I haven't watched the debate, but given the hype, was this Kemi's Kinnock Westland moment?
Not really. She did OK. She had six prepared questions that she had provided to Starmer in advance, which was novel.
Malmesbury at 7pm has the best explanation of why Robbins didn't tell Starmer.
What was the rationale for providing the questions to Starmer in advance? An attempt to actually get him to answer the question, as opposed to pivoting to a different question he wants to answer?
So Starmer say that "It is staggering and unbelievable that I wan't told that Mandelson had failed vetting"
For once he is right, it is unbelievable...
If Starmer says he wasnt told and Olly Robbins says he didn't tell him tomorrow, will you accept that?
If Starmer hadn't picked up over 30 years that Mandleson is a wrong 'un, as we all have seen from so many incidents over the years, then he is even more obtuse than I though possible.
It should never have needed to go to vetting.
It’s truly a mystery that Starmer with his ming vase pre-election decided to start juggling with it after one too many after being elected .
Sadly no one was there to talk him back from the ledge . We know why a slimy corrupt individual was thought a good fit for Trump but still why on earth even take the chance .
You've been posting on here for quite a time. Did you (and others here of similar view) write a post on here to that effect and in such strong terms back in December 2024, or were you silent then and are just drawing on hindsight now?
That's not entirely fair or relevant. A PB poster doesn't get paid by the taxpayer to be across every contentious political issue in real time. The PMs job is, among other things, to have reliable political nous, and to listen to advice from people who know stuff. As the PM now says it got it wrong at the time of appointment, it is reasonable to draw attention to the fact that he could have done better.
The mystery arising from his admission is this: it, the original appointment, is plainly a much more egregious and consequential error that the alleged errors of Robbins who has been sacked for them. The PM is far too keen on sacking people for errors less significant than his own. He should have offered his resignation already.
A proper target is all the journalists who said how marvellous peterM's appointment it was at the time and have now changed their minds.
So Starmer say that "It is staggering and unbelievable that I wan't told that Mandelson had failed vetting"
For once he is right, it is unbelievable...
If Starmer says he wasnt told and Olly Robbins says he didn't tell him tomorrow, will you accept that?
If Starmer hadn't picked up over 30 years that Mandleson is a wrong 'un, as we all have seen from so many incidents over the years, then he is even more obtuse than I though possible.
It should never have needed to go to vetting.
It’s truly a mystery that Starmer with his ming vase pre-election decided to start juggling with it after one too many after being elected .
Sadly no one was there to talk him back from the ledge . We know why a slimy corrupt individual was thought a good fit for Trump but still why on earth even take the chance .
This doesn't make sense to me. The previous ambassador, Karen Pierce, was by all accounts doing a good job and the White House liked her. What's the basis for saying that Mandelson would manage Trump or those around him better? It seems to be taken as a given. But should it? So is there some other reason for the appointment? That's one question which should be asked.
And the other is whether Mandelson was sharing confidential information obtained while Ambassador with his mates and, if so, who? I'd be looking at China and some of the other oddly pro-China decisions Starmer has been taking and doing a bit of digging.
Chagos, for one.
That was a deal worked up by the previous administration. You may not like it, but it isn't down to Mandelson, or even Starmer.
As US Ambassador Mandelson would have had confidential information about it and the US view on it. If he was unnecessarily close to the Chinese as is alleged, his presence in the US as Ambassador would have been helpful. We already know that he passed sensitive confidential information to Epstein. How can we be reassured that he was not doing something similar to his latest buddies?
I haven't watched the debate, but given the hype, was this Kemi's Kinnock Westland moment?
I made that parallel too. She did better than Kinnock, but he set the bar very low indeed.
Starmer was uncharacteristically slippery. He was very, very unconvincing.
Starmer needs to plan his exit. He was harangued from all sides. Badenoch was OK but not as on point as Davey and McDonnell.
Unconvincing indeed. There is a smoking gun, unrelated directly to the confected fracas, which is making the appointment in the first place. The other metaphorical smoking gun is that he expects others to resign/be sacked for making lesser mistakes but not himself. But the overall depressant is that no-one believes for a moment the high minded moral stuff about 'I would not have appointed him if I had known'. It's not a smoking gun, but when a defendant is in the witness box a jury is entitled to say 'I don't believe him; the story is not capable of being believed as a complete and truthful account, even if I don't know where the truth lies, it isn't in what he is saying.'
So Starmer say that "It is staggering and unbelievable that I wan't told that Mandelson had failed vetting"
For once he is right, it is unbelievable...
If Starmer says he wasnt told and Olly Robbins says he didn't tell him tomorrow, will you accept that?
If Starmer hadn't picked up over 30 years that Mandleson is a wrong 'un, as we all have seen from so many incidents over the years, then he is even more obtuse than I though possible.
It should never have needed to go to vetting.
It’s truly a mystery that Starmer with his ming vase pre-election decided to start juggling with it after one too many after being elected .
Sadly no one was there to talk him back from the ledge . We know why a slimy corrupt individual was thought a good fit for Trump but still why on earth even take the chance .
This doesn't make sense to me. The previous ambassador, Karen Pierce, was by all accounts doing a good job and the White House liked her. What's the basis for saying that Mandelson would manage Trump or those around him better? It seems to be taken as a given. But should it? So is there some other reason for the appointment? That's one question which should be asked.
And the other is whether Mandelson was sharing confidential information obtained while Ambassador with his mates and, if so, who? I'd be looking at China and some of the other oddly pro-China decisions Starmer has been taking and doing a bit of digging.
Chagos, for one.
That was a deal worked up by the previous administration. You may not like it, but it isn't down to Mandelson, or even Starmer.
As US Ambassador Mandelson would have had confidential information about it and the US view on it. If he was unnecessarily close to the Chinese as is alleged, his presence in the US as Ambassador would have been helpful. We already know that he passed sensitive confidential information to Epstein. How can we be reassured that he was not doing something similar to his latest buddies?
You might be making the same error I made when Foreign Secretary Johnson rocked up without his minders to a KGB party in Italy. In the intervening years I was told by many on here that there was nothing to see. If that was true of the Foreign Secretary it might be true of the Ambassador.
Personally I'd charge them both with treason and see what a jury made of it.
So Starmer say that "It is staggering and unbelievable that I wan't told that Mandelson had failed vetting"
For once he is right, it is unbelievable...
If Starmer says he wasnt told and Olly Robbins says he didn't tell him tomorrow, will you accept that?
If Starmer hadn't picked up over 30 years that Mandleson is a wrong 'un, as we all have seen from so many incidents over the years, then he is even more obtuse than I though possible.
It should never have needed to go to vetting.
It’s truly a mystery that Starmer with his ming vase pre-election decided to start juggling with it after one too many after being elected .
Sadly no one was there to talk him back from the ledge . We know why a slimy corrupt individual was thought a good fit for Trump but still why on earth even take the chance .
This doesn't make sense to me. The previous ambassador, Karen Pierce, was by all accounts doing a good job and the White House liked her. What's the basis for saying that Mandelson would manage Trump or those around him better? It seems to be taken as a given. But should it? So is there some other reason for the appointment? That's one question which should be asked.
And the other is whether Mandelson was sharing confidential information obtained while Ambassador with his mates and, if so, who? I'd be looking at China and some of the other oddly pro-China decisions Starmer has been taking and doing a bit of digging.
Chagos, for one.
That was a deal worked up by the previous administration. You may not like it, but it isn't down to Mandelson, or even Starmer.
As US Ambassador Mandelson would have had confidential information about it and the US view on it. If he was unnecessarily close to the Chinese as is alleged, his presence in the US as Ambassador would have been helpful. We already know that he passed sensitive confidential information to Epstein. How can we be reassured that he was not doing something similar to his latest buddies?
Starmer said a full investigation is in progress on this very point
Scoop from Sky’s @joncraig confirmed - the Speaker has accepted Kemi Badenoch application for an emergency debate on Peter Mandelson under Standing Order 24.
Badenoch said: “There remain serious inconsistencies in the government's position.”
Will take place after Olly Robbins has given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Depending on any Urgent Questions and Ministerial Statements, it could start anytime from 12.30pm…
Revenge by Speaker for Starmer's behaviour the other day about not answering any questions?
It's easy, Starmer made the mistake of employing McSweeney as his chief of staff, McSweeney was Mandelson's acolyte, Mandelson wanted the gig as ambassador, so all Starmer's advisors were telling him what a great idea it would be to appoint Mandelson. After Brexit, Johnson etc most of the competent civil servants were gone and the remainder were used to twisting the process to suit the boss. So they overruled the vetting and hid it behind confidentiality. Once the shit hit the fan they've just been covering their arses. Doesn't excuse Starmer from not having the sense to not appoint Mandelson.
So Starmer say that "It is staggering and unbelievable that I wan't told that Mandelson had failed vetting"
For once he is right, it is unbelievable...
If Starmer says he wasnt told and Olly Robbins says he didn't tell him tomorrow, will you accept that?
If Starmer hadn't picked up over 30 years that Mandleson is a wrong 'un, as we all have seen from so many incidents over the years, then he is even more obtuse than I though possible.
It should never have needed to go to vetting.
It’s truly a mystery that Starmer with his ming vase pre-election decided to start juggling with it after one too many after being elected .
Sadly no one was there to talk him back from the ledge . We know why a slimy corrupt individual was thought a good fit for Trump but still why on earth even take the chance .
You've been posting on here for quite a time. Did you (and others here of similar view) write a post on here to that effect and in such strong terms back in December 2024, or were you silent then and are just drawing on hindsight now?
I never could stand Mandelson but I think most realize including myself why Starmer took the gamble . And at the time we hadn’t seen the further Epstein fallout .
The general consensus was it was very risky given his past but I don’t think people thought it would end up being such a total catastrophe .
Scoop from Sky’s @joncraig confirmed - the Speaker has accepted Kemi Badenoch application for an emergency debate on Peter Mandelson under Standing Order 24.
Badenoch said: “There remain serious inconsistencies in the government's position.”
Will take place after Olly Robbins has given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Depending on any Urgent Questions and Ministerial Statements, it could start anytime from 12.30pm…
A mistake, in my opinion. Journalists will feel they've heard it all today, and nobody else will pay attention.
Starmer obviously (IMO) won't resign two weeks before the local elections. Potentially afterwards, depending how bad they are.
Scoop from Sky’s @joncraig confirmed - the Speaker has accepted Kemi Badenoch application for an emergency debate on Peter Mandelson under Standing Order 24.
Badenoch said: “There remain serious inconsistencies in the government's position.”
Will take place after Olly Robbins has given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Depending on any Urgent Questions and Ministerial Statements, it could start anytime from 12.30pm…
A mistake, in my opinion. Journalists will feel they've heard it all today, and nobody else will pay attention.
Starmer obviously (IMO) won't resign two weeks before the local elections. Potentially afterwards, depending how bad they are.
Olly Robbins evidence in the morning will be a big moment and means the emergency debate will be able to look at the whole picture
Scoop from Sky’s @joncraig confirmed - the Speaker has accepted Kemi Badenoch application for an emergency debate on Peter Mandelson under Standing Order 24.
Badenoch said: “There remain serious inconsistencies in the government's position.”
Will take place after Olly Robbins has given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Depending on any Urgent Questions and Ministerial Statements, it could start anytime from 12.30pm…
Revenge by Speaker for Starmer's behaviour the other day about not answering any questions?
Either that, of it's a plan to bore the nation rigid, so that we all just give up ?
We find out from Robbins if he's been bribed or not. If he backs up Starmers story he's accepted the promise of jam tomorrow. If he sticks the knife in, then he hadn't.
So Starmer say that "It is staggering and unbelievable that I wan't told that Mandelson had failed vetting"
For once he is right, it is unbelievable...
If Starmer says he wasnt told and Olly Robbins says he didn't tell him tomorrow, will you accept that?
If Starmer hadn't picked up over 30 years that Mandleson is a wrong 'un, as we all have seen from so many incidents over the years, then he is even more obtuse than I though possible.
It should never have needed to go to vetting.
It’s truly a mystery that Starmer with his ming vase pre-election decided to start juggling with it after one too many after being elected .
Sadly no one was there to talk him back from the ledge . We know why a slimy corrupt individual was thought a good fit for Trump but still why on earth even take the chance .
This doesn't make sense to me. The previous ambassador, Karen Pierce, was by all accounts doing a good job and the White House liked her. What's the basis for saying that Mandelson would manage Trump or those around him better? It seems to be taken as a given. But should it? So is there some other reason for the appointment? That's one question which should be asked.
And the other is whether Mandelson was sharing confidential information obtained while Ambassador with his mates and, if so, who? I'd be looking at China and some of the other oddly pro-China decisions Starmer has been taking and doing a bit of digging.
Chagos, for one.
Yes. What looks like an act of outright treason, and no one can seriously explain it
Scoop from Sky’s @joncraig confirmed - the Speaker has accepted Kemi Badenoch application for an emergency debate on Peter Mandelson under Standing Order 24.
Badenoch said: “There remain serious inconsistencies in the government's position.”
Will take place after Olly Robbins has given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Depending on any Urgent Questions and Ministerial Statements, it could start anytime from 12.30pm…
A mistake, in my opinion. Journalists will feel they've heard it all today, and nobody else will pay attention.
Starmer obviously (IMO) won't resign two weeks before the local elections. Potentially afterwards, depending how bad they are.
I think he’s in the departure lounge now. I’m not sure the final trigger will be the locals because they’re already priced in, but my feeling is that, as with Boris, the next new scandal that comes along ends it. Because then the PLP will reason that there’s more to come.
The lack of an obvious successor really creates a problem for Labour. The idea that, say, Rayner could take over when she is also known for a scandal just stretches credibility.
Scoop from Sky’s @joncraig confirmed - the Speaker has accepted Kemi Badenoch application for an emergency debate on Peter Mandelson under Standing Order 24.
Badenoch said: “There remain serious inconsistencies in the government's position.”
Will take place after Olly Robbins has given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Depending on any Urgent Questions and Ministerial Statements, it could start anytime from 12.30pm…
A mistake, in my opinion. Journalists will feel they've heard it all today, and nobody else will pay attention.
Starmer obviously (IMO) won't resign two weeks before the local elections. Potentially afterwards, depending how bad they are.
Nobody in the real world is paying attention already. They are scared shitless that Trump's madness is going to lose them their job, or make their gas bill 3x what it was last winter, or shutter their local pub, or blow up their chances of buying a starter home etc etc.
Meanwhile this carnival lurches its way through Westminster. A blizzard of he said that, she wrote that, this email said this, the process says this, the precedent says this, a cabinet secretary in the 19th century once said that etc etc.
I doubt the public have a bloody clue.
I'm not saying that it is not important - frankly this is a massive national security issue - but down in main street people have other worries.
If you think the nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Gerald R. Ford is the most powerful ship in the world, you are wrong. It's actually the German cruise ship Mein Schiff 4 (pictured), which successfully transited the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend
So Starmer say that "It is staggering and unbelievable that I wan't told that Mandelson had failed vetting"
For once he is right, it is unbelievable...
If Starmer says he wasnt told and Olly Robbins says he didn't tell him tomorrow, will you accept that?
If Starmer hadn't picked up over 30 years that Mandleson is a wrong 'un, as we all have seen from so many incidents over the years, then he is even more obtuse than I though possible.
It should never have needed to go to vetting.
It’s truly a mystery that Starmer with his ming vase pre-election decided to start juggling with it after one too many after being elected .
Sadly no one was there to talk him back from the ledge . We know why a slimy corrupt individual was thought a good fit for Trump but still why on earth even take the chance .
You've been posting on here for quite a time. Did you (and others here of similar view) write a post on here to that effect and in such strong terms back in December 2024, or were you silent then and are just drawing on hindsight now?
I never could stand Mandelson but I think most realize including myself why Starmer took the gamble . And at the time we hadn’t seen the further Epstein fallout .
The general consensus was it was very risky given his past but I don’t think people thought it would end up being such a total catastrophe .
What however doesn't work is for Starmer to take the gamble, lose the bet, others like Robbins lose their stake and Starmer remains PM.
Question is whether Starmer's premiership dies of the Mandelson scandal or with it.
It isn't just Mandelson. The two years of missteps and inertia have been nails in the coffin. Starmer has presided over the most disappointing premiership since Anthony Eden's.
If you think the nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Gerald R. Ford is the most powerful ship in the world, you are wrong. It's actually the German cruise ship Mein Schiff 4 (pictured), which successfully transited the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend
I bet the food onboard is better as well (although given the photos of what is being served on board the USS Gerald R. Ford that wouldn't be difficult.
Keir Starmer got through his showdown in parliament today and lives to fight another day - but it’s only half-time and his fate now rests with Olly Robbins tomorrow.
On the big question on the process, as of right now Starmer does seem to have a defence.
From what we know it appears Robbins did not tell anyone in No10. Not Starmer, not his political aides, not Jonathan Powell. Even cabinet secretary Chris Wormald wasn’t told.
It’s pretty extraordinary, but allies of Robbins are indicating that’s right and he was bound by how he saw the rules.
If that holds during tomorrow’s appearance, Starmer will be able to say, as an ally argues tonight, that he couldn’t have done anything about the vetting fail because he and no one around him knew.
The danger from Robbins therefore could instead come from what he says about how No10 rushed the appointment.
He could say Starmer / No10 led him to believe the appointment was a fait accompli and had already disregarded the PET due diligence on China/Russia. That would be highly damaging.
Labour MPs who spoke to us tonight are saying it’s incredibly grim but they don’t think there’ll be a move against Starmer this week. That said, it’ll factor into their considerations in May.
Scoop from Sky’s @joncraig confirmed - the Speaker has accepted Kemi Badenoch application for an emergency debate on Peter Mandelson under Standing Order 24.
Badenoch said: “There remain serious inconsistencies in the government's position.”
Will take place after Olly Robbins has given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Depending on any Urgent Questions and Ministerial Statements, it could start anytime from 12.30pm…
A mistake, in my opinion. Journalists will feel they've heard it all today, and nobody else will pay attention.
Starmer obviously (IMO) won't resign two weeks before the local elections. Potentially afterwards, depending how bad they are.
It keeps the Madelson affair in the news and covers Starmer and Labour in even more shit and keeps it in the news till the Local Elections. Anything.that sees Labour in a bad light has to be positive for the Tories
So Starmer say that "It is staggering and unbelievable that I wan't told that Mandelson had failed vetting"
For once he is right, it is unbelievable...
If Starmer says he wasnt told and Olly Robbins says he didn't tell him tomorrow, will you accept that?
If Starmer hadn't picked up over 30 years that Mandleson is a wrong 'un, as we all have seen from so many incidents over the years, then he is even more obtuse than I though possible.
It should never have needed to go to vetting.
It’s truly a mystery that Starmer with his ming vase pre-election decided to start juggling with it after one too many after being elected .
Sadly no one was there to talk him back from the ledge . We know why a slimy corrupt individual was thought a good fit for Trump but still why on earth even take the chance .
You've been posting on here for quite a time. Did you (and others here of similar view) write a post on here to that effect and in such strong terms back in December 2024, or were you silent then and are just drawing on hindsight now?
I never could stand Mandelson but I think most realize including myself why Starmer took the gamble . And at the time we hadn’t seen the further Epstein fallout .
The general consensus was it was very risky given his past but I don’t think people thought it would end up being such a total catastrophe .
This is true, but it doesn't change anything. Starmer presumably tried a "It seemed like a good idea at the time" argument for size and rejected it as impossible for someone associated with the world's most prominent paedophile. So he resorted to made up excuses.
Normally reliable commentators claim both Badenoch and Farage supported the Mandelson appointment at the time, although I can't find any references to this. This also doesn't change anything. They didn't appoint the guy.
Scoop from Sky’s @joncraig confirmed - the Speaker has accepted Kemi Badenoch application for an emergency debate on Peter Mandelson under Standing Order 24.
Badenoch said: “There remain serious inconsistencies in the government's position.”
Will take place after Olly Robbins has given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Depending on any Urgent Questions and Ministerial Statements, it could start anytime from 12.30pm…
A mistake, in my opinion. Journalists will feel they've heard it all today, and nobody else will pay attention.
Starmer obviously (IMO) won't resign two weeks before the local elections. Potentially afterwards, depending how bad they are.
It keeps the Madelson affair in the news and covers Starmer and Labour in even more shit and keeps it in the news till the Local Elections. Anything.that sees Labour in a bad light has to be positive for the Tories
So Starmer say that "It is staggering and unbelievable that I wan't told that Mandelson had failed vetting"
For once he is right, it is unbelievable...
If Starmer says he wasnt told and Olly Robbins says he didn't tell him tomorrow, will you accept that?
If Starmer hadn't picked up over 30 years that Mandleson is a wrong 'un, as we all have seen from so many incidents over the years, then he is even more obtuse than I though possible.
It should never have needed to go to vetting.
It’s truly a mystery that Starmer with his ming vase pre-election decided to start juggling with it after one too many after being elected .
Sadly no one was there to talk him back from the ledge . We know why a slimy corrupt individual was thought a good fit for Trump but still why on earth even take the chance .
You've been posting on here for quite a time. Did you (and others here of similar view) write a post on here to that effect and in such strong terms back in December 2024, or were you silent then and are just drawing on hindsight now?
I never could stand Mandelson but I think most realize including myself why Starmer took the gamble . And at the time we hadn’t seen the further Epstein fallout .
The general consensus was it was very risky given his past but I don’t think people thought it would end up being such a total catastrophe .
Yes; my own impression was that all the 'dirty linen' had already been disclosed.
If you think the nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Gerald R. Ford is the most powerful ship in the world, you are wrong. It's actually the German cruise ship Mein Schiff 4 (pictured), which successfully transited the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend
Against the advice of his civil servants, and contrary to actual vetting, Keir Starmer appointed a twice disgraced ex Minister to our most important diplomatic role: not only that Starmer apppointed a man who the PM KNEW maintained a close friendship with a child sex convict and trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, AFTER that man, Epstein, had been convicted of these crimes
If the Tories did this the universe would explode in outrage (and, rightly)
Why did Starmer do it? Why take that insane security risk? There is no explanation other than "Mandelson would know how to talk to Trump, he's another sex criminal"
Really???
Setting aside the ongoing lies and cover-up, the absurd "stolen phone", this is enough, Starmer has gotta go
Scoop from Sky’s @joncraig confirmed - the Speaker has accepted Kemi Badenoch application for an emergency debate on Peter Mandelson under Standing Order 24.
Badenoch said: “There remain serious inconsistencies in the government's position.”
Will take place after Olly Robbins has given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Depending on any Urgent Questions and Ministerial Statements, it could start anytime from 12.30pm…
A mistake, in my opinion. Journalists will feel they've heard it all today, and nobody else will pay attention.
Starmer obviously (IMO) won't resign two weeks before the local elections. Potentially afterwards, depending how bad they are.
Nobody in the real world is paying attention already. They are scared shitless that Trump's madness is going to lose them their job, or make their gas bill 3x what it was last winter, or shutter their local pub, or blow up their chances of buying a starter home etc etc.
Meanwhile this carnival lurches its way through Westminster. A blizzard of he said that, she wrote that, this email said this, the process says this, the precedent says this, a cabinet secretary in the 19th century once said that etc etc.
I doubt the public have a bloody clue.
I'm not saying that it is not important - frankly this is a massive national security issue - but down in main street people have other worries.
Labour has no message to sell. It is a vacuum, into which their opponents will insert the message "Labour have no reason to be worthy of your vote."
Against the advice of his civil servants, and contrary to actual vetting, Keir Starmer appointed a twice disgraced ex Minister to our most important diplomatic role: not only that Starmer apppointed a man who the PM KNEW maintained a close friendship with a child sex convict and trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, AFTER that man, Epstein, had been convicted of these crimes
If the Tories did this the universe would explode in outrage (and, rightly)
Why did Starmer do it? Why take that insane security risk? There is no explanation other than "Mandelson would know how to talk to Trump, he's another sex criminal"
Really???
Setting aside the ongoing lies and cover-up, the absurd "stolen phone", this is enough, Starmer has gotta go
The editor of The Spectator was a fan of making Mandy our man in Washington.
Michael Gove: Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump
Tonight the whole case rests on the idea that having been told repeatedly that Mandleson had passed, he should have not believed them. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
So Starmer say that "It is staggering and unbelievable that I wan't told that Mandelson had failed vetting"
For once he is right, it is unbelievable...
If Starmer says he wasnt told and Olly Robbins says he didn't tell him tomorrow, will you accept that?
If Starmer hadn't picked up over 30 years that Mandleson is a wrong 'un, as we all have seen from so many incidents over the years, then he is even more obtuse than I though possible.
It should never have needed to go to vetting.
It’s truly a mystery that Starmer with his ming vase pre-election decided to start juggling with it after one too many after being elected .
Sadly no one was there to talk him back from the ledge . We know why a slimy corrupt individual was thought a good fit for Trump but still why on earth even take the chance .
You've been posting on here for quite a time. Did you (and others here of similar view) write a post on here to that effect and in such strong terms back in December 2024, or were you silent then and are just drawing on hindsight now?
I never could stand Mandelson but I think most realize including myself why Starmer took the gamble . And at the time we hadn’t seen the further Epstein fallout .
The general consensus was it was very risky given his past but I don’t think people thought it would end up being such a total catastrophe .
Yes; my own impression was that all the 'dirty linen' had already been disclosed.
I really doubt that. I have never seen it referenced in the press here, but I have heard fascinating stuff that comes through South African intelligence. Can't believe that doesn't circulate as needing checking out. If there's anything in it, he should be nowhere need a diplomatic role.
The problem for Starmer and indeed the government is they thought they had a huge majority and from day one, ministers , including him got their messy paws in the trough. However, there's no big majority because the party is riven by splits and division. There was never any popular support for the programme or for Starmer - the USP was and remains that they're not Tories. The economy is down the pan, prices through the roof, Trump hates us, the E U don't trust us and the boats are still coming. Meanwhile half the Labour MPs and ministers have no clue what a woman is! What was that song again after 97? 😆😆😆😆😂😂😂
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
Against the advice of his civil servants, and contrary to actual vetting, Keir Starmer appointed a twice disgraced ex Minister to our most important diplomatic role: not only that Starmer apppointed a man who the PM KNEW maintained a close friendship with a child sex convict and trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, AFTER that man, Epstein, had been convicted of these crimes
If the Tories did this the universe would explode in outrage (and, rightly)
Why did Starmer do it? Why take that insane security risk? There is no explanation other than "Mandelson would know how to talk to Trump, he's another sex criminal"
Really???
Setting aside the ongoing lies and cover-up, the absurd "stolen phone", this is enough, Starmer has gotta go
The editor of The Spectator was a fan of making Mandy our man in Washington.
Michael Gove: Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump
Against the advice of his civil servants, and contrary to actual vetting, Keir Starmer appointed a twice disgraced ex Minister to our most important diplomatic role: not only that Starmer apppointed a man who the PM KNEW maintained a close friendship with a child sex convict and trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, AFTER that man, Epstein, had been convicted of these crimes
If the Tories did this the universe would explode in outrage (and, rightly)
Why did Starmer do it? Why take that insane security risk? There is no explanation other than "Mandelson would know how to talk to Trump, he's another sex criminal"
Really???
Setting aside the ongoing lies and cover-up, the absurd "stolen phone", this is enough, Starmer has gotta go
The editor of The Spectator was a fan of making Mandy our man in Washington.
Michael Gove: Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump
Against the advice of his civil servants, and contrary to actual vetting, Keir Starmer appointed a twice disgraced ex Minister to our most important diplomatic role: not only that Starmer apppointed a man who the PM KNEW maintained a close friendship with a child sex convict and trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, AFTER that man, Epstein, had been convicted of these crimes
If the Tories did this the universe would explode in outrage (and, rightly)
Why did Starmer do it? Why take that insane security risk? There is no explanation other than "Mandelson would know how to talk to Trump, he's another sex criminal"
Really???
Setting aside the ongoing lies and cover-up, the absurd "stolen phone", this is enough, Starmer has gotta go
I think Starmer's mistake is not leaning into this. Yes, he's a disgraced ex-minister and friend of noted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. But that's why we hired him!
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
Against the advice of his civil servants, and contrary to actual vetting, Keir Starmer appointed a twice disgraced ex Minister to our most important diplomatic role: not only that Starmer apppointed a man who the PM KNEW maintained a close friendship with a child sex convict and trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, AFTER that man, Epstein, had been convicted of these crimes
If the Tories did this the universe would explode in outrage (and, rightly)
Why did Starmer do it? Why take that insane security risk? There is no explanation other than "Mandelson would know how to talk to Trump, he's another sex criminal"
Really???
Setting aside the ongoing lies and cover-up, the absurd "stolen phone", this is enough, Starmer has gotta go
The editor of The Spectator was a fan of making Mandy our man in Washington.
Michael Gove: Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump
Yes, a cretinous opinion, in retrospect. In fact I bet I myself made some pro-Mandelson remarks at the time. Feel free to call me a cretin, too
But Gove is not in government, and nor am I. Starmer is not only in government, he is the PM, and he made the decision, unprompted. No one expected it, no one asked for it
What's more, Starmer had more info than any of us about Mandy's ongoing friendship with Epstein, post-conviction. It's all utterly indefensible and Starmer has to resign - quite apart from the lies and cover-up
Against the advice of his civil servants, and contrary to actual vetting, Keir Starmer appointed a twice disgraced ex Minister to our most important diplomatic role: not only that Starmer apppointed a man who the PM KNEW maintained a close friendship with a child sex convict and trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, AFTER that man, Epstein, had been convicted of these crimes
If the Tories did this the universe would explode in outrage (and, rightly)
Why did Starmer do it? Why take that insane security risk? There is no explanation other than "Mandelson would know how to talk to Trump, he's another sex criminal"
Really???
Setting aside the ongoing lies and cover-up, the absurd "stolen phone", this is enough, Starmer has gotta go
The editor of The Spectator was a fan of making Mandy our man in Washington.
Michael Gove: Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump
The problem for Starmer and indeed the government is they thought they had a huge majority and from day one, ministers , including him got their messy paws in the trough. However, there's no big majority because the party is riven by splits and division. There was never any popular support for the programme or for Starmer - the USP was and remains that they're not Tories. The economy is down the pan, prices through the roof, Trump hates us, the E U don't trust us and the boats are still coming. Meanwhile half the Labour MPs and ministers have no clue what a woman is! What was that song again after 97? 😆😆😆😆😂😂😂
As ever Labour regard themselves as the good guys. The Tories are the snouts in the trough, greedy, venal, money grubbing. When a labour PM takes expensive gifts and hospitality it’s because he deserves it. It’s nothing like Tory sleaze.
So Starmer say that "It is staggering and unbelievable that I wan't told that Mandelson had failed vetting"
For once he is right, it is unbelievable...
If Starmer says he wasnt told and Olly Robbins says he didn't tell him tomorrow, will you accept that?
If Starmer hadn't picked up over 30 years that Mandleson is a wrong 'un, as we all have seen from so many incidents over the years, then he is even more obtuse than I though possible.
It should never have needed to go to vetting.
It’s truly a mystery that Starmer with his ming vase pre-election decided to start juggling with it after one too many after being elected .
Sadly no one was there to talk him back from the ledge . We know why a slimy corrupt individual was thought a good fit for Trump but still why on earth even take the chance .
You've been posting on here for quite a time. Did you (and others here of similar view) write a post on here to that effect and in such strong terms back in December 2024, or were you silent then and are just drawing on hindsight now?
I never could stand Mandelson but I think most realize including myself why Starmer took the gamble . And at the time we hadn’t seen the further Epstein fallout .
The general consensus was it was very risky given his past but I don’t think people thought it would end up being such a total catastrophe .
Yes; my own impression was that all the 'dirty linen' had already been disclosed.
I really doubt that. I have never seen it referenced in the press here, but I have heard fascinating stuff that comes through South African intelligence. Can't believe that doesn't circulate as needing checking out. If there's anything in it, he should be nowhere need a diplomatic role.
I have no such sources. I believed that they wouldn't have appointed him unless everything was already 'on the table'.
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There are going to be an awful lot of pissed of ex labour councillors. The backbone of local political parties. The ones who help the MPs get elected. The pressure will be there. And yet in his stupid twisted lawyerly ming Starmer probably believes his version of events and that he is the only possible leader for the party. After all, he did deliver a 500 seat majority.
Against the advice of his civil servants, and contrary to actual vetting, Keir Starmer appointed a twice disgraced ex Minister to our most important diplomatic role: not only that Starmer apppointed a man who the PM KNEW maintained a close friendship with a child sex convict and trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, AFTER that man, Epstein, had been convicted of these crimes
If the Tories did this the universe would explode in outrage (and, rightly)
Why did Starmer do it? Why take that insane security risk? There is no explanation other than "Mandelson would know how to talk to Trump, he's another sex criminal"
Really???
Setting aside the ongoing lies and cover-up, the absurd "stolen phone", this is enough, Starmer has gotta go
The editor of The Spectator was a fan of making Mandy our man in Washington.
Michael Gove: Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There are going to be an awful lot of pissed of ex labour councillors. The backbone of local political parties. The ones who help the MPs get elected. The pressure will be there. And yet in his stupid twisted lawyerly ming Starmer probably believes his version of events and that he is the only possible leader for the party. After all, he did deliver a 500 seat majority.
And all that may result in him quitting. But I don’t buy a challenge.
Against the advice of his civil servants, and contrary to actual vetting, Keir Starmer appointed a twice disgraced ex Minister to our most important diplomatic role: not only that Starmer apppointed a man who the PM KNEW maintained a close friendship with a child sex convict and trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, AFTER that man, Epstein, had been convicted of these crimes
If the Tories did this the universe would explode in outrage (and, rightly)
Why did Starmer do it? Why take that insane security risk? There is no explanation other than "Mandelson would know how to talk to Trump, he's another sex criminal"
Really???
Setting aside the ongoing lies and cover-up, the absurd "stolen phone", this is enough, Starmer has gotta go
The editor of The Spectator was a fan of making Mandy our man in Washington.
Michael Gove: Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump
Against the advice of his civil servants, and contrary to actual vetting, Keir Starmer appointed a twice disgraced ex Minister to our most important diplomatic role: not only that Starmer apppointed a man who the PM KNEW maintained a close friendship with a child sex convict and trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, AFTER that man, Epstein, had been convicted of these crimes
If the Tories did this the universe would explode in outrage (and, rightly)
Why did Starmer do it? Why take that insane security risk? There is no explanation other than "Mandelson would know how to talk to Trump, he's another sex criminal"
Really???
Setting aside the ongoing lies and cover-up, the absurd "stolen phone", this is enough, Starmer has gotta go
The editor of The Spectator was a fan of making Mandy our man in Washington.
Michael Gove: Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump
Yes, a cretinous opinion, in retrospect. In fact I bet I myself made some pro-Mandelson remarks at the time. Feel free to call me a cretin, too
But Gove is not in government, and nor am I. Starmer is not only in government, he is the PM, and he made the decision, unprompted. No one expected it, no one asked for it
What's more, Starmer had more info than any of us about Mandy's ongoing friendship with Epstein, post-conviction. It's all utterly indefensible and Starmer has to resign - quite apart from the lies and cover-up
Yes, I cannot say with certainty that I didn't think appointing a known risk like Mandelson was a terrible idea, but I make no apology for expecting those with power over us to make better decisions on our behalfs.
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There are going to be an awful lot of pissed of ex labour councillors. The backbone of local political parties. The ones who help the MPs get elected. The pressure will be there. And yet in his stupid twisted lawyerly ming Starmer probably believes his version of events and that he is the only possible leader for the party. After all, he did deliver a 500 seat majority.
And all that may result in him quitting. But I don’t buy a challenge.
After the locals, just the threat of a challenge will be enough.
Against the advice of his civil servants, and contrary to actual vetting, Keir Starmer appointed a twice disgraced ex Minister to our most important diplomatic role: not only that Starmer apppointed a man who the PM KNEW maintained a close friendship with a child sex convict and trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, AFTER that man, Epstein, had been convicted of these crimes
If the Tories did this the universe would explode in outrage (and, rightly)
Why did Starmer do it? Why take that insane security risk? There is no explanation other than "Mandelson would know how to talk to Trump, he's another sex criminal"
Really???
Setting aside the ongoing lies and cover-up, the absurd "stolen phone", this is enough, Starmer has gotta go
I think Starmer's mistake is not leaning into this. Yes, he's a disgraced ex-minister and friend of noted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. But that's why we hired him!
Trump is a money grabbing slimeball who you can't trust as far as you can throw him and continually changes his mind to whatever will earn him a few more quid this second.
So we appointed Mandelson because he's our equivalent.
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There are going to be an awful lot of pissed of ex labour councillors. The backbone of local political parties. The ones who help the MPs get elected. The pressure will be there. And yet in his stupid twisted lawyerly ming Starmer probably believes his version of events and that he is the only possible leader for the party. After all, he did deliver a 500 seat majority.
And all that may result in him quitting. But I don’t buy a challenge.
After the locals, just the threat of a challenge will be enough.
Tonight the whole case rests on the idea that having been told repeatedly that Mandleson had passed, he should have not believed them. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Yesterday we recorded a "Who is the worst post-war Prime Minister" episode of Emergency Podcast. Which we had to split in 2 as we were having so much fun!
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There are going to be an awful lot of pissed of ex labour councillors. The backbone of local political parties. The ones who help the MPs get elected. The pressure will be there. And yet in his stupid twisted lawyerly ming Starmer probably believes his version of events and that he is the only possible leader for the party. After all, he did deliver a 500 seat majority.
And all that may result in him quitting. But I don’t buy a challenge.
I think there is more chance of big defections to the Greens.
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There have been plenty of leadership challenges over the years. They just tend to be less successful than recent Tory ones.
Any oil traders around to comment on this thread ?
He's pulling from https://www.hfir.com/p/wctw-the-oil-market-breaking-point-eab and I think it's accurate, even if everything is fixed tomorrow the delivery timescales are such that some countries are going to use up all their reserves before the next delivery arrives.
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There have been plenty of leadership challenges over the years. They just tend to be less successful than recent Tory ones.
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There have been plenty of leadership challenges over the years. They just tend to be less successful than recent Tory ones.
There has never been a successful challenge mounted against an incumbent Labour leader.
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There have been plenty of leadership challenges over the years. They just tend to be less successful than recent Tory ones.
There has never been a successful challenge mounted against an incumbent Labour leader.
As I’ve said many times, PB has an extremely poor grasp of the Labour Party in general.
Tonight the whole case rests on the idea that having been told repeatedly that Mandleson had passed, he should have not believed them. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There have been plenty of leadership challenges over the years. They just tend to be less successful than recent Tory ones.
There has never been a successful challenge mounted against an incumbent Labour leader.
As I’ve said many times, PB has an extremely poor grasp of the Labour Party in general.
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There have been plenty of leadership challenges over the years. They just tend to be less successful than recent Tory ones.
There has never been a successful challenge mounted against an incumbent Labour leader.
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There have been plenty of leadership challenges over the years. They just tend to be less successful than recent Tory ones.
There has never been a successful challenge mounted against an incumbent Labour leader.
As I’ve said many times, PB has an extremely poor grasp of the Labour Party in general.
I think that overstates it. Posters saying he’s toast are not saying AND he’s gone tonight or tomorrow morning. They are saying that he has reached his culmination point, to use a military analogy. The decline is set, he will be gone and can no longer master events to stay in power.
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There have been plenty of leadership challenges over the years. They just tend to be less successful than recent Tory ones.
There has never been a successful challenge mounted against an incumbent Labour leader.
As I’ve said many times, PB has an extremely poor grasp of the Labour Party in general.
I think that overstates it. Posters saying he’s toast are not saying AND he’s gone tonight or tomorrow morning. They are saying that he has reached his culmination point, to use a military analogy. The decline is set, he will be gone and can no longer master events to stay in power.
This was all said weeks ago when they last predicted he was off.
So Starmer say that "It is staggering and unbelievable that I wan't told that Mandelson had failed vetting"
For once he is right, it is unbelievable...
If Starmer says he wasnt told and Olly Robbins says he didn't tell him tomorrow, will you accept that?
If Starmer hadn't picked up over 30 years that Mandleson is a wrong 'un, as we all have seen from so many incidents over the years, then he is even more obtuse than I though possible.
It should never have needed to go to vetting.
I'm focusing on the narrow question as to whether Starmer was told Mandelson failed vetting. People are saying it is impossible when to me it seems the most likely explanation by far.
If Robbins tomorrow morning says, I spoke to Starmer and told him PM failed vetting, I will believe him and think Starmer should resign.
But if Robbins admits he didn't tell Starmer or Lammy or Cooper then its right he has been sacked.
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There have been plenty of leadership challenges over the years. They just tend to be less successful than recent Tory ones.
There has never been a successful challenge mounted against an incumbent Labour leader.
As I’ve said many times, PB has an extremely poor grasp of the Labour Party in general.
So does Starmer.
Indeed.
But that’s why I’m extremely confident Burnham will end up being PM. Labour will retreat into itself and he is like a warm hug for these people.
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There have been plenty of leadership challenges over the years. They just tend to be less successful than recent Tory ones.
There has never been a successful challenge mounted against an incumbent Labour leader.
Brown successfully brought down Blair in the end.
And then Brown brought down Brown by being, well Brown. I’d argue that there was a successful challenge to Corbyn but he just refused to go…
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There have been plenty of leadership challenges over the years. They just tend to be less successful than recent Tory ones.
There has never been a successful challenge mounted against an incumbent Labour leader.
Brown successfully brought down Blair in the end.
No he didn’t. Blair resigned.
They had a completely pointless and ineffective coup that went nowhere.
I’m say this as somebody who very much wants him to go. But what is going to change now?
May results + Mandy > May results?
But isn’t May already priced in?
I don't think so. Labour have adopted the BRACE position, but it will still hit them like a punch to the solar plexus if the results are anything like the predictions.
With the greatest of respect, your intuition on Labour is poor. They don’t chuck out leaders.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
There have been plenty of leadership challenges over the years. They just tend to be less successful than recent Tory ones.
There has never been a successful challenge mounted against an incumbent Labour leader.
Brown successfully brought down Blair in the end.
And then Brown brought down Brown by being, well Brown. I’d argue that there was a successful challenge to Corbyn but he just refused to go…
And so to my point. Starmer gets challenged and he’ll dig in.
The briefing remains anonymous because they know he’s not going anywhere and instead they’re working out deals to have somebody else take over when Starmer seems it so. It’s obvious.
Kash Patel has attempted defamation suits against journalists before, including a suit filed in Texas, over report that Patel was spending more time at nightclubs than at FBI HQ
Comments
The mystery arising from his admission is this: it, the original appointment, is plainly a much more egregious and consequential error that the alleged errors of Robbins who has been sacked for them. The PM is far too keen on sacking people for errors less significant than his own. He should have offered his resignation already.
A proper target is all the journalists who said how marvellous peterM's appointment it was at the time and have now changed their minds.
Starmer was uncharacteristically slippery. He was very, very unconvincing.
Starmer needs to plan his exit. He was harangued from all sides. Badenoch was OK but not as on point as Davey and McDonnell.
Starmer staggers on to lose a new fight another day.
Which is where I find myself.
Personally I'd charge them both with treason and see what a jury made of it.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/80a6334e-d3f0-47f8-91b5-17f007abf28d?shareToken=b8bb8649df28284656b7348ab55999ff
Imagine thinking Peter Mandelson wasn't a wrong 'un.
After Brexit, Johnson etc most of the competent civil servants were gone and the remainder were used to twisting the process to suit the boss.
So they overruled the vetting and hid it behind confidentiality. Once the shit hit the fan they've just been covering their arses.
Doesn't excuse Starmer from not having the sense to not appoint Mandelson.
The general consensus was it was very risky given his past but I don’t think people thought it would end up being such a total catastrophe .
Starmer obviously (IMO) won't resign two weeks before the local elections. Potentially afterwards, depending how bad they are.
Is it a Mandelgate?
The lack of an obvious successor really creates a problem for Labour. The idea that, say, Rayner could take over when she is also known for a scandal just stretches credibility.
Meanwhile this carnival lurches its way through Westminster. A blizzard of he said that, she wrote that, this email said this, the process says this, the precedent says this, a cabinet secretary in the 19th century once said that etc etc.
I doubt the public have a bloody clue.
I'm not saying that it is not important - frankly this is a massive national security issue - but down in main street people have other worries.
If you think the nuclear-powered supercarrier USS Gerald R. Ford is the most powerful ship in the world, you are wrong. It's actually the German cruise ship Mein Schiff 4 (pictured), which successfully transited the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend
https://bsky.app/profile/marceldirsus.com/post/3mjwd7pzer224
"According to another person familiar with the situation, the solution [i.e. mitigation] for Mandelson was to restrict access to certain classified documents on China specifically" https://ft.com/content/9f8d01dd-4ef8-475e-8b76-9cb0e325fb60?syn-25a6b1a6=1
Not an uncommon mitigation for DV'd people with country-specific issues.
Over to you Ange*.
Alex Wickham
@alexwickham
Mandelson: where we are tonight
Keir Starmer got through his showdown in parliament today and lives to fight another day - but it’s only half-time and his fate now rests with Olly Robbins tomorrow.
On the big question on the process, as of right now Starmer does seem to have a defence.
From what we know it appears Robbins did not tell anyone in No10. Not Starmer, not his political aides, not Jonathan Powell. Even cabinet secretary Chris Wormald wasn’t told.
It’s pretty extraordinary, but allies of Robbins are indicating that’s right and he was bound by how he saw the rules.
If that holds during tomorrow’s appearance, Starmer will be able to say, as an ally argues tonight, that he couldn’t have done anything about the vetting fail because he and no one around him knew.
The danger from Robbins therefore could instead come from what he says about how No10 rushed the appointment.
He could say Starmer / No10 led him to believe the appointment was a fait accompli and had already disregarded the PET due diligence on China/Russia. That would be highly damaging.
Labour MPs who spoke to us tonight are saying it’s incredibly grim but they don’t think there’ll be a move against Starmer this week. That said, it’ll factor into their considerations in May.
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/2046303960911274062
Normally reliable commentators claim both Badenoch and Farage supported the Mandelson appointment at the time, although I can't find any references to this. This also doesn't change anything. They didn't appoint the guy.
He should have gone when Mandelson went. But I am struggling to see what developments now have really changed anything.
It’s like with Partygate, we all knew our views as soon as it came out.
THE WHOLE THING IS RIDICULOUS
Against the advice of his civil servants, and contrary to actual vetting, Keir Starmer appointed a twice disgraced ex Minister to our most important diplomatic role: not only that Starmer apppointed a man who the PM KNEW maintained a close friendship with a child sex convict and trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, AFTER that man, Epstein, had been convicted of these crimes
If the Tories did this the universe would explode in outrage (and, rightly)
Why did Starmer do it? Why take that insane security risk? There is no explanation other than "Mandelson would know how to talk to Trump, he's another sex criminal"
Really???
Setting aside the ongoing lies and cover-up, the absurd "stolen phone", this is enough, Starmer has gotta go
That resonates.
Michael Gove: Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/michael-gove-peter-mandelson-best-us-ambassador-28rg89sx0
What a shit show.
That's it. Starmer has to go, ideally before Compline.
Sir Keir might quit. But he will not be formally challenged.
But Gove is not in government, and nor am I. Starmer is not only in government, he is the PM, and he made the decision, unprompted. No one expected it, no one asked for it
What's more, Starmer had more info than any of us about Mandy's ongoing friendship with Epstein, post-conviction. It's all utterly indefensible and Starmer has to resign - quite apart from the lies and cover-up
So we appointed Mandelson because he's our equivalent.
Seemed apt with Starmer so beloved. Here's part 1 https://youtu.be/ri9fkLoh18w
If that were really the case, he wouldn't have been so absurdly timid about doing stuff like planning reform etc.
And it doesn’t matter if the Strait of Hormuz opens tomorrow.
Here’s why the damage is already done 🧵
https://x.com/AlaliQasem/status/2046260617388933289
Any oil traders around to comment on this thread ?
If Robbins tomorrow morning says, I spoke to Starmer and told him PM failed vetting, I will believe him and think Starmer should resign.
But if Robbins admits he didn't tell Starmer or Lammy or Cooper then its right he has been sacked.
But that’s why I’m extremely confident Burnham will end up being PM. Labour will retreat into itself and he is like a warm hug for these people.
They had a completely pointless and ineffective coup that went nowhere.
The briefing remains anonymous because they know he’s not going anywhere and instead they’re working out deals to have somebody else take over when Starmer seems it so. It’s obvious.
Months later, defendant is now requesting "the Court grant his motion to dismiss and permit him to move for an award of attorney’s fees and costs" against Patel
https://x.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/2046271617962238091