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
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?
It was more that she thought that the civil service shouldn't try to compete with the City on pay, so they ended up with people who saw themselves as making a personal sacrifice to work for the state.
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.
Yes but I think as a nation we are deluding ourselves if we think we can have a political democracy without unvetted political appointments in positions of power.
So I guess we can all accept now that Starmer was telling the truth when he said he wasnt informed PM failed vetting?
It is never what Starmer says, it is what he doesn't say. He isn't Boris that recklessly lies, he instead carefully crafts a line of defence that involves statements that can be "mis"read while remaining true nor provides additional context that might drag him into iffy waters. The issue is always its works in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, the public are acting a jury under the instrution of the judge to only consider the exact evidence.
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.
Due to the hilarious comedies of nuclear physics, nuclear power plants using HEU (Aka bomb grade nuclear material) are safer.
They can (and are) designed to self regulate in a number of ways. Mainly that if they have a power excursion (Chernobyl style), they instantly stop the nuclear reaction. Such “pulses” are actually used in research, with such reactors.
In addition, because they are smaller (the nuclear bit), they can be enclosed in a single, massive container. The reactors of the USS Thresher and USS Scorpion survived the destruction of the subs, self shutdown and are sitting in the seabed. In the case of Thresher, the implosion shredded the rest of the sub to scrap.
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
Masks were and are an effective way of reducing the transmission of COVID-19 (and other bugs) and we would have done better as a country to have encouraged usage earlier.
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.
Well, the Trump administration in the US has picked lots of dodgy people to be ambassadors!
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.
So I guess we can all accept now that Starmer was telling the truth when he said he wasnt informed PM failed vetting?
It is never what Starmer says, it is what he doesn't say. He isn't Boris that recklessly lies, he instead carefully crafts a line of defence that involves statements that can be "mis"read while remaining true nor provides additional context that might drag him into iffy waters. The issue is always its works in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, the public are acting a jury under the instrution of the judge to only consider the exact evidence.
10/10 effort for making "not lying" sound a bad thing.
This isn't about Mandelson. Who cares why he was or wasn't sacked.......
Steve McQuuen when he was the most sought after actor in the world said his first job when he arrived on set was identifying the TOP HONCHO. He said it might be the director or producer or writer or it could even be the make-up artist. .........But there's always one........The actual person who makes the decisions
And what we need to know is if it isn't our PM who is it?
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.
Formerly home of generous research funding. DOGE have cut lots of it. There's something of a reverse brain drain with some US academics wanting to leave Trump's America. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00938-y reports, "75% of US scientists who answered Nature poll consider leaving".
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.
Well, the Trump administration in the US has picked lots of dodgy people to be ambassadors!
US ambassadors are and have been for decades political awards for money provided to the presidents election campaign
I have listened to Sir Olly Robbins evidence for last hour and forty minutes and am seeing the very best of the civil service. I am left incredulous that the decision was made to fire him. Has there been a more egregious and shameful decision by a political master desperate to save his own skin?
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
Masks were and are an effective way of reducing the transmission of COVID-19 (and other bugs) and we would have done better as a country to have encouraged usage earlier.
There is a severe reluctance in this country (and I guess in much of the west) to look at how countries like Japan etc handled Covid. More recent epidemics and a greater trust in authority, and a willingness to mask up early. I believe that their outcomes were significantly better than ours.
I hated masks. I think we also failed to change advice around aerosols/droplets when it had become apparent that covid was an aerosol issue. Ventilation better than 2m spacings, for instance. Getting outside to meet up.
But masks DO work. Even the jury rigged face nappies that so annoyed the libertarian twats of this country.
So I guess we can all accept now that Starmer was telling the truth when he said he wasnt informed PM failed vetting?
It is never what Starmer says, it is what he doesn't say. He isn't Boris that recklessly lies, he instead carefully crafts a line of defence that involves statements that can be "mis"read while remaining true nor provides additional context that might drag him into iffy waters. The issue is always its works in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, the public are acting a jury under the instrution of the judge to only consider the exact evidence.
10/10 effort for making "not lying" sound a bad thing.
Starmer is often not fully honest, but ensures he doesn't actively tell a lie. As I say, the issue and we see it in the polling numbers, it doesn't wash with the public.
Cameron and Blair stretched the truth in similar manner, but had more charisma so able to get away with it. Boris just recklessly lied about lying when telling a lie often when he didn't need to lie in the first place....
I have listened to Sir Olly Robbins evidence for last hour and forty minutes and am seeing the very best of the civil service. I am left incredulous that the decision was made to fire him. Has there been a more egregious and shameful decision by a political master desperate to save his own skin?
LOL, Sopel thinks this make the civil service look world class?
A few commentators now pointing out this will not go away. At some point the PLP will have to act as government is becoming utterly paralysed. You cant have a KS consisting of 'my governmemt will drip out damaging files on the Mandelson affair'
So I guess we can all accept now that Starmer was telling the truth when he said he wasnt informed PM failed vetting?
It is never what Starmer says, it is what he doesn't say. He isn't Boris that recklessly lies, he instead carefully crafts a line of defence that involves statements that can be "mis"read while remaining true nor provides additional context that might drag him into iffy waters. The issue is always its works in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, the public are acting a jury under the instrution of the judge to only consider the exact evidence.
10/10 effort for making "not lying" sound a bad thing.
Starmer is often not dishonest, but ensures he doesn't actively tell a lie. As I say, the issue and we see it in the polling numbers, it doesn't wash with the public.
Cameron and Blair stretched the truth in similar manner, but had more charisma so able to get away with it. Boris just recklessly lied about lying when telling a lie often when he didn't need to lie in the first place....
This.
I think Starmer is a throwback to an earlier age of political spin. He is not a Johnson, bare-arsed liar, but he does deceive.
A few commentators now pointing out this will not go away. At some point the PLP will have to act as government is becoming utterly paralysed. You cant have a KS consisting of 'my governmemt will drip out damaging files on the Mandelson affair'
So I guess we can all accept now that Starmer was telling the truth when he said he wasnt informed PM failed vetting?
Except that he didn't fail vetting. That is Robbins point.
After hearing Robbins, I'm now less supportive of Starmer. I think Starmer is using this as a deflection from his monumental mistake in appointing Mandelson. I'm no longer on team Starmer in this matter.
Though it's a big political story, in reality it's not a big deal. Storm in a teacup.
It's also becoming too complicated for most voters to follow. Starmer will likely have to go after the May elections but IMHO this particular story won't have played a big role in it.
I have listened to Sir Olly Robbins evidence for last hour and forty minutes and am seeing the very best of the civil service. I am left incredulous that the decision was made to fire him. Has there been a more egregious and shameful decision by a political master desperate to save his own skin?
And the whole civil service has noticed. And are furious.
I can't see how Starmer can continue to govern in these circumstances even if you buy that is not lying through his teeth. Nothing serious change-wise is going to go through the system now.
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
A few commentators now pointing out this will not go away. At some point the PLP will have to act as government is becoming utterly paralysed. You cant have a KS consisting of 'my governmemt will drip out damaging files on the Mandelson affair'
A few commentators now pointing out this will not go away. At some point the PLP will have to act as government is becoming utterly paralysed. You cant have a KS consisting of 'my governmemt will drip out damaging files on the Mandelson affair'
I await more than anonymous briefing.
We all do. They need to get on with it
Can’t see it happening very soon in all honesty.
I am intrigued what Burnham will do and who he will bring in.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 9m So many staggering revelations. Attempt to force through Mandelson without vetting because he was a Peer. No.10 pressure placed on officials and officers conducting vetting. Doyle. As I've been saying, this scandal will never end for Starmer. There's no way of putting it to bed.
So I guess we can all accept now that Starmer was telling the truth when he said he wasnt informed PM failed vetting?
It is never what Starmer says, it is what he doesn't say. He isn't Boris that recklessly lies, he instead carefully crafts a line of defence that involves statements that can be "mis"read while remaining true nor provides additional context that might drag him into iffy waters. The issue is always its works in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, the public are acting a jury under the instrution of the judge to only consider the exact evidence.
10/10 effort for making "not lying" sound a bad thing.
Starmer is often not fully honest, but ensures he doesn't actively tell a lie. As I say, the issue and we see it in the polling numbers, it doesn't wash with the public.
Cameron and Blair stretched the truth in similar manner, but had more charisma so able to get away with it. Boris just recklessly lied about lying when telling a lie often when he didn't need to lie in the first place....
Sophistry got its reputation from sophists who used slippery arguments in the ancient Athenian law courts to get their clients off.
They whined at the time that they were telling the actual truth but were considered liars.
I have listened to Sir Olly Robbins evidence for last hour and forty minutes and am seeing the very best of the civil service. I am left incredulous that the decision was made to fire him. Has there been a more egregious and shameful decision by a political master desperate to save his own skin?
LOL, Sopel thinks this make the civil service look world class?
Whatever the outcome of this committee hearing #Robbins is coming across as a brilliant civil servant - who is entirely in control of the facts, the sensitivity, the code and the principles of his job. And he is exposing the PM as a leader who either didnt grasp the facts, ignored smart advice - or has chosen to appear outraged when he should not have been.
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
Starmer's using all his technicality specialist lawyercraft to get this dragged into the weeds, but @Roger and others make the key point.
He is in charge. He is responsible. He has to go.
That was evident months ago. But he’s sadly not going to.
Don't know, journalists are like a dog with a bone on this one now. Will be asked about from now till Kingdom come - every politician stays in place till they don't.
I said at the time Kemi was unwise to go two footed, ball grabbing, hair pulling Vinny Jones crossed with Harry Maguire without waiting a few hours. When will she learn that Starmer is careful about his statements.
I have listened to Sir Olly Robbins evidence for last hour and forty minutes and am seeing the very best of the civil service. I am left incredulous that the decision was made to fire him. Has there been a more egregious and shameful decision by a political master desperate to save his own skin?
LOL, Sopel thinks this make the civil service look world class?
Whatever the outcome of this committee hearing #Robbins is coming across as a brilliant civil servant - who is entirely in control of the facts, the sensitivity, the code and the principles of his job. And he is exposing the PM as a leader who either didnt grasp the facts, ignored smart advice - or has chosen to appear outraged when he should not have been.
He is a master of the process state. If you dislike the process state he is the problem, if you are ambivalent or a fan, he is impressive.
We are going to have another 162 tweets from Hodges proclaiming Starmer is about to go over the next 12 months. Then Starmer will go and Hodges will tell us how brilliant his prediction was.
The question is, why on earth did Starmer and Cooper sack Robbins ?
I think we should remember he isn't terribly popular in the government or indeed the Civil Service either, including with Romeo. They may just have wanted to use this as an excuse to get rid without fully thinking through the possible consequences.
I have listened to Sir Olly Robbins evidence for last hour and forty minutes and am seeing the very best of the civil service. I am left incredulous that the decision was made to fire him. Has there been a more egregious and shameful decision by a political master desperate to save his own skin?
LOL, Sopel thinks this make the civil service look world class?
Whatever the outcome of this committee hearing #Robbins is coming across as a brilliant civil servant - who is entirely in control of the facts, the sensitivity, the code and the principles of his job. And he is exposing the PM as a leader who either didnt grasp the facts, ignored smart advice - or has chosen to appear outraged when he should not have been.
That tells you a lot more about the political media class, than about the civil service.
The key error which Starmer made was appointing Mandelson in the first place. Did Mandelson have something on Starmer that made it happen. Otherwise is it inconceivable that he would have made such a stupid mistake. The vetting is irrelevant given that Mandelson had already been announced. cf Jim Hacker. "Its been announced. Its in the program"
I think what Robbins was getting at with the "wholly extraordinary circs" is that civil servants won't overrule a PM unless someone has "I AM A CHINESE SPY" tattooed across their forehead, and even then it's not going to be a particularly natural act for them to do that.
Our brightest and best civil servants aren't natural decision makers, that is and always should be a ministers job.
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?
It was more that she thought that the civil service shouldn't try to compete with the City on pay, so they ended up with people who saw themselves as making a personal sacrifice to work for the state.
I have listened to Sir Olly Robbins evidence for last hour and forty minutes and am seeing the very best of the civil service. I am left incredulous that the decision was made to fire him. Has there been a more egregious and shameful decision by a political master desperate to save his own skin?
LOL, Sopel thinks this make the civil service look world class?
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?
It was more that she thought that the civil service shouldn't try to compete with the City on pay, so they ended up with people who saw themselves as making a personal sacrifice to work for the state.
TBH that's not how I recall it.
Can you say any more? I'm just basing my comment on an interview when she referred to complaints from civil servants who looked with envy at how much people could make in the City and seemed to suggest they should be happy with what they've got.
"OK...so I might have in turn given the House a false impression that I was given by civil servants...in good faith, by all concerned, no intent by anybody to deceive...if that is indeed what I did, which I don't accept.
Just discovered Nigel Farage is in South Shields today. I wonder if he’s discovered that the council has been South Tyneside rather than South Shields since 1974 yet unlike some of Reforms election leaflets
Burnham into parliament at next available opportunity.
Sir Keir resigns end of this year or early next year. Burnham takes over.
Job done.
Perhaps with Ed as middleman who then decides to stand against Burnham....
Why not both? We still have time for at least two new PMs before the next election.
They can just about get away with one new PM, who leads them up to 2029.
But two, not a chance.
I’m of the view a new PM can save the party as their fundamental position is a lot stronger than Starmer is making it appear. But that new PM needs to come in do stuff.
Burnham is the default - but I’m still not really clear what he will actually do.
So I guess we can all accept now that Starmer was telling the truth when he said he wasnt informed PM failed vetting?
Except that he didn't fail vetting. That is Robbins point.
After hearing Robbins, I'm now less supportive of Starmer. I think Starmer is using this as a deflection from his monumental mistake in appointing Mandelson. I'm no longer on team Starmer in this matter.
I mean there was a report saying don't give him clearance - and for whatever reason the FCDO overruled it and then didn't tell him. That's so unhelpful to him and so bad from them.
Starmer also probably needs to go because he's just so unpopular and hasn't been able to turn it around.
The Robbins idea that DV shouldn't be pass/fail is bizarre to me. People do fail DV clearance!
Burnham into parliament at next available opportunity.
Sir Keir resigns end of this year or early next year. Burnham takes over.
Job done.
Perhaps with Ed as middleman who then decides to stand against Burnham....
Why not both? We still have time for at least two new PMs before the next election.
They can just about get away with one new PM, who leads them up to 2029.
But two, not a chance.
I’m of the view a new PM can save the party as their fundamental position is a lot stronger than Starmer is making it appear. But that new PM needs to come in do stuff.
Burnham is the default - but I’m still not really clear what he will actually do.
Devolution. PR for elections. Joined up thinking on things like transport links and new builds. The kinds of policies Compass people like. What he calls "Manchesterism" iirc.
Burnham into parliament at next available opportunity.
Sir Keir resigns end of this year or early next year. Burnham takes over.
Job done.
Perhaps with Ed as middleman who then decides to stand against Burnham....
Why not both? We still have time for at least two new PMs before the next election.
We could do one a week, why not, give everyone a go. Replace the select committees with Lord Sugar's boardroom on a Friday afternoon and start again each Monday. Would it be any worse?
Burnham into parliament at next available opportunity.
Sir Keir resigns end of this year or early next year. Burnham takes over.
Job done.
Perhaps with Ed as middleman who then decides to stand against Burnham....
Why not both? We still have time for at least two new PMs before the next election.
They can just about get away with one new PM, who leads them up to 2029.
But two, not a chance.
I’m of the view a new PM can save the party as their fundamental position is a lot stronger than Starmer is making it appear. But that new PM needs to come in do stuff.
Burnham is the default - but I’m still not really clear what he will actually do.
Devolution. PR for elections. Joined up thinking on things like transport links and new builds. The kinds of policies Compass people like. What he calls "Manchesterism" iirc.
He doesn’t have a mandate for PR, so not sure how he squares that.
Joined up thinking sounds a bit wishy washy to me. It all reminds me a bit too much of his 2015 campaign but let’s see. He’s clearly got something people like (doesn’t work for me).
Beth Rigby also thinks Olly Robbins did amazing...what world do these people live in.
The media would love a Starmer resignation story. Politics is febrile, Labour have been very disappointing, and Starmer is dull. A fight between Wes and Ange for the future of the Labour Party would be right up their street.
Burnham into parliament at next available opportunity.
Sir Keir resigns end of this year or early next year. Burnham takes over.
Job done.
Perhaps with Ed as middleman who then decides to stand against Burnham....
Why not both? We still have time for at least two new PMs before the next election.
They can just about get away with one new PM, who leads them up to 2029.
But two, not a chance.
I’m of the view a new PM can save the party as their fundamental position is a lot stronger than Starmer is making it appear. But that new PM needs to come in do stuff.
Burnham is the default - but I’m still not really clear what he will actually do.
If it's not soon then there's a very good chance the next leader will be a 'Sunak' who won't get a hearing no-matter what he says. Burnham may be better off waiting for the post '29 rebuild phase.
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?
It was more that she thought that the civil service shouldn't try to compete with the City on pay, so they ended up with people who saw themselves as making a personal sacrifice to work for the state.
TBH that's not how I recall it.
Can you say any more? I'm just basing my comment on an interview when she referred to complaints from civil servants who looked with envy at how much people could make in the City and seemed to suggest they should be happy with what they've got.
To be fair, no. Just the recollection I have from being politically active in the 70's and 80's. And, to be fair (again) memory can be a lying jade!
Burnham into parliament at next available opportunity.
Sir Keir resigns end of this year or early next year. Burnham takes over.
Job done.
Perhaps with Ed as middleman who then decides to stand against Burnham....
Why not both? We still have time for at least two new PMs before the next election.
They can just about get away with one new PM, who leads them up to 2029.
But two, not a chance.
I’m of the view a new PM can save the party as their fundamental position is a lot stronger than Starmer is making it appear. But that new PM needs to come in do stuff.
Burnham is the default - but I’m still not really clear what he will actually do.
If it's not soon then there's a very good chance the next leader will be a 'Sunak' who won't get a hearing no-matter what he says. Burnham may be better off waiting for the post '29 rebuild phase.
Your regular reminder Burnham will be 59 by 2029. Facing five years in opposition. That one just doesn't work.
Burnham into parliament at next available opportunity.
Sir Keir resigns end of this year or early next year. Burnham takes over.
Job done.
Perhaps with Ed as middleman who then decides to stand against Burnham....
Why not both? We still have time for at least two new PMs before the next election.
They can just about get away with one new PM, who leads them up to 2029.
But two, not a chance.
I’m of the view a new PM can save the party as their fundamental position is a lot stronger than Starmer is making it appear. But that new PM needs to come in do stuff.
Burnham is the default - but I’m still not really clear what he will actually do.
Devolution. PR for elections. Joined up thinking on things like transport links and new builds. The kinds of policies Compass people like. What he calls "Manchesterism" iirc.
He doesn’t have a mandate for PR, so not sure how he squares that.
Joined up thinking sounds a bit wishy washy to me. It all reminds me a bit too much of his 2015 campaign but let’s see. He’s clearly got something people like (doesn’t work for me).
It's the mirror image of Boris.
What Burnham has going for him: 1 He wants the job- really wants the job. Contrast with Starmer and (I suspect) May, who didn't and it showed. 2 He has a political profile as a big city mayor. 3 He has cleanish hands because the calamaties that have beset the government haven't beset him.
Personally, I don't think that's enough though I can see the appeal. But we may be heading to a point where the system has to pick another sucker to be chewed up because they aren't up to the role. As someone said, at Westminster, the herd instinct is powerful and when the herd moves, it moves.
Olly Robbins is strongly hinting that he will sue the FCDO over his dismissal.
Says there is a "separate process, for me to try to get to the bottom of" what happened and refuses to say things he may later "rely on" because of the "HR position" he is in. Sounds expensive.
Who was the Bill Sikes lookalike behind Sirolly? Presumably an official but not suited and booted like the others there. But nodding vigorously in support. Maybe a FCDO press officer?
Comments
Henry Zeffman
@hzeffman
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
https://x.com/hzeffman/status/2046509745683501289
They can (and are) designed to self regulate in a number of ways. Mainly that if they have a power excursion (Chernobyl style), they instantly stop the nuclear reaction. Such “pulses” are actually used in research, with such reactors.
In addition, because they are smaller (the nuclear bit), they can be enclosed in a single, massive container. The reactors of the USS Thresher and USS Scorpion survived the destruction of the subs, self shutdown and are sitting in the seabed. In the case of Thresher, the implosion shredded the rest of the sub to scrap.
He doesn't get that part, of course.
Steve McQuuen when he was the most sought after actor in the world said his first job when he arrived on set was identifying the TOP HONCHO. He said it might be the director or producer or writer or it could even be the make-up artist. .........But there's always one........The actual person who makes the decisions
And what we need to know is if it isn't our PM who is it?
https://x.com/jonsopel/status/2046525234866430345
I have listened to Sir Olly Robbins evidence for last hour and forty minutes and am seeing the very best of the civil service. I am left incredulous that the decision was made to fire him. Has there been a more egregious and shameful decision by a political master desperate to save his own skin?
I hated masks. I think we also failed to change advice around aerosols/droplets when it had become apparent that covid was an aerosol issue. Ventilation better than 2m spacings, for instance. Getting outside to meet up.
But masks DO work. Even the jury rigged face nappies that so annoyed the libertarian twats of this country.
Taxi for Starmer
Olly Robbins is utterly devastating
Cameron and Blair stretched the truth in similar manner, but had more charisma so able to get away with it. Boris just recklessly lied about lying when telling a lie often when he didn't need to lie in the first place....
I don’t think he’s got good sources inside Number 10 though.
You cant have a KS consisting of 'my governmemt will drip out damaging files on the Mandelson affair'
I think Starmer is a throwback to an earlier age of political spin. He is not a Johnson, bare-arsed liar, but he does deceive.
After hearing Robbins, I'm now less supportive of Starmer.
I think Starmer is using this as a deflection from his monumental mistake in appointing Mandelson.
I'm no longer on team Starmer in this matter.
I can't see how Starmer can continue to govern in these circumstances even if you buy that is not lying through his teeth. Nothing serious change-wise is going to go through the system now.
But then we may have suspected that all along.
I am intrigued what Burnham will do and who he will bring in.
He is in charge. He is responsible. He has to go.
@DPJHodges
·
9m
So many staggering revelations. Attempt to force through Mandelson without vetting because he was a Peer. No.10 pressure placed on officials and officers conducting vetting. Doyle. As I've been saying, this scandal will never end for Starmer. There's no way of putting it to bed.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2046531934130511913
They whined at the time that they were telling the actual truth but were considered liars.
https://x.com/maitlis/status/2046518619769651633
Whatever the outcome of this committee hearing #Robbins is coming across as a brilliant civil servant - who is entirely in control of the facts, the sensitivity, the code and the principles of his job. And he is exposing the PM as a leader who either didnt grasp the facts, ignored smart advice - or has chosen to appear outraged when he should not have been.
And possibly decisive.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
24m
We’re going to have to have another Statement from Starmer. It’s clear he completely mislead the House yesterday
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2046528990433759380
He should anoint a successor and stand down.
Ring side seats at the dissembling World Championships, lawyers vs politicians vs civil servants
Did Mandelson have something on Starmer that made it happen. Otherwise is it inconceivable that he would have made such a stupid mistake. The vetting is irrelevant given that Mandelson had already been announced. cf Jim Hacker. "Its been announced. Its in the program"
Our brightest and best civil servants aren't natural decision makers, that is and always should be a ministers job.
His blessing would be toxic.
He should just stand down. He's probably much better suited to life in the Lords anyway.
Burnham into parliament at next available opportunity.
Sir Keir resigns end of this year or early next year. Burnham takes over.
Job done.
On recent history, a by-election anywhere could be between Green and Reform right now.
Same time tomorrow?"
But two, not a chance.
I’m of the view a new PM can save the party as their fundamental position is a lot stronger than Starmer is making it appear. But that new PM needs to come in do stuff.
Burnham is the default - but I’m still not really clear what he will actually do.
Starmer also probably needs to go because he's just so unpopular and hasn't been able to turn it around.
The Robbins idea that DV shouldn't be pass/fail is bizarre to me. People do fail DV clearance!
Might be time for a knighthood and a seat in the Lords?
Joined up thinking sounds a bit wishy washy to me. It all reminds me a bit too much of his 2015 campaign but let’s see. He’s clearly got something people like (doesn’t work for me).
I can understand why.
*73% probability
Facing five years in opposition.
That one just doesn't work.
What Burnham has going for him:
1 He wants the job- really wants the job. Contrast with Starmer and (I suspect) May, who didn't and it showed.
2 He has a political profile as a big city mayor.
3 He has cleanish hands because the calamaties that have beset the government haven't beset him.
Personally, I don't think that's enough though I can see the appeal. But we may be heading to a point where the system has to pick another sucker to be chewed up because they aren't up to the role. As someone said, at Westminster, the herd instinct is powerful and when the herd moves, it moves.
Olly Robbins is strongly hinting that he will sue the FCDO over his dismissal.
Says there is a "separate process, for me to try to get to the bottom of" what happened and refuses to say things he may later "rely on" because of the "HR position" he is in. Sounds expensive.
Maybe a FCDO press officer?