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.
Forgive me, when you say 'he', to which one are you referring, please?
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.
Was always going to be the way. And in a few weeks, we will learn that hands tied Lord Hermer / Starmer have approved £500k-£1 million pay out. Technicality, process followed, law says....
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?
Yes he was very evident and supportive with his striped shirt, red hankie and grim look. He's my image of SeanT.
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.
Was always going to be the way. And in a few weeks, we will learn that hands tied Lord Hermer / Starmer have approved £500k-£1 million pay out. Technicality, process followed, law says....
Doubt either of those two will be in post in a few weeks time.
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!
Only Proles
For the Outer Party there is some leeway.
For the Inner Party it’s just about arranging things for Proper People.
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.
Was always going to be the way. And in a few weeks, we will learn that hands tied Lord Hermer / Starmer have approved £500k-£1 million pay out. Technicality, process followed, law says....
Doubt either of those two will be in post in a few weeks time.
It will be done very shortly. They won't drag it out. Just as previously with other sackings.
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.
Forgive me, when you say 'he', to which one are you referring, please?
The memorandum defining the word “he” is currently being reviewed by the legal team.
So it hasn’t crossed any decision makers desks yet.
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.
Was always going to be the way. And in a few weeks, we will learn that hands tied Lord Hermer / Starmer have approved £500k-£1 million pay out. Technicality, process followed, law says....
Less than 2 years in the job, he doesn't look pregnant but IANAD... surely he's not going to claim "whistleblowing" when he's studiously avoided touching any whistles?
Olly Robbins main barrier to a huge payout is the fact he hasn't been in the job 2 years. But I think Starmer has probably given him enough that clever employment lawyers can likely get a decent settlement out of the gov't for him. He has been wronged.
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.
Was always going to be the way. And in a few weeks, we will learn that hands tied Lord Hermer / Starmer have approved £500k-£1 million pay out. Technicality, process followed, law says....
Less than 2 years in the job, he doesn't look pregnant but IANAD... surely he's not going to claim "whistleblowing" when he's studiously avoided touching any whistles?
Taxpayers money so he will get a number with lots of zeros after it, because why the hell not.
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.
Was always going to be the way. And in a few weeks, we will learn that hands tied Lord Hermer / Starmer have approved £500k-£1 million pay out. Technicality, process followed, law says....
Less than 2 years in the job, he doesn't look pregnant but IANAD... surely he's not going to claim "whistleblowing" when he's studiously avoided touching any whistles?
He dropped enough hints of tricky issues that the PM could have been aware of in the hearing for the conclusion that a swift settlement would be best for all parties.
I don’t doubt that it’s damaging, it again goes to Starmer’s judgement, and this will continue to ensure the Labour Party really don’t want him leading them into the next GE, but did we really get a smoking gun here?
Starmer is probably done for, but as per my comments earlier I think he’s been done for, for some time. This won’t be the catalyst.
Olly Robbins main barrier to a huge payout is the fact he hasn't been in the job 2 years. But I think Starmer has probably given him enough that clever employment lawyers can likely get a decent settlement out of the gov't for him. He has been wronged.
I'm not sure it matters if he's been wronged just that Starmer is still there; using someone else's money to get rid of something that embarrasses you has always been an easy solution.
Best known timeline after SKS's statement and Robbins' committee session
Date
Event / fact
Political meaning
11 Dec 24
Cabinet Office due diligence was complete and SKS says he received final advice on it.
He had the soft-vetting material before pressing on.
18-23 Dec 24
SKS says he decided to appoint Mandelson on 18 Dec, announced it on 20 Dec, and formal security vetting began on 23 Dec.
The decision and announcement came before hard vetting.
Late Dec 24 / early Jan 25
Robbins says that after the announcement the Cabinet Office raised whether Mandelson needed DV at all; FCDO said he did.
The centre appears to have looked for a way round the hurdle once the political decision had been made.
Jan 25
Robbins says No 10 applied “constant pressure” and wanted Mandelson in Washington “as quickly as humanly possible”.
No 10 was not detached from the process; it was pushing hard for speed.
28 Jan 25
UKSV recommended that DV should be denied.
This is now the key hard fact.
29 Jan 25
FCDO granted DV anyway. SKS says this was against the UKSV recommendation. Robbins says he did not see a written deny and understood the case as borderline and mitigable.
The central dispute is whether Robbins overrode a hard deny or was himself steered into a softer reading.
10 Feb 25
Mandelson took up post.
10-16 Sep 25
Fresh Bloomberg revelations land; Mandelson is sacked. Wormald then says appropriate processes were followed, and Cooper/Robbins tell the committee DV had been granted by FCDO.
The public line stressed Mandelson’s dishonesty and procedural normality, not an internal clash over vetting.
Late 25
Robbins says No 10 wanted it made clear that vetting decisions were taken “entirely independently of ministers” and ministers were told only the outcome.
That jars with SKS’s current case that officials obviously should have told ministers more.
14 Apr 26
SKS says he first learned that UKSV had recommended denial and that FCDO had granted clearance anyway.
This is the hinge of his whole survival defence.
20-21 Apr 26
SKS tells the Commons he would not have appointed Mandelson had he known, and that officials should have told him. Robbins replies that No 10 applied heavy pressure, queried whether DV was needed, and that he did not see a written deny.
SKS shifts blame to FCDO/Robbins; Robbins pushes responsibility back towards No 10 and the original political choice.
Summary: the political decision came first; the machinery then followed behind it.
Conclusion: the issue is no longer whether UKSV recommended denial. It did. The issue is who knew exactly what, and whether Robbins was concealing a hard deny or operating inside a process already loaded from the top. Either way, the broad picture looks bad for SKS: a decision appears to have been taken in advance, with due diligence and vetting treated as obstacles to be managed.
Sources: Hansard 20 Apr 2026, FAC materials, and live reporting of Robbins’ 21 Apr 2026 evidence pending transcript.
My first thought was, how many civil servants of this quality do we actually have and what the hell was our dipstick of a PM thinking in sacking him so that he could “prove” how cross he was.
I've been looking at EU economic statistics for work reasons today and I came across their PPP tables (which is actually exactly what I need) and it's interesting to see how much further ahead of France the EU measures the UK economy in recent years - in 2019 the EU measured UK PPP at 15% larger than France at €1.94tn vs €1.68tn, in 2024 it had stretched to 25% larger than France at €2.55tn vs €2.05tn, for all the criticism the Tories got during and post COVID, the economy was definitely in pretty good shape compared to now.
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.
Sir Humphrey might have called the decision 'brave'.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Ed Miliband didn't just uncircle the collective Cabinet bandwagons around Keir Starmer this morning, he brutally threw him under one as he launched his own leadership bid as he jumped on his own one man bandwagon horse & headed off into the sunset to get as much distance as he could from Keir Starmer and David Lammy in that Sophie Ridge interview on Skynews.....
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
The committee should maybe ask Morgan McSweeney to give evidence.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Yeah I liked that bit. I think he said he had a completely free diary. Once we get rid of Starmer I hope his successor invites him back.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
For two and a half hours, Robbins responded to everything thrown at him with courtesy, intelligence, insight and concision. He didn't actually duck any questions. If your complaint is that he focused on process, that may well be because that's what the questions were about.
Beyond the terrible appointment, I’ve still not really seen any evidence Starmer lied. Badenoch got that wrong IMHO and should have questioned Starmer’s judgment as her main point.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
For two and a half hours, Robbins responded to everything thrown at him with courtesy, intelligence, insight and concision. He didn't actually duck any questions. If your complaint is that he focused on process, that may well be because that's what the questions were about.
So you are impressed by a Sir Humphrey that rather than get shit done can duck questions and pass the buck in a polite manner using 100x as many words as required. ok. That doesn't impress me at all. Its about getting results. It is clear to me from that evidence, in Mandarin game it is not about getting things done, its about making sure you can explain away everything that happened on your watch as not your fault nor decision. And do so without ever actually saying who it was that actually fucked up and above all, at all costs, protect other members of the civil service by never naming them, no matter what they did.
Best known timeline after SKS's statement and Robbins' committee session
Date
Event / fact
Political meaning
11 Dec 24
Cabinet Office due diligence was complete and SKS says he received final advice on it.
He had the soft-vetting material before pressing on.
18-23 Dec 24
SKS says he decided to appoint Mandelson on 18 Dec, announced it on 20 Dec, and formal security vetting began on 23 Dec.
The decision and announcement came before hard vetting.
Late Dec 24 / early Jan 25
Robbins says that after the announcement the Cabinet Office raised whether Mandelson needed DV at all; FCDO said he did.
The centre appears to have looked for a way round the hurdle once the political decision had been made.
Jan 25
Robbins says No 10 applied “constant pressure” and wanted Mandelson in Washington “as quickly as humanly possible”.
No 10 was not detached from the process; it was pushing hard for speed.
28 Jan 25
UKSV recommended that DV should be denied.
This is now the key hard fact.
29 Jan 25
FCDO granted DV anyway. SKS says this was against the UKSV recommendation. Robbins says he did not see a written deny and understood the case as borderline and mitigable.
The central dispute is whether Robbins overrode a hard deny or was himself steered into a softer reading.
10 Feb 25
Mandelson took up post.
10-16 Sep 25
Fresh Bloomberg revelations land; Mandelson is sacked. Wormald then says appropriate processes were followed, and Cooper/Robbins tell the committee DV had been granted by FCDO.
The public line stressed Mandelson’s dishonesty and procedural normality, not an internal clash over vetting.
Late 25
Robbins says No 10 wanted it made clear that vetting decisions were taken “entirely independently of ministers” and ministers were told only the outcome.
That jars with SKS’s current case that officials obviously should have told ministers more.
14 Apr 26
SKS says he first learned that UKSV had recommended denial and that FCDO had granted clearance anyway.
This is the hinge of his whole survival defence.
20-21 Apr 26
SKS tells the Commons he would not have appointed Mandelson had he known, and that officials should have told him. Robbins replies that No 10 applied heavy pressure, queried whether DV was needed, and that he did not see a written deny.
SKS shifts blame to FCDO/Robbins; Robbins pushes responsibility back towards No 10 and the original political choice.
Summary: the political decision came first; the machinery then followed behind it.
Conclusion: the issue is no longer whether UKSV recommended denial. It did. The issue is who knew exactly what, and whether Robbins was concealing a hard deny or operating inside a process already loaded from the top. Either way, the broad picture looks bad for SKS: a decision appears to have been taken in advance, with due diligence and vetting treated as obstacles to be managed.
Sources: Hansard 20 Apr 2026, FAC materials, and live reporting of Robbins’ 21 Apr 2026 evidence pending transcript.
Thanks
I mean on one level it is all a storm in a teacup and a matter of sequencing. I can't even remember what the final straw for Mandy was - was it before or after he peed in the street. He was a friend of Epstein had been known presumably for years and wasn't the central concern of the DV.
Problem for SKS is, though, that there is no line he can take which doesn't in some way damn him. Either he didn't care about the DV process and wanted his man, or he did care about the process but wasn't or didn't want to be told by his own officials (he is ultimately responsible and accountable).
He is proving to be what everyone thought he was - an empty vessel simply concerned with perpetuating his own position. We will see if people care enough about OR to pull him up on it.
I don't think a "why oh why did no one tell me" plays well for a PM in, as we are reminded by Lab's R4 fodder, a time of great crises.
Beyond the terrible appointment, I’ve still not really seen any evidence Starmer lied. Badenoch got that wrong IMHO and should have questioned Starmer’s judgment as her main point.
Starmer doesn’t lie, but he carefully picks his words in a way that forces you to make assumptions that result in your view not reflecting the actual reality.
It’s the careful omissions that you need to watch for, after all he’s a lawyer
I don’t doubt that it’s damaging, it again goes to Starmer’s judgement, and this will continue to ensure the Labour Party really don’t want him leading them into the next GE, but did we really get a smoking gun here?
Starmer is probably done for, but as per my comments earlier I think he’s been done for, for some time. This won’t be the catalyst.
I think I mentioned yesterday something about how folk are suddenly going to become experts in the process of vetting. And lo it has come to pass.
Personally, with anything Dan Hodges says I tend to assume the opposite. I agree that Starmer, because of a myriad of things including stubbornly terrible polling for him and the party, is already cooking. It is more a question of when he is cooked. So far nothing has made me believe that Robbins has in fact “destroyed” the PM. If anything he has generally confirmed the overall position (Robbins took the decision to approve the vetting and didn’t tell anyone that the underlying recommendation was not that clear cut to say the least).
Robbins is saying that he was under pressure - which I have no reason to doubt - but he’s not naming names (so no clear Starmer link as yet). But if his defence is that number 10 officials were calling up and he felt he “had to approve” it doesn’t show a lot of backbone for a civil servant the commentariat are trying to lionise.
I am sure there is more minutiae to follow. I don’t think it changes the major picture.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
The committee should maybe ask Morgan McSweeney to give evidence.
Beyond the terrible appointment, I’ve still not really seen any evidence Starmer lied. Badenoch got that wrong IMHO and should have questioned Starmer’s judgment as her main point.
Starmer doesn’t lie, but he carefully picks his words in a way that forces you to make assumptions that result in your view not reflecting he actual reality.
It’s the careful omissions that you need to watch for, after all he’s a lawyer
But Badenoch said he did lie. And I don’t think that was the best line of attack she could have chosen.
As I’ve said repeatedly, appointing Mandelson in the first place was the resigning matter. He took a risk and it failed. He should have gone as soon as that became clear.
I’ll always be grateful he kept us out of Iran - but he really should have resigned long ago.
I think the chances he goes this year have to increased. But I’m still not totally convinced he goes a bit longer.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
For two and a half hours, Robbins responded to everything thrown at him with courtesy, intelligence, insight and concision. He didn't actually duck any questions. If your complaint is that he focused on process, that may well be because that's what the questions were about.
So you are impressed by a Sir Humphrey that rather than get shit done can duck questions and pass the buck in a polite manner using 100x as many words as required. ok. That doesn't impress me at all. Its about getting results. It is clear to me from that evidence, in Mandarin game it is not about getting things done, its about making sure you can explain away everything that happened on your watch as not your fault nor decision. And do so without ever actually saying who it was that actually fucked up and above all, at all costs, protect other members of the civil service by never naming them, no matter what they did.
You're providing very strong evidence that a) you didn't listen carefully to the session, and b) you're not cut out for a job in the diplomatic service.
Beyond the terrible appointment, I’ve still not really seen any evidence Starmer lied. Badenoch got that wrong IMHO and should have questioned Starmer’s judgment as her main point.
Starmer doesn’t lie, but he carefully picks his words in a way that forces you to make assumptions that result in your view not reflecting the actual reality.
It’s the careful omissions that you need to watch for, after all he’s a lawyer
Good example, "formally informaed"...that doesn't have to mean what most people would naively think it means e.g. that is when I was first told. It means when I sat down in an offically sanctioned and recorded meeting in which the agenda of the meeting had been set that in accordance with the rules we discussed the issue on record.
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.
Was always going to be the way. And in a few weeks, we will learn that hands tied Lord Hermer / Starmer have approved £500k-£1 million pay out. Technicality, process followed, law says....
Less than 2 years in the job, he doesn't look pregnant but IANAD... surely he's not going to claim "whistleblowing" when he's studiously avoided touching any whistles?
He dropped enough hints of tricky issues that the PM could have been aware of in the hearing for the conclusion that a swift settlement would be best for all parties.
So long as you don't count taxpayers as a party.
Always easier to reach a settlement if you are just spending someone else's money.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
I agree with all of that. A level headed post. Unusual on here this morning. You're right about Robbins. While I listened I was rather sad that we couldn't have someone as level headed and articulate as him for our PM
As I said, storm in a teacup. The PM wanted Mandy as US Ambo, he was duly appointed US AMbo. Info came to light which meant that he, Mandy, couldn't continue as US Ambo and SKS has wriggled every which way to say he wouldn't have appointed him had he known, etc, etc.
Which is absurd because if you are going to DV someone (yes I am an expert in DV-ing now) then you must at least allow for the results to be not to your liking.
It is monumentally bad judgement and an I must survive at all costs approach rather than lying.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
The "too much time with lawyers" I think is spot on. I look at this way, we managed to ok a guy who is dodgy as fuck with as dodgy as fuck mates one of which was a foreign intelligence asset and it seems the dodgy as fuck guy also has serious questions to answer about what foreign governments who arent our friends he has aided. And its was nobodies fault because the process was followed. And we didn't just ok the guy for DV we ok'ed for STRAP..
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
For two and a half hours, Robbins responded to everything thrown at him with courtesy, intelligence, insight and concision. He didn't actually duck any questions. If your complaint is that he focused on process, that may well be because that's what the questions were about.
So you are impressed by a Sir Humphrey that rather than get shit done can duck questions and pass the buck in a polite manner using 100x as many words as required. ok. That doesn't impress me at all. Its about getting results. It is clear to me from that evidence, in Mandarin game it is not about getting things done, its about making sure you can explain away everything that happened on your watch as not your fault nor decision. And do so without ever actually saying who it was that actually fucked up and above all, at all costs, protect other members of the civil service by never naming them, no matter what they did.
He got Downing Street “the result” quickly and efficiently - Mandelson as ambassador.
He also played it by the book and will now probably get a massive payout because he was the only scapegoat available to Starmer. Not a bad week at the office.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
I totally agree with your very eloquent analysis of Robbin's testimony. I would only add that it was also quite clear from the odd moments when his voice broke that he was under incredible stress after being put in the position he has been over the last few days and then having to give that testimony during that live evidence session in front of the Foreign Affairs committee today.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
I think its fair enough not to know the details, but to withold from the decisionmakers that the security services said "don't give this guy a security clearance" is absurd.
As I said, storm in a teacup. The PM wanted Mandy as US Ambo, he was duly appointed US AMbo. Info came to light which meant that he, Mandy, couldn't continue as US Ambo and SKS has wriggled every which way to say he wouldn't have appointed him had he known, etc, etc.
Which is absurd because if you are going to DV someone (yes I am an expert in DV-ing now) then you must at least allow for the results to be not to your liking.
It is monumentally bad judgement and an I must survive at all costs approach rather than lying.
But we knew that so have learned nothing new.
Even worse, everyone already knew that Mandy had longstanding business links to China and Russia, as well as a friendship with Epstein, many years before SKS was anywhere near No.10.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
I think its fair enough not to know the details, but to withold from the decisionmakers that the security services said "don't give this guy a security clearance" is absurd.
Not what his (OR's) letter said. It said something about manageable risks and proceeding on that basis.
Of course he probably didn't think that the way to manage such risks was to sack Mandy. And then be sacked himself, but there you go.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
I think its fair enough not to know the details, but to withold from the decisionmakers that the security services said "don't give this guy a security clearance" is absurd.
UK Security vetting and the security services are different things. No.10 would have been briefed by the security services separately. They may or may not have known about the "failure" of DV. But they will have been briefed separately on Mandelson by the security services.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
For two and a half hours, Robbins responded to everything thrown at him with courtesy, intelligence, insight and concision. He didn't actually duck any questions. If your complaint is that he focused on process, that may well be because that's what the questions were about.
So you are impressed by a Sir Humphrey that rather than get shit done can duck questions and pass the buck in a polite manner using 100x as many words as required. ok. That doesn't impress me at all. Its about getting results. It is clear to me from that evidence, in Mandarin game it is not about getting things done, its about making sure you can explain away everything that happened on your watch as not your fault nor decision. And do so without ever actually saying who it was that actually fucked up and above all, at all costs, protect other members of the civil service by never naming them, no matter what they did.
He got Downing Street “the result” quickly and efficiently - Mandelson as ambassador.
He also played it by the book and will now probably get a massive payout because he was the only scapegoat available to Starmer. Not a bad week at the office.
But we are now told (by Starmer) that this was not the result Starmer would have wanted if Olly had put him properly in the picture about the vetting outcomes. Which was why Starmer just HAD to fire him.
I somehow suspect Starmer does not want to be giving evidence in this matter under oath. "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
I’ve not seen or heard anything about us but based on his Rogerdamus like abilities I presume SKS is fully emboldened
I’m pretty centrist/centre left and whilst this latest outing hasn’t immediately kicked out Sir Keir, I do think that the chances he sees out this year are receding. The only thing remains: who can replace him.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
I think its fair enough not to know the details, but to withold from the decisionmakers that the security services said "don't give this guy a security clearance" is absurd.
Absolutely. Robbins appears to have followed the proper process, he may have even felt that he had put in place the right things to mitigate the risks. However, the fact that none of this was made clear to the PM or his office (even after Mandelson had to be fired) is crazy.
In my world you have to call out issues - not make them go away just to deliver what the bosses want. Of course it may be “career limiting” but surely that is the nature of acting ethically.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
I think its fair enough not to know the details, but to withold from the decisionmakers that the security services said "don't give this guy a security clearance" is absurd.
That’s the sort of thing where you would expect the head of MI6 to turn up at No.10 with a personal briefing file for the PM.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
I think its fair enough not to know the details, but to withold from the decisionmakers that the security services said "don't give this guy a security clearance" is absurd.
Absolutely. Robbins appears to have followed the proper process, he may have even felt that he had put in place the right things to mitigate the risks. However, the fact that none of this was made clear to the PM or his office (even after Mandelson had to be fired) is crazy.
In my world you have to call out issues - not make them go away just to deliver what the bosses want. Of course it may be “career limiting” but surely that is the nature of acting ethically.
Its the example given of the disfunction in Japanese (and previous South Korean) governence, both public and private sector. Nobody tells the boss they are wrong, instead you ensure your arse is always covered and never go home before them.
I don’t have the utter hatred for Ed M the way much of PB does. I think he’s basically a decent guy and beyond North Sea oil his analysis of where we need to go energy wise is correct.
But he lost an election. He can’t possibly run again.
In any case as I’ve said repeatedly, the error was appointing Mandelson. No amount of legal arguing or process stuff is going to change that error.
His 'analysis of where we need to go' may be correct - renewable energy is great, much like motherhood and apple pie, and it would be lovely to have cheap, clean renewable energy. His current energy policy is not that. The energy merely pretends to be cheap whilst bills get higher, companies close, and grannies shiver. It is utterly ruining the country and enslaving us economically to China. It's sociopathic. I wouldn't let him in Number 10 to clean the lavatories.
I think the most damaging bit is still the note from Case that essentially suggested vetting be done before the appointment was announced. This is the thing that Starmer really struggled to justify yesterday - he just said it had been reviewed and confirmed that the process was correctly followed (even if it appeared to contradict what was written).
Starmer to potentially set out departure plans after May elections from what I’m hearing.
Don't you think it would do Labour some good in those elections if he were to do so before them?
Labour being Labour, the idea that they would plunge into a leadership contest on the eve of the locals is mad. However weak SKS now looks, the machine will prefer limp stability to open civil war until the votes are in.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
I think its fair enough not to know the details, but to withold from the decisionmakers that the security services said "don't give this guy a security clearance" is absurd.
That’s the sort of thing where you would expect the head of MI6 to turn up at No.10 with a personal briefing file for the PM.
Though that rather feels like the "there's a secret door and the government ninjas are behind there" expectation.
Consider the stuff that only came out in the Epstain email dump. Either MI6 knew about that and did nothing, or (more likely) they didn't know.
(ETA: I considered altering the Epstein typo, but it felt so apposite that I left it in.)
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
I think its fair enough not to know the details, but to withold from the decisionmakers that the security services said "don't give this guy a security clearance" is absurd.
That’s the sort of thing where you would expect the head of MI6 to turn up at No.10 with a personal briefing file for the PM.
Though that rather feels like the "there's a secret door and the government ninjas are behind there" expectation.
Consider the stuff that only came out in the Epstain email dump. Either MI6 knew about that and did nothing, or (more likely) they didn't know.
(ETA: I considered altering the Epstein typo, but it felt so apposite that I left it in.)
It would also be useful to know if, anywhere in the process of appointing Mandy, the Americans had been asked what they had on him?
The revelations that led to his firing came from the US, so what else did they have?
Starmer to potentially set out departure plans after May elections from what I’m hearing.
So he'll try and get an extra year or two by promising to go quietly in 2027 or 2028?
I guess that would suit Rayner (waiting for HMRC) and Burnham (12 months to become an MP).
But, in terms of governance and leadership of the country, for what purpose? What does he hope to do in the next 12 months? Delay the Defence Investment Plan? Discourage business investment? Watch the university and local government funding situations drift closer to the brink? Poison the well so that his successor has a minimal chance of winning re-election?
Not unexpectedly Robbins cannier than many think of civil servants, and process has more covering off and less definitive aspects.
PM bleeding but it doesn't feel mortal.
I'm sure he'll weasel his way out of it on the process point. Emergency debate due at 1:30, I expect nothing much, sound and fury etc, etc... Longer term he is surely a busted flush. No credibility, no authority, and damn few allies left.
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.
Should have clarified that revolution is always tempting, but fraught with peril as the previous paragraph hopefully made clear!
The UK has generally done fairly well in the past by muddling through & nudging things in the right direction. This is no exception imo.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
I think its fair enough not to know the details, but to withold from the decisionmakers that the security services said "don't give this guy a security clearance" is absurd.
That’s the sort of thing where you would expect the head of MI6 to turn up at No.10 with a personal briefing file for the PM.
Though that rather feels like the "there's a secret door and the government ninjas are behind there" expectation.
Consider the stuff that only came out in the Epstain email dump. Either MI6 knew about that and did nothing, or (more likely) they didn't know.
(ETA: I considered altering the Epstein typo, but it felt so apposite that I left it in.)
It would also be useful to know if, anywhere in the process of appointing Mandy, the Americans had been asked what they had on him?
The revelations that led to his firing came from the US, so what else did they have?
It isn’t usual, is it, to ask the country you’re sending an ambassador to if they have any dirt on him.
Starmer to potentially set out departure plans after May elections from what I’m hearing.
Don't you think it would do Labour some good in those elections if he were to do so before them?
Labour being Labour, the idea that they would plunge into a leadership contest on the eve of the locals is mad. However weak SKS now looks, the machine will prefer limp stability to open civil war until the votes are in.
I think it is wishful thinking that this can be kept in the box until then. If only because on the doorsteps the questions will be some variant of "So when is that pillock of a Prime Minister sodding off? And will he be taking that prat of a Chancellor with him?"
Any variant of a reply along the lines of "In due course" will invite the response "Well you might get my vote in due course - but not before..."
So I listened to all of that. Absolutely fascinating insight into the machine. Robbins came over as impressive, truthful, and a good egg. My conclusion is he did little or nothing wrong. He did his level best to reconcile due process with the express desire of his political masters to achieve their objective of getting Mandelson to Washington in time for the start of Trump2, the appointment already having been announced and cleared with the US. The guy has been scapegoated in a way that is weak, panicky and dishonourable. I don't know if it means Starmer has to go this year rather than next year (my book hopes not!) but whatever happens on that front this reflects badly on him. It's a poor show.
Starmer to potentially set out departure plans after May elections from what I’m hearing.
Don't you think it would do Labour some good in those elections if he were to do so before them?
Labour being Labour, the idea that they would plunge into a leadership contest on the eve of the locals is mad. However weak SKS now looks, the machine will prefer limp stability to open civil war until the votes are in.
I think it is wishful thinking that this can be kept in the box until then. If only because on the doorsteps the questions will be some variant of "So when is that pillock of a Prime Minister sodding off? And will he be taking that prat of a Chancellor with him?"
Any variant of a reply along the lines of "In due course" will invite the response "Well you might get my vote in due course - but not before..."
That is fair, and electorally you may be right. But parties are not always run by electoral logic; they are often run by institutional fear. Labour may well be better off signalling that SKS’s shelf-life is short, but the machine will still hate the idea of an open contest before polling day. So I suspect we get maximum briefing and minimum action until the ballots are in.
Starmer to potentially set out departure plans after May elections from what I’m hearing.
So he'll try and get an extra year or two by promising to go quietly in 2027 or 2028?
I guess that would suit Rayner (waiting for HMRC) and Burnham (12 months to become an MP).
But, in terms of governance and leadership of the country, for what purpose? What does he hope to do in the next 12 months? Delay the Defence Investment Plan? Discourage business investment? Watch the university and local government funding situations drift closer to the brink? Poison the well so that his successor has a minimal chance of winning re-election?
It doesn't really seem to be worth the effort.
You know all the quiet pre-panic here about what happens in the next few weeks if Iran isn't sorted immediately, indeed, what may already be in the post.
Stick Starmer's exit announcement in the middle of that and consider those optics.
Is it possible that the announcement gets kicked down the road in those circumstances?
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
David, why do you now feel that politicians should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns?
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
I think its fair enough not to know the details, but to withold from the decisionmakers that the security services said "don't give this guy a security clearance" is absurd.
That’s the sort of thing where you would expect the head of MI6 to turn up at No.10 with a personal briefing file for the PM.
Though that rather feels like the "there's a secret door and the government ninjas are behind there" expectation.
Consider the stuff that only came out in the Epstain email dump. Either MI6 knew about that and did nothing, or (more likely) they didn't know.
(ETA: I considered altering the Epstein typo, but it felt so apposite that I left it in.)
It would also be useful to know if, anywhere in the process of appointing Mandy, the Americans had been asked what they had on him?
The revelations that led to his firing came from the US, so what else did they have?
It isn’t usual, is it, to ask the country you’re sending an ambassador to if they have any dirt on him.
Good question. I wouldn’t phrase it quite like that, but would expect a friendly nation to mention if they thought him unsuitable because of his links to unfriendly nations.
Likely to be totally destroyed, will require years of rebuilding.
Well done Ukraine!
Shows the benefit of hitting the same target repeatedly in a short period. Notable that Ukraine were able to do that while also hitting other targets, such as ships in Sevastopol, other oil-trusted targets, a UAV factory, railway infrastructure, etc. The scale of Ukraine's capabilities is increasing.
So, on my (long) morning walk I listened to the entirety of Robbins' testimony, and I confess it's changed my mind somewhat. A few points:
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Genuinely what was so impressive about him? Its all smacked of process, process, process, not my job to take responsbility, 1000 words not to ever answer a question directly. It was Yes Minister Live giving huge credence to Big Dom's criticisms of senior civil service mindset and tactics.
The purpose of the hearing was technically to establish whether there were any other documents that fell within the Loyal Address that had not been disclosed which is why the chair ( also very impressive I thought) kept going back to that.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
I think its fair enough not to know the details, but to withold from the decisionmakers that the security services said "don't give this guy a security clearance" is absurd.
That’s the sort of thing where you would expect the head of MI6 to turn up at No.10 with a personal briefing file for the PM.
Though that rather feels like the "there's a secret door and the government ninjas are behind there" expectation.
Consider the stuff that only came out in the Epstain email dump. Either MI6 knew about that and did nothing, or (more likely) they didn't know.
(ETA: I considered altering the Epstein typo, but it felt so apposite that I left it in.)
It would also be useful to know if, anywhere in the process of appointing Mandy, the Americans had been asked what they had on him?
The revelations that led to his firing came from the US, so what else did they have?
It isn’t usual, is it, to ask the country you’re sending an ambassador to if they have any dirt on him.
Good question. I wouldn’t phrase it quite like that, but would expect a friendly nation to mention if they thought him unsuitable because of his links to unfriendly nations.
AIUI, the US approved Mandelson’s appointment. I don’t know what process the US administration went through to come to that conclusion.
So I listened to all of that. Absolutely fascinating insight into the machine. Robbins came over as impressive, truthful, and a good egg. My conclusion is he did little or nothing wrong. He did his level best to reconcile due process with the express desire of his political masters to achieve their objective of getting Mandelson to Washington in time for the start of Trump2, the appointment already having been announced and cleared with the US. The guy has been scapegoated in a way that is weak, panicky and dishonourable. I don't know if it means Starmer has to go this year rather than next year (my book hopes not!) but whatever happens on that front this reflects badly on him. It's a poor show.
Abysmal treatment of Robbins. I hope he takes the government to the cleaners
Starmer to potentially set out departure plans after May elections from what I’m hearing.
Don't you think it would do Labour some good in those elections if he were to do so before them?
Labour being Labour, the idea that they would plunge into a leadership contest on the eve of the locals is mad. However weak SKS now looks, the machine will prefer limp stability to open civil war until the votes are in.
I think it is wishful thinking that this can be kept in the box until then. If only because on the doorsteps the questions will be some variant of "So when is that pillock of a Prime Minister sodding off? And will he be taking that prat of a Chancellor with him?"
Any variant of a reply along the lines of "In due course" will invite the response "Well you might get my vote in due course - but not before..."
That is fair, and electorally you may be right. But parties are not always run by electoral logic; they are often run by institutional fear. Labour may well be better off signalling that SKS’s shelf-life is short, but the machine will still hate the idea of an open contest before polling day. So I suspect we get maximum briefing and minimum action until the ballots are in.
If there's a worst of all world option, Starmer's Labour will likely stumble upon it...
Starmer to potentially set out departure plans after May elections from what I’m hearing.
Don't you think it would do Labour some good in those elections if he were to do so before them?
They want to have a clean end to his era, so the logic is to let him carry the can and then let somebody new start afresh.
In that sense, somebody outside government has the best chance of doing well. So, back we are to Burnham.
However badly Labour do in the local elections, it doesn't affect the government's majority. Still time for them to regain the initiative in government.
Starmer to potentially set out departure plans after May elections from what I’m hearing.
So he'll try and get an extra year or two by promising to go quietly in 2027 or 2028?
I guess that would suit Rayner (waiting for HMRC) and Burnham (12 months to become an MP).
But, in terms of governance and leadership of the country, for what purpose? What does he hope to do in the next 12 months? Delay the Defence Investment Plan? Discourage business investment? Watch the university and local government funding situations drift closer to the brink? Poison the well so that his successor has a minimal chance of winning re-election?
It doesn't really seem to be worth the effort.
You know all the quiet pre-panic here about what happens in the next few weeks if Iran isn't sorted immediately, indeed, what may already be in the post.
Stick Starmer's exit announcement in the middle of that and consider those optics.
Is it possible that the announcement gets kicked down the road in those circumstances?
Those are the circumstances which would suggest the Cabinet (& others, such as Rayner and Powell) recognising the gravity of the situation and ensuring that there is not an extended leadership contest, so that a replacement for Starmer can be in place pdq.
It's not an argument in favour of leaving a ditherer with no authority in post.
Starmer to potentially set out departure plans after May elections from what I’m hearing.
Don't you think it would do Labour some good in those elections if he were to do so before them?
They want to have a clean end to his era, so the logic is to let him carry the can and then let somebody new start afresh.
In that sense, somebody outside government has the best chance of doing well. So, back we are to Burnham.
However badly Labour do in the local elections, it doesn't affect the government's majority. Still time for them to regain the initiative in government.
Comments
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
28m
Olly Robbins has utterly destroyed Keir Starmer.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2046535572592669142
He's my image of SeanT.
For the Outer Party there is some leeway.
For the Inner Party it’s just about arranging things for Proper People.
#NU10K
So it hasn’t crossed any decision makers desks yet.
I don’t doubt that it’s damaging, it again goes to Starmer’s judgement, and this will continue to ensure the Labour Party really don’t want him leading them into the next GE, but did we really get a smoking gun here?
Starmer is probably done for, but as per my comments earlier I think he’s been done for, for some time. This won’t be the catalyst.
Best known timeline after SKS's statement and Robbins' committee session
Summary: the political decision came first; the machinery then followed behind it.
Conclusion: the issue is no longer whether UKSV recommended denial. It did. The issue is who knew exactly what, and whether Robbins was concealing a hard deny or operating inside a process already loaded from the top. Either way, the broad picture looks bad for SKS: a decision appears to have been taken in advance, with due diligence and vetting treated as obstacles to be managed.
Sources: Hansard 20 Apr 2026, FAC materials, and live reporting of Robbins’ 21 Apr 2026 evidence pending transcript.
My first thought was, how many civil servants of this quality do we actually have and what the hell was our dipstick of a PM thinking in sacking him so that he could “prove” how cross he was.
Yet another terrible mistake by Starmer.
Here, the occupation of the Green candidate flipping a Reform council seat in Kent 2 weeks ago.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxde5e4rngo
Vote shares were 38% Green, 33% Reform. So a fairly narrow win, possibly helped by the previous Reform chap being handed 12 months in chokey.
1. Robbins was deeply impressive, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. His sacking is egregious, and he'd have a strong claim for unfair dismissal in normal circumstances. Notable that the head of the SCS Union (FDA) was perched behind him.
2. Starmer made not one, but two, disastrous appointments: Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney. Many of Robbins' references to No.10 were, I think, more about McSweeney than Starmer. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if McSweeney was behind the (failed) push to find a job for Doyle.
3. I now think Starmer is finished - not immediately, but in due course. He didn't have a grip, and allowed McSweeney far too much power, which he abused.
And finally - the highlight for me was Robbins, when thanked yet again for giving up so much of his time, replying, not quite verbatim, 'not a problem at all, I've lots of time on my hands now'.
Could make him a traitor of course.
I still don’t really understand why he got rid of Sue Gray so quickly.
Starmer is 100% done - it’s just when that actually happens.
Once we get rid of Starmer I hope his successor invites him back.
I mean on one level it is all a storm in a teacup and a matter of sequencing. I can't even remember what the final straw for Mandy was - was it before or after he peed in the street. He was a friend of Epstein had been known presumably for years and wasn't the central concern of the DV.
Problem for SKS is, though, that there is no line he can take which doesn't in some way damn him. Either he didn't care about the DV process and wanted his man, or he did care about the process but wasn't or didn't want to be told by his own officials (he is ultimately responsible and accountable).
He is proving to be what everyone thought he was - an empty vessel simply concerned with perpetuating his own position. We will see if people care enough about OR to pull him up on it.
I don't think a "why oh why did no one tell me" plays well for a PM in, as we are reminded by Lab's R4 fodder, a time of great crises.
It’s the careful omissions that you need to watch for, after all he’s a lawyer
Personally, with anything Dan Hodges says I tend to assume the opposite. I agree that Starmer, because of a myriad of things including stubbornly terrible polling for him and the party, is already cooking. It is more a question of when he is cooked. So far nothing has made me believe that Robbins has in fact “destroyed” the PM. If anything he has generally confirmed the overall position (Robbins took the decision to approve the vetting and didn’t tell anyone that the underlying recommendation was not that clear cut to say the least).
Robbins is saying that he was under pressure - which I have no reason to doubt - but he’s not naming names (so no clear Starmer link as yet). But if his defence is that number 10 officials were calling up and he felt he “had to approve” it doesn’t show a lot of backbone for a civil servant the commentariat are trying to lionise.
I am sure there is more minutiae to follow. I don’t think it changes the major picture.
It were done quickly
God save us from political gurus who can't even be bothered to get their own independent mandate.
As I’ve said repeatedly, appointing Mandelson in the first place was the resigning matter. He took a risk and it failed. He should have gone as soon as that became clear.
I’ll always be grateful he kept us out of Iran - but he really should have resigned long ago.
I think the chances he goes this year have to increased. But I’m still not totally convinced he goes a bit longer.
Always easier to reach a settlement if you are just spending someone else's money.
Maybe I spend too much time with lawyers but I found his answers clear, concise and extremely informative. As I hinted the other day the question of whether M had clearance was much more nuanced than it was being presented.
Having heard him I found myself persuaded that politicians, even the PM, should not know the details of the disclosures or concerns. That wasn’t my thinking at 8.45.
Which is absurd because if you are going to DV someone (yes I am an expert in DV-ing now) then you must at least allow for the results to be not to your liking.
It is monumentally bad judgement and an I must survive at all costs approach rather than lying.
But we knew that so have learned nothing new.
He also played it by the book and will now probably get a massive payout because he was the only scapegoat available to Starmer. Not a bad week at the office.
Of course he probably didn't think that the way to manage such risks was to sack Mandy. And then be sacked himself, but there you go.
I somehow suspect Starmer does not want to be giving evidence in this matter under oath. "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
https://x.com/tendar/status/2046545234041995449
Likely to be totally destroyed, will require years of rebuilding.
Well done Ukraine!
In my world you have to call out issues - not make them go away just to deliver what the bosses want. Of course it may be “career limiting” but surely that is the nature of acting ethically.
In that sense, somebody outside government has the best chance of doing well. So, back we are to Burnham.
Consider the stuff that only came out in the Epstain email dump. Either MI6 knew about that and did nothing, or (more likely) they didn't know.
(ETA: I considered altering the Epstein typo, but it felt so apposite that I left it in.)
The revelations that led to his firing came from the US, so what else did they have?
PM bleeding but it doesn't feel mortal.
I reckon he goes 2027.
I guess that would suit Rayner (waiting for HMRC) and Burnham (12 months to become an MP).
But, in terms of governance and leadership of the country, for what purpose? What does he hope to do in the next 12 months? Delay the Defence Investment Plan? Discourage business investment? Watch the university and local government funding situations drift closer to the brink? Poison the well so that his successor has a minimal chance of winning re-election?
It doesn't really seem to be worth the effort.
Emergency debate due at 1:30, I expect nothing much, sound and fury etc, etc...
Longer term he is surely a busted flush. No credibility, no authority, and damn few allies left.
The UK has generally done fairly well in the past by muddling through & nudging things in the right direction. This is no exception imo.
Any variant of a reply along the lines of "In due course" will invite the response "Well you might get my vote in due course - but not before..."
Stick Starmer's exit announcement in the middle of that and consider those optics.
Is it possible that the announcement gets kicked down the road in those circumstances?
Maquire is a mirror journalist
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjd84pkkjgpo
Though it is suggested in the article that it will rise over the coming months due to Iran.
It's not an argument in favour of leaving a ditherer with no authority in post.
What will that be, number four or five !!!!