After listening to Miliband E on R4 Today this morning, these seem to be the biggest hurdles to Starmer's longer term survival:
1) No-one believes that having knowingly appointed a dodgy person he would have been put off by being told by the vetters that he had sadly appointed a dodgy person
2) No-one believes Starmer should have ignored advice from Case to vet first and appoint later
3) Everyone thinks that in appointing PeterM, and now admitting it was wrong at the time to do so, he committed a graver and more sackable error than, for example, Robbins.
It might be the other way round for number one. Starmer outsources his thinking to external bodies and processes. Chagos, for instance, or the trans issue when he believed what the law said and then when the Supreme Court changed what the law said, he believed that instead. Same for Mandelson. UKSV did not find anything not already known, they just said that Mandelson was unsuitable. Starmer knew all about Mandelson's history, but when "due process" said Mandelson was OK, he was OK, and when the UKSV recommendation became known, Mandelson was sacked.
As Dame Diane pointed out, and as had been posted on pb, everyone including the Prime Minister already knew about Mandelson's connections to Epstein, China, Russia and Osborne. Everyone knew about his previous resignations for ethics lapses. But for Starmer, it took an external body to join the dots. First Mandelson was cleared, then he wasn't. The facts did not change but outside recommendations did.
Ed is a dick. Possibly a helpful dick on this occasion but a dick nonetheless. When I heard he was Environment Secretary I was worried. Rightly, as it turned out.
He stabbed his brother in the back, stabbing Starmer in the back is no biggie.
He didn't stab his brither in the back, merely ran against him and beat him.
David M showed his complacency and arrogance. I do not think there is a place for primogeniture in democratic politics.
DOI: I am not the oldest brother.
Am I the only person who still thinks Ed Miliband was a better choice than David would have been? He's cleverer and has an active imagination. He's also a better speaker. He even came up with ideas that the Tories nicked for good or for ill (fuel price cap).
David was very good at the admin side of government but he never came across as a leader.
Ed was and is a disaster. The media hate him, and if the media hate a politician the politician is wasting their time.
I am fast coming to the conclusion that because the media only like right wingers the nation is only governable by right wing governments. That is a shame, but it is what it is.
Picking up on your final point - for me that (and I don't agree) highlights two points:
1 - The problem with our media. I think most of us agree with that from various angles.
2 - The issue of few or no credible politicians currently existing on the right.
a - The view of Reform has generally come more into line with the argument some of us made a long time ago that they are a rag bag collection of chancers and retreads, who's only shared values are fear and xenophobia.
b - For me the more important one, that the Tories continue to be a pantomime presentation, with essentially zero content other than reactive posturing often complaining over policies and consequences they implemented and expressed pride about. In short, they are a great sucking sound.
By my eye, we are still in TINA territory where Sir Keir is concerned, Labour Party alternatives excepted.
I'm still giving him the full 2 years before I come to any conclusions.
Ed is a dick. Possibly a helpful dick on this occasion but a dick nonetheless. When I heard he was Environment Secretary I was worried. Rightly, as it turned out.
He stabbed his brother in the back, stabbing Starmer in the back is no biggie.
He didn't stab his brither in the back, merely ran against him and beat him.
David M showed his complacency and arrogance. I do not think there is a place for primogeniture in democratic politics.
DOI: I am not the oldest brother.
Am I the only person who still thinks Ed Miliband was a better choice than David would have been? He's cleverer and has an active imagination. He's also a better speaker. He even came up with ideas that the Tories nicked for good or for ill (fuel price cap).
David was very good at the admin side of government but he never came across as a leader.
Ed was and is a disaster. The media hate him, and if the media hate a politician the politician is wasting their time.
I am fast coming to the conclusion that because the media only like right wingers the nation is only governable by right wing governments. That is a shame, but it is what it is.
The print media matter less and less, as so many people don't read them. It's a real problem for politicians that there isn't a clear handful of media who need to be influenced, but rather an amorphous legion of websites and posters, even including this one. The generally negative tone of political coverage adds to the problem, as it makes lots of people turn off most of the time. That doesn't stop them having a view - it's just based on casual impressions. For example, I saw a poll saying that most people think that Starmer has lied about Mandelson (though I suspect that most people don't especially care as they expect politicians to lie).
What is missing is a clear positive narrative from any direction. Reform do quite well from their Mr Grumpy stance. I've little idea what Labour, Tories or LibDems consistently stand for. I'm attracted to the Greens because they appear to have a positive agenda, but their odd policy-making system (anything has to be approved by conference or it's not party policy) means that they float lots of general ideas without being definitely committed to them.
We're better off now that the likes of Alastair Campbell can't run the national narrative by threatening the two dozen editors who decide what's talked about.
Olly: "The US Government is very hot on security clearances people hold".
How does that work with Trump's top teams being stuffed with people who did not get security clearance, used insecure systems, were appointed as "friends of Trump" etc?
They're very hot on it. They're very hot on their suck-ups being given clearances regardless of the risks.
Meanwhile, Freedman's analysis and predictions for the London local elections, done in conjunction with London Centric, is in.
The only piece of potential good news he can see for Labour is that they *just* might come through the middle and win the Croydon mayoralty, given the abject state of the council and the split between the Tories and Reform. The Council itself staying NOC.
He thinks the Tories will lose Bromley to NOC, but Reform has decent chances of control in Barking, Bexley and Havering, the water muddied in the latter by the myriad independents that more likely will deliver an NOC.
He thinks the Greens will win a decent seat haul, but only have a shot at control of Hackney, and push Labour to lose Waltham Forest to NOC.
He predicts the LibDems are secure in their three SW councils and will also push Labour to lose Merton to NOC. The Tories to hold Kensington, and regain Westminster and Wandsworth, with Hammersmith staying Labour.
He suggests the Tories will retain Harrow, gain Barnet from Labour, and push Enfield to NOC, but that Labour will do better in West London and probably hold Ealing and Hounslow with the Greens depriving Labour of a majority in Brent. Hillingdon he predicts the Tories will lose seats to Reform and control to NOC.
In north London he suggests all of Islington, Camden and Haringey will be lost by Labour to NOC, with a mix of Green and some LibDem gains. Further east, Tower Hamlets to be held by Aspire, Newham lost to the Indys and Redbridge to NOC. South of the river, he sees Labour holding Greenwich, the Greens taking Lewisham, and Lambeth and Southwark going to NOC with both Green and LD seat gains.
Altogether that would make for only four London Boroughs remaining Labour - an appalling result for them - with the Tories on five, the LibDems on three, the Greens on two, Reform on two, one Aspire and one NIP, with all the rest - fourteen if I count correctly - being balanced councils.
That would be very poor for Labour in the capital.
In Newham, allI can report is the Newham Independents (NIP) seem to be a well-funded, well-organised and well-resourced group and are taking the fight to Labour in every Ward (with decent leaflets). As to actual campaigning, they seem to be very active outside the traditional Muslim areas and are challenging even the Greens in Forest Gate.
The Greens themselves are working three or four Wards including Royal Victoria which I think they will win.
The Mayoral contest looks very close between the Labour and NIP candidates but whatever it's the most exciting politics has been in my part ofthe worldin the past 20 years.
Havering is difficult to call. I said before how I had more leaflets 3 weeks out from polling day than in any previous election. But yestrday I ran a good cross-section of the borough and saw not a single poster. Normally as soon as nominations close the Romford Tories have all their billboards out but that seems to have died a death with Rosindell's departure. No Reform posters either. Also no sign of Labour in their existing wards (I went through 2 of them). I assume no party has the foot soldiers to run a campaign, and no clue where their voters are and which wards to concentrate on. Tory wipeout and easy Reform win, or 3-way NOC? No idea.
Postal votes have arrived and I have no clue how most effectively to cast my anti-Reform vote.
Now they finally have. A wave of studies since 2020 has cracked the molecular structures of the flagellar motor’s parts, including, most importantly, the small cogwheels that turn the larger cogwheel at the flagellum’s base. The final pieces of this dynamic puzzle fell into place as recently as March 2026.
“My lifelong quest is now fulfilled,” said Mike Manson (opens a new tab), a professor emeritus of biophysics at Texas A&M University who started studying the flagellar motor in the 1970s. “I finally understand how this thing I’ve been studying for 50 years actually works. That’s about as satisfying as can be.”..
Olly R now saying "we were dealing with hundreds of cases all the time, so this one was missing focus". Does not exactly add up, when No 10 were phoning up every day.
And "no I won't tell you whether there was anything in there that was not in the public domain, because it will lead to a storm of questions" (which Emily T has said won't be asked).
He's like a greased piglet, and needs a bunsen burner on his undercarriage.
Are we going to get FO reform out of this?
Fat chance of that Matt, the greased pig(let)s will remain at the trough
Security vetting apparently considered Mandelson a "borderline" case, and concluded that risks could be managed. Their judgment did not relate to anything Epstein.
In his opinion, No10 having already announced the appointment (and the King approved having it) effectively "resulted in a dismissive approach to security vetting" - it would be more accurate, IMO, to say "strongly implied", but YMMV.
Goes on to say that "despite this atmosphere of pressure" the department did the job to "a high standard".
Note that vetting (according to him) isn't pass/fail - it's more of a risk judgment ("this is especially true the more senior a candidate is"). That implies all manner of potential problems, IMO.
No-one is calling for people who fail vetting to be barred from being PM. Not many, if any are calling for them to be barred from being Foreign Secretary or Defence Secretary. Why is a political appointment to US ambassadorship different?
Because it is. In the words of Sir Humphrey, this is a British democracy.
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
I mean it’s a massive deal. And shows that Starmer should have quit as soon as Mandelson went. That was a risk he took and it backfired. He should have carried the can.
But the stuff that’s come since Mandelson resigned, I’m not as convinced about that.
I agree the appointment of Mandelson was a disastrous error and is down to Starmer. But this stuff about the minutae of the DV process, though interesting, is not a big deal.
It's not a big deal in this particular case, but how vetting works/doesn't work (and the suggestion that the more important you are, the less attention is paid to it), is actually a pretty big deal.
Olly Robbins's position is essentially that the Foreign Office was put under pressure to expedite Mandelson's clearance, but regardless of that pressure giving Mandelson the clearance was the right call.
No 10's position is the exact opposite: there was not undue pressure, but Robbins nevertheless made the wrong call at the end of the vetting process
What a mess.
Both are lying because the truth doesn't suit. The whole vetting thing was a charade. In future either ban political appointees or exempt them from vetting.
Exempting anyone from vetting is not a good idea. Better to know and decide to accept it than not to know. (Unless not knowing is your go-to excuse.)
Ed is a dick. Possibly a helpful dick on this occasion but a dick nonetheless. When I heard he was Environment Secretary I was worried. Rightly, as it turned out.
He stabbed his brother in the back, stabbing Starmer in the back is no biggie.
He didn't stab his brither in the back, merely ran against him and beat him.
David M showed his complacency and arrogance. I do not think there is a place for primogeniture in democratic politics.
DOI: I am not the oldest brother.
Both OGH and myself have heard independently from people at the top of Labour that this is what happened.
June 2009 - David Miliband was about to resign and challenge Gordon Brown, Ed persuaded him not to, and told him, I will make sure you succeed Brown after the election.
May 2010 Ed Miliband decides to run as Labour leader, not to become leader, but to do well and get a senior shadow cabinet job without it looking as nepotism
Summer of 2010 - Ed decides to run a strong campaign as not to finish second from last.
September 2010 - Wins
David Miliband felt betrayed.
If that is the whole truth then Ed was in the wrong imo.
Both were, if that is correct.
What did David do wrong? Betrayal is perhaps too strong and charged, let down is more balanced, but the definition of betrayal includes let down and people feel what they feel.
They were both playing games, both trying to be too clever by half. The Country and the Party needed the opportunity to replace Brown, DM had the chance to challenge him legitimately and with every chance of success. Instead he decided to stitch up some behind the scenes deal with his brother. Don't see that either brother deserves much sympathy.
Olly Robbins's position is essentially that the Foreign Office was put under pressure to expedite Mandelson's clearance, but regardless of that pressure giving Mandelson the clearance was the right call.
No 10's position is the exact opposite: there was not undue pressure, but Robbins nevertheless made the wrong call at the end of the vetting process
What a mess.
Both are lying because the truth doesn't suit. The whole vetting thing was a charade. In future either ban political appointees or exempt them from vetting.
Exempting anyone from vetting is not a good idea. Better to know and decide to accept it than not to know. (Unless not knowing is your go-to excuse.)
Lets say a future PM decides to make Boris Johnson Foreign Secretary? Is that to be allowed or not without vetting? And if it is to be allowed why can they not appoint them to the lower position of US Ambassador?
Kind of a Big Bang Theory vibe with added psychopathy.
ᗰᗩƳᖇᗩ @LePapillonBlu2 Check out this very goofy, very pathetic man who’s the highest paid CEO on the planet, and thinks that the world should be ruled by a techno-fascist elite that keeps society in a perpetual state of war.
Kind of a Big Bang Theory vibe with added psychopathy.
ᗰᗩƳᖇᗩ @LePapillonBlu2 Check out this very goofy, very pathetic man who’s the highest paid CEO on the planet, and thinks that the world should be ruled by a techno-fascist elite that keeps society in a perpetual state of war.
Olly Robbins's position is essentially that the Foreign Office was put under pressure to expedite Mandelson's clearance, but regardless of that pressure giving Mandelson the clearance was the right call.
No 10's position is the exact opposite: there was not undue pressure, but Robbins nevertheless made the wrong call at the end of the vetting process
What a mess.
Both are lying because the truth doesn't suit. The whole vetting thing was a charade. In future either ban political appointees or exempt them from vetting.
Lying might be a bit strong but certainly the unvarnished truth suits neither. Starmer shouldn't have made the apointment, Robbins shouldn't have been put under such pressure, and he should not have caved in by giving Starmer the answer he wanted rather than the right answer.
Hard to feel sorry for any of them.
This is the same as Trump and Clinton vouching for each other wrt Epstein.
I hate to say it, but all the stuff Big Dom has been banging on about over the past year or two on podcasts seems to be absolutely true.
We’ve gone from a Rolls Royce civil service to a Ford Mondeo civil service.
I think more one of those bloody cargo bikes. The riders act and feel superior to all other road users, but they block the whole road and travel at snails pace.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 24m It's hard to see how Robbins evidence could be more devastating for Starmer. He's made clear beyond doubt No.10 decided Mandelson had to be appointed come what may. Everything Starmer has said about due diligence in relation to the process of his appointment has been a lie.
..Olly Robbins’ testimony raises the extraordinary possibility that the permanent secretary was misled about Mandelson’s UK Security Vetting (UKSV) outcome.
Robbins told the committee he did not see the UKSV document personally.
Instead, he said he was given a briefing about Mandelson’s vetting file by security officials in his department. He said Mandelson’s case was described to him as “borderline” and that UKSV was “leaning toward” clearance being “denied”.
But said he was also told that the Foreign Office “might wish to grant” Mandelson clearance, and risks could be managed with “mitigations”.
That account is at odds with the Guardian’s understanding. The Cabinet Office last week released a template of the UKSV file on Mandelson. (See 9.56am.) It lists three rankings for possible “overall concern”: low, medium and high. In the next box, there is a space for a vetting officer to list the outcome of the assessment with their “overall decision or recommendation”.
Again, there are three options: clearance approved, clearance approved “with risk management” or clearance denied. According to multiple sources, the UKSV process in Mandelson’s case concluded there was a “high” overall concern and concluded “clearance denied”. In the committee hearing, Robbins said those were terms he did not recognise.
Another committee member, John Wittingdale, specifically raised the Cabinet Office template document, and said the committee’s understanding was also that Mandelson got ticks in the two red boxes. Robbins said he did not recall the briefing being given to him being “that definitive”... (Guardian)
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 24m It's hard to see how Robbins evidence could be more devastating for Starmer. He's made clear beyond doubt No.10 decided Mandelson had to be appointed come what may. Everything Starmer has said about due diligence in relation to the process of his appointment has been a lie.
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
I mean it’s a massive deal. And shows that Starmer should have quit as soon as Mandelson went. That was a risk he took and it backfired. He should have carried the can.
But the stuff that’s come since Mandelson resigned, I’m not as convinced about that.
I agree the appointment of Mandelson was a disastrous error and is down to Starmer. But this stuff about the minutae of the DV process, though interesting, is not a big deal.
It's not a big deal in this particular case, but how vetting works/doesn't work (and the suggestion that the more important you are, the less attention is paid to it), is actually a pretty big deal.
Olly Robbins's position is essentially that the Foreign Office was put under pressure to expedite Mandelson's clearance, but regardless of that pressure giving Mandelson the clearance was the right call.
No 10's position is the exact opposite: there was not undue pressure, but Robbins nevertheless made the wrong call at the end of the vetting process
What a mess.
Both are lying because the truth doesn't suit. The whole vetting thing was a charade. In future either ban political appointees or exempt them from vetting.
Exempting anyone from vetting is not a good idea. Better to know and decide to accept it than not to know. (Unless not knowing is your go-to excuse.)
Wish I could give that more than one Like, Anne.
When Blair was PM, Gus O'Donnell told him on returning from a stint in the US that from private conversations with his counterparts there it was clear they really meant to go for Iraq. Blair's reply was 'Thanks for letting me know', which if you think about it is interestingly double-edged. One suspects Blair would have preferred to have been able to plead ignorance, but couldn't now in view of GOD's remark.
It's clear that the art of not knowing things is important in high office. Nevertheless on this occasion if Starmer really wanted Mandelson in office so much, he could have simply said 'Hang the Vetting; we'll go ahead without it.' Instead he treated the process with some contempt and is now paying the price. Robbins for his part is paying the price for not withstanding the pressure, or at least telling the PM's Office how the Vetting had turned out (i.e. marginal, but on balance a fail.) By his own account, he's guilty of failing to tell truth to power.
Starmer's position is that Olly Robbins behaved appallingly for not blocking his decision to appoint Mandelson US amb after it had been announced, blessed by the King and agreed by the US in time for the inauguration—as requested by No 10—because of security risks the Foreign Office deemed manageable.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 24m It's hard to see how Robbins evidence could be more devastating for Starmer. He's made clear beyond doubt No.10 decided Mandelson had to be appointed come what may. Everything Starmer has said about due diligence in relation to the process of his appointment has been a lie.
Does look rather incapable of any other interpretation.
Vetting was a sham.
I've only been able to listen to some of this on the way to work and while doing emails, but that's my conclusion. Starmer wanted Mandelson and didn't want to know about any issues. As much as I feel sympathy for a civil servant who received a knighthood for turning up to work for a few years (is the knighthood just part of the career progression scale?), he has been utterly shafted by Starmer. He is not the first, either. Starmer, a man who claimed he would always take responsibility, is showing yet again that his career is littered with other people who have paid the price for Starmer's mistakes.
I hate to say it, but all the stuff Big Dom has been banging on about over the past year or two on podcasts seems to be absolutely true.
He’s been banging on about it since at least 2010.
It’s probably an unpopular view, but IMHO his prescence in No.10 during pandemic had a significantly positive effect on the outcome in the UK.
Well in England at least given Scotland and especially Wales were run by control freaks who loved being able to tape off shop aisles or make people wear silly masks
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
I mean it’s a massive deal. And shows that Starmer should have quit as soon as Mandelson went. That was a risk he took and it backfired. He should have carried the can.
But the stuff that’s come since Mandelson resigned, I’m not as convinced about that.
I agree the appointment of Mandelson was a disastrous error and is down to Starmer. But this stuff about the minutae of the DV process, though interesting, is not a big deal.
It's not a big deal in this particular case, but how vetting works/doesn't work (and the suggestion that the more important you are, the less attention is paid to it), is actually a pretty big deal.
I see no one is willing to address the question of why a PM can appoint a Foreign Secretary without vetting, but shouldn't be able to appoint a US Ambassador without vetting.
I hate to say it, but all the stuff Big Dom has been banging on about over the past year or two on podcasts seems to be absolutely true.
Someone who also wasn't vetted, and was a security risk.
That maybe or maybe not be truth. But listening to this Olly Robbins session you can absolutely see exactly what Big Dom has been going on about happens all the time (Rory Stewart has also said similar things).
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 24m It's hard to see how Robbins evidence could be more devastating for Starmer. He's made clear beyond doubt No.10 decided Mandelson had to be appointed come what may. Everything Starmer has said about due diligence in relation to the process of his appointment has been a lie.
Does look rather incapable of any other interpretation.
Vetting was a sham.
They certainly treated it as if it were, Mark. It wasn't though. It did its job, properly and honorably. Robbins then failed to report its findings properly, preferring instead to give the PM the answer he wanted.
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
I mean it’s a massive deal. And shows that Starmer should have quit as soon as Mandelson went. That was a risk he took and it backfired. He should have carried the can.
But the stuff that’s come since Mandelson resigned, I’m not as convinced about that.
I agree the appointment of Mandelson was a disastrous error and is down to Starmer. But this stuff about the minutae of the DV process, though interesting, is not a big deal.
It's not a big deal in this particular case, but how vetting works/doesn't work (and the suggestion that the more important you are, the less attention is paid to it), is actually a pretty big deal.
I see no one is willing to address the question of why a PM can appoint a Foreign Secretary without vetting, but shouldn't be able to appoint a US Ambassador without vetting.
I prefer the question to why you can appoint the Foreign Secretary without vetting but if you volunteer at Brownies you need a DBS check.
The evidence from Olly Robbins is devastating to Keir Starmer.
It is clear that No10 not only made the appointment before vetting was completed, but that Mandelson was already acting as the Ambassador before the vetting - even seeing highly classified documents.
With this, and the 'constant pressure' No10 applied to the appointment and their 'dismissive attitude' to vetting Mandelson, it is now absolutely clear that 'full due process' was not followed.
..Olly Robbins’ testimony raises the extraordinary possibility that the permanent secretary was misled about Mandelson’s UK Security Vetting (UKSV) outcome.
Robbins told the committee he did not see the UKSV document personally.
Instead, he said he was given a briefing about Mandelson’s vetting file by security officials in his department. He said Mandelson’s case was described to him as “borderline” and that UKSV was “leaning toward” clearance being “denied”.
But said he was also told that the Foreign Office “might wish to grant” Mandelson clearance, and risks could be managed with “mitigations”.
That account is at odds with the Guardian’s understanding. The Cabinet Office last week released a template of the UKSV file on Mandelson. (See 9.56am.) It lists three rankings for possible “overall concern”: low, medium and high. In the next box, there is a space for a vetting officer to list the outcome of the assessment with their “overall decision or recommendation”.
Again, there are three options: clearance approved, clearance approved “with risk management” or clearance denied. According to multiple sources, the UKSV process in Mandelson’s case concluded there was a “high” overall concern and concluded “clearance denied”. In the committee hearing, Robbins said those were terms he did not recognise.
Another committee member, John Wittingdale, specifically raised the Cabinet Office template document, and said the committee’s understanding was also that Mandelson got ticks in the two red boxes. Robbins said he did not recall the briefing being given to him being “that definitive”... (Guardian)
So they were trying to give *Robbins* cover by not telling him things he didn’t want to know.
And he was covering for ministers by not telling *them* things they didn’t want to know
“Guangzhou is a chemical weapons plant masquerading as a fertilizer plant. We know this. The Chinese know that we know. But we make-believe that we don't know and the Chinese make-believe that they believe that we don't know, but know that we know. Everybody knows”
I hate to say it, but all the stuff Big Dom has been banging on about over the past year or two on podcasts seems to be absolutely true.
Banging on about it for longer than that. This was Big Dom in 2014;
You might think somewhere [in No10/Cabinet Office] there must be a quiet calm centre like in a James Bond move where you open the door and there is where the ninjas are who actually know what they are doing. There are no ninjas. There is no door.
The question is what you do with that insight. Big Dom's was to get himself appointed ninja-in-chief, which didn't work because he's not a ninja either.
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
This whole thing is based on pundits being wilfully obtuse.
We know why Starmer picked Mandelson, the Trump administration is full of scammers and they only get along with other scammers. The British and other allies are doing a decent job at managing this incredibly dangerous situation, for example Ukraine is still getting US intelligence to this day despite lots of people in the administration wanting to stop this happening.
Starmer didn't have a lot of cards to play here but one card he did have was a scammy schmoozer on his side who may well have shared a Romanian teenager with a senior administration official so he played it. Labour do not have a lot of people like this, to their credit. I'm sure Starmer didn't relish doing this but bollocksing up the management of Trump could plausibly result in the obliteration of human life on earth.
Starmer can't say this because it would upset the mad king.
Everybody knows this, the pundits and political opportunists are pretending not to.
Ed M on Mandelson "we believe in dignity in retirement"
He's up vs Robinson. We'll see what Robbins says / implies this morning. Robinson has moved on to attack net zero.
Some analysts are predicting that Trump's war may result in an acceleration of the green transition.
If my prognostications (and those of many others) come to pass, the big pressures (in the U.K. and Europe) will be on aviation kerosene, diesel and fertiliser.
Running nitrogen fixing off pure ‘leccy is possible - but expensive. Guano makes a comeback?
Manufacturing aviation fuel from non fossil fuel is being experimented with.
Big electric trucks (semis) exist but haven’t been rolled out in a big way. Range, charging and upfront cost, plus a conservative industry with a big investment in existing vehicles. This could be where the war gives a big shove.
Small delivery is going electric at a rate of knots, now.
That sounds about right, with the addition that the SMR nuclear needs to be done as quickly as possible.
The first big problem is likely to be fertiliser for farming, which is needed soon and is unlikely to turn up.
Aviation fuel can be tankered on the plane in extremis, so for example Emirates can fly an A380 from Dubai to London, and back to Dubai without refuelling. Not all routes and planes can do that though, and it adds a fair bit of cost to the trip.
Diesel shortages are the big one as so much logistics relies on it, apart from a few electric vans doing the last mile. A fleet of Tesla Semi trucks pretty much needs its own power station to charge at night.
"the SMR nuclear needs to be done as quickly as possible"
Cutting corners on nuclear to get them onstream? That's going to go well...
It just means we will be expected to pay through the nose even more than we do now. How is that going to stack up with South Korea's nuclear power being 1/5th the cost of ours? We are simply not competitive on energy against competitors.
SMR I think really is industry capture. There's nothing slightly resembling a business plan behind it. Just vague suggestions you get costs down by doing lots of them and you don't need to worry about the things that make nuclear power so expensive. And so they get government to fund a pilot project presumably in the hope it will be too difficult to cancel. After which they just build a couple of them because actually solar plus battery is vastly cheaper. We will end up paying for it in our energy bills for the next forty years.
SMR feels rather like a solution looking for a problem.
I can't see any way in which having dozens of small nukes does anything except increase risk, on the basis that the risk of a significant failure of a nuclear plant is probably not very proportional to it's size, so 10 x small plants is probably in the order of 5x the risk of one plant 10x the size.
The correct solution is to buy the (biggish) South Korean plants off the peg, and then not insist on reinventing the wheel over the safety cases and planning constraints.
Strangely, this is about the only option that our idiots politicians seem to be strenuously avoiding.
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
I mean it’s a massive deal. And shows that Starmer should have quit as soon as Mandelson went. That was a risk he took and it backfired. He should have carried the can.
But the stuff that’s come since Mandelson resigned, I’m not as convinced about that.
I agree the appointment of Mandelson was a disastrous error and is down to Starmer. But this stuff about the minutae of the DV process, though interesting, is not a big deal.
It's not a big deal in this particular case, but how vetting works/doesn't work (and the suggestion that the more important you are, the less attention is paid to it), is actually a pretty big deal.
I see no one is willing to address the question of why a PM can appoint a Foreign Secretary without vetting, but shouldn't be able to appoint a US Ambassador without vetting.
I prefer the question to why you can appoint the Foreign Secretary without vetting but if you volunteer at Brownies you need a DBS check.
Ultimately in a democracy there needs to be political appointments based on the judgment of elected officials and there is a tension between that and vetting. (Nearly) everyone in this debate is ignoring that reality and focusing on irrelevant process details.
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
This whole thing is based on pundits being wilfully obtuse.
We know why Starmer picked Mandelson, the Trump administration is full of scammers and they only get along with other scammers. The British and other allies are doing a decent job at managing this incredibly dangerous situation, for example Ukraine is still getting US intelligence to this day despite lots of people in the administration wanting to stop this happening.
Starmer didn't have a lot of cards to play here but one card he did have was a scammy schmoozer on his side who may well have shared a Romanian teenager with a senior administration official so he played it. Labour do not have a lot of people like this, to their credit. I'm sure Starmer didn't relish doing this but bollocksing up the management of Trump could plausibly result in the obliteration of human life on earth.
Starmer can't say this because it would upset the mad king.
Everybody knows this, the pundits and political opportunists are pretending not to.
I'd love to know how many of our allies (e.g. France, Germany, Australia etc) have decided they needed an ambassador with a dodgy past in order to do the job of Ambassador to the USA.
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
I mean it’s a massive deal. And shows that Starmer should have quit as soon as Mandelson went. That was a risk he took and it backfired. He should have carried the can.
But the stuff that’s come since Mandelson resigned, I’m not as convinced about that.
I agree the appointment of Mandelson was a disastrous error and is down to Starmer. But this stuff about the minutae of the DV process, though interesting, is not a big deal.
It's not a big deal in this particular case, but how vetting works/doesn't work (and the suggestion that the more important you are, the less attention is paid to it), is actually a pretty big deal.
I see no one is willing to address the question of why a PM can appoint a Foreign Secretary without vetting, but shouldn't be able to appoint a US Ambassador without vetting.
Ministers can receive intelligence on privy council terms and intelligence/ sensitive information shared with them is controlled by the civil service and security services. As ambassador you are a civil servant and the system does not have the protocols in place to manage the flow of information in the same way.
Would not be beyond the wit of man to change that system, but there is a distinction.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 24m It's hard to see how Robbins evidence could be more devastating for Starmer. He's made clear beyond doubt No.10 decided Mandelson had to be appointed come what may. Everything Starmer has said about due diligence in relation to the process of his appointment has been a lie.
Dan Hodges is conflating two distinct stages in the process to reach a conclusion that suits his argument - and he’s not alone in doing so. When challenged previously, Keir Starmer said that Peter Mandelson had been asked about Epstein-related issues as part of the vetting process. However, he has also said he wasn’t aware of the details of that vetting because they weren’t shared with him. When pressed yesterday on this very matter, Starmer suggested he was using “due diligence” to describe the broader process, including vetting.
But that interpretation doesn’t really hold. Due diligence and formal security vetting are separate stages. Due diligence could reasonably consist of conversations, checks, and internal enquiries between No.10 and Mandelson before any announcement is made. Formal vetting, by contrast, is a structured process that follows.
As Olly Robbins has now made clear, due diligence took place before the appointment was announced, while vetting occurred afterwards. So the claim that no due diligence happened appears to rest on conflating these two different steps.
Now they finally have. A wave of studies since 2020 has cracked the molecular structures of the flagellar motor’s parts, including, most importantly, the small cogwheels that turn the larger cogwheel at the flagellum’s base. The final pieces of this dynamic puzzle fell into place as recently as March 2026.
“My lifelong quest is now fulfilled,” said Mike Manson (opens a new tab), a professor emeritus of biophysics at Texas A&M University who started studying the flagellar motor in the 1970s. “I finally understand how this thing I’ve been studying for 50 years actually works. That’s about as satisfying as can be.”..
The British researcher, Susan Lea, has since been brain-drained to America, home of high academic salaries and generous research funding.
He is up to something! Good to see a politician accept an interviewee point rather than bluster. That 100/1 is looking good… as is 20/1…. I’ve laid 12/1!
You can actually see the moment Ed Miliband thinks, what's the point burning through whatever political credibility I've got left energetically defending a man who's going to be gone in a matter of weeks.
Oh my goodness. Sir Olly Robbins tells committee Number 10 asked FCDO to find a Head of Mission job for Matthew Doyle. Robbins says he was “uncomfortable” about it. It would have meant putting very experienced people out a job and he didn’t want to do it.
Self-driving cars are banned from pretty much any sensitive facility. They’re covered in cameras and sensors, attached to modelling software designed to map the surrounding area in real time.
Chinese cars are banned from military bases in the West, for exactly the same reason.
Oh my goodness. Sir Olly Robbins tells committee Number 10 asked FCDO to find a Head of Mission job for Matthew Doyle. Robbins says he was “uncomfortable” about it. It would have meant putting very experienced people out a job and he didn’t want to do it.
Doyle might be a useful trip him up question for tomorrows PMQs in the middle of a Mandy trifle
Olly Robbins's position is essentially that the Foreign Office was put under pressure to expedite Mandelson's clearance, but regardless of that pressure giving Mandelson the clearance was the right call.
No 10's position is the exact opposite: there was not undue pressure, but Robbins nevertheless made the wrong call at the end of the vetting process
What a mess.
Both are lying because the truth doesn't suit. The whole vetting thing was a charade. In future either ban political appointees or exempt them from vetting.
Exempting anyone from vetting is not a good idea. Better to know and decide to accept it than not to know. (Unless not knowing is your go-to excuse.)
Lets say a future PM decides to make Boris Johnson Foreign Secretary? Is that to be allowed or not without vetting? And if it is to be allowed why can they not appoint them to the lower position of US Ambassador?
I see your point (I think). As someone posted on here yesterday, MPs are assumed to be people of honour. Security vetting doesn't make that assumption (I hope). Is a retired MP still assumed to be a person of honour no matter what their track record? Someone who has resigned in disgrace is still assumed to be a person of honour? Personally I'd go with security vetting everyone for positions where AN Other would be vetted.
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
This whole thing is based on pundits being wilfully obtuse.
We know why Starmer picked Mandelson, the Trump administration is full of scammers and they only get along with other scammers. The British and other allies are doing a decent job at managing this incredibly dangerous situation, for example Ukraine is still getting US intelligence to this day despite lots of people in the administration wanting to stop this happening.
Starmer didn't have a lot of cards to play here but one card he did have was a scammy schmoozer on his side who may well have shared a Romanian teenager with a senior administration official so he played it. Labour do not have a lot of people like this, to their credit. I'm sure Starmer didn't relish doing this but bollocksing up the management of Trump could plausibly result in the obliteration of human life on earth.
Starmer can't say this because it would upset the mad king.
Everybody knows this, the pundits and political opportunists are pretending not to.
I'd love to know how many of our allies (e.g. France, Germany, Australia etc) have decided they needed an ambassador with a dodgy past in order to do the job of Ambassador to the USA.
If the answer to that question is zero, it's all the more important that the British have somebody with access. Realistically you're not going to be able to get an honest person anywhere near Trump's inner circle.
Self-driving cars are banned from pretty much any sensitive facility. They’re covered in cameras and sensors, attached to modelling software designed to map the surrounding area in real time.
Chinese cars are banned from military bases in the West, for exactly the same reason.
The Chinese still have strict general rules on who can map things and what can be mapped.
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
I mean it’s a massive deal. And shows that Starmer should have quit as soon as Mandelson went. That was a risk he took and it backfired. He should have carried the can.
But the stuff that’s come since Mandelson resigned, I’m not as convinced about that.
I agree the appointment of Mandelson was a disastrous error and is down to Starmer. But this stuff about the minutae of the DV process, though interesting, is not a big deal.
It's not a big deal in this particular case, but how vetting works/doesn't work (and the suggestion that the more important you are, the less attention is paid to it), is actually a pretty big deal.
I see no one is willing to address the question of why a PM can appoint a Foreign Secretary without vetting, but shouldn't be able to appoint a US Ambassador without vetting.
Ministers can receive intelligence on privy council terms and intelligence/ sensitive information shared with them is controlled by the civil service and security services. As ambassador you are a civil servant and the system does not have the protocols in place to manage the flow of information in the same way.
Would not be beyond the wit of man to change that system, but there is a distinction.
Interesting I wasn't aware of that distinction. However, presumably in reality Foreign Secretaries do get access to the most important sensitive intelligence as otherwise how can they do their job? Do we expect them to decide on war and treaties and negotiate with global powers based on incomplete evidence that we are deliberately withholding from them?
Self-driving cars are banned from pretty much any sensitive facility. They’re covered in cameras and sensors, attached to modelling software designed to map the surrounding area in real time.
Chinese cars are banned from military bases in the West, for exactly the same reason.
The Chinese still have strict general rules on who can map things and what can be mapped.
Using Western GPS enabled devices also doesn't work properly in China. Its very strange experience where nothing is where your phone says it is, unless it goes via the Chinese encoding to their local maps app to translate all the noisy information being provided.
I hate to say it, but all the stuff Big Dom has been banging on about over the past year or two on podcasts seems to be absolutely true.
Big Dom has always been bang on the money on with his assessment of the way the state, and particularly the civil service is utterly disfunctional.
Where it gets trickier is the "how to fix it' problem; tempting though Dom's solution is of burning it all to the ground, then employing some *more competent* technocrats, in practice I can't see why that won't just revert to staus quo over the next 20 years, if it even works initially.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 24m It's hard to see how Robbins evidence could be more devastating for Starmer. He's made clear beyond doubt No.10 decided Mandelson had to be appointed come what may. Everything Starmer has said about due diligence in relation to the process of his appointment has been a lie.
Dan Hodges is conflating two distinct stages in the process to reach a conclusion that suits his argument - and he’s not alone in doing so. When challenged previously, Keir Starmer said that Peter Mandelson had been asked about Epstein-related issues as part of the vetting process. However, he has also said he wasn’t aware of the details of that vetting because they weren’t shared with him. When pressed yesterday on this very matter, Starmer suggested he was using “due diligence” to describe the broader process, including vetting.
But that interpretation doesn’t really hold. Due diligence and formal security vetting are separate stages. Due diligence could reasonably consist of conversations, checks, and internal enquiries between No.10 and Mandelson before any announcement is made. Formal vetting, by contrast, is a structured process that follows.
As Olly Robbins has now made clear, due diligence took place before the appointment was announced, while vetting occurred afterwards. So the claim that no due diligence happened appears to rest on conflating these two different steps.
That doesn't alter the fact - the vetting was a pointless exercise.
Starmer's outrage at the process seems all the more faux after the last two days.
I hate to say it, but all the stuff Big Dom has been banging on about over the past year or two on podcasts seems to be absolutely true.
Big Dom has always been bang on the money on with his assessment of the way the state, and particularly the civil service is utterly disfunctional.
Where it gets trickier is the "how to fix it' problem; tempting though Dom's solution is of burning it all to the ground, then employing some *more competent* technocrats, in practice I can't see why that won't just revert to staus quo over the next 20 years, if it even works initially.
Burning it all to the ground may also help Russia. Coincidentally I'm sure.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 24m It's hard to see how Robbins evidence could be more devastating for Starmer. He's made clear beyond doubt No.10 decided Mandelson had to be appointed come what may. Everything Starmer has said about due diligence in relation to the process of his appointment has been a lie.
Dan Hodges is conflating two distinct stages in the process to reach a conclusion that suits his argument - and he’s not alone in doing so. When challenged previously, Keir Starmer said that Peter Mandelson had been asked about Epstein-related issues as part of the vetting process. However, he has also said he wasn’t aware of the details of that vetting because they weren’t shared with him. When pressed yesterday on this very matter, Starmer suggested he was using “due diligence” to describe the broader process, including vetting.
But that interpretation doesn’t really hold. Due diligence and formal security vetting are separate stages. Due diligence could reasonably consist of conversations, checks, and internal enquiries between No.10 and Mandelson before any announcement is made. Formal vetting, by contrast, is a structured process that follows.
As Olly Robbins has now made clear, due diligence took place before the appointment was announced, while vetting occurred afterwards. So the claim that no due diligence happened appears to rest on conflating these two different steps.
That doesn't alter the fact - the vetting was a pointless exercise.
Starmer's outrage at the process seems all the more faux after the last two days.
As is the outrage at the appointment. The whole debate is faux on all sides.
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
I mean it’s a massive deal. And shows that Starmer should have quit as soon as Mandelson went. That was a risk he took and it backfired. He should have carried the can.
But the stuff that’s come since Mandelson resigned, I’m not as convinced about that.
I agree the appointment of Mandelson was a disastrous error and is down to Starmer. But this stuff about the minutae of the DV process, though interesting, is not a big deal.
It's not a big deal in this particular case, but how vetting works/doesn't work (and the suggestion that the more important you are, the less attention is paid to it), is actually a pretty big deal.
I see no one is willing to address the question of why a PM can appoint a Foreign Secretary without vetting, but shouldn't be able to appoint a US Ambassador without vetting.
Ministers can receive intelligence on privy council terms and intelligence/ sensitive information shared with them is controlled by the civil service and security services. As ambassador you are a civil servant and the system does not have the protocols in place to manage the flow of information in the same way.
Would not be beyond the wit of man to change that system, but there is a distinction.
Interesting I wasn't aware of that distinction. However, presumably in reality Foreign Secretaries do get access to the most important sensitive intelligence as otherwise how can they do their job? Do we expect them to decide on war and treaties and negotiate with global powers based on incomplete evidence that we are deliberately withholding from them?
You would generally hope that a Prime Minister would not appoint someone to a position that the security services have given them a nod and a wink that they are not appropriate for. Something that is a glaring clanger of a mistake in this case.
More broadly, when viewing sensitive information, it is the general rule that you only see information relevant to a task or decision decision you are actively doing/making. Much easier to do for ministers when the civil service will be briefing the relevant information and creating the policy proposals in response.
LOL, so we don't have a yes / no on DV, but we do on STRAP....you only have conversations on DV. They make it sound like its deciding on employing a very lowly employee where maybe we can get past a previous conviction for shoplifting, not security vetting for super senior security sensitive appointments.
I hate to say it, but all the stuff Big Dom has been banging on about over the past year or two on podcasts seems to be absolutely true.
Big Dom has always been bang on the money on with his assessment of the way the state, and particularly the civil service is utterly disfunctional.
Where it gets trickier is the "how to fix it' problem; tempting though Dom's solution is of burning it all to the ground, then employing some *more competent* technocrats, in practice I can't see why that won't just revert to staus quo over the next 20 years, if it even works initially.
Don't some of the problems descend from Thatcher's view that the best post University minds should think of the City first, not public service?
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
This whole thing is based on pundits being wilfully obtuse.
We know why Starmer picked Mandelson, the Trump administration is full of scammers and they only get along with other scammers. The British and other allies are doing a decent job at managing this incredibly dangerous situation, for example Ukraine is still getting US intelligence to this day despite lots of people in the administration wanting to stop this happening.
Starmer didn't have a lot of cards to play here but one card he did have was a scammy schmoozer on his side who may well have shared a Romanian teenager with a senior administration official so he played it. Labour do not have a lot of people like this, to their credit. I'm sure Starmer didn't relish doing this but bollocksing up the management of Trump could plausibly result in the obliteration of human life on earth.
Starmer can't say this because it would upset the mad king.
Everybody knows this, the pundits and political opportunists are pretending not to.
I'd love to know how many of our allies (e.g. France, Germany, Australia etc) have decided they needed an ambassador with a dodgy past in order to do the job of Ambassador to the USA.
I had forgotten how controversial at the time the appointment of Peter Day to the same post was in what 1976. At least Mandelson isn't married to Starmer's daughter, or son, as far as we are allowed to know.
Made way at Weekend World for Brian Walden, the best TV interviewer ever of course.
Olly Robbins dropping the Matthew Doyle tale is clearly firing the warning shots back at Starmer...give us my money....
That Robbins didn't have 2 years employment and therefore can't claim unfair dismissal or redundancy is probably a significant factor in everyone's behaviour
We are in a “not if, but when” phase when it comes to Starmer going.
Thing is, I think we have been in that phase for some time, probably since the “yes it did” response in the Commons around the Mandelson/Epstein links.
The only question now is one of timing. I do not think Labour want Starmer to lead them into the next election, and I don’t think Starmer can hang on even if he wants to.
Either someone is going to go over the top after the locals, someone is going to gently tell him the game is up in the coming months, or he’ll be ‘asked’ to graciously retire in 2027/2028. It’s just difficult at the moment to work out which of these will be the process. They do, however, all lead to the same outcome.
Oh my goodness. Sir Olly Robbins tells committee Number 10 asked FCDO to find a Head of Mission job for Matthew Doyle. Robbins says he was “uncomfortable” about it. It would have meant putting very experienced people out a job and he didn’t want to do it.
Matthew Doyle. To appoint one ambassador friend of a convicted paedophile may be regarded as misfortune...
Ah. Times man tweets David Lammy was kept in the dark. Doyle got a peerage in the end.
Sir Keir Starmer considered giving Matthew Doyle an ambassadorship, Sir Olly Robbins reveals
He says that in March 2025 Number 10 initiated discussions with him about finding an opportunity for Doyle, who was then the prime minister's director of communications
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
I mean it’s a massive deal. And shows that Starmer should have quit as soon as Mandelson went. That was a risk he took and it backfired. He should have carried the can.
But the stuff that’s come since Mandelson resigned, I’m not as convinced about that.
I agree the appointment of Mandelson was a disastrous error and is down to Starmer. But this stuff about the minutae of the DV process, though interesting, is not a big deal.
It's not a big deal in this particular case, but how vetting works/doesn't work (and the suggestion that the more important you are, the less attention is paid to it), is actually a pretty big deal.
I see no one is willing to address the question of why a PM can appoint a Foreign Secretary without vetting, but shouldn't be able to appoint a US Ambassador without vetting.
Ministers can receive intelligence on privy council terms and intelligence/ sensitive information shared with them is controlled by the civil service and security services. As ambassador you are a civil servant and the system does not have the protocols in place to manage the flow of information in the same way.
Would not be beyond the wit of man to change that system, but there is a distinction.
Interesting I wasn't aware of that distinction. However, presumably in reality Foreign Secretaries do get access to the most important sensitive intelligence as otherwise how can they do their job? Do we expect them to decide on war and treaties and negotiate with global powers based on incomplete evidence that we are deliberately withholding from them?
You would generally hope that a Prime Minister would not appoint someone to a position that the security services have given them a nod and a wink that they are not appropriate for. Something that is a glaring clanger of a mistake in this case.
More broadly, when viewing sensitive information, it is the general rule that you only see information relevant to a task or decision decision you are actively doing/making. Much easier to do for ministers when the civil service will be briefing the relevant information and creating the policy proposals in response.
"Generally hope" = "Incredibly naive"
Our PMs are often people who are untrustworthy themselves and some would have failed vetting. They appoint senior roles based on political survival not ethics.
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
This whole thing is based on pundits being wilfully obtuse.
We know why Starmer picked Mandelson, the Trump administration is full of scammers and they only get along with other scammers. The British and other allies are doing a decent job at managing this incredibly dangerous situation, for example Ukraine is still getting US intelligence to this day despite lots of people in the administration wanting to stop this happening.
Starmer didn't have a lot of cards to play here but one card he did have was a scammy schmoozer on his side who may well have shared a Romanian teenager with a senior administration official so he played it. Labour do not have a lot of people like this, to their credit. I'm sure Starmer didn't relish doing this but bollocksing up the management of Trump could plausibly result in the obliteration of human life on earth.
Starmer can't say this because it would upset the mad king.
Everybody knows this, the pundits and political opportunists are pretending not to.
I think a few of us have been saying Starmer should have leaned into some of this, rather than go on the process angle, rcs put it in those terms. I don't think Starmer should have said it quite in the way you or I have stated but it is absolutely clear Mandelson was put in post for the particular circumstance and, to an extent, his baggage was seen as an advantage.
Vetting was to go on top of what was known already and was to be geared towards getting the right mitigations in place.
By pretending that Mandelson's appointment was somehow workaday, with all that was already known about him, and getting into the weeds of a process that was actually designed to deliver a result around Mandelson's flaws if at all possible, and maybe even if not possible, Starmer has laid bare all the dirty mechanics of getting to the result that HE wanted and ensured that much of that dirt reflects on him. It's too late to fall back on an "exceptional times" type argument now, having failed to make "we followed process" look anything but terrible.
LOL, so we don't have a yes / no on DV, but we do on STRAP....you only have conversations on DV. They make it sound like its deciding on employing a very lowly employee where maybe we can get past a previous conviction for shoplifting, not security vetting for super senior security sensitive appointments.
Because the FCDO is the one making the yes / no decision on DV for their people.
I hate to say it, but all the stuff Big Dom has been banging on about over the past year or two on podcasts seems to be absolutely true.
Big Dom has always been bang on the money on with his assessment of the way the state, and particularly the civil service is utterly disfunctional.
Where it gets trickier is the "how to fix it' problem; tempting though Dom's solution is of burning it all to the ground, then employing some *more competent* technocrats, in practice I can't see why that won't just revert to staus quo over the next 20 years, if it even works initially.
Yup. Unless you can fix the system that defines the incentives around recruitment and performance nothing will actually change. It’s tempting to think that “replace the system with a bold leader who will do the right thing” is the optimal choice, but that just replaces the existing, flawed, system with a different, even more flawed, system where its quality depends entirely on the capacity & capability of a single leader. The past gives ample evidence that either a) this doesn’t work at all because what actually happens is the most self-interested sociopath levers themselves into this position of power you’ve created or (if you’re lucky) b) the position is occupied by a high quality, disinterested individual for their natural working life but they are inevitably going to be replaced at some point by someone more like option (a).
Dom is famously dismissive of the quality of the average MP & it’s abundantly clear that he is right to do so. The problem is how do you evolve the existing system to one that chooses higher quality candidates in general - revolution is always tempting.
I hate to say it, but all the stuff Big Dom has been banging on about over the past year or two on podcasts seems to be absolutely true.
Big Dom has always been bang on the money on with his assessment of the way the state, and particularly the civil service is utterly disfunctional.
Where it gets trickier is the "how to fix it' problem; tempting though Dom's solution is of burning it all to the ground, then employing some *more competent* technocrats, in practice I can't see why that won't just revert to staus quo over the next 20 years, if it even works initially.
Don't some of the problems descend from Thatcher's view that the best post University minds should think of the City first, not public service?
The way to fix that, is to treat the CS much more like the City.
Pay half as many people twice as much money, determined individually, with regular hirings and firings at all levels. Let specialists specialise if they don’t aspire to senior management, and keep movement between unrelated departments to a minimum.
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
I mean it’s a massive deal. And shows that Starmer should have quit as soon as Mandelson went. That was a risk he took and it backfired. He should have carried the can.
But the stuff that’s come since Mandelson resigned, I’m not as convinced about that.
I agree the appointment of Mandelson was a disastrous error and is down to Starmer. But this stuff about the minutae of the DV process, though interesting, is not a big deal.
It's not a big deal in this particular case, but how vetting works/doesn't work (and the suggestion that the more important you are, the less attention is paid to it), is actually a pretty big deal.
I see no one is willing to address the question of why a PM can appoint a Foreign Secretary without vetting, but shouldn't be able to appoint a US Ambassador without vetting.
Ministers can receive intelligence on privy council terms and intelligence/ sensitive information shared with them is controlled by the civil service and security services. As ambassador you are a civil servant and the system does not have the protocols in place to manage the flow of information in the same way.
Would not be beyond the wit of man to change that system, but there is a distinction.
Interesting I wasn't aware of that distinction. However, presumably in reality Foreign Secretaries do get access to the most important sensitive intelligence as otherwise how can they do their job? Do we expect them to decide on war and treaties and negotiate with global powers based on incomplete evidence that we are deliberately withholding from them?
You would generally hope that a Prime Minister would not appoint someone to a position that the security services have given them a nod and a wink that they are not appropriate for. Something that is a glaring clanger of a mistake in this case.
More broadly, when viewing sensitive information, it is the general rule that you only see information relevant to a task or decision decision you are actively doing/making. Much easier to do for ministers when the civil service will be briefing the relevant information and creating the policy proposals in response.
"Generally hope" = "Incredibly naive"
Our PMs are often people who are untrustworthy themselves and some would have failed vetting. They appoint senior roles based on political survival not ethics.
And thus the Prime Minister finds himself in his current position.
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
This whole thing is based on pundits being wilfully obtuse.
We know why Starmer picked Mandelson, the Trump administration is full of scammers and they only get along with other scammers. The British and other allies are doing a decent job at managing this incredibly dangerous situation, for example Ukraine is still getting US intelligence to this day despite lots of people in the administration wanting to stop this happening.
Starmer didn't have a lot of cards to play here but one card he did have was a scammy schmoozer on his side who may well have shared a Romanian teenager with a senior administration official so he played it. Labour do not have a lot of people like this, to their credit. I'm sure Starmer didn't relish doing this but bollocksing up the management of Trump could plausibly result in the obliteration of human life on earth.
Starmer can't say this because it would upset the mad king.
Everybody knows this, the pundits and political opportunists are pretending not to.
I think a few of have been saying Starmer should have leaned into some of this, rather than go on the process angle, rcs pretty much put it in those terms. I don't think you'd say it quite in the way you or I have stayed but it is absolutely clear Mandelson was put in post for the particular circumstance and, to an extent, his baggage was seen as an advantage.
Vetting was to go on top of what was known already and was to be geared towards getting the right mitigations in place.
By pretending that Mandelson's appointment was somehow workaday and getting into the weeds of a process that was actually designed to deliver across result around Mandelson's flaws if at all possible, and maybe even if not, Starmer has laid bare all the dirty mechanics of getting to the result that HE wanted and ensured that much of that dirt reflects on him. It's too late to fall back on an "exceptional times" type argument now, having failed to make "we followed process" look anything but terrible.
The exceptional times argument is correct and would be a much better political defence than whatever Starmer is doing but it could be really bad for the country and potentially the planet because it would upset the mad king. I can state these obviously true things because Donald Trump doesn't care what I think but Starmer can't.
The pundits could also say these things if they were interested in telling the truth, but they're not. They want a political scandal and such a thing is hard to come by with this tediously straight-laced government.
Has Olly Robbins chucked in a Pincher grenade with the Doyle stuff ?
Interesting that he pointed out he had been told not to reveal it to Lammy and Ed M brought up his and Lammy's concern about Mandy this morning. Smells a bit contrived?
I hate to say it, but all the stuff Big Dom has been banging on about over the past year or two on podcasts seems to be absolutely true.
Big Dom has always been bang on the money on with his assessment of the way the state, and particularly the civil service is utterly disfunctional.
Where it gets trickier is the "how to fix it' problem; tempting though Dom's solution is of burning it all to the ground, then employing some *more competent* technocrats, in practice I can't see why that won't just revert to staus quo over the next 20 years, if it even works initially.
Yup. Unless you can fix the system that defines the incentives around recruitment and performance nothing will actually change. It’s tempting to think that “replace the system with a bold leader who will do the right thing” is the optimal choice, but that just replaces the existing, flawed, system with a different, even more flawed, system where its quality depends entirely on the capacity & capability of a single leader. The past gives ample evidence that either a) this doesn’t work at all because what actually happens is the most self-interested sociopath levers themselves into this position of power you’ve created or (if you’re lucky) b) the position is occupied by a high quality, disinterested individual for their natural working life but they are inevitably going to be replaced at some point by someone more like option (a).
Dom is famously dismissive of the quality of the average MP & it’s abundantly clear that he is right to do so. The problem is how do you evolve the existing system to one that chooses higher quality candidates in general - revolution is always tempting.
Or you accept that the wrong sort of people are always going to be attracted to mega power, and that the best protection against that is to distribute that power in smaller lumps. At least then the people scrambling to the top of those lumps can't do as much damage.
Comments
As Dame Diane pointed out, and as had been posted on pb, everyone including the Prime Minister already knew about Mandelson's connections to Epstein, China, Russia and Osborne. Everyone knew about his previous resignations for ethics lapses. But for Starmer, it took an external body to join the dots. First Mandelson was cleared, then he wasn't. The facts did not change but outside recommendations did.
So Starmer did.
1 - The problem with our media. I think most of us agree with that from various angles.
2 - The issue of few or no credible politicians currently existing on the right.
a - The view of Reform has generally come more into line with the argument some of us made a long time ago that they are a rag bag collection of chancers and retreads, who's only shared values are fear and xenophobia.
b - For me the more important one, that the Tories continue to be a pantomime presentation, with essentially zero content other than reactive posturing often complaining over policies and consequences they implemented and expressed pride about. In short, they are a great sucking sound.
By my eye, we are still in TINA territory where Sir Keir is concerned, Labour Party alternatives excepted.
I'm still giving him the full 2 years before I come to any conclusions.
Postal votes have arrived and I have no clue how most effectively to cast my anti-Reform vote.
The bacterial flagellar motor is finally understood after 50 years.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-physical-life-force-turns-biologys-wheels-20260420/
..Over the past few decades, scientists have toiled to unravel how the flagellar motor works — namely, how it rotates and switches directions.
Now they finally have. A wave of studies since 2020 has cracked the molecular structures of the flagellar motor’s parts, including, most importantly, the small cogwheels that turn the larger cogwheel at the flagellum’s base. The final pieces of this dynamic puzzle fell into place as recently as March 2026.
“My lifelong quest is now fulfilled,” said Mike Manson (opens a new tab), a professor emeritus of biophysics at Texas A&M University who started studying the flagellar motor in the 1970s. “I finally understand how this thing I’ve been studying for 50 years actually works. That’s about as satisfying as can be.”..
ᗰᗩƳᖇᗩ
@LePapillonBlu2
Check out this very goofy, very pathetic man who’s the highest paid CEO on the planet, and thinks that the world should be ruled by a techno-fascist elite that keeps society in a perpetual state of war.
https://x.com/LePapillonBlu2/status/2046216683212210587?s=20
@DPJHodges
·
24m
It's hard to see how Robbins evidence could be more devastating for Starmer. He's made clear beyond doubt No.10 decided Mandelson had to be appointed come what may. Everything Starmer has said about due diligence in relation to the process of his appointment has been a lie.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2046512772343529575
https://x.com/antspeaks/status/2046342990143082503
..Olly Robbins’ testimony raises the extraordinary possibility that the permanent secretary was misled about Mandelson’s UK Security Vetting (UKSV) outcome.
Robbins told the committee he did not see the UKSV document personally.
Instead, he said he was given a briefing about Mandelson’s vetting file by security officials in his department. He said Mandelson’s case was described to him as “borderline” and that UKSV was “leaning toward” clearance being “denied”.
But said he was also told that the Foreign Office “might wish to grant” Mandelson clearance, and risks could be managed with “mitigations”.
That account is at odds with the Guardian’s understanding. The Cabinet Office last week released a template of the UKSV file on Mandelson. (See 9.56am.) It lists three rankings for possible “overall concern”: low, medium and high. In the next box, there is a space for a vetting officer to list the outcome of the assessment with their “overall decision or recommendation”.
Again, there are three options: clearance approved, clearance approved “with risk management” or clearance denied. According to multiple sources, the UKSV process in Mandelson’s case concluded there was a “high” overall concern and concluded “clearance denied”. In the committee hearing, Robbins said those were terms he did not recognise.
Another committee member, John Wittingdale, specifically raised the Cabinet Office template document, and said the committee’s understanding was also that Mandelson got ticks in the two red boxes. Robbins said he did not recall the briefing being given to him being “that definitive”...
(Guardian)
Vetting was a sham.
When Blair was PM, Gus O'Donnell told him on returning from a stint in the US that from private conversations with his counterparts there it was clear they really meant to go for Iraq. Blair's reply was 'Thanks for letting me know', which if you think about it is interestingly double-edged. One suspects Blair would have preferred to have been able to plead ignorance, but couldn't now in view of GOD's remark.
It's clear that the art of not knowing things is important in high office. Nevertheless on this occasion if Starmer really wanted Mandelson in office so much, he could have simply said 'Hang the Vetting; we'll go ahead without it.' Instead he treated the process with some contempt and is now paying the price. Robbins for his part is paying the price for not withstanding the pressure, or at least telling the PM's Office how the Vetting had turned out (i.e. marginal, but on balance a fail.) By his own account, he's guilty of failing to tell truth to power.
Starmer's position is that Olly Robbins behaved appallingly for not blocking his decision to appoint Mandelson US amb after it had been announced, blessed by the King and agreed by the US in time for the inauguration—as requested by No 10—because of security risks the Foreign Office deemed manageable.
(@RochdalePioneers fans please explain)
It’s probably an unpopular view, but IMHO his prescence in No.10 during pandemic had a significantly positive effect on the outcome in the UK.
They are all in the deep smelly stuff.
The evidence from Olly Robbins is devastating to Keir Starmer.
It is clear that No10 not only made the appointment before vetting was completed, but that Mandelson was already acting as the Ambassador before the vetting - even seeing highly classified documents.
With this, and the 'constant pressure' No10 applied to the appointment and their 'dismissive attitude' to vetting Mandelson, it is now absolutely clear that 'full due process' was not followed.
Keir Starmer has misled the House.
And he was covering for ministers by not telling *them* things they didn’t want to know
“Guangzhou is a chemical weapons plant masquerading as a fertilizer plant. We know this. The Chinese know that we know. But we make-believe that we don't know and the Chinese make-believe that they believe that we don't know, but know that we know. Everybody knows”
You might think somewhere [in No10/Cabinet Office] there must be a quiet calm centre like in a James Bond move where you open the door and there is where the ninjas are who actually know what they are doing. There are no ninjas. There is no door.
The question is what you do with that insight. Big Dom's was to get himself appointed ninja-in-chief, which didn't work because he's not a ninja either.
We know why Starmer picked Mandelson, the Trump administration is full of scammers and they only get along with other scammers. The British and other allies are doing a decent job at managing this incredibly dangerous situation, for example Ukraine is still getting US intelligence to this day despite lots of people in the administration wanting to stop this happening.
Starmer didn't have a lot of cards to play here but one card he did have was a scammy schmoozer on his side who may well have shared a Romanian teenager with a senior administration official so he played it. Labour do not have a lot of people like this, to their credit. I'm sure Starmer didn't relish doing this but bollocksing up the management of Trump could plausibly result in the obliteration of human life on earth.
Starmer can't say this because it would upset the mad king.
Everybody knows this, the pundits and political opportunists are pretending not to.
I can't see any way in which having dozens of small nukes does anything except increase risk, on the basis that the risk of a significant failure of a nuclear plant is probably not very proportional to it's size, so 10 x small plants is probably in the order of 5x the risk of one plant 10x the size.
The correct solution is to buy the (biggish) South Korean plants off the peg, and then not insist on reinventing the wheel over the safety cases and planning constraints.
Strangely, this is about the only option that our idiots politicians seem to be strenuously avoiding.
Would not be beyond the wit of man to change that system, but there is a distinction.
When challenged previously, Keir Starmer said that Peter Mandelson had been asked about Epstein-related issues as part of the vetting process. However, he has also said he wasn’t aware of the details of that vetting because they weren’t shared with him. When pressed yesterday on this very matter, Starmer suggested he was using “due diligence” to describe the broader process, including vetting.
But that interpretation doesn’t really hold. Due diligence and formal security vetting are separate stages. Due diligence could reasonably consist of conversations, checks, and internal enquiries between No.10 and Mandelson before any announcement is made. Formal vetting, by contrast, is a structured process that follows.
As Olly Robbins has now made clear, due diligence took place before the appointment was announced, while vetting occurred afterwards. So the claim that no due diligence happened appears to rest on conflating these two different steps.
You can actually see the moment Ed Miliband thinks, what's the point burning through whatever political credibility I've got left energetically defending a man who's going to be gone in a matter of weeks.
https://x.com/saulstaniforth/status/2046498344797667605?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://x.com/KateEMcCann/status/2046514480922628242
Oh my goodness. Sir Olly Robbins tells committee Number 10 asked FCDO to find a Head of Mission job for Matthew Doyle. Robbins says he was “uncomfortable” about it. It would have meant putting very experienced people out a job and he didn’t want to do it.
Chinese cars are banned from military bases in the West, for exactly the same reason.
Apologies if already referenced but the weekly YouGov is not without interest:
Reform UK: 27% (+3)
Greens: 17% (-1)
Conservatives: 17% (-2)
Labour: 16% (-1)
Lib Dems: 14% (+1)
Restore Britain: 3% (-1)
SNP: 3% (=)
Plaid Cymru: 1% (=)
Your Party: 0% (=)
Changes from 12-13April, fieldwork 19-20 April
Prompting for both Restore and Your Party apparently.
Where it gets trickier is the "how to fix it' problem; tempting though Dom's solution is of burning it all to the ground, then employing some *more competent* technocrats, in practice I can't see why that won't just revert to staus quo over the next 20 years, if it even works initially.
Starmer's outrage at the process seems all the more faux after the last two days.
Maguire getting the 'its over' messages
More broadly, when viewing sensitive information, it is the general rule that you only see information relevant to a task or decision decision you are actively doing/making. Much easier to do for ministers when the civil service will be briefing the relevant information and creating the policy proposals in response.
Made way at Weekend World for Brian Walden, the best TV interviewer ever of course.
Thing is, I think we have been in that phase for some time, probably since the “yes it did” response in the Commons around the Mandelson/Epstein links.
The only question now is one of timing. I do not think Labour want Starmer to lead them into the next election, and I don’t think Starmer can hang on even if he wants to.
Either someone is going to go over the top after the locals, someone is going to gently tell him the game is up in the coming months, or he’ll be ‘asked’ to graciously retire in 2027/2028. It’s just difficult at the moment to work out which of these will be the process. They do, however, all lead to the same outcome.
Ah. Times man tweets David Lammy was kept in the dark. Doyle got a peerage in the end.
Sir Keir Starmer considered giving Matthew Doyle an ambassadorship, Sir Olly Robbins reveals
He says that in March 2025 Number 10 initiated discussions with him about finding an opportunity for Doyle, who was then the prime minister's director of communications
He says he was under 'strict instructions' not to discuss it with David Lammy, the foreign secretary
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2046516513847246905
Our PMs are often people who are untrustworthy themselves and some would have failed vetting. They appoint senior roles based on political survival not ethics.
Vetting was to go on top of what was known already and was to be geared towards getting the right mitigations in place.
By pretending that Mandelson's appointment was somehow workaday, with all that was already known about him, and getting into the weeds of a process that was actually designed to deliver a result around Mandelson's flaws if at all possible, and maybe even if not possible, Starmer has laid bare all the dirty mechanics of getting to the result that HE wanted and ensured that much of that dirt reflects on him. It's too late to fall back on an "exceptional times" type argument now, having failed to make "we followed process" look anything but terrible.
Dom is famously dismissive of the quality of the average MP & it’s abundantly clear that he is right to do so. The problem is how do you evolve the existing system to one that chooses higher quality candidates in general - revolution is always tempting.
Pay half as many people twice as much money, determined individually, with regular hirings and firings at all levels. Let specialists specialise if they don’t aspire to senior management, and keep movement between unrelated departments to a minimum.
The pundits could also say these things if they were interested in telling the truth, but they're not. They want a political scandal and such a thing is hard to come by with this tediously straight-laced government.