Skip to content

I did not have truthful relations with those answers – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,174
edited April 20 in General
I did not have truthful relations with those answers – politicalbetting.com

If you’re a fan, friend, or related to Sir Keir Starmer my advice to you is not to watch his appearance in the House of Commons today, my expectatioin is that it will be utterly grim for him based on the Guardian story in the screenshot above.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,200
    So we are back to EICIPM
  • isamisam Posts: 44,230
    Pulpstar said:

    What an absolute dickhead we have for a PM.

    Yes indeed.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,958
    Would be interesting to see the timeline for Ed Lleweyln's appointment and vetting clearance dates.
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922
    edited April 20
    turbotubbs said:

    So we are back to EICIPM

    Ed is crap but is also best least worst of plausible options to be PM
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,323
    Sweeney74 said:

    sorry for the reprise
    /not sorry

    Thanks so much Sweeney 74 that’s an excellent table of events and conclusions which I totally agree with .

    It’s hard to keep track of everything that’s happened so far with this saga so great to have that to refer to .
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,200
    eek said:

    turbotubbs said:

    So we are back to EICIPM

    Ed is crap but is also best of plausible options to be PM
    I have a soft spot for Cooper. And there is no real barrier to Darren Jones (new, but impressive) and Mahmood.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 15,649
    turbotubbs said:

    eek said:

    turbotubbs said:

    So we are back to EICIPM

    Ed is crap but is also best of plausible options to be PM
    I have a soft spot for Cooper. And there is no real barrier to Darren Jones (new, but impressive) and Mahmood.
    Cooper, of course, is a graduate of the University of PB.
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922
    turbotubbs said:

    eek said:

    turbotubbs said:

    So we are back to EICIPM

    Ed is crap but is also best of plausible options to be PM
    I have a soft spot for Cooper. And there is no real barrier to Darren Jones (new, but impressive) and Mahmood.
    If SKS resigns and walks away today - then the leader comes from the current cabinet not from an election. That’s where the Ed bit comes from as much as anything else
  • AbandonedHopeAbandonedHope Posts: 226
    Sweeney74 said:

    The interesting issue now is less “did SKS personally know the UKSV recommendation?” and more “did Olly Robbins simply operate the old system exactly as designed?”. On the public record so far, that looks quite possible. The 17 Apr No 10 paper itself says there was departmental discretion to grant clearance despite a negative UKSV recommendation, and Jones told the Commons last September that ministers were told only the final outcome, not the underlying vetting findings. If so, Robbins may have done what the system contemplated: take the political decision as fixed, apply mitigations, grant clearance, and keep the detailed vetting result tightly held. If that is right, No 10 is now trying to hang Robbins for behaving more or less in line with the process they themselves previously described. Which in turn makes SKS’s “full due process was followed” line look less like a careful truth and more like an over-confident political gloss on a process he had not properly nailed down.

    The difficulty with that argument is the newly disclosed advice from Case, which explicitly says the Prime Minister should be made aware of any issues raised during the vetting process. If we accept your premise - that Robbins was operating the “old system exactly as designed”- and set it alongside Case’s position (“issues of which you should be aware”), it points to a lack of internal consistency within the civil service on how vetting is supposed to work. In other words, Case’s view directly challenges the idea that detailed vetting findings ought to be tightly held; he is clearly saying they should be escalated to the PM.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,323
    Wouldn’t Lammy take over if Starmer resigns ?

    Given he’s already the Deputy PM wouldn’t it look strange if he was overlooked unless he didn’t want to take the position.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,883
    nico67 said:

    Wouldn’t Lammy take over if Starmer resigns ?

    Given he’s already the Deputy PM wouldn’t it look strange if he was overlooked unless he didn’t want to take the position.

    He only deputises for Starmer. Lucy Powell would have a stronger claim as deputy leader of the Labour Party.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,586
    Pulpstar said:

    What an absolute dickhead we have for a PM.

    Him and JD Vance are giving lawyers a bad name.

    I am starting to worry it will damage the respect and and affection the public has for lawyers.

    I expect this from Boris Johnson not a top lawyer.

    The mess I have got other people/clients and myself thanks to precise wordings makes me shake my head at Sir Keir.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 636
    eek said:

    turbotubbs said:

    eek said:

    turbotubbs said:

    So we are back to EICIPM

    Ed is crap but is also best of plausible options to be PM
    I have a soft spot for Cooper. And there is no real barrier to Darren Jones (new, but impressive) and Mahmood.
    If SKS resigns and walks away today - then the leader comes from the current cabinet not from an election. That’s where the Ed bit comes from as much as anything else
    SKS will not resign. Nothing he says this afternoon is likely to move the hard timeline. He will cling like a limpet to the narrow point that he did not knowingly lie to Parliament. But that is not the whole issue: the public record now points pretty clearly to Parliament having been given a materially misleading account of the Mandelson process, even if the misleading was inadvertent rather than deliberate.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 636
    AbandonedHope said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    The interesting issue now is less “did SKS personally know the UKSV recommendation?” and more “did Olly Robbins simply operate the old system exactly as designed?”. On the public record so far, that looks quite possible. The 17 Apr No 10 paper itself says there was departmental discretion to grant clearance despite a negative UKSV recommendation, and Jones told the Commons last September that ministers were told only the final outcome, not the underlying vetting findings. If so, Robbins may have done what the system contemplated: take the political decision as fixed, apply mitigations, grant clearance, and keep the detailed vetting result tightly held. If that is right, No 10 is now trying to hang Robbins for behaving more or less in line with the process they themselves previously described. Which in turn makes SKS’s “full due process was followed” line look less like a careful truth and more like an over-confident political gloss on a process he had not properly nailed down.

    The difficulty with that argument is the newly disclosed advice from Case, which explicitly says the Prime Minister should be made aware of any issues raised during the vetting process. If we accept your premise - that Robbins was operating the “old system exactly as designed”- and set it alongside Case’s position (“issues of which you should be aware”), it points to a lack of internal consistency within the civil service on how vetting is supposed to work. In other words, Case’s view directly challenges the idea that detailed vetting findings ought to be tightly held; he is clearly saying they should be escalated to the PM.
    that only holds if the process is followed by all parties and that the PM await the vetting results.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,586
    DavidL said:

    So, to be clear, Starmer overruled advice from the Head of the Civil Service to complete all security checks on Mandelson before his appointment. And then repeatedly assured the House that all of the correct procedures had been followed. Knowing that he had overruled the Head of the Civil Service.

    I mean, that's it, isn't it?

    It should be.

    If Boris Johnson received a 90 day suspension then Starmer is in the same ballpark.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 15,649
    AbandonedHope said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    The interesting issue now is less “did SKS personally know the UKSV recommendation?” and more “did Olly Robbins simply operate the old system exactly as designed?”. On the public record so far, that looks quite possible. The 17 Apr No 10 paper itself says there was departmental discretion to grant clearance despite a negative UKSV recommendation, and Jones told the Commons last September that ministers were told only the final outcome, not the underlying vetting findings. If so, Robbins may have done what the system contemplated: take the political decision as fixed, apply mitigations, grant clearance, and keep the detailed vetting result tightly held. If that is right, No 10 is now trying to hang Robbins for behaving more or less in line with the process they themselves previously described. Which in turn makes SKS’s “full due process was followed” line look less like a careful truth and more like an over-confident political gloss on a process he had not properly nailed down.

    The difficulty with that argument is the newly disclosed advice from Case, which explicitly says the Prime Minister should be made aware of any issues raised during the vetting process. If we accept your premise - that Robbins was operating the “old system exactly as designed”- and set it alongside Case’s position (“issues of which you should be aware”), it points to a lack of internal consistency within the civil service on how vetting is supposed to work. In other words, Case’s view directly challenges the idea that detailed vetting findings ought to be tightly held; he is clearly saying they should be escalated to the PM.
    It is simply intolerable that a negative finding by the Vetting Committee is not relayed to the PM. It doesn't have to be chapter and verse. It doesn't have to state what the problem was. The PM needs only to know 'it's a fail', and that should be it. If he's been daft enough to announce the appointment publicly already, that's his problem. The FO simply cannot repress the VC's findings. Insane.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,200
    eek said:

    turbotubbs said:

    eek said:

    turbotubbs said:

    So we are back to EICIPM

    Ed is crap but is also best of plausible options to be PM
    I have a soft spot for Cooper. And there is no real barrier to Darren Jones (new, but impressive) and Mahmood.
    If SKS resigns and walks away today - then the leader comes from the current cabinet not from an election. That’s where the Ed bit comes from as much as anything else
    Of course that absolutely isn't going to happen. As horse kept saying yesterday, Labour are not the Tories and there is no easy way to get rid. Plus, even if his removal is desired by the party, they would surely want him to carry the can for the locals too?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,446
    May you live in interesting times .....
  • AbandonedHopeAbandonedHope Posts: 226
    Sweeney74 said:

    AbandonedHope said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    The interesting issue now is less “did SKS personally know the UKSV recommendation?” and more “did Olly Robbins simply operate the old system exactly as designed?”. On the public record so far, that looks quite possible. The 17 Apr No 10 paper itself says there was departmental discretion to grant clearance despite a negative UKSV recommendation, and Jones told the Commons last September that ministers were told only the final outcome, not the underlying vetting findings. If so, Robbins may have done what the system contemplated: take the political decision as fixed, apply mitigations, grant clearance, and keep the detailed vetting result tightly held. If that is right, No 10 is now trying to hang Robbins for behaving more or less in line with the process they themselves previously described. Which in turn makes SKS’s “full due process was followed” line look less like a careful truth and more like an over-confident political gloss on a process he had not properly nailed down.

    The difficulty with that argument is the newly disclosed advice from Case, which explicitly says the Prime Minister should be made aware of any issues raised during the vetting process. If we accept your premise - that Robbins was operating the “old system exactly as designed”- and set it alongside Case’s position (“issues of which you should be aware”), it points to a lack of internal consistency within the civil service on how vetting is supposed to work. In other words, Case’s view directly challenges the idea that detailed vetting findings ought to be tightly held; he is clearly saying they should be escalated to the PM.
    that only holds if the process is followed by all parties and that the PM await the vetting results.
    I disagree. That objection only really works if the issue is timing - i.e. whether the PM waited for the vetting process to conclude. But that’s slightly beside the point. Case’s advice isn’t conditional on timing; it’s about what the PM should be told when issues arise. Even if the process is still ongoing, his position implies that relevant concerns should be escalated, not contained.

    So the tension remains: either the system is designed to keep detailed vetting findings tightly held (as your original argument suggests), or, as Case indicates, those findings - at least where they raise concerns - should be shared with the PM. The “wait for the process” point doesn’t really resolve that contradiction.
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922
    turbotubbs said:

    eek said:

    turbotubbs said:

    eek said:

    turbotubbs said:

    So we are back to EICIPM

    Ed is crap but is also best of plausible options to be PM
    I have a soft spot for Cooper. And there is no real barrier to Darren Jones (new, but impressive) and Mahmood.
    If SKS resigns and walks away today - then the leader comes from the current cabinet not from an election. That’s where the Ed bit comes from as much as anything else
    Of course that absolutely isn't going to happen. As horse kept saying yesterday, Labour are not the Tories and there is no easy way to get rid. Plus, even if his removal is desired by the party, they would surely want him to carry the can for the locals too?
    Why? He’s resigned in disgrace which means you can easily pin the bad result on him attached to it would have been worse if I wasn’t here steadying the ship
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,361
    eek said:

    turbotubbs said:

    So we are back to EICIPM

    Ed is crap but is also best least worst of plausible options to be PM
    Except that Ed is said to not want the top job after his experience as LotO. Further evidence is his rumoured approach to support Angela Rayner in return for being Chancellor.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 636
    AbandonedHope said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    AbandonedHope said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    The interesting issue now is less “did SKS personally know the UKSV recommendation?” and more “did Olly Robbins simply operate the old system exactly as designed?”. On the public record so far, that looks quite possible. The 17 Apr No 10 paper itself says there was departmental discretion to grant clearance despite a negative UKSV recommendation, and Jones told the Commons last September that ministers were told only the final outcome, not the underlying vetting findings. If so, Robbins may have done what the system contemplated: take the political decision as fixed, apply mitigations, grant clearance, and keep the detailed vetting result tightly held. If that is right, No 10 is now trying to hang Robbins for behaving more or less in line with the process they themselves previously described. Which in turn makes SKS’s “full due process was followed” line look less like a careful truth and more like an over-confident political gloss on a process he had not properly nailed down.

    The difficulty with that argument is the newly disclosed advice from Case, which explicitly says the Prime Minister should be made aware of any issues raised during the vetting process. If we accept your premise - that Robbins was operating the “old system exactly as designed”- and set it alongside Case’s position (“issues of which you should be aware”), it points to a lack of internal consistency within the civil service on how vetting is supposed to work. In other words, Case’s view directly challenges the idea that detailed vetting findings ought to be tightly held; he is clearly saying they should be escalated to the PM.
    that only holds if the process is followed by all parties and that the PM await the vetting results.
    I disagree. That objection only really works if the issue is timing - i.e. whether the PM waited for the vetting process to conclude. But that’s slightly beside the point. Case’s advice isn’t conditional on timing; it’s about what the PM should be told when issues arise. Even if the process is still ongoing, his position implies that relevant concerns should be escalated, not contained.

    So the tension remains: either the system is designed to keep detailed vetting findings tightly held (as your original argument suggests), or, as Case indicates, those findings - at least where they raise concerns - should be shared with the PM. The “wait for the process” point doesn’t really resolve that contradiction.
    I think it ambiguous enough to be interpreted either way.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,897
    As usual, the people to fear in situations like this are those behind you, not in front. The response from the Labour back benchers will be critical. If they are raucous and belligerent for Starmer he can survive. Stony silence and we are in the last day of his Premiership. This is a day that the Whips earn their corn.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 81,143
    Simon Case's words there must be worth their weight in gold for Olly Robbins forthcoming payout.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,263
    williamglenn said:

    nico67 said:

    Wouldn’t Lammy take over if Starmer resigns ?

    Given he’s already the Deputy PM wouldn’t it look strange if he was overlooked unless he didn’t want to take the position.

    He only deputises for Starmer. Lucy Powell would have a stronger claim as deputy leader of the Labour Party.
    Oh god ..... Can you imagine LP with Trump? Almost as bad as Kemi with Trump.

    Katie Lam on the other hand.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,361
    The problem with Starmer's "inadvertent" line is that last week he did not correct this in the House.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,883
    https://x.com/guidofawkes/status/2046206405762338917

    Starmer 2022: "Look, there are only two possible explanations. Either he's trashing the ministerial code, or he is claiming he was repeatedly lied to by his own advisers and did not know what was going on in his own house and his own office. Come off it."
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,200
    eek said:

    turbotubbs said:

    eek said:

    turbotubbs said:

    eek said:

    turbotubbs said:

    So we are back to EICIPM

    Ed is crap but is also best of plausible options to be PM
    I have a soft spot for Cooper. And there is no real barrier to Darren Jones (new, but impressive) and Mahmood.
    If SKS resigns and walks away today - then the leader comes from the current cabinet not from an election. That’s where the Ed bit comes from as much as anything else
    Of course that absolutely isn't going to happen. As horse kept saying yesterday, Labour are not the Tories and there is no easy way to get rid. Plus, even if his removal is desired by the party, they would surely want him to carry the can for the locals too?
    Why? He’s resigned in disgrace which means you can easily pin the bad result on him attached to it would have been worse if I wasn’t here steadying the ship
    Maybe, but for the sake of two weeks or so, wait.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,323
    Will Starmer be able to show documents from Olly Robbins in relation to Mandelson today ?

    Will any of these documents show requests from No 10 for more information?

    We don’t know at this time what will be produced . It’s reported that Starmer will accept he mislead the House but it was inadvertent.

  • isamisam Posts: 44,230
    Movement in the next PM market

    Rayner into 3.65, £1400 wanting to back
    Streeting 8.2-9 having been 12 earlier
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,684
    .
    DavidL said:

    As usual, the people to fear in situations like this are those behind you, not in front. The response from the Labour back benchers will be critical. If they are raucous and belligerent for Starmer he can survive. Stony silence and we are in the last day of his Premiership. This is a day that the Whips earn their corn.

    Yes, either it's put to bed today, or it's an unavoidable and growing distraction from the business of government.

    Starmer either emerges wounded and diminished, or fatally wounded from this appearance.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,242
    DavidL said:

    So, to be clear, Starmer overruled advice from the Head of the Civil Service to complete all security checks on Mandelson before his appointment. And then repeatedly assured the House that all of the correct procedures had been followed. Knowing that he had overruled the Head of the Civil Service.

    I mean, that's it, isn't it?

    Overruling is part of the process, doncha know.
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922
    AbandonedHope said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    AbandonedHope said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    The interesting issue now is less “did SKS personally know the UKSV recommendation?” and more “did Olly Robbins simply operate the old system exactly as designed?”. On the public record so far, that looks quite possible. The 17 Apr No 10 paper itself says there was departmental discretion to grant clearance despite a negative UKSV recommendation, and Jones told the Commons last September that ministers were told only the final outcome, not the underlying vetting findings. If so, Robbins may have done what the system contemplated: take the political decision as fixed, apply mitigations, grant clearance, and keep the detailed vetting result tightly held. If that is right, No 10 is now trying to hang Robbins for behaving more or less in line with the process they themselves previously described. Which in turn makes SKS’s “full due process was followed” line look less like a careful truth and more like an over-confident political gloss on a process he had not properly nailed down.

    The difficulty with that argument is the newly disclosed advice from Case, which explicitly says the Prime Minister should be made aware of any issues raised during the vetting process. If we accept your premise - that Robbins was operating the “old system exactly as designed”- and set it alongside Case’s position (“issues of which you should be aware”), it points to a lack of internal consistency within the civil service on how vetting is supposed to work. In other words, Case’s view directly challenges the idea that detailed vetting findings ought to be tightly held; he is clearly saying they should be escalated to the PM.
    that only holds if the process is followed by all parties and that the PM await the vetting results.
    I disagree. That objection only really works if the issue is timing - i.e. whether the PM waited for the vetting process to conclude. But that’s slightly beside the point. Case’s advice isn’t conditional on timing; it’s about what the PM should be told when issues arise. Even if the process is still ongoing, his position implies that relevant concerns should be escalated, not contained.

    So the tension remains: either the system is designed to keep detailed vetting findings tightly held (as your original argument suggests), or, as Case indicates, those findings - at least where they raise concerns - should be shared with the PM. The “wait for the process” point doesn’t really resolve that contradiction.
    I don’t think that’s relevant - the question is why didn’t SKS wait for vetting to be completed before appointing Mandelson when the process throughout the civil service is wait.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,235
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    The problem with Starmer's "inadvertent" line is that last week he did not correct this in the House.

    Yes. He should have told the House on Wednesday.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,883
    eek said:

    AbandonedHope said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    AbandonedHope said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    The interesting issue now is less “did SKS personally know the UKSV recommendation?” and more “did Olly Robbins simply operate the old system exactly as designed?”. On the public record so far, that looks quite possible. The 17 Apr No 10 paper itself says there was departmental discretion to grant clearance despite a negative UKSV recommendation, and Jones told the Commons last September that ministers were told only the final outcome, not the underlying vetting findings. If so, Robbins may have done what the system contemplated: take the political decision as fixed, apply mitigations, grant clearance, and keep the detailed vetting result tightly held. If that is right, No 10 is now trying to hang Robbins for behaving more or less in line with the process they themselves previously described. Which in turn makes SKS’s “full due process was followed” line look less like a careful truth and more like an over-confident political gloss on a process he had not properly nailed down.

    The difficulty with that argument is the newly disclosed advice from Case, which explicitly says the Prime Minister should be made aware of any issues raised during the vetting process. If we accept your premise - that Robbins was operating the “old system exactly as designed”- and set it alongside Case’s position (“issues of which you should be aware”), it points to a lack of internal consistency within the civil service on how vetting is supposed to work. In other words, Case’s view directly challenges the idea that detailed vetting findings ought to be tightly held; he is clearly saying they should be escalated to the PM.
    that only holds if the process is followed by all parties and that the PM await the vetting results.
    I disagree. That objection only really works if the issue is timing - i.e. whether the PM waited for the vetting process to conclude. But that’s slightly beside the point. Case’s advice isn’t conditional on timing; it’s about what the PM should be told when issues arise. Even if the process is still ongoing, his position implies that relevant concerns should be escalated, not contained.

    So the tension remains: either the system is designed to keep detailed vetting findings tightly held (as your original argument suggests), or, as Case indicates, those findings - at least where they raise concerns - should be shared with the PM. The “wait for the process” point doesn’t really resolve that contradiction.
    I don’t think that’s relevant - the question is why didn’t SKS wait for vetting to be completed before appointing Mandelson when the process throughout the civil service is wait.
    He'd just lost the election to become Chancellor of the University of Oxford and needed something to perk him up.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,897
    edited April 20
    carnforth said:

    DavidL said:

    So, to be clear, Starmer overruled advice from the Head of the Civil Service to complete all security checks on Mandelson before his appointment. And then repeatedly assured the House that all of the correct procedures had been followed. Knowing that he had overruled the Head of the Civil Service.

    I mean, that's it, isn't it?

    Overruling is part of the process, doncha know.
    Yes, but it is not a basis on which he can claim all of the correct procedures were followed. He was told what the procedures were and he chose not to follow them. And then, according to him, was totally incurious about the outcome of the DV until last Tuesday.

    As I said yesterday this is a day for the rapier not the broadsword. Kemi needs to choose a maximum of 2 or 3 key points and focus on them. Otherwise she will lose people in the detail. Less is definitely more.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,242
    DavidL said:

    carnforth said:

    DavidL said:

    So, to be clear, Starmer overruled advice from the Head of the Civil Service to complete all security checks on Mandelson before his appointment. And then repeatedly assured the House that all of the correct procedures had been followed. Knowing that he had overruled the Head of the Civil Service.

    I mean, that's it, isn't it?

    Overruling is part of the process, doncha know.
    Yes, but it is not a basis on which he can claim all of the correct procedures were followed. He was told what the procedures were and he chose not to follow them. And then, according to him, was totally incurious about the outcome of the DV until last Tuesday.

    As I said yesterday this is a day for the rapier not the broadsword. Kemi needs to choose a maximum of 2 or 3 key points and focus on them. Otherwise she will lose people in the detail. Less is definitely more.
    I was joking!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,684
    I'm not sure I agree with this, but interesting.

    https://x.com/FraserNelson/status/2046164518615617725
    IMO removing Prime Ministers should be a pleasure reserved for voters.

    As Tories showed, regicide is pointless unless you can be 100% sure the successor would be a serious improvement.

    Election-winning PMs at least carry democratic legitimacy. Plotters less so.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,146
    DavidL said:

    carnforth said:

    DavidL said:

    So, to be clear, Starmer overruled advice from the Head of the Civil Service to complete all security checks on Mandelson before his appointment. And then repeatedly assured the House that all of the correct procedures had been followed. Knowing that he had overruled the Head of the Civil Service.

    I mean, that's it, isn't it?

    Overruling is part of the process, doncha know.
    Yes, but it is not a basis on which he can claim all of the correct procedures were followed. He was told what the procedures were and he chose not to follow them. And then, according to him, was totally incurious about the outcome of the DV until last Tuesday.

    As I said yesterday this is a day for the rapier not the broadsword. Kemi needs to choose a maximum of 2 or 3 key points and focus on them. Otherwise she will lose people in the detail. Less is definitely more.
    The really surprising thing about this latest revelation is that Simon Case gave competent advice. Presumably it was left over from the go-by he used.
  • AbandonedHopeAbandonedHope Posts: 226
    eek said:

    AbandonedHope said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    AbandonedHope said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    The interesting issue now is less “did SKS personally know the UKSV recommendation?” and more “did Olly Robbins simply operate the old system exactly as designed?”. On the public record so far, that looks quite possible. The 17 Apr No 10 paper itself says there was departmental discretion to grant clearance despite a negative UKSV recommendation, and Jones told the Commons last September that ministers were told only the final outcome, not the underlying vetting findings. If so, Robbins may have done what the system contemplated: take the political decision as fixed, apply mitigations, grant clearance, and keep the detailed vetting result tightly held. If that is right, No 10 is now trying to hang Robbins for behaving more or less in line with the process they themselves previously described. Which in turn makes SKS’s “full due process was followed” line look less like a careful truth and more like an over-confident political gloss on a process he had not properly nailed down.

    The difficulty with that argument is the newly disclosed advice from Case, which explicitly says the Prime Minister should be made aware of any issues raised during the vetting process. If we accept your premise - that Robbins was operating the “old system exactly as designed”- and set it alongside Case’s position (“issues of which you should be aware”), it points to a lack of internal consistency within the civil service on how vetting is supposed to work. In other words, Case’s view directly challenges the idea that detailed vetting findings ought to be tightly held; he is clearly saying they should be escalated to the PM.
    that only holds if the process is followed by all parties and that the PM await the vetting results.
    I disagree. That objection only really works if the issue is timing - i.e. whether the PM waited for the vetting process to conclude. But that’s slightly beside the point. Case’s advice isn’t conditional on timing; it’s about what the PM should be told when issues arise. Even if the process is still ongoing, his position implies that relevant concerns should be escalated, not contained.

    So the tension remains: either the system is designed to keep detailed vetting findings tightly held (as your original argument suggests), or, as Case indicates, those findings - at least where they raise concerns - should be shared with the PM. The “wait for the process” point doesn’t really resolve that contradiction.
    I don’t think that’s relevant - the question is why didn’t SKS wait for vetting to be completed before appointing Mandelson when the process throughout the civil service is wait.
    That’s a separate issue. The question you’ve raised is whether the PM should have waited for vetting to conclude before making the appointment. The point I was making is about what the PM should be told during the vetting process itself.

    Case’s advice goes to disclosure - whether concerns identified in vetting should be escalated to the PM as they arise. @Sweeney74’s argument was that they shouldn’t be, because the system was designed to keep such details tightly held. The “should he have waited?” question is about process and timing. They’re related, but not the same, and answering one doesn’t resolve the other.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 61,139
    Nigelb said:

    I'm not sure I agree with this, but interesting.

    https://x.com/FraserNelson/status/2046164518615617725
    IMO removing Prime Ministers should be a pleasure reserved for voters.

    As Tories showed, regicide is pointless unless you can be 100% sure the successor would be a serious improvement.

    Election-winning PMs at least carry democratic legitimacy. Plotters less so.

    PMs don't need the confidence of the voters, they need the confidence of MPs.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,146
    Nigelb said:

    .

    DavidL said:

    As usual, the people to fear in situations like this are those behind you, not in front. The response from the Labour back benchers will be critical. If they are raucous and belligerent for Starmer he can survive. Stony silence and we are in the last day of his Premiership. This is a day that the Whips earn their corn.

    Yes, either it's put to bed today, or it's an unavoidable and growing distraction from the business of government.

    Starmer either emerges wounded and diminished, or fatally wounded from this appearance.
    It doesn't get put to bed today because Robbins is up tomorrow.
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922
    Nigelb said:

    I'm not sure I agree with this, but interesting.

    https://x.com/FraserNelson/status/2046164518615617725
    IMO removing Prime Ministers should be a pleasure reserved for voters.

    As Tories showed, regicide is pointless unless you can be 100% sure the successor would be a serious improvement.

    Election-winning PMs at least carry democratic legitimacy. Plotters less so.

    Regicide is pointless except all the previous examples of regicide since 2020 have been for none political reasons, lying to Parliament (Bozo), never should have been allowed (Truss) and again lying to Parliament.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,897
    Nigelb said:

    I'm not sure I agree with this, but interesting.

    https://x.com/FraserNelson/status/2046164518615617725
    IMO removing Prime Ministers should be a pleasure reserved for voters.

    As Tories showed, regicide is pointless unless you can be 100% sure the successor would be a serious improvement.

    Election-winning PMs at least carry democratic legitimacy. Plotters less so.

    Let me have men about me that are fat;
    Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o' nights.
    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
    He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922
    Dopermean said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    DavidL said:

    As usual, the people to fear in situations like this are those behind you, not in front. The response from the Labour back benchers will be critical. If they are raucous and belligerent for Starmer he can survive. Stony silence and we are in the last day of his Premiership. This is a day that the Whips earn their corn.

    Yes, either it's put to bed today, or it's an unavoidable and growing distraction from the business of government.

    Starmer either emerges wounded and diminished, or fatally wounded from this appearance.
    It doesn't get put to bed today because Robbins is up tomorrow.
    Well it should be put to bed today as Robbins tomorrow is going to be worse for SKS.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 81,143
    Nigelb said:

    I'm not sure I agree with this, but interesting.

    https://x.com/FraserNelson/status/2046164518615617725
    IMO removing Prime Ministers should be a pleasure reserved for voters.

    As Tories showed, regicide is pointless unless you can be 100% sure the successor would be a serious improvement.

    Election-winning PMs at least carry democratic legitimacy. Plotters less so.

    Still carrying a flame for old Boris is he ?

    If a minister breaks the code, they have to go. That includes the PM. It looks very much like this is the case here given the instructions of the top civil servant at the time. The last ministerial resignation I thought was "a bit harsh" was Amber Rudd who seemed to cop for May's errors.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,235
    edited April 20
    Nigelb said:

    I'm not sure I agree with this, but interesting.

    https://x.com/FraserNelson/status/2046164518615617725
    IMO removing Prime Ministers should be a pleasure reserved for voters.

    As Tories showed, regicide is pointless unless you can be 100% sure the successor would be a serious improvement.

    Election-winning PMs at least carry democratic legitimacy. Plotters less so.

    I completely disagree with it. Britain has a Parliamentary system not a Presidential one. The whole point is that the voters elect MPs and MPs choose the PM. The PM is not directly elected, which means they can be easily replaced, when necessary, between elections. It's an advantage of a Parliamentary system over a Presidential one.

    The key thing is, "when necessary." If the voters feel that it was done frivolously then they can give their judgement at the next election and elect MPs who will be more slavish in devotion to the PM following the election.

    I think voters generally prefer an unpopular PM to be replaced, but they don't like that a PM became unpopular in the first place. So replacing a sufficiently unpopular PM is better than leaving them to rot in office, but it's a definite sign of failure. You better be sure that you need to do it, and that the replacement will be good enough that you don't start thinking about doing it again.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,609
    Pulpstar said:

    What an absolute dickhead we have for a PM.

    I remember people on this board saying before the election that it couldn't possibly be worse.

    Yes, it could. And it is.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,864
    edited April 20
    Nigelb said:

    I'm not sure I agree with this, but interesting.

    https://x.com/FraserNelson/status/2046164518615617725
    IMO removing Prime Ministers should be a pleasure reserved for voters.

    As Tories showed, regicide is pointless unless you can be 100% sure the successor would be a serious improvement.

    Election-winning PMs at least carry democratic legitimacy. Plotters less so.

    I disagree. We elect MPs not PMs. What matters is that the new PM understands the basis on which their government was elected. Now, they might make a few tweaks here and there, but they should be seeking to deliver on their manifesto (obviously stuff, like Iran, happens).

    If you want to make a radical departure from the existing programme for government, then you should call an election.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,609
    isam said:

    Movement in the next PM market

    Rayner into 3.65, £1400 wanting to back
    Streeting 8.2-9 having been 12 earlier

    Why does it always Rayner me?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,235
    The Guardian is reporting Farage as trying to distance himself from Trump. If an accurate portrayal of events, then it suggests Farage values electoral success in Britain above financial opportunities in the US, and/or he thinks we are approaching the Trump endgame.

    An interesting straw in the wind.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 7,937
    The Been have all the crucial info on their live feed

    Larry the cat has been on a wander, and Mandy is walking his dog
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,586
    edited April 20
    Just a reminder.

    I have short break starting a week on Thursday, back the following Tuesday.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,406
    Casino_Royale said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What an absolute dickhead we have for a PM.

    I remember people on this board saying before the election that it couldn't possibly be worse.

    Yes, it could. And it is.
    You were warned in advance, Labour - The Brittas Empire without any laughs.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,406
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Just a reminder.

    I have short break starting a week on Thursday, back the following Tuesday.

    Not going via the Straits of Hormuz by any chance?
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,726
    MarqueeMark said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What an absolute dickhead we have for a PM.

    I remember people on this board saying before the election that it couldn't possibly be worse.

    Yes, it could. And it is.
    You were warned in advance, Labour - The Brittas Empire without any laughs.
    Wait until they put Thornbury in - then we'll have 'Keeping Up Appearances' without any laughs.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,406
    edited April 20
    LostPassword said:

    The Guardian is reporting Farage as trying to distance himself from Trump. If an accurate portrayal of events, then it suggests Farage values electoral success in Britain above financial opportunities in the US, and/or he thinks we are approaching the Trump endgame.

    An interesting straw in the wind.

    Won't work. He's been too long a snug resident of Trump's lower colon.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 46,467
    nico67 said:

    Wouldn’t Lammy take over if Starmer resigns ?

    Given he’s already the Deputy PM wouldn’t it look strange if he was overlooked unless he didn’t want to take the position.

    One can only hope not, we are in trouble enough without thaty donkey in charge.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 17,376
    A question for the collective wisdom....
    Prorogation is due probably by Tuesday next week and the Kings Speech May 13th. If SKS were forced out this week, what the hell happens? Can they really ask HMK to give a KS that wont be implemented as new leader, new programme?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,200
    RobD said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm not sure I agree with this, but interesting.

    https://x.com/FraserNelson/status/2046164518615617725
    IMO removing Prime Ministers should be a pleasure reserved for voters.

    As Tories showed, regicide is pointless unless you can be 100% sure the successor would be a serious improvement.

    Election-winning PMs at least carry democratic legitimacy. Plotters less so.

    PMs don't need the confidence of the voters, they need the confidence of MPs.
    As we have seen so often with the Tories, if you change the PM mid-term, then the opposition has free reign to attack on a lack of a mandate. We don't have a presidential system here, but many 'think' we do. People often say that that voted for X to be PM, when in reality they voted for an MP of X's party.

    Ultimately Starmer needs his MP's to be on his side.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,864
    edited April 20
    https://x.com/soniasodha/status/2046220508912333197

    Sonia Sodha
    @soniasodha
    These are cringe, but the one quoting an Epstein survivor is really shameless given the PM appointed Mandelson as ambassador to the US *knowing he had connections to Epstein*.


    https://x.com/patrickkmaguire/status/2046218610109014022

    Patrick Maguire
    @patrickkmaguire
    Here are the questions Sir Keir Starmer would most like to be asked in the Commons this afternoon, just sent to Labour MPs by the PLP Office. Let’s see who does as they are told. (The one quoting a victim of Epstein is going down quite badly.)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,883
    https://x.com/estwebber/status/2046210803087421895

    On Keir Starmer's working style:

    “He delegates so much responsibility.”

    “He is fundamentally pretty uninterested in people.”

    “His team don’t trust him because he throws other people under the bus.”
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,886
    I expect Starmer survives this. If Burnham was an MP he would likely be gone after the local elections but as he can still say he only misled the House as he was misled himself and was never explicitly told Mandelson failed his vetting he will probably get away with it.

    There is no mechanism for Labour MPs to vote to no confidence a leader as Conservative MPs have and Labour MPs are unlikely to nominate Ed Miliband, a man who led Labour to defeat in 2015 against the Tories and Farage's party with an even lower voteshare than Corbyn got in 2019 as the saviour of the party. Especially given SKS for all his faults led Labour to landslide victory in 2024 over the Tories and Reform.

    If Labour are third or worse in the NEV after the local and devolved elections in May then Labour MPs may nominate Rayner to challenge the PM but given she is undergoing her own HMRC investigation that would be risky. If Labour are second to Reform in May and ahead of the Tories it will likely be Kemi facing a VONC and Starmer will survive for another year
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,586
    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Just a reminder.

    I have short break starting a week on Thursday, back the following Tuesday.

    Not going via the Straits of Hormuz by any chance?
    That’s my scheduled holiday for the end of September.

    Am planning to go to Dubai.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,603
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Just a reminder.

    I have short break starting a week on Thursday, back the following Tuesday.

    Where's your house? I can burgle you on the Friday or Monday, but am busy on the Saturday and don't work Sundays for religious reasons.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,435
    Toast or merely current bun though he may be, none of the conditions for a replacement are yet met. Potential contenders all need time to resolve or put some space behind their various hindrances, the party needs to work out who it might be able to rally around, and the time needs to be attractive enough for the replacement - whereas right now there is a whole year of bad news for Labour and the economy lined up that Starmer may as well be left to soak up, because anyone new would be foolish to get lumbered with it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,883
    tlg86 said:

    https://x.com/soniasodha/status/2046220508912333197

    Sonia Sodha
    @soniasodha
    These are cringe, but the one quoting an Epstein survivor is really shameless given the PM appointed Mandelson as ambassador to the US *knowing he had connections to Epstein*.


    https://x.com/patrickkmaguire/status/2046218610109014022

    Patrick Maguire
    @patrickkmaguire
    Here are the questions Sir Keir Starmer would most like to be asked in the Commons this afternoon, just sent to Labour MPs by the PLP Office. Let’s see who does as they are told. (The one quoting a victim of Epstein is going down quite badly.)

    I wonder who leaked them.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,897
    tlg86 said:

    https://x.com/soniasodha/status/2046220508912333197

    Sonia Sodha
    @soniasodha
    These are cringe, but the one quoting an Epstein survivor is really shameless given the PM appointed Mandelson as ambassador to the US *knowing he had connections to Epstein*.


    https://x.com/patrickkmaguire/status/2046218610109014022

    Patrick Maguire
    @patrickkmaguire
    Here are the questions Sir Keir Starmer would most like to be asked in the Commons this afternoon, just sent to Labour MPs by the PLP Office. Let’s see who does as they are told. (The one quoting a victim of Epstein is going down quite badly.)

    The fact that this has leaked so fast is also ominous.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,886
    edited April 20
    IanB2 said:

    Toast or merely current bun though he may be, none of the conditions for a replacement are yet met. Potential contenders all need time to resolve or put some space behind their various hindrances, the party needs to work out who it might be able to rally around, and the time needs to be attractive enough for the replacement - whereas right now there is a whole year of bad news for Labour and the economy lined up that Starmer may as well be left to soak up, because anyone new would be foolish to get lumbered with it.

    Yes, I expect SKS to survive this year, 2027 or 2028 is another matter though. Streeting is very ambitious and clearly wants the top job before the next general election and Burnham, if allowed by the NEC to stand for a parliamentary by election before then, would also be a contender
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,200
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm not sure I agree with this, but interesting.

    https://x.com/FraserNelson/status/2046164518615617725
    IMO removing Prime Ministers should be a pleasure reserved for voters.

    As Tories showed, regicide is pointless unless you can be 100% sure the successor would be a serious improvement.

    Election-winning PMs at least carry democratic legitimacy. Plotters less so.

    Let me have men about me that are fat;
    Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o' nights.
    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
    He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
    I prefer this bit:
    Second Commoner Truly, sir, in respect of a fine workman, I am but, as you would say, a cobbler.
    MARULLUS But what trade art thou? answer me directly.
    Second Commoner A trade, sir, that, I hope, I may use with a safe conscience; which is, indeed, sir, a mender of bad soles.
    MARULLUS What trade, thou knave? thou naughty knave, what trade?
    Second Commoner Nay, I beseech you, sir, be not out with me: yet, if you be out, sir, I can mend you.
    MARULLUS What meanest thou by that? mend me, thou saucy fellow!
    Second Commoner Why, sir, cobble you.
    FLAVIUS Thou art a cobbler, art thou?
    Second Commoner Truly, sir, all that I live by is with the awl

    How's that for a pun. TSE?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,586
    Surely Starmer needs a distraction.

    Re-arrest Andrew Mountbatten or charge him.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,784
    MaxPB said:

    I'm stunned at how quickly a Labour government has thrown away the loyalty of the Civil Service. I have a few friends who were popping champagne corks after the election but those same people are absolutely furious today at how they've been scapegoated for this.

    I don't understand why Labour have played this so badly, a ready and pretty loyal bunch of lefty civil servants are already done with them and will treat them the same as they did the previous Tory government and block absolutely everything they can.

    What a completely stupid enemy to make.

    As I think I've said repeatedly, they don't know what they are doing. Specifically

    LABOUR SPECIFIC POINTS
    * Starmer has a strange personality quirk whereby he can say one thing one day, the exact opposite the next day, and yet not internalise this
    * Starmer will say anything to get him out of trouble, even if it's ridiculous or demonstrably counterfactual, and still not internalise this
    * The Labour Party were so consumed with gaining election that they ENTIRELY NEGLECTED to formulate a plan on what to do on when they won
    * The Labour Party were so consumed with gaining election that they made wild promises that could not be fulfilled in Government and/or were inconsistent with themselves or manifesto promises.
    * Having defined itself in negative terms ("New Labour, not Old Labour") during the Blair years, and now that Blairite policies stopped working, they no longer have an internal model of the economy nor have an internal model of how to fix it

    NON-PARTISAN POINTS
    * Politics has substituted words for concepts. It is sufficient for politicians to say words to fill the time required by the interviewer, without those words actually tethering to actual facts and concepts.
    * The UK has enormous problems (too much debt, aged population, mobile wealthy, large inward migration, destruction of NATO, vestigial armed forces) that would be difficult for any party to fix. Which is why they concentrate on culture war or authoritarianism as displacement activity.

    There's probably more, but I need to get back from lunch.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,886
    edited April 20
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Surely Starmer needs a distraction.

    Re-arrest Andrew Mountbatten or charge him.

    That would still be damaging, why re-arrest or charge Andrew and not Mandy too?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,586
    turbotubbs said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm not sure I agree with this, but interesting.

    https://x.com/FraserNelson/status/2046164518615617725
    IMO removing Prime Ministers should be a pleasure reserved for voters.

    As Tories showed, regicide is pointless unless you can be 100% sure the successor would be a serious improvement.

    Election-winning PMs at least carry democratic legitimacy. Plotters less so.

    Let me have men about me that are fat;
    Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o' nights.
    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
    He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
    I prefer this bit:
    Second Commoner Truly, sir, in respect of a fine workman, I am but, as you would say, a cobbler.
    MARULLUS But what trade art thou? answer me directly.
    Second Commoner A trade, sir, that, I hope, I may use with a safe conscience; which is, indeed, sir, a mender of bad soles.
    MARULLUS What trade, thou knave? thou naughty knave, what trade?
    Second Commoner Nay, I beseech you, sir, be not out with me: yet, if you be out, sir, I can mend you.
    MARULLUS What meanest thou by that? mend me, thou saucy fellow!
    Second Commoner Why, sir, cobble you.
    FLAVIUS Thou art a cobbler, art thou?
    Second Commoner Truly, sir, all that I live by is with the awl

    How's that for a pun. TSE?
    That is so subtlety brilliant people could mistake it for one of mine.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,406
    Was there actually ANY point to Mandelson being vetted?

    (Other than to ultimately remove Starmer, perhaps.)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 61,139
    tlg86 said:

    https://x.com/soniasodha/status/2046220508912333197

    Sonia Sodha
    @soniasodha
    These are cringe, but the one quoting an Epstein survivor is really shameless given the PM appointed Mandelson as ambassador to the US *knowing he had connections to Epstein*.


    https://x.com/patrickkmaguire/status/2046218610109014022

    Patrick Maguire
    @patrickkmaguire
    Here are the questions Sir Keir Starmer would most like to be asked in the Commons this afternoon, just sent to Labour MPs by the PLP Office. Let’s see who does as they are told. (The one quoting a victim of Epstein is going down quite badly.)

    Are MPs capable of any independent thought?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,406
    isam said:



    https://x.com/bigphil321/status/2046130879068561577?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Hamilton gets a bonus Scottish isle too!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,181
    HYUFD said:

    I expect Starmer survives this. If Burnham was an MP he would likely be gone after the local elections but as he can still say he only misled the House as he was misled himself and was never explicitly told Mandelson failed his vetting he will probably get away with it.

    There is no mechanism for Labour MPs to vote to no confidence a leader as Conservative MPs have and Labour MPs are unlikely to nominate Ed Miliband, a man who led Labour to defeat in 2015 against the Tories and Farage's party with an even lower voteshare than Corbyn got in 2019 as the saviour of the party. Especially given SKS for all his faults led Labour to landslide victory in 2024 over the Tories and Reform.

    If Labour are third or worse in the NEV after the local and devolved elections in May then Labour MPs may nominate Rayner to challenge the PM but given she is undergoing her own HMRC investigation that would be risky. If Labour are second to Reform in May and ahead of the Tories it will likely be Kemi facing a VONC and Starmer will survive for another year

    Starmer appointed Mandelson against the cabinet secretary advice and put at risk the nations security which in itself is a resignation issue

    And re your final paragraph you are @Brixian59 and I claim my £5
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 17,376
    https://x.com/i/status/2046222649043427587
    Stay classy, Labour
  • Leon_VotedForStarmerLeon_VotedForStarmer Posts: 69,000
    The “asshole” line is a killer

    Starmer seems to be disliked by almost everyone. He has no loyal aides anymore (what few he had he’s sacrificed to save himself). He’s a boring selfish mendacious slow-witted careerist with no sense of humour and a pumped up opinion of himself, shared by no one else

    It’s not ideal
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,200
    isam said:



    https://x.com/bigphil321/status/2046130879068561577?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    I've never been to Eddie - where is it?
  • Leon_VotedForStarmerLeon_VotedForStarmer Posts: 69,000
    On the upside can I say that Belfast - which I toured this morning with increasing incredulity - is astounding. And not entirely in a good way

    I’ve heard of the extant peace walls and expected to see a couple. There are hundreds. Everywhere. And they are sometimes 30 feet high. Mile after mile. And the murals are pugilistic and the graffiti is brutal - “all huns are targets” is one juicy example I saw in several places

    The peace here is still deeply fragile. It wouldn’t take much to shatter it. It reminded me of a prosperous Kosovo with better food choices, much nicer parks, worse weather
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,181
    Speaker announces a former parliamentary employee has been arrested on computer misuse
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,886
    edited April 20
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    I expect Starmer survives this. If Burnham was an MP he would likely be gone after the local elections but as he can still say he only misled the House as he was misled himself and was never explicitly told Mandelson failed his vetting he will probably get away with it.

    There is no mechanism for Labour MPs to vote to no confidence a leader as Conservative MPs have and Labour MPs are unlikely to nominate Ed Miliband, a man who led Labour to defeat in 2015 against the Tories and Farage's party with an even lower voteshare than Corbyn got in 2019 as the saviour of the party. Especially given SKS for all his faults led Labour to landslide victory in 2024 over the Tories and Reform.

    If Labour are third or worse in the NEV after the local and devolved elections in May then Labour MPs may nominate Rayner to challenge the PM but given she is undergoing her own HMRC investigation that would be risky. If Labour are second to Reform in May and ahead of the Tories it will likely be Kemi facing a VONC and Starmer will survive for another year

    Starmer appointed Mandelson against the cabinet secretary advice and put at risk the nations security which in itself is a resignation issue

    And re your final paragraph you are @Brixian59 and I claim my £5
    Are you a Labour MP, member or even voter? No. So until most of them want Starmer to resign as well he stays.

    The Tories can remove their leaders much more swiftly now than Labour, just a simple 51% of Tory MPs voting to no confidence them will get rid of them, not even a party members vote is needed.

    Labour however not only need to nominate a challenger to oust the party leader from Labour MPs, they then need that challenger to win a Labour members ballot and beat the incumbent leader. As Corbyn showed in 2016 a Labour leader with members support can survive even if most Labour MPs nominate a challenger to remove him.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 4,474
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Toast or merely current bun though he may be, none of the conditions for a replacement are yet met. Potential contenders all need time to resolve or put some space behind their various hindrances, the party needs to work out who it might be able to rally around, and the time needs to be attractive enough for the replacement - whereas right now there is a whole year of bad news for Labour and the economy lined up that Starmer may as well be left to soak up, because anyone new would be foolish to get lumbered with it.

    Yes, I expect SKS to survive this year, 2027 or 2028 is another matter though. Streeting is very ambitious and clearly wants the top job before the next general election and Burnham, if allowed by the NEC to stand for a parliamentary by election before then, would also be a contender
    Streeting does, as you say, seem to be ambitious. However, you could walk though his deepest thoughts and not get your feet wet. He neither has a well worked out ideology of his own, not does he have mentors or gurus around him- there is no clear and practical sense of what he wants to achieve in politics, only a shallow, vaguely entitled sense that as an east end guy who got to Cambridge he should somehow be in power. Trouble is that he has done little-to-nothing outside of politics. I think he would fail even more quickly than some of his predecessors.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,181
    Stramer statement at 3.30

    Presently ensconced in no 10 with Lucy Powell
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2026