defined). The adversarial nature of modern politics prevents the kind of cross-cutting concensus which might drive forward meaningful reform.
No one wants to touch pensioner benefits because pensioners vote and in large numbers whereas, it seems, younger people don't. The other side of that is the aspirational minority are also ignored - those who simply want better lives for themselves and their families (yes, they are praised and called "hard working" but that's often not through choice).
The "solutions" peddled round on sites like this become increasingly nonsensical - some have argued cutting benefits by 50%. No Government is going to do that, ever.
Asquith was not leader in 1906, but yes, I agree with your general point.
With Thatcher, (also a reply to @DavidL ) I think her ideas were mostly slogans. She talked, for example, about curbing the unions but at first had little idea of how to go about it. Indeed, if anything they did it to themselves with the disastrous strike at British Steel. She also talked about stemming inflation but her policies on how to do it were fairly unclear. It is true she did eventually come up with some ideas to turn them into some form of reality but they often seemed to be rather a long way from what she talked about.
And a fair bit of the success of Thatcher, Major and Blair was about being in the right place at the right time. The time when the boomers were net taxpayers as much as anything else. They were happy to flatter us that it was a new stable normal. After them, the music stopped.
But whilst a big new Idea that unlocks more easy prosperity would be nice, I fear it's like the tale of the time Richard Feynman was in a meeting with army top brass about how science could help the national defenses.
"What we really need is a tank that is powered by sand."
Sometimes there are no new ideas. Or as in many arts, the new ideas are clearly worse than the old ones. Perhaps we just have to accept two unpalatable old ideas.
First, that a nation costs, and broad-based taxes are how we should pay. Second, that we've spent ages not paying enough, and are going to be paying more for less for quite a while.
There is so much that could be done with a marginal gains approach. We don't need one idea to solve everything. Lots of marginal gains will add up to a big change. If every cabinet minister implemented one marginal gain every quarter you'd end up with more than four hundred marginal gains over the course of a Parliament and I think there'd be a sense of the country moving in the right direction.
There's a handful of such things that you can point to from the current government, but not enough to reach a critical mass.
There's a fine line between tenacity and self-delusion and I would put Burnham on the wrong side of it.
I have no doubt Burnham will end up being PM.
But like Starmer, there is this idea he will be a good one just because he isn’t Starmer. Burnham’s previous attempts at running for leader were pretty bad.
Now maybe he’s improved a lot since then but I’m not really seeing this cabinet of ideas others are. No doubt he’s a significantly better speaker than Starmer though and I suspect Labour will lead the polls if he takes over. But it may well be a very short honeymoon as reality bites.
His comments on the markets though give me great cause for concern.
I count myself as a Burnham-sceptic, but in his favour he can credibly claim to have been a successful Mayor of Greater Manchester.
What can Starmer claim to have been good at? His stint as DPP looks poor. As leader of the opposition he almost bungled the election campaign, saved by being so far ahead.
I think he ran a very good opposition campaign in all honesty, one of the better ones in recent years.
As for Burnham yes that’s true and the main thing that makes me question if I am being too unfair. But his record as a minster is poor.
Burnham is weak. I don't understand why anybody thinks he would be an improvement on Starmer. Maybe the Daily Mail does, but then I'm not sure what kind of Labour Leader it would consider acceptable.
There's a fine line between tenacity and self-delusion and I would put Burnham on the wrong side of it.
I have no doubt Burnham will end up being PM.
But like Starmer, there is this idea he will be a good one just because he isn’t Starmer. Burnham’s previous attempts at running for leader were pretty bad.
Now maybe he’s improved a lot since then but I’m not really seeing this cabinet of ideas others are. No doubt he’s a significantly better speaker than Starmer though and I suspect Labour will lead the polls if he takes over. But it may well be a very short honeymoon as reality bites.
His comments on the markets though give me great cause for concern.
I count myself as a Burnham-sceptic, but in his favour he can credibly claim to have been a successful Mayor of Greater Manchester.
What can Starmer claim to have been good at? His stint as DPP looks poor. As leader of the opposition he almost bungled the election campaign, saved by being so far ahead.
I think he ran a very good opposition campaign in all honesty, one of the better ones in recent years.
As for Burnham yes that’s true and the main thing that makes me question if I am being too unfair. But his record as a minster is poor.
Burnham is weak. I don't understand why anybody thinks he would be an improvement on Starmer. Maybe the Daily Mail does, but then I'm not sure what kind of Labour Leader it would consider acceptable.
A lot of Labour types I’ve spoken to think he’d be brilliant.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
Anyone who has experienced the modern workplace will know that procedures can be both useful and useless.
And that procedures can vary from being cost free common sense to the creation of expensive middle class non jobs.
Doubtless that pre Mandelson we would have been told that Foreigner Office procedures for vetting ambassadors were 'world beating' or 'best in class'.
I see the “most read” article in the Spectator is an absurd disquisition about the grossness of British toilets. The trivialisation of our public life continues
You can get 'washlets' - a nice packet of wipes that contain water, hold together whilst doing the job, and then flush and disintegrate like loo roll.
A few years ago I thought they would storm the market for the reasons you criticise loo roll - again led by expensive hotels, but so far it hasn't happened, and I think it's because of the disgusting eco age we live in - carting around washlets is probably more carbon-intensive than transporting loo roll.
No humans in the action. The Russians surrendered to machines made of metal and plastic.
Ukraine are forming more drone units with a minimum number of human soldiers.
If they'd listened to the Biden administration they would have conscripted all their young men and sent them to the front to die instead of developing machines to do the fighting for them.
Early in the war I was mocked for suggesting that Ukraine might end up chasing Russia out of Ukraine with drones. That possibility comes closer to becoming reality.
Another 1,070 Russian troops and 87 artillery pieces/MLRS not reporting for duty in Ukraine today.
The artillery has been hammered this week - 464 pieces whacked. It seems as soon as they open up, the drones now locate and destroy them, using operators many miles distant. The chance of the Russians hitting back at those attackers are minimal. Destroying Russian artillery ends Russia's ability to wage war the way it likes: flatten a town with artillery, send in troops to capture the rubble, advance the artillery, repeat. Drones now mean grey areas tens of miles wide. Any advance into that grey area ends in carnage - before the Russians even see a Ukrainian position. Hence you get reported kill ratios of 25:1.
Any rational army would retreat, knowing it is beaten.
Under Putin, any rational generals would be sent to lead from the front.
Meanwhile, the schools, hospitals, markets, residential tower blocks of the Ukainian populace get hit - because that is the only war Russia can now wage: terror.
If the Ukrainians were to respond in kind and flatten Moscow and St. Petersburg schools, hospitals, markets, tower blocks, then Putin would have only himself to blame. But rather tha terrorising the Russian population, Ukraine is doing something far more effective: destroying the Russian economy.
The impressive numbers claimed for destroyed Russian artillery are another piece of evidence that Ukrainian drone capabilities have expanded in the "near-rear" area up to about 100km behind the front line.
Last night Ukraine used Neptune missiles to hit a Russian UAV factory that makes the observation drones that are so important for acquiring targets in that area.
I am now cautiously optimistic about Ukraine's prospects. Excepting the boost to oil income Trump has gifted Putin, things seem to be moving in Ukraine's direction so far this year.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
Anyone who has experienced the modern workplace will know that procedures can be both useful and useless.
And that procedures can vary from being cost free common sense to the creation of expensive middle class non jobs.
Doubtless that pre Mandelson we would have been told that Foreigner Office procedures for vetting ambassadors were 'world beating' or 'best in class'.
I doubt very much that there was any procedure for withholding the outcome of vetting, or for refraining from telling the PM that the Vetting Committees recommendation had been overruled by the FO.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
I think Robbins' motive in over riding the vetting result and keeping quiet about it, was to avoid embarrassing the PM. That didn't go well!
When Starmer asked about the vetting result (and I think he almost certainly did) there were two possible answers. The original vetting conclusion and the override conclusion. He was given the latter without reference to the former.
Then Robbins has to say that on Tuesday. He also has to explain his actions. Now I think we can safely assume he is not a jerk, but frankly I find it difficult to understand what good reason he can have had. I guess I may find out soon.
Apparently he wasn’t able to pass on any information other than pass or fail in terms of clearance . Whether something then leaked from the FCDO is another matter .
If Robbins did give clearance this could be qualified with mitigations . So he felt under pressure to pass Mandelson but thought the mitigations were sufficient .
In this respect it’s understandable and his reputation isn’t trashed .
The key point is if he qualified the clearance with mitigations and Starmer knew then does that still count as due process being followed. And was the PM able to know exactly why those mitigations were put in place .
Paul Mason on Sky News says he has a source which said the red box was ticked. I’m sure we’ll know whether that was correct tomorrow because there would be a paper trail .
If the red box was indeed ticked Robbins couldn’t add mitigations as that’s not possible.
Scrub that . Apparently you can have red high concern but it seems then the UKSV has to tick the next red box as withdrawn.
There's a fine line between tenacity and self-delusion and I would put Burnham on the wrong side of it.
I have no doubt Burnham will end up being PM.
But like Starmer, there is this idea he will be a good one just because he isn’t Starmer. Burnham’s previous attempts at running for leader were pretty bad.
Now maybe he’s improved a lot since then but I’m not really seeing this cabinet of ideas others are. No doubt he’s a significantly better speaker than Starmer though and I suspect Labour will lead the polls if he takes over. But it may well be a very short honeymoon as reality bites.
His comments on the markets though give me great cause for concern.
I count myself as a Burnham-sceptic, but in his favour he can credibly claim to have been a successful Mayor of Greater Manchester.
What can Starmer claim to have been good at? His stint as DPP looks poor. As leader of the opposition he almost bungled the election campaign, saved by being so far ahead.
I think he ran a very good opposition campaign in all honesty, one of the better ones in recent years.
As for Burnham yes that’s true and the main thing that makes me question if I am being too unfair. But his record as a minster is poor.
Burnham is weak. I don't understand why anybody thinks he would be an improvement on Starmer. Maybe the Daily Mail does, but then I'm not sure what kind of Labour Leader it would consider acceptable.
He's fairly convinxingly centre-left, which is the natural position for leader of Labour. Starmer seems nebulous on policy, often reversing because of a few days of opposition. Just personally these things matter to me - unrelated to electoral standings.
There's a fine line between tenacity and self-delusion and I would put Burnham on the wrong side of it.
I have no doubt Burnham will end up being PM.
But like Starmer, there is this idea he will be a good one just because he isn’t Starmer. Burnham’s previous attempts at running for leader were pretty bad.
Now maybe he’s improved a lot since then but I’m not really seeing this cabinet of ideas others are. No doubt he’s a significantly better speaker than Starmer though and I suspect Labour will lead the polls if he takes over. But it may well be a very short honeymoon as reality bites.
His comments on the markets though give me great cause for concern.
I count myself as a Burnham-sceptic, but in his favour he can credibly claim to have been a successful Mayor of Greater Manchester.
What can Starmer claim to have been good at? His stint as DPP looks poor. As leader of the opposition he almost bungled the election campaign, saved by being so far ahead.
I think he ran a very good opposition campaign in all honesty, one of the better ones in recent years.
As for Burnham yes that’s true and the main thing that makes me question if I am being too unfair. But his record as a minster is poor.
Burnham is weak. I don't understand why anybody thinks he would be an improvement on Starmer. Maybe the Daily Mail does, but then I'm not sure what kind of Labour Leader it would consider acceptable.
He's fairly convinxingly centre-left, which is the natural position for leader of Labour. Starmer seems nebulous on policy, often reversing because of a few days of opposition. Just personally these things matter to me - unrelated to electoral standings.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
We should remember Grenfell was deemed to be completely safe as a result of the process followed despite the fact all parts of the material failed safety checks.
And, the complex process generated rooms full of paper. Concealing massive defects in the plans for the work, the materials for the work and the way the work was carried out at Grenfell.
I see the “most read” article in the Spectator is an absurd disquisition about the grossness of British toilets. The trivialisation of our public life continues
You can get 'washlets' - a nice packet of wipes that contain water, hold together whilst doing the job, and then flush and disintegrate like loo roll.
A few years ago I thought they would storm the market for the reasons you criticise loo roll - again led by expensive hotels, but so far it hasn't happened, and I think it's because of the disgusting eco age we live in - carting around washlets is probably more carbon-intensive than transporting loo roll.
I find paper-only western loos almost unbearable now. I have to do contortions to wet the loo paper if there is a nearby basin. It’s not ideal at all, but it is something
I have a douche installed in my own flat
Recently I was in the USA and I visited some BRAND NEW 5?star hotels - the kind of hotels with personal butlers and martini bars made of quartz and jacuzzis in the suite and they still had paper only bogs. Inexplicable
Like building a palace made of gold but the toilet is a bucket out the back. There is some mental block
As the article notes, 5 star hotels elsewhere in the world are now installing Japanese toilets by default
I see the “most read” article in the Spectator is an absurd disquisition about the grossness of British toilets. The trivialisation of our public life continues
There's a fine line between tenacity and self-delusion and I would put Burnham on the wrong side of it.
I have no doubt Burnham will end up being PM.
But like Starmer, there is this idea he will be a good one just because he isn’t Starmer. Burnham’s previous attempts at running for leader were pretty bad.
Now maybe he’s improved a lot since then but I’m not really seeing this cabinet of ideas others are. No doubt he’s a significantly better speaker than Starmer though and I suspect Labour will lead the polls if he takes over. But it may well be a very short honeymoon as reality bites.
His comments on the markets though give me great cause for concern.
I count myself as a Burnham-sceptic, but in his favour he can credibly claim to have been a successful Mayor of Greater Manchester.
What can Starmer claim to have been good at? His stint as DPP looks poor. As leader of the opposition he almost bungled the election campaign, saved by being so far ahead.
I think he ran a very good opposition campaign in all honesty, one of the better ones in recent years.
As for Burnham yes that’s true and the main thing that makes me question if I am being too unfair. But his record as a minster is poor.
Under Starmer Labour lost 6pp in the opinion polls during the election campaign. It was an abysmal performance.
I see the “most read” article in the Spectator is an absurd disquisition about the grossness of British toilets. The trivialisation of our public life continues
You can get 'washlets' - a nice packet of wipes that contain water, hold together whilst doing the job, and then flush and disintegrate like loo roll.
A few years ago I thought they would storm the market for the reasons you criticise loo roll - again led by expensive hotels, but so far it hasn't happened, and I think it's because of the disgusting eco age we live in - carting around washlets is probably more carbon-intensive than transporting loo roll.
I find paper-only western loos almost unbearable now. I have to do contortions to wet the loo paper if there is a nearby basin. It’s not ideal at all, but it is something
I have a douche installed in my own flat
Recently I was in the USA and I visited some BRAND NEW 5?star hotels - the kind of hotels with personal butlers and martini bars made of quartz and jacuzzis in the suite and they still had paper only bogs. Inexplicable
Like building a palace made of gold but the toilet is a bucket out the back. There is some mental block
As the article notes, 5 star hotels elsewhere in the world are now installing Japanese toilets by default
I suspect that's to meet the requirements of their asian customers - the rest of the world will eventually follow
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
I think Robbins' motive in over riding the vetting result and keeping quiet about it, was to avoid embarrassing the PM. That didn't go well!
When Starmer asked about the vetting result (and I think he almost certainly did) there were two possible answers. The original vetting conclusion and the override conclusion. He was given the latter without reference to the former.
Then Robbins has to say that on Tuesday. He also has to explain his actions. Now I think we can safely assume he is not a jerk, but frankly I find it difficult to understand what good reason he can have had. I guess I may find out soon.
Apparently he wasn’t able to pass on any information other than pass or fail in terms of clearance . Whether something then leaked from the FCDO is another matter .
If Robbins did give clearance this could be qualified with mitigations . So he felt under pressure to pass Mandelson but thought the mitigations were sufficient .
In this respect it’s understandable and his reputation isn’t trashed .
The key point is if he qualified the clearance with mitigations and Starmer knew then does that still count as due process being followed. And was the PM able to know exactly why those mitigations were put in place .
Paul Mason on Sky News says he has a source which said the red box was ticked. I’m sure we’ll know whether that was correct tomorrow because there would be a paper trail .
If the red box was indeed ticked Robbins couldn’t add mitigations as that’s not possible.
Scrub that . Apparently you can have red high concern . Then you can still give clearance with mitigations.
The claim is that Mandy failed due to his consultancy having massive ties to Chinese firms that are deeply tied to them Chinese government.
So, in a world where everything is apparently super confidential, they didn’t tell Mandy.
So, instead of offering him the opportunity to sever those ties, it was better to appoint an Ambassador who was in bed with Chinese Government?
I see the “most read” article in the Spectator is an absurd disquisition about the grossness of British toilets. The trivialisation of our public life continues
You can get 'washlets' - a nice packet of wipes that contain water, hold together whilst doing the job, and then flush and disintegrate like loo roll.
A few years ago I thought they would storm the market for the reasons you criticise loo roll - again led by expensive hotels, but so far it hasn't happened, and I think it's because of the disgusting eco age we live in - carting around washlets is probably more carbon-intensive than transporting loo roll.
I find paper-only western loos almost unbearable now. I have to do contortions to wet the loo paper if there is a nearby basin. It’s not ideal at all, but it is something
I have a douche installed in my own flat
Recently I was in the USA and I visited some BRAND NEW 5?star hotels - the kind of hotels with personal butlers and martini bars made of quartz and jacuzzis in the suite and they still had paper only bogs. Inexplicable
Like building a palace made of gold but the toilet is a bucket out the back. There is some mental block
As the article notes, 5 star hotels elsewhere in the world are now installing Japanese toilets by default
I suspect that's to meet the requirements of their asian customers - the rest of the world will eventually follow
Yes. Rich tourists from the UAE, Korea, posher bits of China, Singapore, HK, and onwards, where these toilets are becoming standard. At the very least, install a bum gun
I see the “most read” article in the Spectator is an absurd disquisition about the grossness of British toilets. The trivialisation of our public life continues
You can get 'washlets' - a nice packet of wipes that contain water, hold together whilst doing the job, and then flush and disintegrate like loo roll.
A few years ago I thought they would storm the market for the reasons you criticise loo roll - again led by expensive hotels, but so far it hasn't happened, and I think it's because of the disgusting eco age we live in - carting around washlets is probably more carbon-intensive than transporting loo roll.
I find paper-only western loos almost unbearable now. I have to do contortions to wet the loo paper if there is a nearby basin. It’s not ideal at all, but it is something
I have a douche installed in my own flat
Recently I was in the USA and I visited some BRAND NEW 5?star hotels - the kind of hotels with personal butlers and martini bars made of quartz and jacuzzis in the suite and they still had paper only bogs. Inexplicable
Like building a palace made of gold but the toilet is a bucket out the back. There is some mental block
As the article notes, 5 star hotels elsewhere in the world are now installing Japanese toilets by default
It always amazes me how many people need to shit at work.
Don't they go in the morning?
Probably once a year I need a 'second sitting' in the office, but for others it seems to be a daily occurrence.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
I think Robbins' motive in over riding the vetting result and keeping quiet about it, was to avoid embarrassing the PM. That didn't go well!
When Starmer asked about the vetting result (and I think he almost certainly did) there were two possible answers. The original vetting conclusion and the override conclusion. He was given the latter without reference to the former.
Then Robbins has to say that on Tuesday. He also has to explain his actions. Now I think we can safely assume he is not a jerk, but frankly I find it difficult to understand what good reason he can have had. I guess I may find out soon.
Apparently he wasn’t able to pass on any information other than pass or fail in terms of clearance . Whether something then leaked from the FCDO is another matter .
If Robbins did give clearance this could be qualified with mitigations . So he felt under pressure to pass Mandelson but thought the mitigations were sufficient .
In this respect it’s understandable and his reputation isn’t trashed .
The key point is if he qualified the clearance with mitigations and Starmer knew then does that still count as due process being followed. And was the PM able to know exactly why those mitigations were put in place .
Paul Mason on Sky News says he has a source which said the red box was ticked. I’m sure we’ll know whether that was correct tomorrow because there would be a paper trail .
If the red box was indeed ticked Robbins couldn’t add mitigations as that’s not possible.
Scrub that . Apparently you can have red high concern but it seems then the UKSV has to tick the next red box as withdrawn.
Thanks Nico. There's a lot of supposition in all that of course and we can only hope that next week's hearings clarify the facts. All we can say for the moment is that the process failed to prevent the appointment of a totally unsuitable candidate. So either the process is faulty or it was abused.
By the way, I have read elsewhere that the reason he was failed in the vetting report was due to his associations with China, not Epstein. If true, that makes it all the more worrying that the vetting was overruled.
There's a fine line between tenacity and self-delusion and I would put Burnham on the wrong side of it.
I have no doubt Burnham will end up being PM.
But like Starmer, there is this idea he will be a good one just because he isn’t Starmer. Burnham’s previous attempts at running for leader were pretty bad.
Now maybe he’s improved a lot since then but I’m not really seeing this cabinet of ideas others are. No doubt he’s a significantly better speaker than Starmer though and I suspect Labour will lead the polls if he takes over. But it may well be a very short honeymoon as reality bites.
His comments on the markets though give me great cause for concern.
I count myself as a Burnham-sceptic, but in his favour he can credibly claim to have been a successful Mayor of Greater Manchester.
What can Starmer claim to have been good at? His stint as DPP looks poor. As leader of the opposition he almost bungled the election campaign, saved by being so far ahead.
I think he ran a very good opposition campaign in all honesty, one of the better ones in recent years.
As for Burnham yes that’s true and the main thing that makes me question if I am being too unfair. But his record as a minster is poor.
Burnham is weak. I don't understand why anybody thinks he would be an improvement on Starmer. Maybe the Daily Mail does, but then I'm not sure what kind of Labour Leader it would consider acceptable.
He's fairly convinxingly centre-left, which is the natural position for leader of Labour. Starmer seems nebulous on policy, often reversing because of a few days of opposition. Just personally these things matter to me - unrelated to electoral standings.
He also thinks he is God's gift to the Labour Party, and ha made himself look like a dick twice in the past 9 months.
One slightly odd thing I found in China e.g.1st class bullet train, option of nice japanese style all singing all dancing toilet and also the tradtional style squat toilets. I am not Chinese and I know they are traditional and every kid grows up learning to do incredible squat position for hours at a time, but who wants to squat over a hole when doing 200mph when you can sit on a heated throne?
I’ve edited my post since but it seems the paper trail and the UKSV report doesn’t allow room for mitigations if they ticked the first red box as in high concern .
After that they have to tick clearance denied or withdrawn.
At that point giving clearance was done inspite of that .
One slightly odd thing I found in China e.g.1st class bullet train, option of nice japanese style all singing all dancing toilet and also the tradtional style squat toilets. I am not Chinese and I know they are traditional and every kid grows up learning to do incredible squat position for hours at a time, but who wants to squat over a hole when doing 200mph when you can sit on a heated throne?
In Japan in the 90s they had the same choice on the Shinkansen! Squat toilets or super electro bogs. They had different signs on them
Of course, no one wanted to use the squat toilets and there were queues for the electro toilets
And thus did Toto conquer
I guess they kept the squat toilets for a while, for traditional rustic folk who might be frightened and confused by the robo-toilet. Probably that’s the case in China now
I see the “most read” article in the Spectator is an absurd disquisition about the grossness of British toilets. The trivialisation of our public life continues
You can get 'washlets' - a nice packet of wipes that contain water, hold together whilst doing the job, and then flush and disintegrate like loo roll.
A few years ago I thought they would storm the market for the reasons you criticise loo roll - again led by expensive hotels, but so far it hasn't happened, and I think it's because of the disgusting eco age we live in - carting around washlets is probably more carbon-intensive than transporting loo roll.
I find paper-only western loos almost unbearable now. I have to do contortions to wet the loo paper if there is a nearby basin. It’s not ideal at all, but it is something
I have a douche installed in my own flat
Recently I was in the USA and I visited some BRAND NEW 5?star hotels - the kind of hotels with personal butlers and martini bars made of quartz and jacuzzis in the suite and they still had paper only bogs. Inexplicable
Like building a palace made of gold but the toilet is a bucket out the back. There is some mental block
As the article notes, 5 star hotels elsewhere in the world are now installing Japanese toilets by default
One slightly odd thing I found in China e.g.1st class bullet train, option of nice japanese style all singing all dancing toilet and also the tradtional style squat toilets. I am not Chinese and I know they are traditional and every kid grows up learning to do incredible squat position for hours at a time, but who wants to squat over a hole when doing 200mph when you can sit on a heated throne?
In Japan in the 90s they had the same choice on the Shinkansen! Squat toilets or super electro bogs. They had different signs on them
Of course, no one wanted to use the squat toilets and there were queues for the electro toilets
And thus did Toto conquer
I guess they kept the squat toilets for a while, for traditional rustic folk who might be frightened and confused by the robo-toilet. Probably that’s the case in China now
Even in Shenzhen, the city of 2050 today, I say most places I went there would be mostly "Western style" toilets but pretty much always one traditional style option.
One slightly odd thing I found in China e.g.1st class bullet train, option of nice japanese style all singing all dancing toilet and also the tradtional style squat toilets. I am not Chinese and I know they are traditional and every kid grows up learning to do incredible squat position for hours at a time, but who wants to squat over a hole when doing 200mph when you can sit on a heated throne?
In Japan in the 90s they had the same choice on the Shinkansen! Squat toilets or super electro bogs. They had different signs on them
Of course, no one wanted to use the squat toilets and there were queues for the electro toilets
And thus did Toto conquer
I guess they kept the squat toilets for a while, for traditional rustic folk who might be frightened and confused by the robo-toilet. Probably that’s the case in China now
Even in Shenzhen, the city of 2050 today, I say most places I went there would be mostly "Western style" toilets but pretty much always one traditional style option.
The squatter has now completely disappeared from Japan. I didn’t find one on my last month long trip
I do still very very occasionally find one in France. It’s always a shock
And as for Greece and their inability to flush paper. Ugh!
One slightly odd thing I found in China e.g.1st class bullet train, option of nice japanese style all singing all dancing toilet and also the tradtional style squat toilets. I am not Chinese and I know they are traditional and every kid grows up learning to do incredible squat position for hours at a time, but who wants to squat over a hole when doing 200mph when you can sit on a heated throne?
In Japan in the 90s they had the same choice on the Shinkansen! Squat toilets or super electro bogs. They had different signs on them
Of course, no one wanted to use the squat toilets and there were queues for the electro toilets
And thus did Toto conquer
I guess they kept the squat toilets for a while, for traditional rustic folk who might be frightened and confused by the robo-toilet. Probably that’s the case in China now
The ‘lay and display’ in Europe I saw I don’t like at all.
U take a dump. It’s there looking up at you and you flush and the water washes it away.
Squat toilets are gross. But I’ve used them in Italy as well as the far east.
Communal shitters where you can communally curl one out freak me out too.
In Budapest I used the Bidet. Elecronic one. Most excellent.
Composting toilets and toilets that incinerates your faeces are also quite fashionable.
I see the “most read” article in the Spectator is an absurd disquisition about the grossness of British toilets. The trivialisation of our public life continues
You can get 'washlets' - a nice packet of wipes that contain water, hold together whilst doing the job, and then flush and disintegrate like loo roll.
A few years ago I thought they would storm the market for the reasons you criticise loo roll - again led by expensive hotels, but so far it hasn't happened, and I think it's because of the disgusting eco age we live in - carting around washlets is probably more carbon-intensive than transporting loo roll.
I find paper-only western loos almost unbearable now. I have to do contortions to wet the loo paper if there is a nearby basin. It’s not ideal at all, but it is something
I have a douche installed in my own flat
Recently I was in the USA and I visited some BRAND NEW 5?star hotels - the kind of hotels with personal butlers and martini bars made of quartz and jacuzzis in the suite and they still had paper only bogs. Inexplicable
Like building a palace made of gold but the toilet is a bucket out the back. There is some mental block
As the article notes, 5 star hotels elsewhere in the world are now installing Japanese toilets by default
It always amazes me how many people need to shit at work.
Don't they go in the morning?
Probably once a year I need a 'second sitting' in the office, but for others it seems to be a daily occurrence.
I knew someone who would described it as a 'ten quid shit" - that being what he was earning while doing it.
One slightly odd thing I found in China e.g.1st class bullet train, option of nice japanese style all singing all dancing toilet and also the tradtional style squat toilets. I am not Chinese and I know they are traditional and every kid grows up learning to do incredible squat position for hours at a time, but who wants to squat over a hole when doing 200mph when you can sit on a heated throne?
In Japan in the 90s they had the same choice on the Shinkansen! Squat toilets or super electro bogs. They had different signs on them
Of course, no one wanted to use the squat toilets and there were queues for the electro toilets
And thus did Toto conquer
I guess they kept the squat toilets for a while, for traditional rustic folk who might be frightened and confused by the robo-toilet. Probably that’s the case in China now
Shinkansen also has cubicles with just a single urinal and sink in. Very civilized.
Has Burnham given any indication as to what he would do differently as PM or all his energies concentrated on the process of becoming PM ?
Who was the last PM to have a meaningful idea of what they would do in office before they got to it? Cameron and Blair were essentially soundbites. Johnson was a chameleon. Sunak was a technocrat. Starmer likewise. Callaghan and Major too. Truss I will give you but her ideas turned out to be insane and she only lasted six weeks. Thatcher claimed to have a plan in her memoirs but she gave little indication of it before coming in and there's always a suspicion that she made it up as she went along. Heath had a plan but never tried to implement it.
Do we have to go back to Wilson before Truss? And before him Attlee?
That speaks to something more fundamental than simply the character (or lack of it) of a PrimeMInister.
The more worrying answer is simply there was no plan because there is no plan. I called it "the death of ideology" a while back - Thatcher had a plan of sorts though it was really the 1983 victory which allowed her to pursue it. Attlee had circumstances quite unlike anything before or since.
Before that, perhaps Asquith in 1906 - the three radical reforming Governments of the 20th century.
Now, there is no radical, reforming ideology out there - the centre left has had no economic policy since 2008, the centre right knows austerity (whatever that means) doesn't work and has no ideas. The populists have filled the gap but their plans are fiscally incoherent.
To her credit, Badenoch has started to see a way forward but unfortunately, in order to win power, she has to get votes and that means uncosted promises so she too will end up having questions to answer about the financial viability of her party's proposals.
So, successive Prime Ministers are in office but not in power to use a hackneyed old expression. There's a worrying retreat into ethno-nationalism on all sides -the old sense of "looking after our own" (however that is defined). The adversarial nature of modern politics prevents the kind of cross-cutting concensus which might drive forward meaningful reform.
No one wants to touch pensioner benefits because pensioners vote and in large numbers whereas, it seems, younger people don't. The other side of that is the aspirational minority are also ignored - those who simply want better lives for themselves and their families (yes, they are praised and called "hard working" but that's often not through choice).
The "solutions" peddled round on sites like this become increasingly nonsensical - some have argued cutting benefits by 50%. No Government is going to do that, ever.
Asquith was not leader in 1906, but yes, I agree with your general point.
With Thatcher, (also a reply to @DavidL ) I think her ideas were mostly slogans. She talked, for example, about curbing the unions but at first had little idea of how to go about it. Indeed, if anything they did it to themselves with the disastrous strike at British Steel. She also talked about stemming inflation but her policies on how to do it were fairly unclear. It is true she did eventually come up with some ideas to turn them into some form of reality but they often seemed to be rather a long way from what she talked about.
I think that's a very good analysis.
She was as much, if not more a pragmatist and tactician than she was an ideologue with a plan. (The sale of assets to fund current spending is a good example of tactics over sound money principle.)
A huge blunder of her imitators (Blair for instance) was to mistake the tactics for sensible principles to be followed. Of course most politicians prefer broad slogans to pragmatic analysis.
I see the “most read” article in the Spectator is an absurd disquisition about the grossness of British toilets. The trivialisation of our public life continues
You can get 'washlets' - a nice packet of wipes that contain water, hold together whilst doing the job, and then flush and disintegrate like loo roll.
A few years ago I thought they would storm the market for the reasons you criticise loo roll - again led by expensive hotels, but so far it hasn't happened, and I think it's because of the disgusting eco age we live in - carting around washlets is probably more carbon-intensive than transporting loo roll.
I find paper-only western loos almost unbearable now. I have to do contortions to wet the loo paper if there is a nearby basin. It’s not ideal at all, but it is something
I have a douche installed in my own flat
Recently I was in the USA and I visited some BRAND NEW 5?star hotels - the kind of hotels with personal butlers and martini bars made of quartz and jacuzzis in the suite and they still had paper only bogs. Inexplicable
Like building a palace made of gold but the toilet is a bucket out the back. There is some mental block
As the article notes, 5 star hotels elsewhere in the world are now installing Japanese toilets by default
It always amazes me how many people need to shit at work.
Don't they go in the morning?
Probably once a year I need a 'second sitting' in the office, but for others it seems to be a daily occurrence.
I knew someone who would described it as a 'ten quid shit" - that being what he was earning while doing it.
One slightly odd thing I found in China e.g.1st class bullet train, option of nice japanese style all singing all dancing toilet and also the tradtional style squat toilets. I am not Chinese and I know they are traditional and every kid grows up learning to do incredible squat position for hours at a time, but who wants to squat over a hole when doing 200mph when you can sit on a heated throne?
In Japan in the 90s they had the same choice on the Shinkansen! Squat toilets or super electro bogs. They had different signs on them
Of course, no one wanted to use the squat toilets and there were queues for the electro toilets
And thus did Toto conquer
I guess they kept the squat toilets for a while, for traditional rustic folk who might be frightened and confused by the robo-toilet. Probably that’s the case in China now
Even in Shenzhen, the city of 2050 today, I say most places I went there would be mostly "Western style" toilets but pretty much always one traditional style option.
The squatter has now completely disappeared from Japan. I didn’t find one on my last month long trip
I do still very very occasionally find one in France. It’s always a shock
And as for Greece and their inability to flush paper. Ugh!
If you can't flush paper you should have a bum gun. I spent a month in Cambodia over Christmas and didn't wipe my arse with paper once. It was annoying to get to Singapore where they mostly don't have them
I see the “most read” article in the Spectator is an absurd disquisition about the grossness of British toilets. The trivialisation of our public life continues
You can get 'washlets' - a nice packet of wipes that contain water, hold together whilst doing the job, and then flush and disintegrate like loo roll.
A few years ago I thought they would storm the market for the reasons you criticise loo roll - again led by expensive hotels, but so far it hasn't happened, and I think it's because of the disgusting eco age we live in - carting around washlets is probably more carbon-intensive than transporting loo roll.
I find paper-only western loos almost unbearable now. I have to do contortions to wet the loo paper if there is a nearby basin. It’s not ideal at all, but it is something
I have a douche installed in my own flat
Recently I was in the USA and I visited some BRAND NEW 5?star hotels - the kind of hotels with personal butlers and martini bars made of quartz and jacuzzis in the suite and they still had paper only bogs. Inexplicable
Like building a palace made of gold but the toilet is a bucket out the back. There is some mental block
As the article notes, 5 star hotels elsewhere in the world are now installing Japanese toilets by default
It always amazes me how many people need to shit at work.
Don't they go in the morning?
Probably once a year I need a 'second sitting' in the office, but for others it seems to be a daily occurrence.
I knew someone who would described it as a 'ten quid shit" - that being what he was earning while doing it.
Shit on company time not your own. Has to be the way, surely?
One slightly odd thing I found in China e.g.1st class bullet train, option of nice japanese style all singing all dancing toilet and also the tradtional style squat toilets. I am not Chinese and I know they are traditional and every kid grows up learning to do incredible squat position for hours at a time, but who wants to squat over a hole when doing 200mph when you can sit on a heated throne?
In Japan in the 90s they had the same choice on the Shinkansen! Squat toilets or super electro bogs. They had different signs on them
Of course, no one wanted to use the squat toilets and there were queues for the electro toilets
And thus did Toto conquer
I guess they kept the squat toilets for a while, for traditional rustic folk who might be frightened and confused by the robo-toilet. Probably that’s the case in China now
Shinkansen also has cubicles with just a single urinal and sink in. Very civilized.
Something I heard in passing was that a Japanese manufacturer of gimmicky toilets had scaled back production due to petrochemicals for plastic parts being less available. A strange effect of Trump's vanity war.
I see the “most read” article in the Spectator is an absurd disquisition about the grossness of British toilets. The trivialisation of our public life continues
You can get 'washlets' - a nice packet of wipes that contain water, hold together whilst doing the job, and then flush and disintegrate like loo roll.
A few years ago I thought they would storm the market for the reasons you criticise loo roll - again led by expensive hotels, but so far it hasn't happened, and I think it's because of the disgusting eco age we live in - carting around washlets is probably more carbon-intensive than transporting loo roll.
I find paper-only western loos almost unbearable now. I have to do contortions to wet the loo paper if there is a nearby basin. It’s not ideal at all, but it is something
I have a douche installed in my own flat
Recently I was in the USA and I visited some BRAND NEW 5?star hotels - the kind of hotels with personal butlers and martini bars made of quartz and jacuzzis in the suite and they still had paper only bogs. Inexplicable
Like building a palace made of gold but the toilet is a bucket out the back. There is some mental block
As the article notes, 5 star hotels elsewhere in the world are now installing Japanese toilets by default
It always amazes me how many people need to shit at work.
Don't they go in the morning?
Probably once a year I need a 'second sitting' in the office, but for others it seems to be a daily occurrence.
I knew someone who would described it as a 'ten quid shit" - that being what he was earning while doing it.
Shit on company time not your own. Has to be the way, surely?
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.
In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.
In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
Policies like capping the highest wages versus the lowest wages wouldn’t work, but they’re very popular because something has gone wrong with how capitalism works. We’ve gone from an average ratio of 2.5:1 in the 1970s to 200:1 today. Democracy is the counterbalance to the ever more efficient extraction of wealth.
Well, we were at 2.5:1* because marginal tax rates were so high, and therefore companies rewarded bosses with a bunch of benefits that were not taxed highly - like share options, country club memberships, company cars and free petrol and the like.
* Actually, I doubt it ever got quite so low
Though a lot of those benefits have a different property; it's much harder to do the exponentially bigger thing with them that you can do with money.
If a boss is given a country club membership, they are unlikely to want nine more. The amount of petrol an individual can use is finite. And so on.
But if an executive is paid a million pounds, the only question a keen executive will ask is "why not ten million?" And because that money tends to accumulate, it's probably less useful to the wider economy.
All is vanity, says the preacher. The art of government is to arrange things so that that vanity does some good on the way. Modern society doesn't do that well.
Once upon a time these individuals built museums, parks, monuments.
I think earnings is a bit of a red herring. It’s inter generational wealth, particularly property, that’s the much bigger problem. It extends beyond the top 1%.
I think you are unfair to most wealthy people. There are some very high profile examples of greedy people (especially among techbros) but ‘twas ever thus. A lot of other families quietly make massively generous donations - most often to local causes. One Westminster based family I’ve come across in the past, for example, is the largest single donor to the university of Westminster, Chelsea & Westminster hospital and Westminster Abbey. You might not make the same choices they do (and I probably wouldn’t) but it’s hard to deny their generosity (they donate about 12.5% of their pre-tax income annually)
But the politicians don’t want the wealthy making their own charitable donations, they want to control the flow of money themselves, to their own favoured NGOs which donate back to their campaigns and employ people from the party.
That’s mostly right wing fantasies spread by people who said Trump was going drain the swamp… and we saw how accurate that turned out to be.
Policies like capping the highest wages versus the lowest wages wouldn’t work, but they’re very popular because something has gone wrong with how capitalism works. We’ve gone from an average ratio of 2.5:1 in the 1970s to 200:1 today. Democracy is the counterbalance to the ever more efficient extraction of wealth.
Well, we were at 2.5:1* because marginal tax rates were so high, and therefore companies rewarded bosses with a bunch of benefits that were not taxed highly - like share options, country club memberships, company cars and free petrol and the like.
* Actually, I doubt it ever got quite so low
Though a lot of those benefits have a different property; it's much harder to do the exponentially bigger thing with them that you can do with money.
If a boss is given a country club membership, they are unlikely to want nine more. The amount of petrol an individual can use is finite. And so on.
But if an executive is paid a million pounds, the only question a keen executive will ask is "why not ten million?" And because that money tends to accumulate, it's probably less useful to the wider economy.
All is vanity, says the preacher. The art of government is to arrange things so that that vanity does some good on the way. Modern society doesn't do that well.
Once upon a time these individuals built museums, parks, monuments.
I think earnings is a bit of a red herring. It’s inter generational wealth, particularly property, that’s the much bigger problem. It extends beyond the top 1%.
I think you are unfair to most wealthy people. There are some very high profile examples of greedy people (especially among techbros) but ‘twas ever thus. A lot of other families quietly make massively generous donations - most often to local causes. One Westminster based family I’ve come across in the past, for example, is the largest single donor to the university of Westminster, Chelsea & Westminster hospital and Westminster Abbey. You might not make the same choices they do (and I probably wouldn’t) but it’s hard to deny their generosity (they donate about 12.5% of their pre-tax income annually)
But the politicians don’t want the wealthy making their own charitable donations, they want to control the flow of money themselves, to their own favoured NGOs which donate back to their campaigns and employ people from the party.
That’s mostly right wing fantasies spread by people who said Trump was going drain the swamp… and we saw how accurate that turned out to be.
That reminds me why racial history is in some ways so much closer in the USA.
The Oklahoma flag is full of Native American symbols (below - Feathers of Peace etc), yet as recently as the 1920s there were multiple murders (= 40-60 over 2 decades) of Native Americans because they continued to own mineral rights to oil - mainly between 1921 and 1926, It is known as the "Reign of Terror".
Laws were passed to "protect", that actually helped confiscation of assets over time.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.
In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.
The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…
That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.
So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.
"Trump has since marveled at the ease with which the strait was closed. A guy with a drone can shut it down, Trump has said to people, expressing belated irritation that the key waterway was so vulnerable." - WSJ
No humans in the action. The Russians surrendered to machines made of metal and plastic.
Ukraine are forming more drone units with a minimum number of human soldiers.
If they'd listened to the Biden administration they would have conscripted all their young men and sent them to the front to die instead of developing machines to do the fighting for them.
Early in the war I was mocked for suggesting that Ukraine might end up chasing Russia out of Ukraine with drones. That possibility comes closer to becoming reality.
Another 1,070 Russian troops and 87 artillery pieces/MLRS not reporting for duty in Ukraine today.
The artillery has been hammered this week - 464 pieces whacked. It seems as soon as they open up, the drones now locate and destroy them, using operators many miles distant. The chance of the Russians hitting back at those attackers are minimal. Destroying Russian artillery ends Russia's ability to wage war the way it likes: flatten a town with artillery, send in troops to capture the rubble, advance the artillery, repeat. Drones now mean grey areas tens of miles wide. Any advance into that grey area ends in carnage - before the Russians even see a Ukrainian position. Hence you get reported kill ratios of 25:1.
Any rational army would retreat, knowing it is beaten.
Under Putin, any rational generals would be sent to lead from the front.
Meanwhile, the schools, hospitals, markets, residential tower blocks of the Ukainian populace get hit - because that is the only war Russia can now wage: terror.
If the Ukrainians were to respond in kind and flatten Moscow and St. Petersburg schools, hospitals, markets, tower blocks, then Putin would have only himself to blame. But rather tha terrorising the Russian population, Ukraine is doing something far more effective: destroying the Russian economy.
In 1914-21 the Russian economy managed to sustain seven years of war, but was an absolute wreck at the end of it - economic activity as a whole down 79%, grain harvest down 52%, steel production down by 98%, brick production down by an even more staggering 99.99%.
The war is into its fifth year. Where is this going for Russia? Wheat harvests look set to be up this year on last year's absolute disaster but they are still down 10% on before the war. Oil production has rebounded from the absolute crash in mid-2022 but is still down about 8%. Oil exports are down more, at closer to 10%. Gold production is down 14% too.
Russia's economy has survived much better than expected but it is still not doing well. Two more years of this would not be helpful for it although Trump is doing his best to support them.
Their oil export numbers are now way down on those figures, since August of last year.
Ukraine has spent a long time destroying irreplaceable air defence kit. It is now getting to the point where Ukraine can bust its way through to almost anywhere west of the Urals. And is. Strategic manufacturing - weapons, chemicals, specialist metals and electronics, explosives - all are taking a real hammering, night after night.
It seems things aren't going well on the frontline for Russia at the moment. This heightens the possibility of a ceasefire without further territorial concessions by Ukraine. My biggest concern is that the current economic situation will see Europeans keen for a return to business as usual with Russia without any ideological shift in Moscow. And we know Trump just wants a return to BAU. So the danger is that the Russian economy can recover and the military can over time recover so that Russia can prepare for it's next war in Europe with clandestine Chinese support. And it'll be anyone's guess which side the United States is on.
$150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.
People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.
Other news stories about host cities already slashing the prices of hotels due to the lack of demand.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.
In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.
The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…
That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.
So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.
"Trump has since marveled at the ease with which the strait was closed. A guy with a drone can shut it down, Trump has said to people, expressing belated irritation that the key waterway was so vulnerable." - WSJ
Yep - that's why everyone has spent the last 50 years looking at Iran and going - well they are somewhat annoying but impossible to deal with.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.
In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.
The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…
That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.
So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.
In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.
The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…
That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.
So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.
So he’d have to resign, embarrassing the PM.
So instead, he was cleared.
Sounds reasonable.
I'm not sure that's the word I'd have chosen...
No, it's perfectly reasonable that we send an Ambassador to the US who is owned by China to deal with a President who seems to be owned by Russia.
Remember, they call it the Foreigner Office for a reason.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.
In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.
The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…
That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.
So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.
So he’d have to resign, embarrassing the PM.
So instead, he was cleared.
Sounds reasonable.
I'm not sure that's the word I'd have chosen...
No, it's perfectly reasonable that we send an Ambassador to the US who is owned by China to deal with a President who seems to be owned by Russia.
Remember, they call it the Foreigner Office for a reason.
Hacker: Let me put it another way. Who knows Foreign Office secrets apart from the Foreign Office?
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
Anyone who has experienced the modern workplace will know that procedures can be both useful and useless.
And that procedures can vary from being cost free common sense to the creation of expensive middle class non jobs.
Doubtless that pre Mandelson we would have been told that Foreigner Office procedures for vetting ambassadors were 'world beating' or 'best in class'.
Of course. But at least 80% of workplace procedures, probably 90%, serve a useful function. The aim is to protect or enhance in most instances where it is applied. They don't need to be optimal in every case.
Vetting is there to protect the organisation from nasty surprises with their hires. No private sector organisation of any size would dream of ignoring the findings. I would have been summarily fired if I had done so in previous roles. Rightly so.
I see the “most read” article in the Spectator is an absurd disquisition about the grossness of British toilets. The trivialisation of our public life continues
You can get 'washlets' - a nice packet of wipes that contain water, hold together whilst doing the job, and then flush and disintegrate like loo roll.
A few years ago I thought they would storm the market for the reasons you criticise loo roll - again led by expensive hotels, but so far it hasn't happened, and I think it's because of the disgusting eco age we live in - carting around washlets is probably more carbon-intensive than transporting loo roll.
I find paper-only western loos almost unbearable now. I have to do contortions to wet the loo paper if there is a nearby basin. It’s not ideal at all, but it is something
I have a douche installed in my own flat
Recently I was in the USA and I visited some BRAND NEW 5?star hotels - the kind of hotels with personal butlers and martini bars made of quartz and jacuzzis in the suite and they still had paper only bogs. Inexplicable
Like building a palace made of gold but the toilet is a bucket out the back. There is some mental block
As the article notes, 5 star hotels elsewhere in the world are now installing Japanese toilets by default
I get it, but I think a flushable wipe is a far better and more economical solution, and still more likely to catch on than installing a bum squirter.
As I see from this site, you can also modify what goes in the wipe, there's a micellar one, and no doubt there's one with moisurisers so you can take extra care of your downstairs.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.
In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.
The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…
That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.
So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.
So he’d have to resign, embarrassing the PM.
So instead, he was cleared.
The 'mitigations' that were in place are not something I think the public will ever understand.
'So, he's not allowed to be alone with his clients because he'd betray the country - so, why's he being made the ambassador in the first place?'
If you need mitigation like that, basic logic would suggest you shouldn't be given the role.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.
In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.
The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…
That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.
So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.
So he’d have to resign, embarrassing the PM.
So instead, he was cleared.
The 'mitigations' that were in place are not something I think the public will ever understand.
'So, he's not allowed to be alone with his clients because he'd betray the country - so, why's he being made the ambassador in the first place?'
If you need mitigation like that, basic logic would suggest you shouldn't be given the role.
To be fair, it’s common for politicians and people appointed into political positions to have to give up outside business links.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.
In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.
The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…
That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.
So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.
So he’d have to resign, embarrassing the PM.
So instead, he was cleared.
The 'mitigations' that were in place are not something I think the public will ever understand.
'So, he's not allowed to be alone with his clients because he'd betray the country - so, why's he being made the ambassador in the first place?'
If you need mitigation like that, basic logic would suggest you shouldn't be given the role.
Didn't Starmer know about Mandelson's consultancy firm? I would have thought most people, certainly around the top of Labour, did. IIRC he talked about when he left the Labour Govt. the second time.
I'd assumed he'd wound it up, or at least moth-balled it, when he came back to public service.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.
In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.
The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…
That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.
So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.
So he’d have to resign, embarrassing the PM.
So instead, he was cleared.
The 'mitigations' that were in place are not something I think the public will ever understand.
'So, he's not allowed to be alone with his clients because he'd betray the country - so, why's he being made the ambassador in the first place?'
If you need mitigation like that, basic logic would suggest you shouldn't be given the role.
Didn't Starmer know about Mandelson's consultancy firm? I would most people, certainly around the top of Labour, did. IIRC he talked about when he left the Labour Govt. the second time.
I'd assumed he'd wound it up, or at least moth-balled it, when he came back to public service.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.
In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.
The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…
That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.
So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.
So he’d have to resign, embarrassing the PM.
So instead, he was cleared.
The 'mitigations' that were in place are not something I think the public will ever understand.
'So, he's not allowed to be alone with his clients because he'd betray the country - so, why's he being made the ambassador in the first place?'
If you need mitigation like that, basic logic would suggest you shouldn't be given the role.
To be fair, it’s common for politicians and people appointed into political positions to have to give up outside business links.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.
In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.
The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…
That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.
So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.
So he’d have to resign, embarrassing the PM.
So instead, he was cleared.
The 'mitigations' that were in place are not something I think the public will ever understand.
'So, he's not allowed to be alone with his clients because he'd betray the country - so, why's he being made the ambassador in the first place?'
If you need mitigation like that, basic logic would suggest you shouldn't be given the role.
To be fair, it’s common for politicians and people appointed into political positions to have to give up outside business links.
But why would Mandelson's deputy be required to supervise his dealings (itself an utterly pointless token measure - his deputy didn't live with him or monitor 100% of his personal communications one assumes) with clients if the FCDO trusted that he had relinquished those business links?
I think most people hearing that the security services had failed him on the risk that he would give away State secrets to the PRC, would rightly assume that that would be the end of the matter - not that some sticking plaster would be applied to make it all OK.
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
Anyone who has experienced the modern workplace will know that procedures can be both useful and useless.
And that procedures can vary from being cost free common sense to the creation of expensive middle class non jobs.
Doubtless that pre Mandelson we would have been told that Foreigner Office procedures for vetting ambassadors were 'world beating' or 'best in class'.
Of course. But at least 80% of workplace procedures, probably 90%, serve a useful function. The aim is to protect or enhance in most instances where it is applied. They don't need to be optimal in every case.
Vetting is there to protect the organisation from nasty surprises with their hires. No private sector organisation of any size would dream of ignoring the findings. I would have been summarily fired if I had done so in previous roles. Rightly so.
$150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.
People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.
Other news stories about host cities already slashing the prices of hotels due to the lack of demand.
Boycott Gilead.
Wales have decided to boycott the event.
I expect Scotland to rethink after a couple of games and do the same…
Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:
* Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed
* The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting
* No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key
* Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless
*********
Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed? If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X. But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed. The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette
Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy. I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background. But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory? What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
The point of procedures is:
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed. To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.
In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.
The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…
That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.
So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.
So he’d have to resign, embarrassing the PM.
So instead, he was cleared.
The 'mitigations' that were in place are not something I think the public will ever understand.
'So, he's not allowed to be alone with his clients because he'd betray the country - so, why's he being made the ambassador in the first place?'
If you need mitigation like that, basic logic would suggest you shouldn't be given the role.
To be fair, it’s common for politicians and people appointed into political positions to have to give up outside business links.
Even Trump has. Oh, maybe wait.....
Trump has probably made an order of magnitude more profit since his second inauguration than in the whole of the rest of his life.
Comments
The only reason i can think of thats likely is deliberately not asking so that
1) appointnent can proceed and
2) plausible deniability
Active ignorance
That didn't go well!
When Starmer asked about the vetting result (and I think he almost certainly did) there were two possible answers. The original vetting conclusion and the override conclusion. He was given the latter without reference to the former.
'It is fitting we have buried the unknown Prime Minister next to the unknown soldier.'
After all, that was Starmer's go-to position.
Although experience suggests that corruption and incompetence would be far worse under the latter.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to hearing what Sir Olly has to say on Tuesday. I read what he said to the Foreign Affairs Committee when questioned previously about the vetting and although you could say that technically he did not lie he was certainly being extremely economical with the truth. He now has the opportunity to tell us all exactly why he thought it was right to withhold the vital information from the PM.
Fascinating.
Unless, of course, the journalists have made an error in their definition of 'secret'.
Ukraine has spent a long time destroying irreplaceable air defence kit. It is now getting to the point where Ukraine can bust its way through to almost anywhere west of the Urals. And is. Strategic manufacturing - weapons, chemicals, specialist metals and electronics, explosives - all are taking a real hammering, night after night.
To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed.
To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
Have you been to America? If only our country was as broken as theirs. Jeez
What can Starmer claim to have been good at? His stint as DPP looks poor. As leader of the opposition he almost bungled the election campaign, saved by being so far ahead.
https://spectator.com/article/loo-or-toilet-and-why-western-ones-are-revolting/
If he's going to tell fibs, they are going to have to be believable.
As for Burnham yes that’s true and the main thing that makes me question if I am being too unfair. But his record as a minster is poor.
"Yes"
Not "Yes, but we ignored the vetting"
I think Starmer's problems start with McSweeney, that led to
The "Ming vase" strategy which has resulted in no underlying purpose to Starmer's premiership, just getting elected and reacting to the press
Control of PPCs leading to selection of more ambitious, less ideological, candidates rather than those with a reason to be an MP
The "Blue Labour" BS
Ousting of Sue Gray
Appointment of Mandelson as ambassador
McSweeney had a very long association with Mandelson, so making McSweeney his Chief of Staff seems to have resulted in Mandelson having unseen influence in Starmer's office and I'm sure Mandelson would have had Starmer's advisors lobbying for Mandelson to be US ambassador.
Maguire and Pogrund "McSweeney and his acolytes saw themselves as insurgents within the Labour Party. As long as Starmer’s private office was functional, they could control the party’s politics themselves — without interference from small-minded Westminster villagers. They knew that Starmer’s real life — his true self — was not the work they shared with him. Their political project was predicated on this unpolitical leader doing as he was told."
There's a handful of such things that you can point to from the current government, but not enough to reach a critical mass.
And that procedures can vary from being cost free common sense to the creation of expensive middle class non jobs.
Doubtless that pre Mandelson we would have been told that Foreigner Office procedures for vetting ambassadors were 'world beating' or 'best in class'.
A few years ago I thought they would storm the market for the reasons you criticise loo roll - again led by expensive hotels, but so far it hasn't happened, and I think it's because of the disgusting eco age we live in - carting around washlets is probably more carbon-intensive than transporting loo roll.
Well, he's in Oklahoma. Deep red Oklahoma. Slaying it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-T3r-eQ4ws
Last night Ukraine used Neptune missiles to hit a Russian UAV factory that makes the observation drones that are so important for acquiring targets in that area.
I am now cautiously optimistic about Ukraine's prospects. Excepting the boost to oil income Trump has gifted Putin, things seem to be moving in Ukraine's direction so far this year.
Who wrote Blade Runner among other things
Full text here - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/32032/32032-h/32032-h.htm
Also a film with Peter Weller - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screamers_(1995_film)
If Robbins did give clearance this could be qualified with mitigations . So he felt under pressure to pass Mandelson but thought the mitigations were sufficient .
In this respect it’s understandable and his reputation isn’t trashed .
The key point is if he qualified the clearance with mitigations and Starmer knew then does that still count as due process being followed. And was the PM able to know exactly why those mitigations were put in place .
Paul Mason on Sky News says he has a source which said the red box was ticked. I’m sure we’ll know whether that was correct tomorrow because there would be a paper trail .
If the red box was indeed ticked Robbins couldn’t add mitigations as that’s not possible.
Scrub that . Apparently you can have red high concern but it seems then the UKSV has to tick the next red box as withdrawn.
The process was part of the disaster.
I have a douche installed in my own flat
Recently I was in the USA and I visited some BRAND NEW 5?star hotels - the kind of hotels with personal butlers and martini bars made of quartz and jacuzzis in the suite and they still had paper only bogs. Inexplicable
Like building a palace made of gold but the toilet is a bucket out the back. There is some mental block
As the article notes, 5 star hotels elsewhere in the world are now installing Japanese toilets by default
So, in a world where everything is apparently super confidential, they didn’t tell Mandy.
So, instead of offering him the opportunity to sever those ties, it was better to appoint an Ambassador who was in bed with Chinese Government?
Don't they go in the morning?
Probably once a year I need a 'second sitting' in the office, but for others it seems to be a daily occurrence.
By the way, I have read elsewhere that the reason he was failed in the vetting report was due to his associations with China, not Epstein. If true, that makes it all the more worrying that the vetting was overruled.
After that they have to tick clearance denied or withdrawn.
At that point giving clearance was done inspite of that .
Of course, no one wanted to use the squat toilets and there were queues for the electro toilets
And thus did Toto conquer
I guess they kept the squat toilets for a while, for traditional rustic folk who might be frightened and confused by the robo-toilet. Probably that’s the case in China now
Indeed.
I do still very very occasionally find one in France. It’s always a shock
And as for Greece and their inability to flush paper. Ugh!
U take a dump. It’s there looking up at you and you flush and the water washes it away.
Squat toilets are gross. But I’ve used them in Italy as well as the far east.
Communal shitters where you can communally curl one out freak me out too.
In Budapest I used the Bidet. Elecronic one. Most excellent.
Composting toilets and toilets that incinerates your faeces are also quite fashionable.
She was as much, if not more a pragmatist and tactician than she was an ideologue with a plan.
(The sale of assets to fund current spending is a good example of tactics over sound money principle.)
A huge blunder of her imitators (Blair for instance) was to mistake the tactics for sensible principles to be followed.
Of course most politicians prefer broad slogans to pragmatic analysis.
In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
The Oklahoma flag is full of Native American symbols (below - Feathers of Peace etc), yet as recently as the 1920s there were multiple murders (= 40-60 over 2 decades) of Native Americans because they continued to own mineral rights to oil - mainly between 1921 and 1926, It is known as the "Reign of Terror".
Laws were passed to "protect", that actually helped confiscation of assets over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osage_Indian_murders
The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…
That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.
So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.
So he’d have to resign, embarrassing the PM.
So instead, he was cleared.
"Trump has since marveled at the ease with which the strait was closed. A guy with a drone can shut it down, Trump has said to people, expressing belated irritation that the key waterway was so vulnerable." - WSJ
Remember, they call it the Foreigner Office for a reason.
Mel Brooks is replacing the sequel to Spaceballs - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXBLxUWwoMY - and is still going strong.
Bernard: Ah, that's easy. Only the Kremlin.
Vetting is there to protect the organisation from nasty surprises with their hires. No private sector organisation of any size would dream of ignoring the findings. I would have been summarily fired if I had done so in previous roles. Rightly so.
https://www.pricerunner.com/sp/andrex-washlets.html
As I see from this site, you can also modify what goes in the wipe, there's a micellar one, and no doubt there's one with moisurisers so you can take extra care of your downstairs.
You can pack some on your travels.
'So, he's not allowed to be alone with his clients because he'd betray the country - so, why's he being made the ambassador in the first place?'
If you need mitigation like that, basic logic would suggest you shouldn't be given the role.
I'd assumed he'd wound it up, or at least moth-balled it, when he came back to public service.
I think most people hearing that the security services had failed him on the risk that he would give away State secrets to the PRC, would rightly assume that that would be the end of the matter - not that some sticking plaster would be applied to make it all OK.
Or https://abovethelaw.com/2025/07/sororities-are-apparently-better-at-vetting-people-than-biglaw-firms/ is a read!