I can easily see Vance winning in 2028 as “the sane version of Trump” - if Trump doesn’t kill us all before then or completely destroy the GOP
The main reason is that the Dems are still nuts and are quite likely to nominate another loser like Harris. Or indeed Harris
I agree with your second point but not your first.
Vance's negatives are just too high - he is the least popular VP ever.
He has none of the charisma or star power you need in a single candidate election to reach out beyond your base.
I just don't see where he'd get a winning coalition of hardcore Republicans and Independents from, and he'd also have the added huge negative of having to defend the disasters of the Trump administration.
So I think he'd be, to put it mildly, a core vote strategy for Republicans. And there just aren't enough MAGA fanatics to win.
Vance could I think be a GOP Al Gore, he is beatable by a Democrat like Buttigieg and if the economy is worse than 2000 and inflation still rising very beatable
Vance clearly disagrees with Pope Leo on just war theory. However also he disagrees with him on the type of Roman Catholic leadership he prefers. Vance is very much on the Pope Benedict, Latin Mass, conservative wing of Roman Catholicism while Pope Leo, like Pope Francis before him is much more of a liberal Catholic
Though that's a fairly... Protestant... attitude to take to a Pope, isn't it?
I am not to suffer lack of self confidence or be plagued by self doubt, but blimey, lecturing the Pope on theology, that's a kind of arrogance I have to admire on one level
If I was up in front of the judge and told him it's very very important you know something about the law, would you have to admire that - as a lawyer? Because that's what Vance is saying to the Pope on doctrine.
It’s as ridiculous as telling the Prime Minister he knows nothing about politics…. oh wait!
Dems could do worse than Talarico, win or lose. He's young, telegenic, knowledgeable and eloquent. Not really a Centrist, but very, very radical. The philosophy and teachings of Jesus Christ being extremely radical in today's USA
More likely a VP nominee if he wins the Texas Senate race
Vance clearly disagrees with Pope Leo on just war theory. However also he disagrees with him on the type of Roman Catholic leadership he prefers. Vance is very much on the Pope Benedict, Latin Mass, conservative wing of Roman Catholicism while Pope Leo, like Pope Francis before him is much more of a liberal Catholic
Though that's a fairly... Protestant... attitude to take to a Pope, isn't it?
Vance clearly disagrees with Pope Leo on just war theory. However also he disagrees with him on the type of Roman Catholic leadership he prefers. Vance is very much on the Pope Benedict, Latin Mass, conservative wing of Roman Catholicism while Pope Leo, like Pope Francis before him is much more of a liberal Catholic
Though that's a fairly... Protestant... attitude to take to a Pope, isn't it?
Is it not a key part of being a Catholic that believers accept the Pope's authority on matters of doctrine?
Obviously Protestants like me can say it is nonsense, but someone professing to be a Catholic?
Vance clearly disagrees with Pope Leo on just war theory. However also he disagrees with him on the type of Roman Catholic leadership he prefers. Vance is very much on the Pope Benedict, Latin Mass, conservative wing of Roman Catholicism while Pope Leo, like Pope Francis before him is much more of a liberal Catholic
Since Pope Leo is an Augustinian and the concept of just war can be traced back to St Augustine I might say to Brian Cox that I'm from the conservative wing on the subject of quantum foam. But I wouldn't expect any fucker to take the slightest bit of notice of me. Unless it was the actor Brian Cox.
I lost my previous comment, but this is the downward trend in Trump's Roman Catholic support by January 2026, which is before Trump & Vance even started going for the Pope in quite such a public way. And it is a version of the PB "approval of leader" criteria.
I lost my previous comment, but this is the downward trend in Trump's Roman Catholic support by January 2026, which is before Trump & Vance even started going for the Pope in quite such a public way.
Roman Catholics are key swing voters in US elections, voting for Obama in 2012, Trump in 2016, Biden in 2020 and Trump again in 2024.
While atheists and non Christians tend to vote Democrat and Protestants, especially evangelicals, tend to vote Republican, Catholics swing between them, so not good for Vance if he sees their support decline
Vance clearly disagrees with Pope Leo on just war theory. However also he disagrees with him on the type of Roman Catholic leadership he prefers. Vance is very much on the Pope Benedict, Latin Mass, conservative wing of Roman Catholicism while Pope Leo, like Pope Francis before him is much more of a liberal Catholic
Though that's a fairly... Protestant... attitude to take to a Pope, isn't it?
Is it not a key part of being a Catholic that believers accept the Pope's authority on matters of doctrine?
Obviously Protestants like me can say it is nonsense, but someone professing to be a Catholic?
JD might be playing Colbert to Trump's Louis XIV:
Gallicanism is the belief that popular secular authority—often represented by the monarch's or the state's authority—over the Catholic Church is comparable to that of the pope. Gallicanism may be contrasted with ultramontanism. Gallicanism shares some similarities with the ecclesiology of Anglicanism, but while it plays down the authority of the Pope in church, it generally does not deny that there are some authoritative elements to the papal office as primus inter pares ('first among equals').
I am not to suffer lack of self confidence or be plagued by self doubt, but blimey, lecturing the Pope on theology, that's a kind of arrogance I have to admire on one level
If I was up in front of the judge and told him it's very very important you know something about the law, would you have to admire that - as a lawyer? Because that's what Vance is saying to the Pope on doctrine.
It’s as ridiculous as telling the Prime Minister he knows nothing about politics…. oh wait!
Starmer studied law not PPE
Starmer needs to wear some PPE to protect himself from all of the shit that is heading in his direction.
Dems could do worse than Talarico, win or lose. He's young, telegenic, knowledgeable and eloquent. Not really a Centrist, but very, very radical. The philosophy and teachings of Jesus Christ being extremely radical in today's USA
More likely a VP nominee if he wins the Texas Senate race
If he wins that race I'd say he's automatically in the top three for President. Simply because if he can carry Texas the path to victory for any Republican, let alone one following Trump, becomes as daunting as a dark, mountainous forested thing without Google Maps.
Dems could do worse than Talarico, win or lose. He's young, telegenic, knowledgeable and eloquent. Not really a Centrist, but very, very radical. The philosophy and teachings of Jesus Christ being extremely radical in today's USA
More likely a VP nominee if he wins the Texas Senate race
If he wins that race I'd say he's automatically in the top three for President. Simply because if he can carry Texas the path to victory for any Republican, let alone one following Trump, becomes as daunting as a dark, mountainous forested thing without Google Maps.
He can do that as VP nominee, as LBJ carried Texas for JFK. Too big a jump from new Senator to POTUS in just 2 years otherwise
Vance clearly disagrees with Pope Leo on just war theory. However also he disagrees with him on the type of Roman Catholic leadership he prefers. Vance is very much on the Pope Benedict, Latin Mass, conservative wing of Roman Catholicism while Pope Leo, like Pope Francis before him is much more of a liberal Catholic
Though that's a fairly... Protestant... attitude to take to a Pope, isn't it?
Is it not a key part of being a Catholic that believers accept the Pope's authority on matters of doctrine?
Obviously Protestants like me can say it is nonsense, but someone professing to be a Catholic?
I think it is arguable what is considered "doctrine"; officially "ex cathedra" is I think on "matters of faith and morals", and that is a filter before you get to "what does the Pope think about it".
If I recall, Luther continued to regard himself as a Roman Catholic, loyal to the Pope, after he had nailed his Theses to the Wittenburg Door.
AIUI, he wanted a literal Reformation. The existing people in power did not like it, and the rest is history !
Roman Catholics always have the escape hatch of individual conscience, which I think is officially recognised.
Dems could do worse than Talarico, win or lose. He's young, telegenic, knowledgeable and eloquent. Not really a Centrist, but very, very radical. The philosophy and teachings of Jesus Christ being extremely radical in today's USA
More likely a VP nominee if he wins the Texas Senate race
If he wins that race I'd say he's automatically in the top three for President. Simply because if he can carry Texas the path to victory for any Republican, let alone one following Trump, becomes as daunting as a dark, mountainous forested thing without Google Maps.
He can do that as VP nominee, as LBJ carried Texas for JFK. Too big a jump from new Senator to POTUS in just 2 years otherwise
Reckon this one is a keeper.
No one knows anything about what will happen in 2027/8 in primaries and final election given the world of absolute shit that the present incumbent is taking america to at the moment.
I can’t see the Dems risking a US Senator from Texas as VP .
If they somehow manage to win that seat that would be hugely important for them in trying to keep any senate majority if they win the WH .
This is a similar issue that would face Jon Osoff from Georgia.
If they have won Texas in the midterms it will be a near blowout anyway so they may well still have a Senate majority even if he is elected VP and of course if he carried Texas for the Democratic ticket in 2028 that would be a certain Democrat landslide in the EC
Sky showing US navy firing rounds into the Iranian cargo ship's engine room
Great. I went to a monastery for a retreat on Friday and discovered on the way that peace had broken out. I get home and there's War and HYUFD and folk recommending other folk eat oysters. Do I have to go back for good and forever? I'm very open and willing to financial sponsorship...
I can’t see the Dems risking a US Senator from Texas as VP .
If they somehow manage to win that seat that would be hugely important for them in trying to keep any senate majority if they win the WH .
This is a similar issue that would face Jon Osoff from Georgia.
If they have won Texas in the midterms it will be a near blowout anyway so they may well still have a Senate majority even if he is elected VP and of course if he carried Texas for the Democratic ticket in 2028 that would be a certain Democrat landslide in the EC
Having a Texas Dem senator would be massive for them . I just don’t see them taking the risk .
Peter Mandelson was granted the UK's highest possible security clearance - "Strap 3" - despite failing vetting. This is top secret material only a very small number of top officials can access due to the severe national security risks @thetimes
Peter Mandelson was granted the UK's highest possible security clearance - "Strap 3" - despite failing vetting. This is top secret material only a very small number of top officials can access due to the severe national security risks @thetimes
The Chinese company that spent millions of pounds with Lord Mandelson’s lobbying firm Global Counsel has been accused of taking intellectual property from a United States biotechnology company.
WuXi AppTec, a Chinese medical technology company, was reported to have spent £2.24 million with Global Counsel last year and £1.42 million in the year before, making it one of the company’s largest clients.
In 2024 Reuters reported that US intelligence officials had told senators working on a biotech security bill that WuXi AppTec had transferred the US intellectual property of an American client to Beijing without its consent, according to two sources.
For the record: I think that constitutions should fit nations, not the other way around. There are nations where constitutional monarchies make sense, for example. The very federal system in Canada suits that nation better than the US or UK systems would, and so on.
One key often missed by politics geeks: Every democratic system relies on informed voters -- and that can not always be counted on.
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
Zelenskyy makes a big announcement: “We have already reached 10-year agreements with three key countries: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. We already have requests from 11 countries – the Middle East and the Gulf, plus we’re also gradually turning our attention to the Caucasus.
“Within this Drone Deal, there will be at least 10 different agreements covering various categories of Ukrainian weapons exports. Co-production is planned – the construction of our production lines both in Ukraine and in other countries.
“New technologies that we are developing jointly with various countries, in which they are investing. There is also an agreement on annual funding for a specific amount, along with a fixed number of years.
“Second: the European track. Work has already begun with Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Of course, we have good relations with the United Kingdom and France. I am confident that all of this will also be implemented there.”
By the end of this war Ukraine just might be the most powerful country in Europe.
I thought it'd be Poland. It still might be, if it plays its cards right. But with Starmer in charge, it won't be us.
Art on trial - a sculptor's arrest highlights new extremes for censorship in China
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddqpr7z74yo ..Ian Johnson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has long reported on China's persecutory practices, says we are witnessing "probably the darkest period of time in decades" for freedom of expression under the CCP. "In the half-century since the Cultural Revolution ended in 1976, this is the most prolonged crackdown that we've seen – far eclipsing the period after the Tiananmen massacre in 1989," Johnson says. "The Party is now less willing than ever to countenance criticism of its leaders." Others suggest that sliding democratic norms around the world have led Beijing to believe it can crack down more aggressively, without fear of rebuke from nations which appear to have abandoned the moral high ground. On Wednesday, the United Nations human rights office joined a growing chorus of international advocacy groups to call for Gao's immediate release, saying his case "raises concerns with regard to retroactive application of criminal law and use of criminal sanctions to punish artistic expression". ..
What's also notable is how much under the radar the Chinese government manages to keep its repression. Not helped, of course, by the leader of the west normalising autocracy.
As the No 10 centre and Treasury block every attempt to rearm ourselves for war against Russia we have this utter tripe:
UK Prime Minister @10DowningStreet · 59m Visiting the crew of a Vanguard-Class submarine as they return from a record-long deployment.
As we face an increasingly volatile world, our nuclear deterrent is more important than ever.
Thank you for keeping Britain and NATO safe 🇬🇧
Imagine the disappointment of returning from a record-long nuclear missile submarine deployment to find that, not only is Starmer still Prime Minister, but he's come to welcome you home and delay you from returning to your family/going out on the lash/visiting the local professionals.
It was a record-length deployment because we do not have enough submarines and we do not have enough submariners.
Daily Star becomes 'primary source' for Cambridge boffins studying meaning of British life Clever clogs academics at Cambridge University have made your favourite news brand a key source to help them study what makes Britain tick ... ... From today more than 220,000 pages of the Daily Star are being made available online. You’ll be able to access it via UK family history platform, Findmypast and its sister sites the British Newspaper Archive and the Social History Archive. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/daily-star-becomes-primary-source-37039428
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
Trump previously told reporters he has a right to disagree with the pope and previously said the only reason Pope Leo was elected as the first American pontiff is because religious leaders wanted to gain favor with him.
Note 'him' and not the American people. Is Trump sane?
Trump previously told reporters he has a right to disagree with the pope and previously said the only reason Pope Leo was elected as the first American pontiff is because religious leaders wanted to gain favor with him.
Note 'him' and not the American people. Is Trump sane?
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
A few hundred thousand Car Workers, Steel Workers and associated Trades will clock on again this morning THANKFUL for Peter Mandelson that they still have Jobs, that their Communities still have hope because he engineers the BEST TRADE TARIFF DEAL on the Planet.
For all the bluster, political shithousery etc, that is WORTH ANY PRICE!
Normally there’s a joke about dropping cigarettes here, but this is dozens of drones that hit the place yesterday. Ukraine is determined that one country won’t be benefitting from the rise in oil prices.
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
A few hundred thousand Car Workers, Steel Workers and associated Trades will clock on again this morning THANKFUL for Peter Mandelson that they still have Jobs, that their Communities still have hope because he engineers the BEST TRADE TARIFF DEAL on the Planet.
For all the bluster, political shithousery etc, that is WORTH ANY PRICE!
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
A few hundred thousand Car Workers, Steel Workers and associated Trades will clock on again this morning THANKFUL for Peter Mandelson that they still have Jobs, that their Communities still have hope because he engineers the BEST TRADE TARIFF DEAL on the Planet.
For all the bluster, political shithousery etc, that is WORTH ANY PRICE!
This site has gone tiresomely bonkers with all the Starmer Derangement Syndrome but unusually Sandpit is right. Starmer made the Mandelson call. At the time it looked like a good call, but over time it wasn't a good call. Now did Starmer lie to Parliament as Badenoch has asserted? Probably technically not. But that isn't the point. He made the call, the call went bad, the buck stops with him.
In the context of Starmer's current problems your post is meaningless.
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
Well you can certainly half guess why such a rare appointment was made but we don't know. Starmer would have been aware of some of the risks but went ahead anyway. Why?
Incidentally, there is a close parallel with the appointment made by Sunny Jim Callaghan in 1977 of his son in law, journalist Peter Jay, to the self same position. That blew up in his face too, although there the outrage came principally from other senior civil servants who could not tolerate this plum job going to an outsider.
Perhaps that's a factor in the current brouhaha. We don't know, but we may find out in due course.
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
Well you can certainly half guess why such a rare appointment was made but we don't know. Starmer would have been aware of some of the risks but went ahead anyway. Why?
Incidentally, there is a close parallel with the appointment made by Sunny Jim Callaghan in 1977 of his son in law, journalist Peter Jay, to the self same position. That blew up in his face too, although there the outrage came principally from other senior civil servants who could not tolerate this plum job going to an outsider.
Perhaps that's a factor in the current brouhaha. We don't know, but we may find out in due course.
Its now been reported he was previously made aware of all the "risks" that ultimately were the reason behind Petie failing his vetting.
A quarter of a million people could lose their jobs by the middle of next year as Britain “flirts with recession”, analysis suggests, after business confidence was shattered by the US-Israel war on Iran.
Growth is projected to halve from 1.4% in 2025 to 0.7% this year,...The EY Item Club also expects unemployment to hit 5.8% by the middle of 2027, up from the current five-year high of 5.2%, with almost 250,000 more people losing their jobs because of the crisis in the Middle East.
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
A few hundred thousand Car Workers, Steel Workers and associated Trades will clock on again this morning THANKFUL for Peter Mandelson that they still have Jobs, that their Communities still have hope because he engineers the BEST TRADE TARIFF DEAL on the Planet.
For all the bluster, political shithousery etc, that is WORTH ANY PRICE!
On the other side of the ledger, somebody who was indiscreet in channelling sensitive information to friends of China and Russia might have lost us tens of thousands of jobs in emerging technologies.
Starmer will not come out of the next 48 hours with his moral case to remain in Number 10 untarnished. He owns the appointment of Mandelson, a serial disaster in Governemnt and whose appointment does not even require hindsight to be seen as a fiasco.
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
A few hundred thousand Car Workers, Steel Workers and associated Trades will clock on again this morning THANKFUL for Peter Mandelson that they still have Jobs, that their Communities still have hope because he engineers the BEST TRADE TARIFF DEAL on the Planet.
For all the bluster, political shithousery etc, that is WORTH ANY PRICE!
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
A few hundred thousand Car Workers, Steel Workers and associated Trades will clock on again this morning THANKFUL for Peter Mandelson that they still have Jobs, that their Communities still have hope because he engineers the BEST TRADE TARIFF DEAL on the Planet.
For all the bluster, political shithousery etc, that is WORTH ANY PRICE!
You are Morgan McSweeney and I claim my £5....
Good morning
The irony in all this is Dame Karen Pierce was a highly respected UK Ambassador to the US, and had she continued, not only would our relationship have prospered without the malign appointment of Mandelson known for his connection with Epstein but also his connections now revealed with Russia and China but Starmer would have avoided his inevitable legacy of Mandelson
Anybody trying to excuse Starmer's appointment which he made before the vetting process had completed is not going to win that argument and the only question is when will Starmer finally have to resign
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
A few hundred thousand Car Workers, Steel Workers and associated Trades will clock on again this morning THANKFUL for Peter Mandelson that they still have Jobs, that their Communities still have hope because he engineers the BEST TRADE TARIFF DEAL on the Planet.
For all the bluster, political shithousery etc, that is WORTH ANY PRICE!
On the other side of the ledger, somebody who was indiscreet in channelling sensitive information to friends of China and Russia might have lost us tens of thousands of jobs in emerging technologies.
Starmer will not come out of the next 48 hours with his moral case to remain in Number 10 untarnished. He owns the appointment of Mandelson, a serial disaster in Government and whose appointment does not even require hindsight to be seen as a fiasco.
That's about the size of it. A wheel has been removed from the Starmer wagon, but it will likely keep rolling along for a while yet. Sorry Dan- I'm sure you'll stop that pigeon one day.
The question which I don't think anyone has answered is whether anyone at all knew about the leaking market-sensitive information to his dodgy American chum?
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
Well you can certainly half guess why such a rare appointment was made but we don't know. Starmer would have been aware of some of the risks but went ahead anyway. Why?
Incidentally, there is a close parallel with the appointment made by Sunny Jim Callaghan in 1977 of his son in law, journalist Peter Jay, to the self same position. That blew up in his face too, although there the outrage came principally from other senior civil servants who could not tolerate this plum job going to an outsider.
Perhaps that's a factor in the current brouhaha. We don't know, but we may find out in due course.
Or, indeed, Macmillan's appointment of David Ormsby-Gore in 1961 because he was pally with the Kennedys.
From Camelot to Scamelot: the decline and fall of the American Empire.
As the No 10 centre and Treasury block every attempt to rearm ourselves for war against Russia we have this utter tripe:
UK Prime Minister @10DowningStreet · 59m Visiting the crew of a Vanguard-Class submarine as they return from a record-long deployment.
As we face an increasingly volatile world, our nuclear deterrent is more important than ever.
Thank you for keeping Britain and NATO safe 🇬🇧
Imagine the disappointment of returning from a record-long nuclear missile submarine deployment to find that, not only is Starmer still Prime Minister, but he's come to welcome you home and delay you from returning to your family/going out on the lash/visiting the local professionals.
In Starmer's defence, he met them at sea, so there was likely no delay. Just the pain of meeting him.
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
A few hundred thousand Car Workers, Steel Workers and associated Trades will clock on again this morning THANKFUL for Peter Mandelson that they still have Jobs, that their Communities still have hope because he engineers the BEST TRADE TARIFF DEAL on the Planet.
For all the bluster, political shithousery etc, that is WORTH ANY PRICE!
You are Morgan McSweeney and I claim my £5....
Good morning
The irony in all this is Dame Karen Pierce was a highly respected UK Ambassador to the US, and had she continued, not only would our relationship have prospered without the malign appointment of Mandelson known for his connection with Epstein but also his connections now revealed with Russia and China but Starmer would have avoided his inevitable legacy of Mandelson
Anybody trying to excuse Starmer's appointment which he made before the vetting process had completed is not going to win that argument and the only question is when will Starmer finally have to resign
Will it distress you if I start the bidding at May 2028?
As the No 10 centre and Treasury block every attempt to rearm ourselves for war against Russia we have this utter tripe:
UK Prime Minister @10DowningStreet · 59m Visiting the crew of a Vanguard-Class submarine as they return from a record-long deployment.
As we face an increasingly volatile world, our nuclear deterrent is more important than ever.
Thank you for keeping Britain and NATO safe 🇬🇧
Imagine the disappointment of returning from a record-long nuclear missile submarine deployment to find that, not only is Starmer still Prime Minister, but he's come to welcome you home and delay you from returning to your family/going out on the lash/visiting the local professionals.
In Starmer's defence, he met them at sea, so there was likely no delay. Just the pain of meeting him.
The submariners may have had other things on their minds.
Normally there’s a joke about dropping cigarettes here, but this is dozens of drones that hit the place yesterday. Ukraine is determined that one country won’t be benefitting from the rise in oil prices.
Having spent months dismantling air defences, Ukraine can now pretty much demolish such a facility each night for as long as there are still working pieces of infrastructure to demolish. Russian war was demolishing indiscriminately at range, advancing and repeating. Ukraine war is demolishing with closely targeted discrimination, without the need to advance a single troop. Russia hitting schools, hospitals, markets, tower blocks will not win the war - the Ukrainians are too resilient. Ukraine hitting Russia's limited oil and gas production, storage and shipping facilities can win the war. The collapse of Russia's economy will go slowly, then all at once. The first sign Putin is suing for peace will be the first sign that all at once is happening.
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
A few hundred thousand Car Workers, Steel Workers and associated Trades will clock on again this morning THANKFUL for Peter Mandelson that they still have Jobs, that their Communities still have hope because he engineers the BEST TRADE TARIFF DEAL on the Planet.
For all the bluster, political shithousery etc, that is WORTH ANY PRICE!
You are Morgan McSweeney and I claim my £5....
Good morning
The irony in all this is Dame Karen Pierce was a highly respected UK Ambassador to the US, and had she continued, not only would our relationship have prospered without the malign appointment of Mandelson known for his connection with Epstein but also his connections now revealed with Russia and China but Starmer would have avoided his inevitable legacy of Mandelson
Anybody trying to excuse Starmer's appointment which he made before the vetting process had completed is not going to win that argument and the only question is when will Starmer finally have to resign
Even if Mandelson takes Starmer down there is no legacy issue it was simply an (albeit egregious) error of judgement.
Starmer's legacy? Destroying the special relationship with the USA forever by disrespecting the President, when sager voices like Badenoch and Farage had warned him of the consequences of not joining Bibi's attack on Tehran.
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
A few hundred thousand Car Workers, Steel Workers and associated Trades will clock on again this morning THANKFUL for Peter Mandelson that they still have Jobs, that their Communities still have hope because he engineers the BEST TRADE TARIFF DEAL on the Planet.
For all the bluster, political shithousery etc, that is WORTH ANY PRICE!
On the other side of the ledger, somebody who was indiscreet in channelling sensitive information to friends of China and Russia might have lost us tens of thousands of jobs in emerging technologies.
Starmer will not come out of the next 48 hours with his moral case to remain in Number 10 untarnished. He owns the appointment of Mandelson, a serial disaster in Government and whose appointment does not even require hindsight to be seen as a fiasco.
That's about the size of it. A wheel has been removed from the Starmer wagon, but it will likely keep rolling along for a while yet. Sorry Dan- I'm sure you'll stop that pigeon one day.
The question which I don't think anyone has answered is whether anyone at all knew about the leaking market-sensitive information to his dodgy American chum?
We don’t know. Hence the Commons Committee.
We do know that Mandy failed the vetting on publicly available information - it was on his consultancies website that the Chinese company in question was a client. IIRC.
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
A few hundred thousand Car Workers, Steel Workers and associated Trades will clock on again this morning THANKFUL for Peter Mandelson that they still have Jobs, that their Communities still have hope because he engineers the BEST TRADE TARIFF DEAL on the Planet.
For all the bluster, political shithousery etc, that is WORTH ANY PRICE!
You are Morgan McSweeney and I claim my £5....
Good morning
The irony in all this is Dame Karen Pierce was a highly respected UK Ambassador to the US, and had she continued, not only would our relationship have prospered without the malign appointment of Mandelson known for his connection with Epstein but also his connections now revealed with Russia and China but Starmer would have avoided his inevitable legacy of Mandelson
Anybody trying to excuse Starmer's appointment which he made before the vetting process had completed is not going to win that argument and the only question is when will Starmer finally have to resign
Even if Mandelson takes Starmer down there is no legacy issue it was simply an (albeit egregious) error of judgement.
Starmer's legacy? Destroying the special relationship with the USA forever by disrespecting the President, when sager voices like Badenoch and Farage had warned him of the consequences of not joining Bibi's attack on Tehran.
Keep it going Pete, you are the best poster on this board.
The fact that Starmer knew there were lots of risks associated with appointing Mandelson and some of the reasons why he might fail UKSV isn’t the same as an official confirmation that he did fail .
Those concerns could have been mitigated under the clearance approved / remain valid with risk management box on the UKSV template .
It seems that it was a total fail instead with clearance withdrawn / denied.
The more important question is who gave permission for Mandelson to receive the highest level of security clearance if reports from the Times are correct .
It’s not altogether clear .
Did No 10 receive the developed vetting clearance and do that or did Robbins himself ?
I am not to suffer lack of self confidence or be plagued by self doubt, but blimey, lecturing the Pope on theology, that's a kind of arrogance I have to admire on one level
My father took on the Chief Rabbi of Northern Ireland, and senior members of the Catholic and Protestant churches there, in philosophical argument. Some real hammer and tongs stuff - used to invite them round for lunch and go for it.
Mind you, he was teaching (for decades) moral philosophy at Queens. During the fun times. Now *thats* a tough audience.
My grandfather had a multi-year correspondence with ++Runcie as to whether it was the “nature” or the “property” of God to be forgiving
Starmer took a stupid gamble appointing Mandelson. We all know why but it ended up being a disastrous error of judgement .
Starmer didn’t lie about not receiving confirmation Mandelson failed the UKSV clearance .
There’s no way he would have come out with his statements refuting this if there was any sort of paper trail that could prove otherwise .
Yes, and that is why, unless she has discovered a smoking gun, Kemi needs to leave the legalistic claptrap to others and pursue the moral case for Starmer's resignation. He may not have known the fact of the UKSV red flags but he already knew the grounds on which UKSV objected.
Starmer took a stupid gamble appointing Mandelson. We all know why but it ended up being a disastrous error of judgement .
Starmer didn’t lie about not receiving confirmation Mandelson failed the UKSV clearance .
There’s no way he would have come out with his statements refuting this if there was any sort of paper trail that could prove otherwise .
That is my guess too. Although is anyone going to listen to or understand that difference? Similarly, I suspect we are going to have a lot of people explaining their newly acquired knowledge about vetting processes regardless of what Robbins says to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Truth of the matter is likely to be that there is never a “pass” or “fail” for these things - it is subjective.
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
A few hundred thousand Car Workers, Steel Workers and associated Trades will clock on again this morning THANKFUL for Peter Mandelson that they still have Jobs, that their Communities still have hope because he engineers the BEST TRADE TARIFF DEAL on the Planet.
For all the bluster, political shithousery etc, that is WORTH ANY PRICE!
You are Morgan McSweeney and I claim my £5....
Good morning
The irony in all this is Dame Karen Pierce was a highly respected UK Ambassador to the US, and had she continued, not only would our relationship have prospered without the malign appointment of Mandelson known for his connection with Epstein but also his connections now revealed with Russia and China but Starmer would have avoided his inevitable legacy of Mandelson
Anybody trying to excuse Starmer's appointment which he made before the vetting process had completed is not going to win that argument and the only question is when will Starmer finally have to resign
Even if Mandelson takes Starmer down there is no legacy issue it was simply an (albeit egregious) error of judgement.
Starmer's legacy? Destroying the special relationship with the USA forever by disrespecting the President, when sager voices like Badenoch and Farage had warned him of the consequences of not joining Bibi's attack on Tehran.
Even this whole conversation is prime Britain. We’re discussing the minutiae of process rather than the key point: Starmer appointed PM as ambassador and he failed security vetting but remained in place. That’s it. Is that a resigning matter? Perhaps in a different time. A massive error of judgement and a national security matter. Will he resign? No.
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
A few hundred thousand Car Workers, Steel Workers and associated Trades will clock on again this morning THANKFUL for Peter Mandelson that they still have Jobs, that their Communities still have hope because he engineers the BEST TRADE TARIFF DEAL on the Planet.
For all the bluster, political shithousery etc, that is WORTH ANY PRICE!
The fact you receive zero likes for that is either a travesty or that the number of people who still think Mandleson appointment was a good idea is equivalent to the number of hens teeth in an egg production unit.
Starmer took a stupid gamble appointing Mandelson. We all know why but it ended up being a disastrous error of judgement .
Starmer didn’t lie about not receiving confirmation Mandelson failed the UKSV clearance .
There’s no way he would have come out with his statements refuting this if there was any sort of paper trail that could prove otherwise .
Yes, and that is why, unless she has discovered a smoking gun, Kemi needs to leave the legalistic claptrap to others and pursue the moral case for Starmer's resignation. He may not have known the fact of the UKSV red flags but he already knew the grounds on which UKSV objected.
Yes, Starmer wanted Mandelson and everyone for the last 30 years of his public life knows what he was like and how he operated.
It was a catastrophic error of judgement, and characteristic of Starmers narcisstic certainty in his own judgement. He owns the decision, everything else is chaff. The buck stops with him.
Starmer took a stupid gamble appointing Mandelson. We all know why but it ended up being a disastrous error of judgement .
Starmer didn’t lie about not receiving confirmation Mandelson failed the UKSV clearance .
There’s no way he would have come out with his statements refuting this if there was any sort of paper trail that could prove otherwise .
Yes, and that is why, unless she has discovered a smoking gun, Kemi needs to leave the legalistic claptrap to others and pursue the moral case for Starmer's resignation. He may not have known the fact of the UKSV red flags but he already knew the grounds on which UKSV objected.
Politicians never learn. Starmers forensic taking apart of Johnson at the dispatch box shows he’s not stupid and certainly he wouldn’t have come out with such a strong statement refuting the lying allegations if he thought there was any way of being caught out.
One idiotic decision to appoint Mandelson is just that . The opposition seem to have forgotten that and think he’d wilfully lie in the Commons .
Normally there’s a joke about dropping cigarettes here, but this is dozens of drones that hit the place yesterday. Ukraine is determined that one country won’t be benefitting from the rise in oil prices.
Having spent months dismantling air defences, Ukraine can now pretty much demolish such a facility each night for as long as there are still working pieces of infrastructure to demolish. Russian war was demolishing indiscriminately at range, advancing and repeating. Ukraine war is demolishing with closely targeted discrimination, without the need to advance a single troop. Russia hitting schools, hospitals, markets, tower blocks will not win the war - the Ukrainians are too resilient. Ukraine hitting Russia's limited oil and gas production, storage and shipping facilities can win the war. The collapse of Russia's economy will go slowly, then all at once. The first sign Putin is suing for peace will be the first sign that all at once is happening.
Yes, with the exception of Moscow, Russia is simply too big and too spread out to have effective air defences at more than a handful of the most strategically important bases. Even those defences which are there, are easily overwhelmed and destroyed by swarms of cheap drones.
It’s true that things will happen slowly and then very quickly. The recent internet crackdown is a sign of growing dissent, possibly a precursor to a general mobilisation, and there’s already significant loan defaults threatening the banking system. When it happens, it will be like the Berlin Wall falling or the 2008 financial crash, as the Russian economy collapses in on itself.
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
Well you can certainly half guess why such a rare appointment was made but we don't know. Starmer would have been aware of some of the risks but went ahead anyway. Why?
Incidentally, there is a close parallel with the appointment made by Sunny Jim Callaghan in 1977 of his son in law, journalist Peter Jay, to the self same position. That blew up in his face too, although there the outrage came principally from other senior civil servants who could not tolerate this plum job going to an outsider.
Perhaps that's a factor in the current brouhaha. We don't know, but we may find out in due course.
Its now been reported he was previously made aware of all the "risks" that ultimately were the reason behind Petie failing his vetting.
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
A few hundred thousand Car Workers, Steel Workers and associated Trades will clock on again this morning THANKFUL for Peter Mandelson that they still have Jobs, that their Communities still have hope because he engineers the BEST TRADE TARIFF DEAL on the Planet.
For all the bluster, political shithousery etc, that is WORTH ANY PRICE!
This site has gone tiresomely bonkers with all the Starmer Derangement Syndrome but unusually Sandpit is right. Starmer made the Mandelson call. At the time it looked like a good call, but over time it wasn't a good call. Now did Starmer lie to Parliament as Badenoch has asserted? Probably technically not. But that isn't the point. He made the call, the call went bad, the buck stops with him.
In the context of Starmer's current problems your post is meaningless.
A stopped clock is right twice a day ;-)
Although in my defence, it’s difficult to deflect a rare political appointment that quickly goes badly wrong, as being on the CS implementing the decision rather than the politician who made it.
Appointing such a highly partisan figure for a senior diplomatic position was questionable enough anyway without the vetting issues, and highlights how it was purely a political appointment.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
You can half understand why it was a rare political appointment to a diplomatic position, but that decision and everything that flows from it, is entirely on the PM.
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
Well you can certainly half guess why such a rare appointment was made but we don't know. Starmer would have been aware of some of the risks but went ahead anyway. Why?
Incidentally, there is a close parallel with the appointment made by Sunny Jim Callaghan in 1977 of his son in law, journalist Peter Jay, to the self same position. That blew up in his face too, although there the outrage came principally from other senior civil servants who could not tolerate this plum job going to an outsider.
Perhaps that's a factor in the current brouhaha. We don't know, but we may find out in due course.
Its now been reported he was previously made aware of all the "risks" that ultimately were the reason behind Petie failing his vetting.
So why did he go ahead?
The moderately bad stuff that was known was a mixture of risks that were thought to be be manageable and risks thought to be worth taking to deal with Trump.
The really bad stuff seems not to have been known. If it had been, surely the police would have been involved years ago.
Other than 'Sign up to Facebook' - what does it say?
The decision to appoint Mandelson was made by the PM
For someone who made as much as Ollie Robbins did, then ordinary unfair dismissal is a claim not worth bringing. It's also a myth that if you didn't do the misconduct complained of then you're unfairly dismissed. The test is whether the employer had a genuine belief in your guilt following a reasonable investigation and the dismissal was within the "band of reasonable responses" open to a reasonable employer (BHS v Burchell)
The word "reasonable" carrying a lot of weight as ever and keeps me in work.
Comments
Oh dear ! You don’t even need to be a lawyer to be able to drive a coach and horses through it.
If that’s the best of his defence then it’s game , set and match to Starmer .
Obviously Protestants like me can say it is nonsense, but someone professing to be a Catholic?
But I wouldn't expect any fucker to take the slightest bit of notice of me.
Unless it was the actor Brian Cox.
https://www.osvnews.com/pew-survey-finds-dip-in-catholic-support-for-trumps-agenda/
While atheists and non Christians tend to vote Democrat and Protestants, especially evangelicals, tend to vote Republican, Catholics swing between them, so not good for Vance if he sees their support decline
Gallicanism is the belief that popular secular authority—often represented by the monarch's or the state's authority—over the Catholic Church is comparable to that of the pope. Gallicanism may be contrasted with ultramontanism. Gallicanism shares some similarities with the ecclesiology of Anglicanism, but while it plays down the authority of the Pope in church, it generally does not deny that there are some authoritative elements to the papal office as primus inter pares ('first among equals').
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallicanism
Simply because if he can carry Texas the path to victory for any Republican, let alone one following Trump, becomes as daunting as a dark, mountainous forested thing without Google Maps.
If I recall, Luther continued to regard himself as a Roman Catholic, loyal to the Pope, after he had nailed his Theses to the Wittenburg Door.
AIUI, he wanted a literal Reformation. The existing people in power did not like it, and the rest is history !
Roman Catholics always have the escape hatch of individual conscience, which I think is officially recognised.
If they somehow manage to win that seat that would be hugely important for them in trying to keep any senate majority if they win the WH .
This is a similar issue that would face Jon Osoff from Georgia.
No one knows anything about what will happen in 2027/8 in primaries and final election given the world of absolute shit that the present incumbent is taking america to at the moment.
I went to a monastery for a retreat on Friday and discovered on the way that peace had broken out.
I get home and there's War and HYUFD and folk recommending other folk eat oysters.
Do I have to go back for good and forever?
I'm very open and willing to financial sponsorship...
https://www.talentlocker.co.uk/hubfs/National Security Vetting (NSV) Clearance Levels in the UK (3).pdf
The "developed vetting" we were told was given despite the security vetting process being failed is four levels below the STRAPs.
WuXi AppTec, a Chinese medical technology company, was reported to have spent £2.24 million with Global Counsel last year and £1.42 million in the year before, making it one of the company’s largest clients.
In 2024 Reuters reported that US intelligence officials had told senators working on a biotech security bill that WuXi AppTec had transferred the US intellectual property of an American client to Beijing without its consent, according to two sources.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/peter-mandelson-global-counsel-wuxi-apptec-china-links-pzw3jvhfx
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
13m
As I said. This isn't just a political scandal. It's a national security scandal.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2045994495460696468
For the record: I think that constitutions should fit nations, not the other way around. There are nations where constitutional monarchies make sense, for example. The very federal system in Canada suits that nation better than the US or UK systems would, and so on.
One key often missed by politics geeks: Every democratic system relies on informed voters -- and that can not always be counted on.
It's shameful for Starmer to try to make officials carry the blame for following his own orders.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/01/29/the-intermarium/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddqpr7z74yo
..Ian Johnson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has long reported on China's persecutory practices, says we are witnessing "probably the darkest period of time in decades" for freedom of expression under the CCP.
"In the half-century since the Cultural Revolution ended in 1976, this is the most prolonged crackdown that we've seen – far eclipsing the period after the Tiananmen massacre in 1989," Johnson says. "The Party is now less willing than ever to countenance criticism of its leaders."
Others suggest that sliding democratic norms around the world have led Beijing to believe it can crack down more aggressively, without fear of rebuke from nations which appear to have abandoned the moral high ground.
On Wednesday, the United Nations human rights office joined a growing chorus of international advocacy groups to call for Gao's immediate release, saying his case "raises concerns with regard to retroactive application of criminal law and use of criminal sanctions to punish artistic expression".
..
What's also notable is how much under the radar the Chinese government manages to keep its repression.
Not helped, of course, by the leader of the west normalising autocracy.
Clever clogs academics at Cambridge University have made your favourite news brand a key source to help them study what makes Britain tick
...
...
From today more than 220,000 pages of the Daily Star are being made available online. You’ll be able to access it via UK family history platform, Findmypast and its sister sites the British Newspaper Archive and the Social History Archive.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/daily-star-becomes-primary-source-37039428
That it blew up in his face, for reasons that were clearly known to the PM before he made the appointment, is why Starmer’s in so much trouble. Not just Epstein either, Mandy had significant links to both Russia and China, in a way it’s surprising that the Americans even let him take up the role in the first place.
I assume that, at some point soon, we’ll hear from a former (Tory) PM as to how the process works, both in theory and in practice.
On this Pope business ....
Note 'him' and not the American people. Is Trump sane?
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5839003-leo-vance-trump-comments/
For all the bluster, political shithousery etc, that is WORTH ANY PRICE!
https://x.com/bohuslavskakate/status/2046070552188657884.
Normally there’s a joke about dropping cigarettes here, but this is dozens of drones that hit the place yesterday. Ukraine is determined that one country won’t be benefitting from the rise in oil prices.
In the context of Starmer's current problems your post is meaningless.
Incidentally, there is a close parallel with the appointment made by Sunny Jim Callaghan in 1977 of his son in law, journalist Peter Jay, to the self same position. That blew up in his face too, although there the outrage came principally from other senior civil servants who could not tolerate this plum job going to an outsider.
Perhaps that's a factor in the current brouhaha. We don't know, but we may find out in due course.
Growth is projected to halve from 1.4% in 2025 to 0.7% this year,...The EY Item Club also expects unemployment to hit 5.8% by the middle of 2027, up from the current five-year high of 5.2%, with almost 250,000 more people losing their jobs because of the crisis in the Middle East.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/20/250000-could-lose-job-2027-uk-recession-analysis-economy-iran-war
Starmer will not come out of the next 48 hours with his moral case to remain in Number 10 untarnished. He owns the appointment of Mandelson, a serial disaster in Governemnt and whose appointment does not even require hindsight to be seen as a fiasco.
The irony in all this is Dame Karen Pierce was a highly respected UK Ambassador to the US, and had she continued, not only would our relationship have prospered without the malign appointment of Mandelson known for his connection with Epstein but also his connections now revealed with Russia and China but Starmer would have avoided his inevitable legacy of Mandelson
Anybody trying to excuse Starmer's appointment which he made before the vetting process had completed is not going to win that argument and the only question is when will Starmer finally have to resign
Starmer took a stupid gamble appointing Mandelson. We all know why but it ended up being a disastrous error of judgement .
Starmer didn’t lie about not receiving confirmation Mandelson failed the UKSV clearance .
There’s no way he would have come out with his statements refuting this if there was any sort of paper trail that could prove otherwise .
The question which I don't think anyone has answered is whether anyone at all knew about the leaking market-sensitive information to his dodgy American chum?
From Camelot to Scamelot: the decline and fall of the American Empire.
Just the pain of meeting him.
https://x.com/plutotlabarbie/status/2045958438862123153?s=20
Starmer's legacy? Destroying the special relationship with the USA forever by disrespecting the President, when sager voices like Badenoch and Farage had warned him of the consequences of not joining Bibi's attack on Tehran.
We do know that Mandy failed the vetting on publicly available information - it was on his consultancies website that the Chinese company in question was a client. IIRC.
Those concerns could have been mitigated under the clearance approved / remain valid with risk management box on the UKSV template .
It seems that it was a total fail instead with clearance withdrawn / denied.
The more important question is who gave permission for Mandelson to receive the highest level of security clearance if reports from the Times are correct .
It’s not altogether clear .
Did No 10 receive the developed vetting clearance and do that or did Robbins himself ?
Starmer made a promise; his side of the quid pro quo: get me elected, then I’ll get you appointed
All the rest is deceitful chaff which has exploded in his fat face
I’m not predicting this is the end for him; he was finished long ago, however long he limps on
NEW THREAD
It was a catastrophic error of judgement, and characteristic of Starmers narcisstic certainty in his own judgement. He owns the decision, everything else is chaff. The buck stops with him.
One idiotic decision to appoint Mandelson is just that . The opposition seem to have forgotten that and think he’d wilfully lie in the Commons .
It’s true that things will happen slowly and then very quickly. The recent internet crackdown is a sign of growing dissent, possibly a precursor to a general mobilisation, and there’s already significant loan defaults threatening the banking system. When it happens, it will be like the Berlin Wall falling or the 2008 financial crash, as the Russian economy collapses in on itself.
Although in my defence, it’s difficult to deflect a rare political appointment that quickly goes badly wrong, as being on the CS implementing the decision rather than the politician who made it.
The really bad stuff seems not to have been known. If it had been, surely the police would have been involved years ago.
The word "reasonable" carrying a lot of weight as ever and keeps me in work.