After PeterthePunter's disparaging comments about Betfair, I've checked my bets and discovered that the terms for the "local election winning party" market have been changed significantly. From Party with the most council leaders and Mayors to most seats, I'm quite disgruntled as I only made the bet because of the original terms.
So sincere apologies to PtP for any scepticism and I will be more wary of Betfair in future.
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.
The whole debate has got completely out of hand and lost.
The technicalities are irrelevant. He appointed Mandelson and was an idiot to do so. For that he should go.
Like with Johnson, this idea of cake or whatever was irrelevant. It was one rule for them and one rule for us and that was it.
The public have made up their minds. This is terminal for Sir Keir there can be doubt. But that only stops him from leading another general election campaign. That’s literally all.
PB I’m afraid has a massive blindspot in how Labour does things. Watch there be much contrition over the next week and Starmer staggers onto the local elections.
MPs have wisely wised up to the idea that Starmer can now be their target for all negativity. They will bide their time, wait for him to make a deal with Burnham and do nothing publicly.
Read what Andrew Marr said this morning. The motions were already in progress for this.
I would be staggered if Sir Keir hasn’t worked out or is in the progress of working out a deal with a successor right now.
Is it the time to weigh in heavily on Ed Miliband? Rayner still in HMRC difficulties Streeting another Mandelson acolyte Burnham ineligible Mahmood too authoritarian
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!
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.
The whole debate has got completely out of hand and lost.
The technicalities are irrelevant. He appointed Mandelson and was an idiot to do so. For that he should go.
Like with Johnson, this idea of cake or whatever was irrelevant. It was one rule for them and one rule for us and that was it.
The public have made up their minds. This is terminal for Sir Keir there can be doubt. But that only stops him from leading another general election campaign. That’s literally all.
PB I’m afraid has a massive blindspot in how Labour does things. Watch there be much contrition over the next week and Starmer staggers onto the local elections.
MPs have wisely wised up to the idea that Starmer can now be their target for all negativity. They will bide their time, wait for him to make a deal with Burnham and do nothing publicly.
Read what Andrew Marr said this morning. The motions were already in progress for this.
The public already made up their minds I think. Mandelson isn't a huge issue except it prevents anything else that might have been more positive getting in the news.
I agree I think Starmer will survive and not resign.
I think you are way off if you think there will be a Burnham coronation. In particular, coronating a man will be very hard for many Labour MPs to stomach.
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.
The whole debate has got completely out of hand and lost.
The technicalities are irrelevant. He appointed Mandelson and was an idiot to do so. For that he should go.
Like with Johnson, this idea of cake or whatever was irrelevant. It was one rule for them and one rule for us and that was it.
The public have made up their minds. This is terminal for Sir Keir there can be doubt. But that only stops him from leading another general election campaign. That’s literally all.
PB I’m afraid has a massive blindspot in how Labour does things. Watch there be much contrition over the next week and Starmer staggers onto the local elections.
MPs have wisely wised up to the idea that Starmer can now be their target for all negativity. They will bide their time, wait for him to make a deal with Burnham and do nothing publicly.
Read what Andrew Marr said this morning. The motions were already in progress for this.
The public already made up their minds I think. Mandelson isn't a huge issue except it prevents anything else that might have been more positive getting in the news.
I agree I think Starmer will survive and not resign.
I think you are way off if you think there will be a Burnham coronation. In particular, coronating a man will be very hard for many Labour MPs to stomach.
They don’t want a leadership battle though.
I don’t think Burnham will do well in all honesty. But he’s clearly their best option. They’ll work out a deal to get him into Parliament.
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!
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.
The whole debate has got completely out of hand and lost.
The technicalities are irrelevant. He appointed Mandelson and was an idiot to do so. For that he should go.
Like with Johnson, this idea of cake or whatever was irrelevant. It was one rule for them and one rule for us and that was it.
The public have made up their minds. This is terminal for Sir Keir there can be doubt. But that only stops him from leading another general election campaign. That’s literally all.
PB I’m afraid has a massive blindspot in how Labour does things. Watch there be much contrition over the next week and Starmer staggers onto the local elections.
MPs have wisely wised up to the idea that Starmer can now be their target for all negativity. They will bide their time, wait for him to make a deal with Burnham and do nothing publicly.
Read what Andrew Marr said this morning. The motions were already in progress for this.
Can we dispense with the cake myth? Johnson did not go because of the cake, the £800k loan facility, the Downing street redecoration, the Covid fraud, repeatedly ignoring ethics advisors, Owen Paterson or treating being PM as a sabbatical, he went because of Pincher.
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."
That resonates.
When Starmer falls they are going to have to decide what the Labour party is for and why it exists.
I would be staggered if Sir Keir hasn’t worked out or is in the progress of working out a deal with a successor right now.
Is it the time to weigh in heavily on Ed Miliband? Rayner still in HMRC difficulties Streeting another Mandelson acolyte Burnham ineligible Mahmood too authoritarian
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.
The whole debate has got completely out of hand and lost.
The technicalities are irrelevant. He appointed Mandelson and was an idiot to do so. For that he should go.
Like with Johnson, this idea of cake or whatever was irrelevant. It was one rule for them and one rule for us and that was it.
The public have made up their minds. This is terminal for Sir Keir there can be doubt. But that only stops him from leading another general election campaign. That’s literally all.
PB I’m afraid has a massive blindspot in how Labour does things. Watch there be much contrition over the next week and Starmer staggers onto the local elections.
MPs have wisely wised up to the idea that Starmer can now be their target for all negativity. They will bide their time, wait for him to make a deal with Burnham and do nothing publicly.
Read what Andrew Marr said this morning. The motions were already in progress for this.
Can we dispense with the cake myth? Johnson did not go because of the cake, the £800k loan facility, the Downing street redecoration, the Covid fraud, repeatedly ignoring ethics advisors, Owen Paterson or treating being PM as a sabbatical, he went because of Pincher.
I wasn’t saying that’s why he went. Only that Tories tried to argue technicalities when the public already decided.
Trump's obsessive desire to reach any sort of deal and call it a victory is running headfirst into the islamofascist inability to take a win if it involves some public image of compromise or capitulation. https://x.com/neontaster/status/2045892174823215588
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.
The whole debate has got completely out of hand and lost.
The technicalities are irrelevant. He appointed Mandelson and was an idiot to do so. For that he should go.
Like with Johnson, this idea of cake or whatever was irrelevant. It was one rule for them and one rule for us and that was it.
The public have made up their minds. This is terminal for Sir Keir there can be doubt. But that only stops him from leading another general election campaign. That’s literally all.
PB I’m afraid has a massive blindspot in how Labour does things. Watch there be much contrition over the next week and Starmer staggers onto the local elections.
MPs have wisely wised up to the idea that Starmer can now be their target for all negativity. They will bide their time, wait for him to make a deal with Burnham and do nothing publicly.
Read what Andrew Marr said this morning. The motions were already in progress for this.
Can we dispense with the cake myth? Johnson did not go because of the cake, the £800k loan facility, the Downing street redecoration, the Covid fraud, repeatedly ignoring ethics advisors, Owen Paterson or treating being PM as a sabbatical, he went because of Pincher.
I wasn’t saying that’s why he went. Only that Tories tried to argue technicalities when the public already decided.
Apologies, poor reading comprehension on my part. I was just triggered
I would be staggered if Sir Keir hasn’t worked out or is in the progress of working out a deal with a successor right now.
Is it the time to weigh in heavily on Ed Miliband? Rayner still in HMRC difficulties Streeting another Mandelson acolyte Burnham ineligible Mahmood too authoritarian
I would be staggered if Sir Keir hasn’t worked out or is in the progress of working out a deal with a successor right now.
Is it the time to weigh in heavily on Ed Miliband? Rayner still in HMRC difficulties Streeting another Mandelson acolyte Burnham ineligible Mahmood too authoritarian
Leaves Cooper vs Miliband
Rayner will stand and win i think.
80 MPs and 5% of constituency party or affiliates. You're probably correct that she gets on the ballot and then might win. It'd be a big mistake with the HMRC investigation not cleared.
Is it possbile that with 24 hour news and social media, it's no longer possible for a prime minister to last ten years? Or have we just had a bad run?
It's certainly made their job harder. Things spiral, and the little things can be caught, catalogued, and repeat so much more.
On the other hand lasting 10 years in the UK is bloody difficult. Less than 10 have managed it in 300 years, so two in the last 50 is if anything slightly above average.
Have they gotten especially worse though? Feels like it, although May looked like she was cruising until the disastrous GE, and I don't know that anyone could have managed the post-Brexit aftermath. Boris's time was dominated by a once in a generation moment, but that he still went down in three years after a big majority due to personal failings surely means he would have failed pre-social media age too. Truss made one huge mistake and no time for anything else, I'd assume she would have lasted a little longer without modern media cycles, and Sunak was just circling the drain from the start and his time limited by parliamentary term limits.
I'm not sure anyone could have handled the post-Brexit vote, and up until the GE campaign May <i
Trump's obsessive desire to reach any sort of deal and call it a victory is running headfirst into the islamofascist inability to take a win if it involves some public image of compromise or capitulation. https://x.com/neontaster/status/2045892174823215588
Yep. But not just public image, hubris too. The Iranian regime has missed several opportunities to come out of this ahead because they keep overplaying their hand.
I think SKS genuinely believes his focus on process and blaming Whitehall is right and will save him.
In his own mind, if he can show the machinery failed, and that he was not personally told the full story, that is some kind of defence. The trouble is that politics is not a case management hearing.
He picked Mandelson. That was the decision. Everything since has been argument over the paperwork after the event.
Voters are not going to care who saw which submission and when. They will just conclude Starmer made a terrible call and then tried to wriggle out of responsibility by hiding behind process.
The real problem for Labour is that its rules make it hard to remove a leader quickly and there is no obviously credible alternative. That may keep him in place for a while. It does not make him politically viable again.
I find it rather funny that Kemi Badenoch and Rupert Lowe are essentially the same price for Next PM over on Exchange.
I know someone who assures me Restore will be doing better than Reform by next year. Watch this space.
Feels like a very online phenomenom to me. Reform are professionalising, which is coming with some bleedage of those who don't play well with others or dislike turning into Neo-Tories, but their growth has been pretty hard earned, not just because yet another Faragian reject has set up a political vehicle and gotten some funding.
Sir Keir Starmer will be accused of pressuring the Foreign Office into approving the appointment of Lord Mandelson despite being aware of his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his business links to Russia and China
Sir Olly Robbins was sacked by Starmer last week as head of the Foreign Office after failing to inform him that Mandelson had failed his security vetting. The prime minister accused him of a cover-up and said that the fact he was not told “beggars belief”
The Times has been told that Robbins will use an appearance before the foreign affairs select committee on Tuesday to reveal that he did not see the formal recommendation by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the body that vets public appointments, stating that Mandelson should not be given clearance
He was given a verbal briefing by the Foreign Office’s security team and told that UKSV considered Mandelson’s case to be “borderline”, although if the decision was UKSV’s alone it would be likely to oppose giving clearance. Robbins assessed the “outstanding risks” and concluded that they could be mitigated
Robbins is expected to highlight the “prevailing atmosphere” at the time of the appointment, including the fact that Starmer chose to press ahead with announcing Mandelson as ambassador to the United States before security vetting had been conducted
In doing so he went against the advice of Simon Case, the cabinet secretary at the time and now Lord Case, who recommended conducting vetting before making the announcement
Robbins’s “overarching” narrative is expected to be that the vetting process is confidential and shielded from ministers. He is expected to highlight the fact that during a debate in the Commons about Mandelson’s appointment in September, Stephen Doughty, a Foreign Office minister, said that it is “rightly independent of ministers”
He will say that he did nothing wrong and that the role of UKSV is ultimately advisory. As permanent secretary it was for him to make the decision on whether Mandelson should be granted clearance
One Whitehall source said Robbins’s appearance before the committee would be “box office”, adding that he would “not hold back” in defence of his actions
Is it possbile that with 24 hour news and social media, it's no longer possible for a prime minister to last ten years? Or have we just had a bad run?
24 hour "proper" news probably wasn't the problem; Chris Morris was saying "welcome to Permanews" in 1992, shortly after Radio 4 Scud FM and a bit before Five Live. SInce then, Major, Blair and Cameron all managed decentish stints.
Social media "news" might be a different matter. A combination of ragebait algorithms, the lack of a penalty for just making stuff up and the lack of money for proper newspeople to do news properly has sent us all loopy.
Trump's obsessive desire to reach any sort of deal and call it a victory is running headfirst into the islamofascist inability to take a win if it involves some public image of compromise or capitulation. https://x.com/neontaster/status/2045892174823215588
Yep. But not just public image, hubris too. The Iranian regime has missed several opportunities to come out of this ahead because they keep overplaying their hand.
They've already played their biggest hand, they might feel like they cannot put it back in the deck now.
I would be staggered if Sir Keir hasn’t worked out or is in the progress of working out a deal with a successor right now.
Is it the time to weigh in heavily on Ed Miliband? Rayner still in HMRC difficulties Streeting another Mandelson acolyte Burnham ineligible Mahmood too authoritarian
Sir Keir Starmer will be accused of pressuring the Foreign Office into approving the appointment of Lord Mandelson despite being aware of his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his business links to Russia and China
Sir Olly Robbins was sacked by Starmer last week as head of the Foreign Office after failing to inform him that Mandelson had failed his security vetting. The prime minister accused him of a cover-up and said that the fact he was not told “beggars belief”
The Times has been told that Robbins will use an appearance before the foreign affairs select committee on Tuesday to reveal that he did not see the formal recommendation by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the body that vets public appointments, stating that Mandelson should not be given clearance
He was given a verbal briefing by the Foreign Office’s security team and told that UKSV considered Mandelson’s case to be “borderline”, although if the decision was UKSV’s alone it would be likely to oppose giving clearance. Robbins assessed the “outstanding risks” and concluded that they could be mitigated
Robbins is expected to highlight the “prevailing atmosphere” at the time of the appointment, including the fact that Starmer chose to press ahead with announcing Mandelson as ambassador to the United States before security vetting had been conducted
In doing so he went against the advice of Simon Case, the cabinet secretary at the time and now Lord Case, who recommended conducting vetting before making the announcement
Robbins’s “overarching” narrative is expected to be that the vetting process is confidential and shielded from ministers. He is expected to highlight the fact that during a debate in the Commons about Mandelson’s appointment in September, Stephen Doughty, a Foreign Office minister, said that it is “rightly independent of ministers”
He will say that he did nothing wrong and that the role of UKSV is ultimately advisory. As permanent secretary it was for him to make the decision on whether Mandelson should be granted clearance
One Whitehall source said Robbins’s appearance before the committee would be “box office”, adding that he would “not hold back” in defence of his actions
Robbins is expected to highlight the “prevailing atmosphere” at the time of the appointment, including the fact that Starmer chose to press ahead with announcing Mandelson as ambassador to the United States before security vetting had been conducted
So as expected going with the explanation that it was a done deal, and the civil service's job was to make it happen, not find reasons it could not happen.
And that he was just follow our lord and saviour, the process.
(I love a good process too, the main issue here seems to be a rather casual way of making and recording this particular decision which was pretty significant).
Sir Keir Starmer will be accused of pressuring the Foreign Office into approving the appointment of Lord Mandelson despite being aware of his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his business links to Russia and China
Sir Olly Robbins was sacked by Starmer last week as head of the Foreign Office after failing to inform him that Mandelson had failed his security vetting. The prime minister accused him of a cover-up and said that the fact he was not told “beggars belief”
The Times has been told that Robbins will use an appearance before the foreign affairs select committee on Tuesday to reveal that he did not see the formal recommendation by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the body that vets public appointments, stating that Mandelson should not be given clearance
He was given a verbal briefing by the Foreign Office’s security team and told that UKSV considered Mandelson’s case to be “borderline”, although if the decision was UKSV’s alone it would be likely to oppose giving clearance. Robbins assessed the “outstanding risks” and concluded that they could be mitigated
Robbins is expected to highlight the “prevailing atmosphere” at the time of the appointment, including the fact that Starmer chose to press ahead with announcing Mandelson as ambassador to the United States before security vetting had been conducted
In doing so he went against the advice of Simon Case, the cabinet secretary at the time and now Lord Case, who recommended conducting vetting before making the announcement
Robbins’s “overarching” narrative is expected to be that the vetting process is confidential and shielded from ministers. He is expected to highlight the fact that during a debate in the Commons about Mandelson’s appointment in September, Stephen Doughty, a Foreign Office minister, said that it is “rightly independent of ministers”
He will say that he did nothing wrong and that the role of UKSV is ultimately advisory. As permanent secretary it was for him to make the decision on whether Mandelson should be granted clearance
One Whitehall source said Robbins’s appearance before the committee would be “box office”, adding that he would “not hold back” in defence of his actions
Robbins is expected to highlight the “prevailing atmosphere” at the time of the appointment, including the fact that Starmer chose to press ahead with announcing Mandelson as ambassador to the United States before security vetting had been conducted
So as expected going with the explanation that it was a done deal, and the civil service's job was to make it happen, not find reasons it could not happen.
And that he was just follow our lord and saviour, the process.
(I love a good process too, the main issue here seems to be a rather casual way of making and recording this particular decision which was pretty significant).
Just as I was saying earlier today. 9am isn’t it? Will be interesting to see what evidence he brings.
Sir Keir Starmer will be accused of pressuring the Foreign Office into approving the appointment of Lord Mandelson despite being aware of his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his business links to Russia and China
Sir Olly Robbins was sacked by Starmer last week as head of the Foreign Office after failing to inform him that Mandelson had failed his security vetting. The prime minister accused him of a cover-up and said that the fact he was not told “beggars belief”
The Times has been told that Robbins will use an appearance before the foreign affairs select committee on Tuesday to reveal that he did not see the formal recommendation by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the body that vets public appointments, stating that Mandelson should not be given clearance
He was given a verbal briefing by the Foreign Office’s security team and told that UKSV considered Mandelson’s case to be “borderline”, although if the decision was UKSV’s alone it would be likely to oppose giving clearance. Robbins assessed the “outstanding risks” and concluded that they could be mitigated
Robbins is expected to highlight the “prevailing atmosphere” at the time of the appointment, including the fact that Starmer chose to press ahead with announcing Mandelson as ambassador to the United States before security vetting had been conducted
In doing so he went against the advice of Simon Case, the cabinet secretary at the time and now Lord Case, who recommended conducting vetting before making the announcement
Robbins’s “overarching” narrative is expected to be that the vetting process is confidential and shielded from ministers. He is expected to highlight the fact that during a debate in the Commons about Mandelson’s appointment in September, Stephen Doughty, a Foreign Office minister, said that it is “rightly independent of ministers”
He will say that he did nothing wrong and that the role of UKSV is ultimately advisory. As permanent secretary it was for him to make the decision on whether Mandelson should be granted clearance
One Whitehall source said Robbins’s appearance before the committee would be “box office”, adding that he would “not hold back” in defence of his actions
Robbins is expected to highlight the “prevailing atmosphere” at the time of the appointment, including the fact that Starmer chose to press ahead with announcing Mandelson as ambassador to the United States before security vetting had been conducted
So as expected going with the explanation that it was a done deal, and the civil service's job was to make it happen, not find reasons it could not happen.
And that he was just follow our lord and saviour, the process.
(I love a good process too, the main issue here seems to be a rather casual way of making and recording this particular decision which was pretty significant).
The notion of announcing an appointment before the vetting has been undertaken leads to the very pressure we have seen in this situation. The Boss wants this guy appointed, so irrespective of what we find out in the SUBSEQUENT vetting, he gets confirmed. Civil Service led, apparently.
Sir Keir Starmer will be accused of pressuring the Foreign Office into approving the appointment of Lord Mandelson despite being aware of his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his business links to Russia and China
Sir Olly Robbins was sacked by Starmer last week as head of the Foreign Office after failing to inform him that Mandelson had failed his security vetting. The prime minister accused him of a cover-up and said that the fact he was not told “beggars belief”
The Times has been told that Robbins will use an appearance before the foreign affairs select committee on Tuesday to reveal that he did not see the formal recommendation by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the body that vets public appointments, stating that Mandelson should not be given clearance
He was given a verbal briefing by the Foreign Office’s security team and told that UKSV considered Mandelson’s case to be “borderline”, although if the decision was UKSV’s alone it would be likely to oppose giving clearance. Robbins assessed the “outstanding risks” and concluded that they could be mitigated
Robbins is expected to highlight the “prevailing atmosphere” at the time of the appointment, including the fact that Starmer chose to press ahead with announcing Mandelson as ambassador to the United States before security vetting had been conducted
In doing so he went against the advice of Simon Case, the cabinet secretary at the time and now Lord Case, who recommended conducting vetting before making the announcement
Robbins’s “overarching” narrative is expected to be that the vetting process is confidential and shielded from ministers. He is expected to highlight the fact that during a debate in the Commons about Mandelson’s appointment in September, Stephen Doughty, a Foreign Office minister, said that it is “rightly independent of ministers”
He will say that he did nothing wrong and that the role of UKSV is ultimately advisory. As permanent secretary it was for him to make the decision on whether Mandelson should be granted clearance
One Whitehall source said Robbins’s appearance before the committee would be “box office”, adding that he would “not hold back” in defence of his actions
Robbins is expected to highlight the “prevailing atmosphere” at the time of the appointment, including the fact that Starmer chose to press ahead with announcing Mandelson as ambassador to the United States before security vetting had been conducted
So as expected going with the explanation that it was a done deal, and the civil service's job was to make it happen, not find reasons it could not happen.
And that he was just follow our lord and saviour, the process.
(I love a good process too, the main issue here seems to be a rather casual way of making and recording this particular decision which was pretty significant).
The notion of announcing an appointment before the vetting has been undertaken leads to the very pressure we have seen in this situation. The Boss wants this guy appointed, so irrespective of what we find out in the SUBSEQUENT vetting, he gets confirmed. Civil Service led, apparently.
I just see it as bizarre.
From Starmer's perspective at that point, vetting clearly meant putting any necessary mitigations in place, not providing an opportunity to veto his selection.
Sir Keir Starmer will be accused of pressuring the Foreign Office into approving the appointment of Lord Mandelson despite being aware of his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his business links to Russia and China
Sir Olly Robbins was sacked by Starmer last week as head of the Foreign Office after failing to inform him that Mandelson had failed his security vetting. The prime minister accused him of a cover-up and said that the fact he was not told “beggars belief”
The Times has been told that Robbins will use an appearance before the foreign affairs select committee on Tuesday to reveal that he did not see the formal recommendation by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the body that vets public appointments, stating that Mandelson should not be given clearance
He was given a verbal briefing by the Foreign Office’s security team and told that UKSV considered Mandelson’s case to be “borderline”, although if the decision was UKSV’s alone it would be likely to oppose giving clearance. Robbins assessed the “outstanding risks” and concluded that they could be mitigated
Robbins is expected to highlight the “prevailing atmosphere” at the time of the appointment, including the fact that Starmer chose to press ahead with announcing Mandelson as ambassador to the United States before security vetting had been conducted
In doing so he went against the advice of Simon Case, the cabinet secretary at the time and now Lord Case, who recommended conducting vetting before making the announcement
Robbins’s “overarching” narrative is expected to be that the vetting process is confidential and shielded from ministers. He is expected to highlight the fact that during a debate in the Commons about Mandelson’s appointment in September, Stephen Doughty, a Foreign Office minister, said that it is “rightly independent of ministers”
He will say that he did nothing wrong and that the role of UKSV is ultimately advisory. As permanent secretary it was for him to make the decision on whether Mandelson should be granted clearance
One Whitehall source said Robbins’s appearance before the committee would be “box office”, adding that he would “not hold back” in defence of his actions
Robbins is expected to highlight the “prevailing atmosphere” at the time of the appointment, including the fact that Starmer chose to press ahead with announcing Mandelson as ambassador to the United States before security vetting had been conducted
So as expected going with the explanation that it was a done deal, and the civil service's job was to make it happen, not find reasons it could not happen.
And that he was just follow our lord and saviour, the process.
(I love a good process too, the main issue here seems to be a rather casual way of making and recording this particular decision which was pretty significant).
The notion of announcing an appointment before the vetting has been undertaken leads to the very pressure we have seen in this situation. The Boss wants this guy appointed, so irrespective of what we find out in the SUBSEQUENT vetting, he gets confirmed. Civil Service led, apparently.
I just see it as bizarre.
Regardless of what happens to Starmer, it does seem that the relationship between the civil service and political leadership is in an odd place. The political appointment to a normally civil service position exposed the cracks.
Is it possbile that with 24 hour news and social media, it's no longer possible for a prime minister to last ten years? Or have we just had a bad run?
24 hour "proper" news probably wasn't the problem; Chris Morris was saying "welcome to Permanews" in 1992, shortly after Radio 4 Scud FM and a bit before Five Live. SInce then, Major, Blair and Cameron all managed decentish stints.
Social media "news" might be a different matter. A combination of ragebait algorithms, the lack of a penalty for just making stuff up and the lack of money for proper newspeople to do news properly has sent us all loopy.
Lack of any consistent growth in quality of life for your average punter probably plays much more of a role.
I would be staggered if Sir Keir hasn’t worked out or is in the progress of working out a deal with a successor right now.
Is it the time to weigh in heavily on Ed Miliband? Rayner still in HMRC difficulties Streeting another Mandelson acolyte Burnham ineligible Mahmood too authoritarian
Just absolutely fucking crazy that anyone can be appointed before vetting. Legislation on Enhanced DBS's makes it illegal for any little people to do the same.
Sir Keir Starmer will be accused of pressuring the Foreign Office into approving the appointment of Lord Mandelson despite being aware of his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his business links to Russia and China
Sir Olly Robbins was sacked by Starmer last week as head of the Foreign Office after failing to inform him that Mandelson had failed his security vetting. The prime minister accused him of a cover-up and said that the fact he was not told “beggars belief”
The Times has been told that Robbins will use an appearance before the foreign affairs select committee on Tuesday to reveal that he did not see the formal recommendation by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the body that vets public appointments, stating that Mandelson should not be given clearance
He was given a verbal briefing by the Foreign Office’s security team and told that UKSV considered Mandelson’s case to be “borderline”, although if the decision was UKSV’s alone it would be likely to oppose giving clearance. Robbins assessed the “outstanding risks” and concluded that they could be mitigated
Robbins is expected to highlight the “prevailing atmosphere” at the time of the appointment, including the fact that Starmer chose to press ahead with announcing Mandelson as ambassador to the United States before security vetting had been conducted
In doing so he went against the advice of Simon Case, the cabinet secretary at the time and now Lord Case, who recommended conducting vetting before making the announcement
Robbins’s “overarching” narrative is expected to be that the vetting process is confidential and shielded from ministers. He is expected to highlight the fact that during a debate in the Commons about Mandelson’s appointment in September, Stephen Doughty, a Foreign Office minister, said that it is “rightly independent of ministers”
He will say that he did nothing wrong and that the role of UKSV is ultimately advisory. As permanent secretary it was for him to make the decision on whether Mandelson should be granted clearance
One Whitehall source said Robbins’s appearance before the committee would be “box office”, adding that he would “not hold back” in defence of his actions
Robbins is expected to highlight the “prevailing atmosphere” at the time of the appointment, including the fact that Starmer chose to press ahead with announcing Mandelson as ambassador to the United States before security vetting had been conducted
So as expected going with the explanation that it was a done deal, and the civil service's job was to make it happen, not find reasons it could not happen.
And that he was just follow our lord and saviour, the process.
(I love a good process too, the main issue here seems to be a rather casual way of making and recording this particular decision which was pretty significant).
The notion of announcing an appointment before the vetting has been undertaken leads to the very pressure we have seen in this situation. The Boss wants this guy appointed, so irrespective of what we find out in the SUBSEQUENT vetting, he gets confirmed. Civil Service led, apparently.
I just see it as bizarre.
From Starmer's perspective at that point, vetting clearly meant putting any necessary mitigations in place, not providing an opportunity to veto his selection.
I agree and that's fine.
To be honest I think the worst single offence in this whole saga was the sacking of Robbins, who doesn't seem to have done anything wrong in the circumstances. Perhaps that will backfire tomorrow or else in a future tribunal.
Just absolutely fucking crazy that anyone can be appointed before vetting. Legislation on Enhanced DBS's makes it illegal for any little people to do the same.
This is the core of it for me.
Mandelson was a political appointment. Starmer wanted him there for political reasons and made the call. Now that it has blown up, he is trying to retreat into process and hide behind Whitehall, as if this were some neutral administrative mishap rather than a judgment he made himself.
I suspect SKS genuinely thinks this is a solid defence. In his own mind, if he can show the process was flawed and officials did not handle things properly, that somehow shifts the argument onto safer ground. But politics does not work like that.
This was politics from the start, and it has backfired politically. You do not get to make a political appointment, enjoy the upside if it works, then start waving bits of process around when it goes wrong.
That is really Starmer’s problem in a nutshell. He keeps responding to political crises as though they are professional standards disputes. Process matters, but it is not a substitute for judgment, and it is certainly not a substitute for political instinct.
And the brutal truth may simply be that he is not very good at politics.
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 extremely confident Burnham will end up being PM ....."
That sounds like you think Burnham should be quite short odds on favorite.
Meanwhile the actual best odds on him becoming next PM are currently 14/1.
I find it rather funny that Kemi Badenoch and Rupert Lowe are essentially the same price for Next PM over on Exchange.
I know someone who assures me Restore will be doing better than Reform by next year. Watch this space.
Feels like a very online phenomenom to me. Reform are professionalising, which is coming with some bleedage of those who don't play well with others or dislike turning into Neo-Tories, but their growth has been pretty hard earned, not just because yet another Faragian reject has set up a political vehicle and gotten some funding.
Restore feel like a Vanity party to me at present. Reform are putting up full slates even in unfriendly places like Wokingham in May. Restore have 0 candidates in even friendly places like Thurrock or Hartlepool.
The eternal puzzle remains why exactly Keir Starmer was so keen to appoint Mandelson as ambassador. Fear of Trump? But he had someone in place who was known to be on good terms with Trump and we know Trump wasn't keen on Mandy. Such an inexplicable and unnecessary own goal.
Just absolutely fucking crazy that anyone can be appointed before vetting. Legislation on Enhanced DBS's makes it illegal for any little people to do the same.
This is the core of it for me.
Mandelson was a political appointment. Starmer wanted him there for political reasons and made the call. Now that it has blown up, he is trying to retreat into process and hide behind Whitehall, as if this were some neutral administrative mishap rather than a judgment he made himself.
I suspect SKS genuinely thinks this is a solid defence. In his own mind, if he can show the process was flawed and officials did not handle things properly, that somehow shifts the argument onto safer ground. But politics does not work like that.
This was politics from the start, and it has backfired politically. You do not get to make a political appointment, enjoy the upside if it works, then start waving bits of process around when it goes wrong.
That is really Starmer’s problem in a nutshell. He keeps responding to political crises as though they are professional standards disputes. Process matters, but it is not a substitute for judgment, and it is certainly not a substitute for political instinct.
And the brutal truth may simply be that he is not very good at politics.
His argument is that "Yes, Prime Minister" should have meant "No, Prime Minister". It's not exactly an endorsement of his own judgement.
The eternal puzzle remains why exactly Keir Starmer was so keen to appoint Mandelson as ambassador. Fear of Trump? But he had someone in place who was known to be on good terms with Trump and we know Trump wasn't keen on Mandy. Such an inexplicable and unnecessary own goal.
Just absolutely fucking crazy that anyone can be appointed before vetting. Legislation on Enhanced DBS's makes it illegal for any little people to do the same.
Is it possbile that with 24 hour news and social media, it's no longer possible for a prime minister to last ten years? Or have we just had a bad run?
I think that social media has made a difference, and it's made the way we've done politics in previous decades harder to do (we should probably think of ways to do things a little differently to adapt to that), but Britain seems to be a bit worse affected than many other countries.
I don't think Brexit has helped, and neither will Britain's generally poor economic performance. The country is more divided and more discontented.
Kaitlan Collins @kaitlancollins · 47m The White House confirms Lori Chavez-DeRemer is leaving as Labor Secretary, marking the third ousting from President Trump's Cabinet in less than two months.
'Confused as to why politicians say, on another attempted arson attack on a Jewish building, “these terrorists are trying to divide us - and will not succeed etc etc.” Are they? I’d say that diviseness is not the object. I’d say it’s trying to kill Jews.'
Can't say this surprises me. It's true that adversaries like Russia try to stoke division but the main cause of antisemitic attacks is surely Jew hatred, not a desire to divide us. It's very strange that in a country which prides itself on respecting and giving minorities a voice, that attacks on a racial and religious minority would be spun as an attack on all of us, whose target is not really that specific group but the country as a whole. So as to divide us.
Wolves finally relegated by the West Ham point at Palace.
I mean, if you knew nothing about football, you'd just find that unfathomable gibberish.
Or, a plot basis for a new JK Rowling series.
So isn’t the new Harry Potter series going to be pointless? We all know the saga. No plot twists…
Well, the point is that there are a lot of fans of the series who want to see a verbatim adaptation without the compromises imposed by making it fit into a film length. So I'd expect it to do well commercially.
But if they wanted to do something with the same story that was a bit more interesting they could have retold it from the point of view of Neville or Draco.
I find it rather funny that Kemi Badenoch and Rupert Lowe are essentially the same price for Next PM over on Exchange.
I find it rather funny that, according to William Hills, TSE's header could have just as easily concluded "Perhaps it is finally Rupert Lowe's time."
At least, that's a not unreasonable interpretation of the fact that Hills are quoting Ed Miliband and Rupert Lowe at exactly the same odds (8/1) to be next PM after Keir Starmer.
I find it rather funny that Kemi Badenoch and Rupert Lowe are essentially the same price for Next PM over on Exchange.
I find it rather funny that, according to William Hills, TSE's header could have just as easily concluded "Perhaps it is finally Rupert Lowe's time."
At least, that's a not unreasonable interpretation of the fact that Hills are quoting Ed Miliband and Rupert Lowe at exactly the same odds (8/1) to be next PM after Keir Starmer.
Perhaps Lowe is in it for the long haul and will be what the country is looking for after a decade of Starmer rule.
I find it rather funny that Kemi Badenoch and Rupert Lowe are essentially the same price for Next PM over on Exchange.
I find it rather funny that, according to William Hills, TSE's header could have just as easily concluded "Perhaps it is finally Rupert Lowe's time."
At least, that's a not unreasonable interpretation of the fact that Hills are quoting Ed Miliband and Rupert Lowe at exactly the same odds (8/1) to be next PM after Keir Starmer.
Perhaps Lowe is in it for the long haul and will be what the country is looking for after a decade of Starmer rule.
I’m impressed, you said that with a straight face.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 17m The fact this is the best headline Starmer can muster underlines how we’re nearing the endgame of this whole sorry affair.
The notion of announcing an appointment before the vetting has been undertaken leads to the very pressure we have seen in this situation. The Boss wants this guy appointed, so irrespective of what we find out in the SUBSEQUENT vetting, he gets confirmed. Civil Service led, apparently.
I just see it as bizarre.
The thing that stands out to me is that even if the civil servant has that leeway, and even if there is pressure to get the thing rubber stamped, why would you do this for Peter Mandelson of all people? If ever there was a character that actually warranted thorough scrutiny and the enforcement of rules it's Mandelson. It was reckless by both No. 10 and the FCDO to do otherwise.
I don't have any real problem about appointing Mandelson the Trump whisperer, that did make sense, but it would never have occurred to me to think they bent the rules to give him the job, because that would be such an obvious hostage to fortune that nobody would be daft enough to do so. But apparently some people really are that daft.
Wolves finally relegated by the West Ham point at Palace.
I mean, if you knew nothing about football, you'd just find that unfathomable gibberish.
Or, a plot basis for a new JK Rowling series.
So isn’t the new Harry Potter series going to be pointless? We all know the saga. No plot twists…
Well, the point is that there are a lot of fans of the series who want to see a verbatim adaptation without the compromises imposed by making it fit into a film length. So I'd expect it to do well commercially.
But if they wanted to do something with the same story that was a bit more interesting they could have retold it from the point of view of Neville or Draco.
The word 'bit' is doing some very heavy lifting in that post.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 17m The fact this is the best headline Starmer can muster underlines how we’re nearing the endgame of this whole sorry affair.
I'm sure Robbins is a patriotic civil servant who will think long and hard about the possible consequences of Sir Keir leaving office and the less than stellar replacements who'll be on offer if he does. Labour will likely turn inward if he goes.
I find it rather funny that Kemi Badenoch and Rupert Lowe are essentially the same price for Next PM over on Exchange.
I find it rather funny that, according to William Hills, TSE's header could have just as easily concluded "Perhaps it is finally Rupert Lowe's time."
At least, that's a not unreasonable interpretation of the fact that Hills are quoting Ed Miliband and Rupert Lowe at exactly the same odds (8/1) to be next PM after Keir Starmer.
Perhaps Lowe is in it for the long haul and will be what the country is looking for after a decade of Starmer rule.
I’m impressed, you said that with a straight face.
He's same price as Badenoch on Betfair, 34, Miliband is 9 on Betfair. Which suggests that William Hill thinks people betting on Lowe don't know about Betfair and that those betting on Milliband have sought out any value on the markets. Annoyingly Miliband has shortened from 10.5 to 9 this evening
Just absolutely fucking crazy that anyone can be appointed before vetting. Legislation on Enhanced DBS's makes it illegal for any little people to do the same.
It is a political appointment. If someone who fails vetting can be PM, Foreign or Defence Secretary, why shouldn't the PM be able to appoint them as US ambassador?
Always awkward when the man you threw under the bus happens to have been carrying a wadge of files of emails with him.
However, Burnham isn't in position yet and Burnham is the next Labour leader so I suspect the show will be kept running a while longer.
As still nobody has come over the top Sir Keir will be In place for quite a while yet one suspects.
If his only remaining job can be to stop Rayner that can only be a good thing. We cannot have a PM like this followed by one who broke the rules. Just no.
I'm sure Robbins is a patriotic civil servant who will think long and hard about the possible consequences of Sir Keir leaving office and the less than stellar replacements who'll be on offer if he does. Labour will likely turn inward if he goes.
You said that with a straight face too! You’re on fire!
I'm sure Robbins is a patriotic civil servant who will think long and hard about the possible consequences of Sir Keir leaving office and the less than stellar replacements who'll be on offer if he does. Labour will likely turn inward if he goes.
You said that with a straight face too! You’re on fire!
The eternal puzzle remains why exactly Keir Starmer was so keen to appoint Mandelson as ambassador. Fear of Trump? But he had someone in place who was known to be on good terms with Trump and we know Trump wasn't keen on Mandy. Such an inexplicable and unnecessary own goal.
I find it rather funny that Kemi Badenoch and Rupert Lowe are essentially the same price for Next PM over on Exchange.
I find it rather funny that, according to William Hills, TSE's header could have just as easily concluded "Perhaps it is finally Rupert Lowe's time."
At least, that's a not unreasonable interpretation of the fact that Hills are quoting Ed Miliband and Rupert Lowe at exactly the same odds (8/1) to be next PM after Keir Starmer.
Perhaps Lowe is in it for the long haul and will be what the country is looking for after a decade of Starmer rule.
I’m impressed, you said that with a straight face.
He's same price as Badenoch on Betfair, 34, Miliband is 9 on Betfair. Which suggests that William Hill thinks people betting on Lowe don't know about Betfair and that those betting on Milliband have sought out any value on the markets. Annoyingly Miliband has shortened from 10.5 to 9 this evening
There has been something very weird about both the Lowe next PM price and Restore Most Seats on BF for a while. They are both ludicrously short on all available evidence
Just absolutely fucking crazy that anyone can be appointed before vetting. Legislation on Enhanced DBS's makes it illegal for any little people to do the same.
It is a political appointment. If someone who fails vetting can be PM, Foreign or Defence Secretary, why shouldn't the PM be able to appoint them as US ambassador?
Political appointees are generally stellar humans. It is not like we have ever had a Chancellor who was under investigation for millions of pounds owed to HMRC, a Home Secretary who once operated a shadow Foreign Policy on behalf of the Government of Israel, a Foreign Secretary who partied without security at the home of a KGB Grandee or a Prime Minister who elevated the son of a KGB Grandee into the House of Lords. It just wouldn't happen.
However if the US Ambassador is potentially compromised by Russia, China and Israel, oh and a sex trafficker, whoever installed him as Ambassador needs to resign.
When they go low, we go high should always be the mantra of the Wife of a Democrat President and a Centrist Dad. That is why Starmer is toast!
The eternal puzzle remains why exactly Keir Starmer was so keen to appoint Mandelson as ambassador. Fear of Trump? But he had someone in place who was known to be on good terms with Trump and we know Trump wasn't keen on Mandy. Such an inexplicable and unnecessary own goal.
"Such an inexplicable and unnecessary own goal" feels like the governments team motto.
The eternal puzzle remains why exactly Keir Starmer was so keen to appoint Mandelson as ambassador. Fear of Trump? But he had someone in place who was known to be on good terms with Trump and we know Trump wasn't keen on Mandy. Such an inexplicable and unnecessary own goal.
"Such an inexplicable and unnecessary own goal" feels like the governments team motto.
Yep. Almost from day one they have been shooting into their own goal. Just incredible. Within days of being elected they were bogged down in a row about free clothing.
I find it rather funny that Kemi Badenoch and Rupert Lowe are essentially the same price for Next PM over on Exchange.
I find it rather funny that, according to William Hills, TSE's header could have just as easily concluded "Perhaps it is finally Rupert Lowe's time."
At least, that's a not unreasonable interpretation of the fact that Hills are quoting Ed Miliband and Rupert Lowe at exactly the same odds (8/1) to be next PM after Keir Starmer.
Perhaps Lowe is in it for the long haul and will be what the country is looking for after a decade of Starmer rule.
I’m impressed, you said that with a straight face.
He's same price as Badenoch on Betfair, 34, Miliband is 9 on Betfair. Which suggests that William Hill thinks people betting on Lowe don't know about Betfair and that those betting on Milliband have sought out any value on the markets. Annoyingly Miliband has shortened from 10.5 to 9 this evening
There has been something very weird about both the Lowe next PM price and Restore Most Seats on BF for a while. They are both ludicrously short on all available evidence
You can set your odds, so if someone Rupert adjacent is prepared to mop up the long odds and offer odds at a shorter price he can claim he's one of the favourites to be PM. There's probably not much money being waged on him.
I find it rather funny that Kemi Badenoch and Rupert Lowe are essentially the same price for Next PM over on Exchange.
I find it rather funny that, according to William Hills, TSE's header could have just as easily concluded "Perhaps it is finally Rupert Lowe's time."
At least, that's a not unreasonable interpretation of the fact that Hills are quoting Ed Miliband and Rupert Lowe at exactly the same odds (8/1) to be next PM after Keir Starmer.
Perhaps Lowe is in it for the long haul and will be what the country is looking for after a decade of Starmer rule.
I’m impressed, you said that with a straight face.
He's same price as Badenoch on Betfair, 34, Miliband is 9 on Betfair. Which suggests that William Hill thinks people betting on Lowe don't know about Betfair and that those betting on Milliband have sought out any value on the markets. Annoyingly Miliband has shortened from 10.5 to 9 this evening
There has been something very weird about both the Lowe next PM price and Restore Most Seats on BF for a while. They are both ludicrously short on all available evidence
You can set your odds, so if someone Rupert adjacent is prepared to mop up the long odds and offer odds at a shorter price he can claim he's one of the favourites to be PM. There's probably not much money being waged on him.
Yes, it is cheap PR. It works, he wouldn't be being discussed here this evening without it.
Badenoch has got to be favourite for PM after the next election.
Not if the Tories capitulate after the Locals. Never forget that 1/3 of the Tories (estimate) want to capitulate to Reform even now.
Nor if SKS capitulates, Badenoch's long odds could be as much down to a view that SKS is likely be replaced by Labour rather than her odds of winning GE.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 17m The fact this is the best headline Starmer can muster underlines how we’re nearing the endgame of this whole sorry affair.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 17m The fact this is the best headline Starmer can muster underlines how we’re nearing the endgame of this whole sorry affair.
Comments
(because there is no petrol for it)
From Party with the most council leaders and Mayors to most seats, I'm quite disgruntled as I only made the bet because of the original terms.
So sincere apologies to PtP for any scepticism and I will be more wary of Betfair in future.
The technicalities are irrelevant. He appointed Mandelson and was an idiot to do so. For that he should go.
Like with Johnson, this idea of cake or whatever was irrelevant. It was one rule for them and one rule for us and that was it.
The public have made up their minds. This is terminal for Sir Keir there can be doubt. But that only stops him from leading another general election campaign. That’s literally all.
PB I’m afraid has a massive blindspot in how Labour does things. Watch there be much contrition over the next week and Starmer staggers onto the local elections.
MPs have wisely wised up to the idea that Starmer can now be their target for all negativity. They will bide their time, wait for him to make a deal with Burnham and do nothing publicly.
Read what Andrew Marr said this morning. The motions were already in progress for this.
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/20/tech/apple-ceo-tim-cook-steps-down
Time for some new leadership and innovation. New guy is a product guy.
Rayner still in HMRC difficulties
Streeting another Mandelson acolyte
Burnham ineligible
Mahmood too authoritarian
Leaves Cooper vs Miliband
I agree I think Starmer will survive and not resign.
I think you are way off if you think there will be a Burnham coronation. In particular, coronating a man will be very hard for many Labour MPs to stomach.
I don’t think Burnham will do well in all honesty. But he’s clearly their best option. They’ll work out a deal to get him into Parliament.
Johnson did not go because of the cake, the £800k loan facility, the Downing street redecoration, the Covid fraud, repeatedly ignoring ethics advisors, Owen Paterson or treating being PM as a sabbatical, he went because of Pincher.
Trump's obsessive desire to reach any sort of deal and call it a victory is running headfirst into the islamofascist inability to take a win if it involves some public image of compromise or capitulation.
https://x.com/neontaster/status/2045892174823215588
I was just triggered
You're probably correct that she gets on the ballot and then might win.
It'd be a big mistake with the HMRC investigation not cleared.
On the other hand lasting 10 years in the UK is bloody difficult. Less than 10 have managed it in 300 years, so two in the last 50 is if anything slightly above average.
Have they gotten especially worse though? Feels like it, although May looked like she was cruising until the disastrous GE, and I don't know that anyone could have managed the post-Brexit aftermath. Boris's time was dominated by a once in a generation moment, but that he still went down in three years after a big majority due to personal failings surely means he would have failed pre-social media age too. Truss made one huge mistake and no time for anything else, I'd assume she would have lasted a little longer without modern media cycles, and Sunak was just circling the drain from the start and his time limited by parliamentary term limits.
I'm not sure anyone could have handled the post-Brexit vote, and up until the GE campaign May <i
Or, a plot basis for a new JK Rowling series.
I can sometimes be hard to understand
In his own mind, if he can show the machinery failed, and that he was not personally told the full story, that is some kind of defence. The trouble is that politics is not a case management hearing.
He picked Mandelson. That was the decision. Everything since has been argument over the paperwork after the event.
Voters are not going to care who saw which submission and when. They will just conclude Starmer made a terrible call and then tried to wriggle out of responsibility by hiding behind process.
The real problem for Labour is that its rules make it hard to remove a leader quickly and there is no obviously credible alternative. That may keep him in place for a while. It does not make him politically viable again.
Feels like a very online phenomenom to me. Reform are professionalising, which is coming with some bleedage of those who don't play well with others or dislike turning into Neo-Tories, but their growth has been pretty hard earned, not just because yet another Faragian reject has set up a political vehicle and gotten some funding.
EXCLUSIVE
Sir Keir Starmer will be accused of pressuring the Foreign Office into approving the appointment of Lord Mandelson despite being aware of his friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his business links to Russia and China
Sir Olly Robbins was sacked by Starmer last week as head of the Foreign Office after failing to inform him that Mandelson had failed his security vetting. The prime minister accused him of a cover-up and said that the fact he was not told “beggars belief”
The Times has been told that Robbins will use an appearance before the foreign affairs select committee on Tuesday to reveal that he did not see the formal recommendation by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), the body that vets public appointments, stating that Mandelson should not be given clearance
He was given a verbal briefing by the Foreign Office’s security team and told that UKSV considered Mandelson’s case to be “borderline”, although if the decision was UKSV’s alone it would be likely to oppose giving clearance. Robbins assessed the “outstanding risks” and concluded that they could be mitigated
Robbins is expected to highlight the “prevailing atmosphere” at the time of the appointment, including the fact that Starmer chose to press ahead with announcing Mandelson as ambassador to the United States before security vetting had been conducted
In doing so he went against the advice of Simon Case, the cabinet secretary at the time and now Lord Case, who recommended conducting vetting before making the announcement
Robbins’s “overarching” narrative is expected to be that the vetting process is confidential and shielded from ministers. He is expected to highlight the fact that during a debate in the Commons about Mandelson’s appointment in September, Stephen Doughty, a Foreign Office minister, said that it is “rightly independent of ministers”
He will say that he did nothing wrong and that the role of UKSV is ultimately advisory. As permanent secretary it was for him to make the decision on whether Mandelson should be granted clearance
One Whitehall source said Robbins’s appearance before the committee would be “box office”, adding that he would “not hold back” in defence of his actions
Social media "news" might be a different matter. A combination of ragebait algorithms, the lack of a penalty for just making stuff up and the lack of money for proper newspeople to do news properly has sent us all loopy.
I suspect the last time you could enter politics and have a vague life was the early to mid 90s before the internet fully arrived.
Should have hidden it, shouldn't you?
Now you're not satisfied
With what you're being put through
It's just time to pay the price
For not listening to advice
And deciding in your youth
On the policy of truth
Things could be so different now
It used to be so civilised
You will always wonder how
It could have been if you'd only lied
It's too late to change events
It's time to face the consequence
For delivering the proof
In the policy of truth
Never again is what you swore
The time before
Never again is what you swore
The time before
Now you're standing there tongue-tied
You'd better learn your lesson well
Hide what you have to hide
And tell what you have to tell
You'll see your problems multiplied
If you continually decide
To faithfully pursue
The policy of truth
Never again is what you swore
The time before
Never again is what you swore
The time before
So as expected going with the explanation that it was a done deal, and the civil service's job was to make it happen, not find reasons it could not happen.
And that he was just follow our lord and saviour, the process.
(I love a good process too, the main issue here seems to be a rather casual way of making and recording this particular decision which was pretty significant).
So isn’t the new Harry Potter series going to be pointless? We all know the saga. No plot twists…
9am isn’t it?
Will be interesting to see what evidence he brings.
I just see it as bizarre.
Legislation on Enhanced DBS's makes it illegal for any little people to do the same.
It seems to have turned into Kryptonite or akin to opening the Ark of the Covenant!
To be honest I think the worst single offence in this whole saga was the sacking of Robbins, who doesn't seem to have done anything wrong in the circumstances. Perhaps that will backfire tomorrow or else in a future tribunal.
Mandelson was a political appointment. Starmer wanted him there for political reasons and made the call. Now that it has blown up, he is trying to retreat into process and hide behind Whitehall, as if this were some neutral administrative mishap rather than a judgment he made himself.
I suspect SKS genuinely thinks this is a solid defence. In his own mind, if he can show the process was flawed and officials did not handle things properly, that somehow shifts the argument onto safer ground. But politics does not work like that.
This was politics from the start, and it has backfired politically. You do not get to make a political appointment, enjoy the upside if it works, then start waving bits of process around when it goes wrong.
That is really Starmer’s problem in a nutshell. He keeps responding to political crises as though they are professional standards disputes. Process matters, but it is not a substitute for judgment, and it is certainly not a substitute for political instinct.
And the brutal truth may simply be that he is not very good at politics.
That sounds like you think Burnham should be quite short odds on favorite.
Meanwhile the actual best odds on him becoming next PM are currently 14/1.
I don't think Brexit has helped, and neither will Britain's generally poor economic performance. The country is more divided and more discontented.
🚨WORST POLITICAL AD EVER GOES VIRAL
Guess which party it is 🤣
"Now Jaju you can claim benefits for all your children"
https://x.com/basilthegreat/status/2046156726727045369?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Kaitlan Collins
@kaitlancollins
·
47m
The White House confirms Lori Chavez-DeRemer is leaving as Labor Secretary, marking the third ousting from President Trump's Cabinet in less than two months.
'Confused as to why politicians say, on another attempted arson attack on a Jewish building, “these terrorists are trying to divide us - and will not succeed etc etc.” Are they? I’d say that diviseness is not the object. I’d say it’s trying to kill Jews.'
Can't say this surprises me. It's true that adversaries like Russia try to stoke division but the main cause of antisemitic attacks is surely Jew hatred, not a desire to divide us. It's very strange that in a country which prides itself on respecting and giving minorities a voice, that attacks on a racial and religious minority would be spun as an attack on all of us, whose target is not really that specific group but the country as a whole. So as to divide us.
But if they wanted to do something with the same story that was a bit more interesting they could have retold it from the point of view of Neville or Draco.
At least, that's a not unreasonable interpretation of the fact that Hills are quoting Ed Miliband and Rupert Lowe at exactly the same odds (8/1) to be next PM after Keir Starmer.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
17m
The fact this is the best headline Starmer can muster underlines how we’re nearing the endgame of this whole sorry affair.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2046348174105756157
I don't have any real problem about appointing Mandelson the Trump whisperer, that did make sense, but it would never have occurred to me to think they bent the rules to give him the job, because that would be such an obvious hostage to fortune that nobody would be daft enough to do so. But apparently some people really are that daft.
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/2046307920095129757
However, Burnham isn't in position yet and Burnham is the next Labour leader so I suspect the show will be kept running a while longer.
Annoyingly Miliband has shortened from 10.5 to 9 this evening
If his only remaining job can be to stop Rayner that can only be a good thing. We cannot have a PM like this followed by one who broke the rules. Just no.
Robbins should do the decent thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWwN-yDCjOM
However if the US Ambassador is potentially compromised by Russia, China and Israel, oh and a sex trafficker, whoever installed him as Ambassador needs to resign.
When they go low, we go high should always be the mantra of the Wife of a Democrat President and a Centrist Dad. That is why Starmer is toast!
https://www.libdemvoice.org/conservative-hypocrisy-over-the-chagos-islands-76255.html
Political historians will be baffled.
So armed with that knowledge, Starmer goes in 2027.
{shower curtain rustles}
The avalanche has begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.