I don't think he can survive this. Final thrust of the dagger from that most unlikely assassin, Diane Abbott.
MC Donnell and Abbott are a stain on the true Labour Party
Been stealing a living that should be investigated under the trades descriptions act. They have never been Team Labour. Only when Labour was hijacked by London Communists.
That said. They delivered far better questions that Twitter queen
One thing strikes me. This whole hour has been heard largely in silence. You would expect that there would be some noises supporting Keith from the government side. And there's been nothing.
Last time I heard the government back bench this quiet? Barring the "how have we been brought here" despairing questions?
Liz Truss on her last day...
I mentioned earlier that the response of the Labour back benches would be key. Apart from the odd sycophant there was incredibly little energy from his party today. He is not loved, admired or supported.
Why would they? Most of them are looking at the man who's probably going to see them out of a job.
I don't think he can survive this. Final thrust of the dagger from that most unlikely assassin, Diane Abbott.
MC Donnell and Abbott are a stain on the true Labour Party
Been stealing a living that should be investigated under the trades descriptions act. They have never been Team Labour. Only when Labour was hijacked by London Communists.
That said. They delivered far better questions that Twitter queen
One thing strikes me. This whole hour has been heard largely in silence. You would expect that there would be some noises supporting Keith from the government side. And there's been nothing.
Last time I heard the government back bench this quiet? Barring the "how have we been brought here" despairing questions?
Liz Truss on her last day...
I mentioned earlier that the response of the Labour back benches would be key. Apart from the odd sycophant there was incredibly little energy from his party today. He is not loved, admired or supported.
Let’s hope the Olly Robbins appearance tomorrow is more interesting and enlightening because we’ve learnt nothing new today .
See previous link to and extract from Hansard, Fleur Anderson grilled Robbins on this at a select committee session in November. Robbins discussed Mandelson's conflicts of interest declaration with him. So presumably he had the UKSV decision, he had Mandelson's CoI declaration and he had a discussion with him. Then he overruled the UKSV, give him a pass and, unless he's got evidence otherwise, didn't tell Starmer or any other minister.
I don't think Robbins is going to shed any further light on this ..
I would like someone to ask why he didn't tell Starmer or anyone else.
They'll probably try but if you look at his responses in November they might struggle to get an answer.
Let’s hope the Olly Robbins appearance tomorrow is more interesting and enlightening because we’ve learnt nothing new today .
See previous link to and extract from Hansard, Fleur Anderson grilled Robbins on this at a select committee session in November. Robbins discussed Mandelson's conflicts of interest declaration with him. So presumably he had the UKSV decision, he had Mandelson's CoI declaration and he had a discussion with him. Then he overruled the UKSV, give him a pass and, unless he's got evidence otherwise, didn't tell Starmer or any other minister.
I don't think Robbins is going to shed any further light on this ..
I would like someone to ask why he didn't tell Starmer or anyone else.
He'll be asked tomorrow Edit Starmer just said Rollins told him he wasn't allowed to!
Bullshit.
Under what possible grounds could someone not be allowed to tell the PM something so important?
Let’s hope the Olly Robbins appearance tomorrow is more interesting and enlightening because we’ve learnt nothing new today .
See previous link to and extract from Hansard, Fleur Anderson grilled Robbins on this at a select committee session in November. Robbins discussed Mandelson's conflicts of interest declaration with him. So presumably he had the UKSV decision, he had Mandelson's CoI declaration and he had a discussion with him. Then he overruled the UKSV, give him a pass and, unless he's got evidence otherwise, didn't tell Starmer or any other minister.
I don't think Robbins is going to shed any further light on this ..
I would like someone to ask why he didn't tell Starmer or anyone else.
He'll be asked tomorrow Edit Starmer just said Rollins told him he wasn't allowed to!
Bullshit.
Under what possible grounds could someone not be allowed to tell the PM something so important?
Utter bullshit!
Separation of roles and information in case a subsequent appeal is required.
The curious thing about this is how disinterested people are. No chatter in the office, not even in the top 10 most read articles on the BBC.
I think it’s mainly because the country has entirely given up on Starmer but still, curious. A PM might resign and very few care.
Reminds me of the time Dave (pbuh) announced his resignation and it was the fourth and fifth news item on the 6 o’clock and 10 o’clock news respectively.
It's because 98% of the public couldn't give a shit.
Epstein is a dead paedo Mandelson is an old puff Starmer saved loads of jobs and our tariffs are best on planet.
The fact he's now standing up to Trump The fact Farage is up Trumps ass looking for Badenoch who has entered his colon but lies about it and changes her tune day after after day, means there is no better option.
Most know he will fall on his sword at some point in 2027 or 2028.
His global gravitas should not be discounted and Is keeping Labour polling static.
Nasty homophobia from you.
I apologise
I was not giving a personal view but what I genuinely hear as a public perception.
Bullshit.
Bollocks
You couldn't even spell poof properly.
I did write a longer response about how damaging it was being called a "poofter" was to my development, but you're not fucking worth it.
Let’s hope the Olly Robbins appearance tomorrow is more interesting and enlightening because we’ve learnt nothing new today .
See previous link to and extract from Hansard, Fleur Anderson grilled Robbins on this at a select committee session in November. Robbins discussed Mandelson's conflicts of interest declaration with him. So presumably he had the UKSV decision, he had Mandelson's CoI declaration and he had a discussion with him. Then he overruled the UKSV, give him a pass and, unless he's got evidence otherwise, didn't tell Starmer or any other minister.
I don't think Robbins is going to shed any further light on this ..
I would like someone to ask why he didn't tell Starmer or anyone else.
He'll be asked tomorrow Edit Starmer just said Rollins told him he wasn't allowed to!
Bullshit.
Under what possible grounds could someone not be allowed to tell the PM something so important?
Utter bullshit!
Separation of roles and information in case a subsequent appeal is required.
That makes no sense, an appeal would only happen (if one could) if it was rejected due to the failure, however since the failure was overridden there was no requirement for an appeal.
To have the PM "not allowed" to be told that the person he has appointed has failed security checks but been granted clearance anyway is utterly asinine. Unless the PM has directed he does not want to be told anything that could be embarrassing.
I doubt Thatcher would have accepted "you can't tell me that".
Let’s hope the Olly Robbins appearance tomorrow is more interesting and enlightening because we’ve learnt nothing new today .
See previous link to and extract from Hansard, Fleur Anderson grilled Robbins on this at a select committee session in November. Robbins discussed Mandelson's conflicts of interest declaration with him. So presumably he had the UKSV decision, he had Mandelson's CoI declaration and he had a discussion with him. Then he overruled the UKSV, give him a pass and, unless he's got evidence otherwise, didn't tell Starmer or any other minister.
I don't think Robbins is going to shed any further light on this ..
I would like someone to ask why he didn't tell Starmer or anyone else.
He'll be asked tomorrow Edit Starmer just said Rollins told him he wasn't allowed to!
Bullshit.
Under what possible grounds could someone not be allowed to tell the PM something so important?
Utter bullshit!
Separation of roles and information in case a subsequent appeal is required.
And that's one problem for Starmer.
Chesterton's Fence thinking allows a lot of this processes that led to this mess to make some sense. But they have led to a nonsense outcome.
Smoke, yes. Gun, yes. Not (it seems, so far) sufficient connection between the two.
Starmer's bigger problem is that few people like him, and some are utterly deranged by him. Worse than that, everyone hates Mandelson.
But as long as there's no available and acceptable alternative, what's a chap to do? And Diane Abbot tearing him a new one isn't exactly news. If a non-member of the Awkward Squad pipes up, that changes things.
The curious thing about this is how disinterested people are. No chatter in the office, not even in the top 10 most read articles on the BBC.
I think it’s mainly because the country has entirely given up on Starmer but still, curious. A PM might resign and very few care.
Reminds me of the time Dave (pbuh) announced his resignation and it was the fourth and fifth news item on the 6 o’clock and 10 o’clock news respectively.
It's because 98% of the public couldn't give a shit.
Epstein is a dead paedo Mandelson is an old puff Starmer saved loads of jobs and our tariffs are best on planet.
The fact he's now standing up to Trump The fact Farage is up Trumps ass looking for Badenoch who has entered his colon but lies about it and changes her tune day after after day, means there is no better option.
Most know he will fall on his sword at some point in 2027 or 2028.
His global gravitas should not be discounted and Is keeping Labour polling static.
Nasty homophobia from you.
I apologise
I was not giving a personal view but what I genuinely hear as a public perception.
Let’s hope the Olly Robbins appearance tomorrow is more interesting and enlightening because we’ve learnt nothing new today .
See previous link to and extract from Hansard, Fleur Anderson grilled Robbins on this at a select committee session in November. Robbins discussed Mandelson's conflicts of interest declaration with him. So presumably he had the UKSV decision, he had Mandelson's CoI declaration and he had a discussion with him. Then he overruled the UKSV, give him a pass and, unless he's got evidence otherwise, didn't tell Starmer or any other minister.
I don't think Robbins is going to shed any further light on this ..
I would like someone to ask why he didn't tell Starmer or anyone else.
He'll be asked tomorrow Edit Starmer just said Rollins told him he wasn't allowed to!
Bullshit.
Under what possible grounds could someone not be allowed to tell the PM something so important?
Let’s hope the Olly Robbins appearance tomorrow is more interesting and enlightening because we’ve learnt nothing new today .
See previous link to and extract from Hansard, Fleur Anderson grilled Robbins on this at a select committee session in November. Robbins discussed Mandelson's conflicts of interest declaration with him. So presumably he had the UKSV decision, he had Mandelson's CoI declaration and he had a discussion with him. Then he overruled the UKSV, give him a pass and, unless he's got evidence otherwise, didn't tell Starmer or any other minister.
I don't think Robbins is going to shed any further light on this ..
I would like someone to ask why he didn't tell Starmer or anyone else.
He'll be asked tomorrow Edit Starmer just said Rollins told him he wasn't allowed to!
Bullshit.
Under what possible grounds could someone not be allowed to tell the PM something so important?
Utter bullshit!
Separation of roles and information in case a subsequent appeal is required.
That makes no sense, an appeal would only happen (if one could) if it was rejected due to the failure, however since the failure was overridden there was no requirement for an appeal.
To have the PM "not allowed" to be told that the person he has appointed has failed security checks but been granted clearance anyway is utterly asinine. Unless the PM has directed he does not want to be told anything that could be embarrassing.
I doubt Thatcher would have accepted "you can't tell me that".
Do we reckon Keir still wants to be PM, or do we think he's over it? Given how hard it is to remove him, maybe it's more likely he'll just say "fuck it" and quit later this year.
That would be the sane, rational, reasonable thing to do.
But senior politicians aren't like you and me - they actually crave these extremely hard, utterly thankless, all-absorbing and not-very-well-paid jobs, apparently because of the power and status they bring.
The last PM to resign really voluntarily might be David Cameron, but really I think Harold Wilson.
So it'll be fingernails on doorframes time before Keir goes I imagine ...
Looking into follow up from the Hungary election, I see one or two of the people on the US Right I keep an eye on have been receiving funding from organisations linked to the Hungarian Government *. It's not an area I have really explored.
One example is Jeremy Carl who is associated with the Claremont Institute, who is a little obsessed with various white nationalist themes, defending the January 6th rioters as having it worse than Black Americans in the Jim Crow South, wanting to address "the Jewish question" and so on. Carl was a government official in Trump I but this spring proved too controversial for confirmation by the Senate for a position in Trump 2.
I wonder if anything will be revealed concerning any of our many new UK think tanks and organisations promoting Right or Far Right views and positions?
One to watch for, though I doubt most of our media would cover it.
* Orban put tens of millions of USD equivalent into various organisations, without the endowments put into his ideologically based university ptrojects, which are larger.
The issue that will do for Starmer isn't about the process, post Mandleson being offered the job .... it is why Starmer thought it was a good idea in the first place. The error of judgment in even thinking it was ok proves he unsuitable to be Prime Minister.
Do we reckon Keir still wants to be PM, or do we think he's over it? Given how hard it is to remove him, maybe it's more likely he'll just say "fuck it" and quit later this year.
That would be the sane, rational, reasonable thing to do.
But senior politicians aren't like you and me - they actually crave these extremely hard, utterly thankless, all-absorbing and not-very-well-paid jobs, apparently because of the power and status they bring.
The last PM to resign really voluntarily might be David Cameron, but really I think Harold Wilson.
So it'll be fingernails on doorframes time before Keir goes I imagine ...
His odds haven't changed this afternoon.
I suspect he is definitely not enjoying being PM, but probably feels it is his duty, particularly on foreign affairs, to carry on until the world is in calmer water. The solution is to make him Foreign Secretary. He might jump at the opportunity.
Looking into follow up from the Hungary election, I see one or two of the people on the US Right I keep an eye on have been receiving funding from organisations linked to the Hungarian Government *. It's not an area I have really explored.
One example is Jeremy Carl who is associated with the Claremont Institute, who is a little obsessed with various white nationalist themes, defending the January 6th rioters as having it worse than Black Americans in the Jim Crow South, wanting to address "the Jewish question" and so on. Carl was a government official in Trump I but this spring proved too controversial for confirmation by the Senate for a position in Trump 2.
I wonder if anything will be revealed concerning any of our many new UK think tanks and organisations promoting Right or Far Right views and positions?
One to watch for, though I doubt most of our media would cover it.
* Orban put tens of millions of USD equivalent into various organisations, without the endowments put into his ideologically based university ptrojects, which are larger.
There is an obvious person in the UK who may have got money from Orban a certain M Goodwin
Do we reckon Keir still wants to be PM, or do we think he's over it? Given how hard it is to remove him, maybe it's more likely he'll just say "fuck it" and quit later this year.
That would be the sane, rational, reasonable thing to do.
But senior politicians aren't like you and me - they actually crave these extremely hard, utterly thankless, all-absorbing and not-very-well-paid jobs, apparently because of the power and status they bring.
The last PM to resign really voluntarily might be David Cameron, but really I think Harold Wilson.
So it'll be fingernails on doorframes time before Keir goes I imagine ...
I was reflecting the same thing. Who'd want to be PM? Even the more successful ones come out of it with their dignity significantly diminished. Given that the sort of ambitious people who want to be PMs tend to be quite ego-driven, it's an odd thing to want to do. Maybe they all think it'll be different with them - satirists will mock only those who oppose them, and they'll leave at a time of their choosing, feted and fondly remembered
The issue that will do for Starmer isn't about the process, post Mandleson being offered the job .... it is why Starmer thought it was a good idea in the first place. The error of judgment in even thinking it was ok proves he unsuitable to be Prime Minister.
The catch there is that making a hideous misjudgement isn't an instant sacking offence for a PM. If it were, we'd get through them at an even faster rate than we have in recent years.
I've always found Anderson a little bit inauthentic, it just feels like he is trying too hard to create this image of a no-nonsense plain speaker. Maybe he really is, but it feels very performative.
Which is ok in itself, politics is part performance and I'm not his target audience, but he doesn't have the same knack as others.
I've alwats found Anderson a little bit inauthentic, it just feels like he is trying too hard to create this image of a no-nonsense plain speaker. Maybe he really is, but it feels very performative.
Which is ok in itself, politics is part performance and I'm not his target audience, but he doesn't have the same knack as others.
Let’s hope the Olly Robbins appearance tomorrow is more interesting and enlightening because we’ve learnt nothing new today .
See previous link to and extract from Hansard, Fleur Anderson grilled Robbins on this at a select committee session in November. Robbins discussed Mandelson's conflicts of interest declaration with him. So presumably he had the UKSV decision, he had Mandelson's CoI declaration and he had a discussion with him. Then he overruled the UKSV, give him a pass and, unless he's got evidence otherwise, didn't tell Starmer or any other minister.
I don't think Robbins is going to shed any further light on this ..
I would like someone to ask why he didn't tell Starmer or anyone else.
He'll be asked tomorrow Edit Starmer just said Rollins told him he wasn't allowed to!
Bullshit.
Under what possible grounds could someone not be allowed to tell the PM something so important?
The curious thing about this is how disinterested people are. No chatter in the office, not even in the top 10 most read articles on the BBC.
I think it’s mainly because the country has entirely given up on Starmer but still, curious. A PM might resign and very few care.
Reminds me of the time Dave (pbuh) announced his resignation and it was the fourth and fifth news item on the 6 o’clock and 10 o’clock news respectively.
It's because 98% of the public couldn't give a shit.
Epstein is a dead paedo Mandelson is an old puff Starmer saved loads of jobs and our tariffs are best on planet.
The fact he's now standing up to Trump The fact Farage is up Trumps ass looking for Badenoch who has entered his colon but lies about it and changes her tune day after after day, means there is no better option.
Most know he will fall on his sword at some point in 2027 or 2028.
His global gravitas should not be discounted and Is keeping Labour polling static.
Nasty homophobia from you.
I apologise
I was not giving a personal view but what I genuinely hear as a public perception.
I've alwats found Anderson a little bit inauthentic, it just feels like he is trying too hard to create this image of a no-nonsense plain speaker. Maybe he really is, but it feels very performative.
Which is ok in itself, politics is part performance and I'm not his target audience, but he doesn't have the same knack as others.
And personally I tend to curl up in a bed anyway.
He could have used the Dennis Skinner apology
Supposedly Skinner refused to even sit with a political opponent in parliament even to eat lunch, which makes him sound like a complete prat.
The curious thing about this is how disinterested people are. No chatter in the office, not even in the top 10 most read articles on the BBC.
I think it’s mainly because the country has entirely given up on Starmer but still, curious. A PM might resign and very few care.
Reminds me of the time Dave (pbuh) announced his resignation and it was the fourth and fifth news item on the 6 o’clock and 10 o’clock news respectively.
It's because 98% of the public couldn't give a shit.
Epstein is a dead paedo Mandelson is an old puff Starmer saved loads of jobs and our tariffs are best on planet.
The fact he's now standing up to Trump The fact Farage is up Trumps ass looking for Badenoch who has entered his colon but lies about it and changes her tune day after after day, means there is no better option.
Most know he will fall on his sword at some point in 2027 or 2028.
His global gravitas should not be discounted and Is keeping Labour polling static.
Nasty homophobia from you.
I apologise
I was not giving a personal view but what I genuinely hear as a public perception.
The issue that will do for Starmer isn't about the process, post Mandleson being offered the job .... it is why Starmer thought it was a good idea in the first place. The error of judgment in even thinking it was ok proves he unsuitable to be Prime Minister.
Appointing Mandelson was a gamble; I've argued before that it could have turned out to be a success. But all of us here know that gambling in high risk conditions is, by definition, something which doesn't necessarily work. If it come off everyone applauds the wisdom and farsightedness of the gambler. If it doesn't the gambler slinks off to lick their wounds, rebuild their reserves and try again another day. Don't we?
I must say I didn't have Sir Keir down as a gambler. Not a high-risk one, anyway. Unless he can pull off an unexpected (or unlikely) success elsewhere I think we're looking at PM Rayner before the summer's gone. And/or a split in the Labour Parliamentary Party
I've always found Anderson a little bit inauthentic, it just feels like he is trying too hard to create this image of a no-nonsense plain speaker. Maybe he really is, but it feels very performative.
Which is ok in itself, politics is part performance and I'm not his target audience, but he doesn't have the same knack as others.
And personally I tend to curl up in a bed anyway.
Yup - also as an idiom it doesn’t make sense. By definition a lie (as in not telling the truth) isn’t something that is in its nature “straight.” I appreciate Anderson hasn’t made it up but it is one of those things that annoys me.
One thing strikes me. This whole hour has been heard largely in silence. You would expect that there would be some noises supporting Keith from the government side. And there's been nothing.
Last time I heard the government back bench this quiet? Barring the "how have we been brought here" despairing questions?
Liz Truss on her last day...
I mentioned earlier that the response of the Labour back benches would be key. Apart from the odd sycophant there was incredibly little energy from his party today. He is not loved, admired or supported.
Why would they? Most of them are looking at the man who's probably going to see them out of a job.
Trying to back a man when you know he'd throw you under the bus just as readily has a rather energy-draining quality.
One thing strikes me. This whole hour has been heard largely in silence. You would expect that there would be some noises supporting Keith from the government side. And there's been nothing.
Last time I heard the government back bench this quiet? Barring the "how have we been brought here" despairing questions?
Liz Truss on her last day...
I mentioned earlier that the response of the Labour back benches would be key. Apart from the odd sycophant there was incredibly little energy from his party today. He is not loved, admired or supported.
Why would they? Most of them are looking at the man who's probably going to see them out of a job.
Trying to back a man when you know he'd throw you under the bus just as readily has a rather energy-draining quality.
As many a Borisian MP found out. And which many Boris fans to this day ignore when thinking about how much pressure MPs found themselves in towards the end.
At the end of the day, JLR is still open, various Steel works are still open, hundreds of thousands of jobs and linked jobs are still saved, whole communities are still alive
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
Do we reckon Keir still wants to be PM, or do we think he's over it? Given how hard it is to remove him, maybe it's more likely he'll just say "fuck it" and quit later this year.
That would be the sane, rational, reasonable thing to do.
But senior politicians aren't like you and me - they actually crave these extremely hard, utterly thankless, all-absorbing and not-very-well-paid jobs, apparently because of the power and status they bring.
The last PM to resign really voluntarily might be David Cameron, but really I think Harold Wilson.
So it'll be fingernails on doorframes time before Keir goes I imagine ...
I was reflecting the same thing. Who'd want to be PM? Even the more successful ones come out of it with their dignity significantly diminished. Given that the sort of ambitious people who want to be PMs tend to be quite ego-driven, it's an odd thing to want to do. Maybe they all think it'll be different with them - satirists will mock only those who oppose them, and they'll leave at a time of their choosing, feted and fondly remembered
Enoch Powell had something uncontroversial to say about that.
Thinking about the small time, small town politicians I've seen up close and off duty, they all have a belief that they can beat the odds. I don't see how you could enter such a high-risk career otherwise. Sometimes, that leads to the absurd risk-taking of an Archer or a Mandelson. Or the messianic self-belief of Blair or Thatcher.
But in the end, they all fail. And the ones like Tony and Maggie who seem to succeed first often do so by hiding messes for the next rube to clear up. (Something of the same for Wilson, perhaps?)
And OK, the structure of departure means that it's hard to leave before failure kicks in. But you have to wonder if a job that kills the reputation of almost everyone who attempts it is set up correctly.
At the end of the day, JLR is still open, various Steel works are still open, hundreds of thousands of jobs and linked jobs are still saved, whole communities are still alive
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
Adios
Having our own tariff deal with the US was facilitated above all by Brexit.
At the end of the day, JLR is still open, various Steel works are still open, hundreds of thousands of jobs and linked jobs are still saved, whole communities are still alive
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
One thing strikes me. This whole hour has been heard largely in silence. You would expect that there would be some noises supporting Keith from the government side. And there's been nothing.
Last time I heard the government back bench this quiet? Barring the "how have we been brought here" despairing questions?
Liz Truss on her last day...
I mentioned earlier that the response of the Labour back benches would be key. Apart from the odd sycophant there was incredibly little energy from his party today. He is not loved, admired or supported.
Why would they? Most of them are looking at the man who's probably going to see them out of a job.
Trying to back a man when you know he'd throw you under the bus just as readily has a rather energy-draining quality.
It would be hard to backup someone up, when you are under the bus they driving.
At the end of the day, JLR is still open, various Steel works are still open, hundreds of thousands of jobs and linked jobs are still saved, whole communities are still alive
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
Adios
Omg no are you leaving us??
We will miss your << checks notes >>
Brixian59 represents an underepresented viewpoint within the country, very useful.
The issue that will do for Starmer isn't about the process, post Mandleson being offered the job .... it is why Starmer thought it was a good idea in the first place. The error of judgment in even thinking it was ok proves he unsuitable to be Prime Minister.
Appointing Mandelson was a gamble; I've argued before that it could have turned out to be a success. But all of us here know that gambling in high risk conditions is, by definition, something which doesn't necessarily work. If it come off everyone applauds the wisdom and farsightedness of the gambler. If it doesn't the gambler slinks off to lick their wounds, rebuild their reserves and try again another day. Don't we?
I must say I didn't have Sir Keir down as a gambler. Not a high-risk one, anyway. Unless he can pull off an unexpected (or unlikely) success elsewhere I think we're looking at PM Rayner before the summer's gone. And/or a split in the Labour Parliamentary Party
The sane gambler does risk reduction.
1) Vet Mandy strictly. 2) Do it before the appointment is announced, in parallel with multiple candidates. That way, if he fails, it's just one fail in a bunch of passes. Process eh? 3) Appoint him as a political envoy. Keep the traditional Ambassador.
Starmer should resign. But he’s not going to and no amount of huffing and puffing from Pbers who defended Johnson will change that. I accept that is not many of you but it is some.
Oh dear. Process, process, process. A leader answers for the process; he does not disappear into it.
I wrote in a header about lawyers that the Legal World's Dirty Little Secret is that a lot of lawyers are really very second and even third rate. Some of these are found within expensive City firms and at the Bar.
Starmer rather reminds me of many of the lawyers who appeared at the Post Office Inquiry, some of them really quite eminent KCs and experienced. All of them went on and on about the processes they followed and the procedures and denied doing anything dodgy and explained how they were only advising on X and so did not concern themselves with Y or Z. They all expressed surprise that they had not been told stuff or did not know about relevant information but seemed incapable of understanding that they could have asked and in some cases had a duty to do so. If matters went wrong others were to blame and it was all very regrettable but hindsight etc. All had very slopey shoulders. Integrity was a foreign concept to them.
And all displayed appalling judgment, which is the single most important thing you want from a lawyer.
Starmer is that kind of a lawyer. Technically good within his narrow specialism but lacking in good judgment and therefore not someone who inspires confidence.
The country is a bit like the Post Office during this scandal - initially run by a load of plausible snake oil salesmen who sell the country an overpriced and overhyped product. It then goes wrong and more and more useless leaders are brought in who fail to understand the country's problems, fail to get to grip with any of them, lie about what is happening and/or cover up and/or seek to distract. Eventually we get some sort of tediously lengthy and detailed inquiry which drives most people mad. No-one is held accountable and a few people are presented as the token sacrifice before re-emerging somewhere else suitably lucrative. The details are read by geeks like me. Some token changes are made. And the public take the view that everyone involved, especially the lawyers, are a bunch of scumbags. Meanwhile the country continues to get poorer and be badly run.
Oh - and just like the Post Office matter, Mandelson was at the heart of the whole ghastly mess.
PS This really could have been a header. But it is time for my nap. I have planted a herb garden today.
Starmer should resign. But he’s not going to and no amount of huffing and puffing from Pbers who defended Johnson will change that. I accept that is not many of you but it is some.
Burnham next PM, 2028.
Burnham or not, I think 2028 is a good shout, though I'm going with late 2027.
At the end of the day, JLR is still open, various Steel works are still open, hundreds of thousands of jobs and linked jobs are still saved, whole communities are still alive
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
Adios
Omg no are you leaving us??
We will miss your << checks notes >>
Brixian59 represents an underepresented viewpoint within the country, very useful.
Actually I agree. I was goading @Brixian59 because be is a charmless character with a definite streak of anti Semitism and now a dash of homophobia
But PB needs new commenters even if they come with disagreeable attitudes. The whole point of the site is disagreement
So I hope he stays even as I reserve the right to heckle him
The issue that will do for Starmer isn't about the process, post Mandleson being offered the job .... it is why Starmer thought it was a good idea in the first place. The error of judgment in even thinking it was ok proves he unsuitable to be Prime Minister.
Appointing Mandelson was a gamble; I've argued before that it could have turned out to be a success. But all of us here know that gambling in high risk conditions is, by definition, something which doesn't necessarily work. If it come off everyone applauds the wisdom and farsightedness of the gambler. If it doesn't the gambler slinks off to lick their wounds, rebuild their reserves and try again another day. Don't we?
I must say I didn't have Sir Keir down as a gambler. Not a high-risk one, anyway. Unless he can pull off an unexpected (or unlikely) success elsewhere I think we're looking at PM Rayner before the summer's gone. And/or a split in the Labour Parliamentary Party
The sane gambler does risk reduction.
1) Vet Mandy strictly. 2) Do it before the appointment is announced, in parallel with multiple candidates. That way, if he fails, it's just one fail in a bunch of passes. Process eh? 3) Appoint him as a political envoy. Keep the traditional Ambassador.
I suggest you delete 'sane' and substitute 'experienced'.
Oh dear. Process, process, process. A leader answers for the process; he does not disappear into it.
I wrote in a header about lawyers that the Legal World's Dirty Little Secret is that a lot of lawyers are really very second and even third rate. Some of these are found within expensive City firms and at the Bar.
Starmer rather reminds me of many of the lawyers who appeared at the Post Office Inquiry, some of them really quite eminent KCs and experienced. All of them went on and on about the processes they followed and the procedures and denied doing anything dodgy and explained how they were only advising on X and so did not concern themselves with Y or Z. They all expressed surprise that they had not been told stuff or did not know about relevant information but seemed incapable of understanding that they could have asked and in some cases had a duty to do so. If matters went wrong others were to blame and it was all very regrettable but hindsight etc. All had very slopey shoulders. Integrity was a foreign concept to them.
And all displayed appalling judgment, which is the single most important thing you want from a lawyer.
Starmer is that kind of a lawyer. Technically good within his narrow specialism but lacking in good judgment and therefore not someone who inspires confidence.
The country is a bit like the Post Office during this scandal - initially run by a load of plausible snake oil salesmen who sell the country an overpriced and overhyped product. It then goes wrong and more and more useless leaders are brought in who fail to understand the country's problems, fail to get to grip with any of them, lie about what is happening and/or cover up and/or seek to distract. Eventually we get some sort of tediously lengthy and detailed inquiry which drives most people mad. No-one is held accountable and a few people are presented as the token sacrifice before re-emerging somewhere else suitably lucrative. The details are read by geeks like me. Some token changes are made. And the public take the view that everyone involved, especially the lawyers, are a bunch of scumbags. Meanwhile the country continues to get poorer and be badly run.
Oh - and just like the Post Office matter, Mandelson was at the heart of the whole ghastly mess.
I would add - "but it's legal and just inside the rules, so I must be right" is a path to crisis after crisis.
Oh dear. Process, process, process. A leader answers for the process; he does not disappear into it.
I wrote in a header about lawyers that the Legal World's Dirty Little Secret is that a lot of lawyers are really very second and even third rate.
For a profession that is not especially well regarded on a personal level, it has managed very well to maintain the aura of intellectual heft despite that.
Looking into follow up from the Hungary election, I see one or two of the people on the US Right I keep an eye on have been receiving funding from organisations linked to the Hungarian Government *. It's not an area I have really explored.
One example is Jeremy Carl who is associated with the Claremont Institute, who is a little obsessed with various white nationalist themes, defending the January 6th rioters as having it worse than Black Americans in the Jim Crow South, wanting to address "the Jewish question" and so on. Carl was a government official in Trump I but this spring proved too controversial for confirmation by the Senate for a position in Trump 2.
I wonder if anything will be revealed concerning any of our many new UK think tanks and organisations promoting Right or Far Right views and positions?
One to watch for, though I doubt most of our media would cover it.
* Orban put tens of millions of USD equivalent into various organisations, without the endowments put into his ideologically based university ptrojects, which are larger.
There is an obvious person in the UK who may have got money from Orban a certain M Goodwin
There is an article from last week at the Byeline Times here, which identifies Matt Goodwin and Mick Hulme (Editor, Spiked Online) as Fellows of the Matthias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) -- Goodwin since 2024, which is an organisation funded by the Hungarian State. Salaries to visiting fellows are reportedly 5k to 10k Euro per month. The MCC will presumably be due some attention.
They also list Toby Young's FSU (and reported funding by Peter Thiel), Common Sense Group, Roger Scruton Legacy Foundation, James Orr, Toby Young himself, Frank Furedi, and Douglas Murray, Danny Kruger, Michael Gove and Peter Thiel as a funder. There are others. Paul Marshall is in there too, as is JD Vance through his James Orr links. I have left out those who are just Nat Con speakers.
My MP Lee Anderson is listed, but only as a speaker at the National Conservative conference.
It's not an arena I know in real detail, so I can't speak personally to all the details.
At the end of the day, JLR is still open, various Steel works are still open, hundreds of thousands of jobs and linked jobs are still saved, whole communities are still alive
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
Adios
Omg no are you leaving us??
We will miss your << checks notes >>
Brixian59 represents an underepresented viewpoint within the country, very useful.
One other thing. The sledging Brixian59 got on their appearance here, including form some distinguished commentators here, was not PB at its best.
Looking into follow up from the Hungary election, I see one or two of the people on the US Right I keep an eye on have been receiving funding from organisations linked to the Hungarian Government *. It's not an area I have really explored.
One example is Jeremy Carl who is associated with the Claremont Institute, who is a little obsessed with various white nationalist themes, defending the January 6th rioters as having it worse than Black Americans in the Jim Crow South, wanting to address "the Jewish question" and so on. Carl was a government official in Trump I but this spring proved too controversial for confirmation by the Senate for a position in Trump 2.
I wonder if anything will be revealed concerning any of our many new UK think tanks and organisations promoting Right or Far Right views and positions?
One to watch for, though I doubt most of our media would cover it.
* Orban put tens of millions of USD equivalent into various organisations, without the endowments put into his ideologically based university ptrojects, which are larger.
There is an obvious person in the UK who may have got money from Orban a certain M Goodwin
There is an article from last week at the Byeline Times here, which identifies Matt Goodwin and Mick Hulme (Editor, Spiked Online) as Fellows of the Matthias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) -- Goodwin since 2024, which is an organisation funded by the Hungarian State. Salaries to visiting fellows are reportedly 5k to 10k Euro per month.
They also list Toby Young's FSU (and reported funding by Peter Thiel), Common Sense Group, Roger Scruton Legacy Foundation, James Orr, Toby Young himself, Frank Furedi, and Douglas Murray, Danny Kruger, Michael Gove and Peter Thiel as a funder. There are others. Paul Marshall is in there too, as is JD Vance through his James Orr links. I have left out those who are just Nat Con speakers.
It's not an arena I know in real detail, so I can't speak personally to all teh details.
Following 1989, it was amusing to watch which organisations collapsed.
A number of very "independent" protest groups turned out to be wholly owned by Moscow.
More recently, the many of the sillier* CyberNats evaporated when Iran lost internet access. And apparently there has been a collapse in the London Has Fallen offering, as well.
*The ones who sounded rather American in their style of Nationalism, often. No sarcasm, or wit of any kind.
At the end of the day, JLR is still open, various Steel works are still open, hundreds of thousands of jobs and linked jobs are still saved, whole communities are still alive
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
Adios
Omg no are you leaving us??
We will miss your << checks notes >>
Brixian59 represents an underepresented viewpoint within the country, very useful.
One other thing. The sledging Brixian59 got on their appearance here, including form some distinguished commentators here, was not PB at its best.
Sledging is what you get, when you say controversial things.
Man up, as a certain poster advocated for school children with SEND.
Let’s hope the Olly Robbins appearance tomorrow is more interesting and enlightening because we’ve learnt nothing new today .
See previous link to and extract from Hansard, Fleur Anderson grilled Robbins on this at a select committee session in November. Robbins discussed Mandelson's conflicts of interest declaration with him. So presumably he had the UKSV decision, he had Mandelson's CoI declaration and he had a discussion with him. Then he overruled the UKSV, give him a pass and, unless he's got evidence otherwise, didn't tell Starmer or any other minister.
I don't think Robbins is going to shed any further light on this ..
I would like someone to ask why he didn't tell Starmer or anyone else.
He'll be asked tomorrow Edit Starmer just said Rollins told him he wasn't allowed to!
Bullshit.
Under what possible grounds could someone not be allowed to tell the PM something so important?
Utter bullshit!
Separation of roles and information in case a subsequent appeal is required.
That makes no sense, an appeal would only happen (if one could) if it was rejected due to the failure, however since the failure was overridden there was no requirement for an appeal.
To have the PM "not allowed" to be told that the person he has appointed has failed security checks but been granted clearance anyway is utterly asinine. Unless the PM has directed he does not want to be told anything that could be embarrassing.
I doubt Thatcher would have accepted "you can't tell me that".
Starmer didn't accept it either. He fired him.
After the media uproar, not before.
Can't imagine any other walk of life where someone could be hired by the big boss, fail security checks, be appointed anyway only for the boss to claim they weren't informed checks were failed.
If a Head at a school hired a Teacher only for it to turn out they had failed their DBS checks and been appointed anyway, I am curious what would happen and if anyone could "not be allowed" to inform the Head that the checks had been failed.
At the end of the day, JLR is still open, various Steel works are still open, hundreds of thousands of jobs and linked jobs are still saved, whole communities are still alive
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
Adios
Omg no are you leaving us??
We will miss your << checks notes >>
Brixian59 represents an underepresented viewpoint within the country, very useful.
Actually I agree. I was goading @Brixian59 because be is a charmless character with a definite streak of anti Semitism and now a dash of homophobia
But PB needs new commenters even if they come with disagreeable attitudes. The whole point of the site is disagreement
So I hope he stays even as I reserve the right to heckle him
Agreed however anyone stumbling across this site since Brixian’s arrival would have just turned around and left once they saw the interminable robotic spamming about Labour good/Kemi bad so swings and roundabouts.
At the end of the day, JLR is still open, various Steel works are still open, hundreds of thousands of jobs and linked jobs are still saved, whole communities are still alive
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
Adios
Omg no are you leaving us??
We will miss your << checks notes >>
Brixian59 represents an underepresented viewpoint within the country, very useful.
Actually I agree. I was goading @Brixian59 because be is a charmless character with a definite streak of anti Semitism and now a dash of homophobia
But PB needs new commenters even if they come with disagreeable attitudes. The whole point of the site is disagreement
So I hope he stays even as I reserve the right to heckle him
I doubt he’ll leave. He’s flounced already before. Also claimed to be ‘Shecorns’ in a past life.
At the end of the day, JLR is still open, various Steel works are still open, hundreds of thousands of jobs and linked jobs are still saved, whole communities are still alive
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
Adios
Omg no are you leaving us??
We will miss your << checks notes >>
Brixian59 represents an underepresented viewpoint within the country, very useful.
Actually I agree. I was goading @Brixian59 because be is a charmless character with a definite streak of anti Semitism and now a dash of homophobia
But PB needs new commenters even if they come with disagreeable attitudes. The whole point of the site is disagreement
So I hope he stays even as I reserve the right to heckle him
Agreed however anyone stumbling across this site since Brixian’s arrival would have just turned around and left once they saw the interminable robotic spamming about Labour good/Kemi bad so swings and roundabouts.
And people don’t constantly spam Starmer bad? Like saying curry is important
Poor Zarah her party is going down the plughole and she was desperate to get thrown out so she could go on her social media to get adoring comments and some desperately needed media attention !
Looking into follow up from the Hungary election, I see one or two of the people on the US Right I keep an eye on have been receiving funding from organisations linked to the Hungarian Government *. It's not an area I have really explored.
One example is Jeremy Carl who is associated with the Claremont Institute, who is a little obsessed with various white nationalist themes, defending the January 6th rioters as having it worse than Black Americans in the Jim Crow South, wanting to address "the Jewish question" and so on. Carl was a government official in Trump I but this spring proved too controversial for confirmation by the Senate for a position in Trump 2.
I wonder if anything will be revealed concerning any of our many new UK think tanks and organisations promoting Right or Far Right views and positions?
One to watch for, though I doubt most of our media would cover it.
* Orban put tens of millions of USD equivalent into various organisations, without the endowments put into his ideologically based university ptrojects, which are larger.
There is an obvious person in the UK who may have got money from Orban a certain M Goodwin
There is an article from last week at the Byeline Times here, which identifies Matt Goodwin and Mick Hulme (Editor, Spiked Online) as Fellows of the Matthias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) -- Goodwin since 2024, which is an organisation funded by the Hungarian State. Salaries to visiting fellows are reportedly 5k to 10k Euro per month.
They also list Toby Young's FSU (and reported funding by Peter Thiel), Common Sense Group, Roger Scruton Legacy Foundation, James Orr, Toby Young himself, Frank Furedi, and Douglas Murray, Danny Kruger, Michael Gove and Peter Thiel as a funder. There are others. Paul Marshall is in there too, as is JD Vance through his James Orr links. I have left out those who are just Nat Con speakers.
It's not an arena I know in real detail, so I can't speak personally to all teh details.
Following 1989, it was amusing to watch which organisations collapsed.
A number of very "independent" protest groups turned out to be wholly owned by Moscow.
More recently, the many of the sillier* CyberNats evaporated when Iran lost internet access. And apparently there has been a collapse in the London Has Fallen offering, as well.
*The ones who sounded rather American in their style of Nationalism, often. No sarcasm, or wit of any kind.
There is a contrast there between bots/AI and people, of course - both in the Cybernats and Right / Far Right.
I agree - this cuts both ways at different (or sometimes the same) times, and also for some the motivator is the money.
Personally I think that my MP is building his funds for a more comfortable retirement whilst he can as one motive, having had a modestly paid career and a long period as a single dad over the last2-3 decades. Kruger, on the other hand, is imo highly ideological.
I'll stop there, for M'Learned Friends' sake.
PS Do you remember "The Thatcher who could not mend her own roof" ?
At the end of the day, JLR is still open, various Steel works are still open, hundreds of thousands of jobs and linked jobs are still saved, whole communities are still alive
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
Adios
Omg no are you leaving us??
We will miss your << checks notes >>
Brixian59 represents an underepresented viewpoint within the country, very useful.
Actually I agree. I was goading @Brixian59 because be is a charmless character with a definite streak of anti Semitism and now a dash of homophobia
But PB needs new commenters even if they come with disagreeable attitudes. The whole point of the site is disagreement
So I hope he stays even as I reserve the right to heckle him
Agreed however anyone stumbling across this site since Brixian’s arrival would have just turned around and left once they saw the interminable robotic spamming about Labour good/Kemi bad so swings and roundabouts.
And people don’t constantly spam Starmer bad? Like saying curry is important
Ironically tomorrow might be a relief for Starmer as Robbins confirms he wasn’t lying .
The debate is over whether he was mistaken in refusing to share some info .
All of a sudden Robbins is the darling of right wing papers who couldn’t stand him before but are busy beatifying him now .
In hindsight firing him was premature but if he had stayed on then the accusations would be he was trying to save his job and trying to defend the PM by saying he couldn’t divulge info .
Then the right wing press would have accused him of not telling the truth .
The practical reason is that if parliamentarians can accuse each other of deliberately giving inaccurate information, there is a risk that debate descends into accusations, rather than focusing on substantive issues.
The historic reason is that the concept of honour is important among parliamentarians. It is assumed that MPs will act with honour, and therefore impugning the honour of others is regarded as wrong.
At the end of the day, JLR is still open, various Steel works are still open, hundreds of thousands of jobs and linked jobs are still saved, whole communities are still alive
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
Adios
Omg no are you leaving us??
We will miss your << checks notes >>
Brixian59 represents an underepresented viewpoint within the country, very useful.
Actually I agree. I was goading @Brixian59 because be is a charmless character with a definite streak of anti Semitism and now a dash of homophobia
But PB needs new commenters even if they come with disagreeable attitudes. The whole point of the site is disagreement
Up to a point.
The best thing about this site is intelligent, fact-based disagreement that makes you check your own assumptions and arguments, and maybe even modify them. For example, a while back, somebody on here challenged my assumption in a post that increasing the share of government spending and tax as a % of GDP reduces total GDP. That made me go back and look at half-remembered papers from a decade ago so that I could prove he was wrong (which he is, completely).
But repetitive, trolly, unsupported comments about how one side is amazing and the other side can do no good don't add that much.
Nor do obvious absurdities about - my favourite - how Britain has nothing to fear and everything to gain from Communist China...
The practical reason is that if parliamentarians can accuse each other of deliberately giving inaccurate information, there is a risk that debate descends into accusations, rather than focusing on substantive issues.
The historic reason is that the concept of honour is important among parliamentarians. It is assumed that MPs will act with honour, and therefore impugning the honour of others is regarded as wrong.
At the end of the day, JLR is still open, various Steel works are still open, hundreds of thousands of jobs and linked jobs are still saved, whole communities are still alive
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
Adios
Omg no are you leaving us??
We will miss your << checks notes >>
Brixian59 represents an underepresented viewpoint within the country, very useful.
Actually I agree. I was goading @Brixian59 because be is a charmless character with a definite streak of anti Semitism and now a dash of homophobia
But PB needs new commenters even if they come with disagreeable attitudes. The whole point of the site is disagreement
So I hope he stays even as I reserve the right to heckle him
Agreed however anyone stumbling across this site since Brixian’s arrival would have just turned around and left once they saw the interminable robotic spamming about Labour good/Kemi bad so swings and roundabouts.
No you are right we don't want any Centrists or Left Wingers. This is a nice RefCon site!
At the end of the day, JLR is still open, various Steel works are still open, hundreds of thousands of jobs and linked jobs are still saved, whole communities are still alive
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
Adios
Omg no are you leaving us??
We will miss your << checks notes >>
Brixian59 represents an underepresented viewpoint within the country, very useful.
Actually I agree. I was goading @Brixian59 because be is a charmless character with a definite streak of anti Semitism and now a dash of homophobia
But PB needs new commenters even if they come with disagreeable attitudes. The whole point of the site is disagreement
So I hope he stays even as I reserve the right to heckle him
Agreed however anyone stumbling across this site since Brixian’s arrival would have just turned around and left once they saw the interminable robotic spamming about Labour good/Kemi bad so swings and roundabouts.
No you are right we don't want any Centrists or Left Wingers. This is a nice RefCon site!
The practical reason is that if parliamentarians can accuse each other of deliberately giving inaccurate information, there is a risk that debate descends into accusations, rather than focusing on substantive issues.
The historic reason is that the concept of honour is important among parliamentarians. It is assumed that MPs will act with honour, and therefore impugning the honour of others is regarded as wrong.
There were some who thought a Labour majority of 170 or so would preclude much Parliamentary theatre - how wrong they were.
Starmer squirmed as you might expect but we are still absent a "smoking gun" to force his resignation. Today's revelation about ignored "advice" isn't as crucial as you might think.
I don't know how often Ministers and the Prime Minister ignore or fail to accept advice from senior officials but I bet it has happened plenty of times.
Ignoring advice isn't in and of itself a hanging offence in my book but it does shift the ground if and when circumstances change. If the Officials advise A and the PM decides to do B and B turns out to be right, said PM is in a strong position and can play "the civil service told me it couldn't be done but I had faith and I was right" or something similar card.
If you follow advice and it turns out to be poor advice, you can blame the Officials but the problem comes when you ignore advice and it turns out to be good advice. It shouldn't happen but you'd be surprised how often that leaks out and the old "we told the PM to do this, the PM did something else and look how it turned out" mantra comes into play.
Is it however an appropriate sanction for a PM to resign if he/she takes their own view and discounts official advice? Again, I don't see why unless the course of action undertaken by the PM in contravention of advice turned out to be in some way illegal or improper. Was appointing Mandelson to be the Ambassador to Washington illegal? No, was it improper? Given the vetting and the concerns over links to China let alone Epstein, you can certainly argue that but as the head of the pin heaves into view, we're left with the notion either Starmer didn't know or wasn't told (in which case accidentially misleading Parliament warrants an apology but no more) or he did know but wanted to appoint Mandelson anyway and deliberately misled Parliament (which would be a resignation matter)?
Many will believe the latter but without any actual proof or evidence, what do we have?
Oh dear. Process, process, process. A leader answers for the process; he does not disappear into it.
I wrote in a header about lawyers that the Legal World's Dirty Little Secret is that a lot of lawyers are really very second and even third rate. Some of these are found within expensive City firms and at the Bar.
Starmer rather reminds me of many of the lawyers who appeared at the Post Office Inquiry, some of them really quite eminent KCs and experienced. All of them went on and on about the processes they followed and the procedures and denied doing anything dodgy and explained how they were only advising on X and so did not concern themselves with Y or Z. They all expressed surprise that they had not been told stuff or did not know about relevant information but seemed incapable of understanding that they could have asked and in some cases had a duty to do so. If matters went wrong others were to blame and it was all very regrettable but hindsight etc. All had very slopey shoulders. Integrity was a foreign concept to them.
And all displayed appalling judgment, which is the single most important thing you want from a lawyer.
Starmer is that kind of a lawyer. Technically good within his narrow specialism but lacking in good judgment and therefore not someone who inspires confidence.
The country is a bit like the Post Office during this scandal - initially run by a load of plausible snake oil salesmen who sell the country an overpriced and overhyped product. It then goes wrong and more and more useless leaders are brought in who fail to understand the country's problems, fail to get to grip with any of them, lie about what is happening and/or cover up and/or seek to distract. Eventually we get some sort of tediously lengthy and detailed inquiry which drives most people mad. No-one is held accountable and a few people are presented as the token sacrifice before re-emerging somewhere else suitably lucrative. The details are read by geeks like me. Some token changes are made. And the public take the view that everyone involved, especially the lawyers, are a bunch of scumbags. Meanwhile the country continues to get poorer and be badly run.
Oh - and just like the Post Office matter, Mandelson was at the heart of the whole ghastly mess.
I would add - "but it's legal and just inside the rules, so I must be right" is a path to crisis after crisis.
Further to the above, a colleague of mine went to the Post Office today and was mildly flabbergasted to note that her receipt showed that Horizon still run the systems there.
At the end of the day, JLR is still open, various Steel works are still open, hundreds of thousands of jobs and linked jobs are still saved, whole communities are still alive
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
Adios
Omg no are you leaving us??
We will miss your << checks notes >>
Brixian59 represents an underepresented viewpoint within the country, very useful.
Actually I agree. I was goading @Brixian59 because be is a charmless character with a definite streak of anti Semitism and now a dash of homophobia
But PB needs new commenters even if they come with disagreeable attitudes. The whole point of the site is disagreement
So I hope he stays even as I reserve the right to heckle him
Agreed however anyone stumbling across this site since Brixian’s arrival would have just turned around and left once they saw the interminable robotic spamming about Labour good/Kemi bad so swings and roundabouts.
No you are right we don't want any Centrists or Left Wingers. This is a nice RefCon site!
Comments
Under what possible grounds could someone not be allowed to tell the PM something so important?
Utter bullshit!
I did write a longer response about how damaging it was being called a "poofter" was to my development, but you're not fucking worth it.
To have the PM "not allowed" to be told that the person he has appointed has failed security checks but been granted clearance anyway is utterly asinine. Unless the PM has directed he does not want to be told anything that could be embarrassing.
I doubt Thatcher would have accepted "you can't tell me that".
Chesterton's Fence thinking allows a lot of this processes that led to this mess to make some sense. But they have led to a nonsense outcome.
Smoke, yes. Gun, yes. Not (it seems, so far) sufficient connection between the two.
Starmer's bigger problem is that few people like him, and some are utterly deranged by him. Worse than that, everyone hates Mandelson.
But as long as there's no available and acceptable alternative, what's a chap to do? And Diane Abbot tearing him a new one isn't exactly news. If a non-member of the Awkward Squad pipes up, that changes things.
Its not about you nutters, the country doesn't care about how you lot found yourselves marginalised...
MP behind slaps hand onto face in disbelief
Voice: "well you brought them here"
But senior politicians aren't like you and me - they actually crave these extremely hard, utterly thankless, all-absorbing and not-very-well-paid jobs, apparently because of the power and status they bring.
The last PM to resign really voluntarily might be David Cameron, but really I think Harold Wilson.
So it'll be fingernails on doorframes time before Keir goes I imagine ...
One example is Jeremy Carl who is associated with the Claremont Institute, who is a little obsessed with various white nationalist themes, defending the January 6th rioters as having it worse than Black Americans in the Jim Crow South, wanting to address "the Jewish question" and so on. Carl was a government official in Trump I but this spring proved too controversial for confirmation by the Senate for a position in Trump 2.
I wonder if anything will be revealed concerning any of our many new UK think tanks and organisations promoting Right or Far Right views and positions?
One to watch for, though I doubt most of our media would cover it.
* Orban put tens of millions of USD equivalent into various organisations, without the endowments put into his ideologically based university ptrojects, which are larger.
I suspect he is definitely not enjoying being PM, but probably feels it is his duty, particularly on foreign affairs, to carry on until the world is in calmer water.
The solution is to make him Foreign Secretary. He might jump at the opportunity.
“I will not withdraw, that man couldn’t lie straight in bed”.
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2046252977451573409
Speaker ordered him to leave.
Who needs friends like that?
Which is ok in itself, politics is part performance and I'm not his target audience, but he doesn't have the same knack as others.
And personally I tend to curl up in a bed anyway.
Eldrad must live.
I'd hope that was just urban legend.
If it doesn't the gambler slinks off to lick their wounds, rebuild their reserves and try again another day. Don't we?
I must say I didn't have Sir Keir down as a gambler. Not a high-risk one, anyway. Unless he can pull off an unexpected (or unlikely) success elsewhere I think we're looking at PM Rayner before the summer's gone. And/or a split in the Labour Parliamentary Party
Senior Labour insider points out how empty the Labour benches have become, despite the fact that Keir Starmer is fighting for his political life.
Ominous.
Labour whips have noticed too.
Message sent to MPs: "If any [parliamentary private secretaries] are able to head back to the chamber, benches are looking quite empty."
Mandelson got the best deal on the Planet.
Starmer appointed him.
Those are real people
Those are real jobs
Those are real communities
The ends justify the means
Are those denying this or treating this naval gazing irrelevant Westminster naval gazing shit show as more important.
If so you stand branded as heartless, gutless cowards.
Those who have benefitted will never forget, nor forgive those who seek to demean them
Adios
Thinking about the small time, small town politicians I've seen up close and off duty, they all have a belief that they can beat the odds. I don't see how you could enter such a high-risk career otherwise. Sometimes, that leads to the absurd risk-taking of an Archer or a Mandelson. Or the messianic self-belief of Blair or Thatcher.
But in the end, they all fail. And the ones like Tony and Maggie who seem to succeed first often do so by hiding messes for the next rube to clear up. (Something of the same for Wilson, perhaps?)
And OK, the structure of departure means that it's hard to leave before failure kicks in. But you have to wonder if a job that kills the reputation of almost everyone who attempts it is set up correctly.
We will miss your << checks notes >>
Attending a protest, the Transport for London (TfL) employee is asked: 'Is it safe for Jews to ride the Bakerloo line?'
Shouting over the sound of drums and crowd chants, he callously responds: 'Not when I'm driving.'"
What a charmer!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15748513/Tube-driver-suspended-Jews-not-safe-driving.html
1) Vet Mandy strictly.
2) Do it before the appointment is announced, in parallel with multiple candidates. That way, if he fails, it's just one fail in a bunch of passes. Process eh?
3) Appoint him as a political envoy. Keep the traditional Ambassador.
Burnham next PM, 2028.
Starmer rather reminds me of many of the lawyers who appeared at the Post Office Inquiry, some of them really quite eminent KCs and experienced. All of them went on and on about the processes they followed and the procedures and denied doing anything dodgy and explained how they were only advising on X and so did not concern themselves with Y or Z. They all expressed surprise that they had not been told stuff or did not know about relevant information but seemed incapable of understanding that they could have asked and in some cases had a duty to do so. If matters went wrong others were to blame and it was all very regrettable but hindsight etc. All had very slopey shoulders. Integrity was a foreign concept to them.
And all displayed appalling judgment, which is the single most important thing you want from a lawyer.
Starmer is that kind of a lawyer. Technically good within his narrow specialism but lacking in good judgment and therefore not someone who inspires confidence.
The country is a bit like the Post Office during this scandal - initially run by a load of plausible snake oil salesmen who sell the country an overpriced and overhyped product. It then goes wrong and more and more useless leaders are brought in who fail to understand the country's problems, fail to get to grip with any of them, lie about what is happening and/or cover up and/or seek to distract. Eventually we get some sort of tediously lengthy and detailed inquiry which drives most people mad. No-one is held accountable and a few people are presented as the token sacrifice before re-emerging somewhere else suitably lucrative. The details are read by geeks like me. Some token changes are made. And the public take the view that everyone involved, especially the lawyers, are a bunch of scumbags. Meanwhile the country continues to get poorer and be badly run.
Oh - and just like the Post Office matter, Mandelson was at the heart of the whole ghastly mess.
PS This really could have been a header. But it is time for my nap. I have planted a herb garden today.
They both will be delighted for the media coverage
But PB needs new commenters even if they come with disagreeable attitudes. The whole point of the site is disagreement
So I hope he stays even as I reserve the right to heckle him
Think about it.
They also list Toby Young's FSU (and reported funding by Peter Thiel), Common Sense Group, Roger Scruton Legacy Foundation, James Orr, Toby Young himself, Frank Furedi, and Douglas Murray, Danny Kruger, Michael Gove and Peter Thiel as a funder. There are others. Paul Marshall is in there too, as is JD Vance through his James Orr links. I have left out those who are just Nat Con speakers.
My MP Lee Anderson is listed, but only as a speaker at the National Conservative conference.
It's not an arena I know in real detail, so I can't speak personally to all the details.
https://bylinetimes.com/2026/04/14/exposed-how-viktor-orban-bankrolled-the-network-around-reform-uk/
A number of very "independent" protest groups turned out to be wholly owned by Moscow.
More recently, the many of the sillier* CyberNats evaporated when Iran lost internet access. And apparently there has been a collapse in the London Has Fallen offering, as well.
*The ones who sounded rather American in their style of Nationalism, often. No sarcasm, or wit of any kind.
Man up, as a certain poster advocated for school children with SEND.
Can't imagine any other walk of life where someone could be hired by the big boss, fail security checks, be appointed anyway only for the boss to claim they weren't informed checks were failed.
If a Head at a school hired a Teacher only for it to turn out they had failed their DBS checks and been appointed anyway, I am curious what would happen and if anyone could "not be allowed" to inform the Head that the checks had been failed.
https://x.com/oprimodev/status/2046025639476462047?s=61
I agree - this cuts both ways at different (or sometimes the same) times, and also for some the motivator is the money.
Personally I think that my MP is building his funds for a more comfortable retirement whilst he can as one motive, having had a modestly paid career and a long period as a single dad over the last2-3 decades. Kruger, on the other hand, is imo highly ideological.
I'll stop there, for M'Learned Friends' sake.
PS Do you remember "The Thatcher who could not mend her own roof" ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language
The debate is over whether he was mistaken in refusing to share some info .
All of a sudden Robbins is the darling of right wing papers who couldn’t stand him before but are busy beatifying him now .
In hindsight firing him was premature but if he had stayed on then the accusations would be he was trying to save his job and trying to defend the PM by saying he couldn’t divulge info .
Then the right wing press would have accused him of not telling the truth .
The practical reason is that if parliamentarians can accuse each other of deliberately giving inaccurate information, there is a risk that debate descends into accusations, rather than focusing on substantive issues.
The historic reason is that the concept of honour is important among parliamentarians. It is assumed that MPs will act with honour, and therefore impugning the honour of others is regarded as wrong.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/misleading-parliament-correcting-record
The best thing about this site is intelligent, fact-based disagreement that makes you check your own assumptions and arguments, and maybe even modify them. For example, a while back, somebody on here challenged my assumption in a post that increasing the share of government spending and tax as a % of GDP reduces total GDP. That made me go back and look at half-remembered papers from a decade ago so that I could prove he was wrong (which he is, completely).
But repetitive, trolly, unsupported comments about how one side is amazing and the other side can do no good don't add that much.
Nor do obvious absurdities about - my favourite - how Britain has nothing to fear and everything to gain from Communist China...
There were some who thought a Labour majority of 170 or so would preclude much Parliamentary theatre - how wrong they were.
Starmer squirmed as you might expect but we are still absent a "smoking gun" to force his resignation. Today's revelation about ignored "advice" isn't as crucial as you might think.
I don't know how often Ministers and the Prime Minister ignore or fail to accept advice from senior officials but I bet it has happened plenty of times.
Ignoring advice isn't in and of itself a hanging offence in my book but it does shift the ground if and when circumstances change. If the Officials advise A and the PM decides to do B and B turns out to be right, said PM is in a strong position and can play "the civil service told me it couldn't be done but I had faith and I was right" or something similar card.
If you follow advice and it turns out to be poor advice, you can blame the Officials but the problem comes when you ignore advice and it turns out to be good advice. It shouldn't happen but you'd be surprised how often that leaks out and the old "we told the PM to do this, the PM did something else and look how it turned out" mantra comes into play.
Is it however an appropriate sanction for a PM to resign if he/she takes their own view and discounts official advice? Again, I don't see why unless the course of action undertaken by the PM in contravention of advice turned out to be in some way illegal or improper. Was appointing Mandelson to be the Ambassador to Washington illegal? No, was it improper? Given the vetting and the concerns over links to China let alone Epstein, you can certainly argue that but as the head of the pin heaves into view, we're left with the notion either Starmer didn't know or wasn't told (in which case accidentially misleading Parliament warrants an apology but no more) or he did know but wanted to appoint Mandelson anyway and deliberately misled Parliament (which would be a resignation matter)?
Many will believe the latter but without any actual proof or evidence, what do we have?