So it appears that the appointment of Lord Mandelson wasn’t the worst job given out by Starmer.
The appointment of Lord Hermer is considerably worse.
Most of us are only realising today, that Hermer, Starmer, and Phil Shiner, were the three biggest advocates of lawsuits against British soldiers, on evidence that was at best obtained through coercion, and at worst was simply fabricated.
Yes. Hermer and maybe Starmer will be lucky to avoid prosecution if a proper right wing government comes to power. And if they are convicted they need to do very serious time
That's what I thought about the PPE scandal when Labour came to power, but absolutely zip!
So it appears that the appointment of Lord Mandelson wasn’t the worst job given out by Starmer.
The appointment of Lord Hermer is considerably worse.
Most of us are only realising today, that Hermer, Starmer, and Phil Shiner, were the three biggest advocates of lawsuits against British soldiers, on evidence that was at best obtained through coercion, and at worst was simply fabricated.
Yes. Hermer and maybe Starmer will be lucky to avoid prosecution if a proper right wing government comes to power. And if they are convicted they need to do very serious time
You have this bizarre obsession with prosecuting people for "crimes", without actually specifying what the crime you think they've committed is.
Are you OK with Farage being prosecuted by a left wing government if things don't go swimmingly when Reform is in charge?
So it appears that the appointment of Lord Mandelson wasn’t the worst job given out by Starmer.
The appointment of Lord Hermer is considerably worse.
Most of us are only realising today, that Hermer, Starmer, and Phil Shiner, were the three biggest advocates of lawsuits against British soldiers, on evidence that was at best obtained through coercion, and at worst was simply fabricated.
Yes. Hermer and maybe Starmer will be lucky to avoid prosecution if a proper right wing government comes to power. And if they are convicted they need to do very serious time
You sound like 'Lucky' and Aspers' and the gang chuntering about Harold Wilson over their mediocre claret and lamb chops in a 70s Mayfair gaming club.
So it appears that the appointment of Lord Mandelson wasn’t the worst job given out by Starmer.
The appointment of Lord Hermer is considerably worse.
Most of us are only realising today, that Hermer, Starmer, and Phil Shiner, were the three biggest advocates of lawsuits against British soldiers, on evidence that was at best obtained through coercion, and at worst was simply fabricated.
Yes. Hermer and maybe Starmer will be lucky to avoid prosecution if a proper right wing government comes to power. And if they are convicted they need to do very serious time
You sound like 'Lucky' and Aspers' and the gang chuntering about Harold Wilson over their mediocre claret and lamb chops in a 70s Mayfair gaming club.
I am fairly sure that Lucan and Aspinall were in the same card school as Leon.
Friendly note to Labour MPs ahead of the vote tomorrow to decide if Starmer should face an ethics probe:
If you vote against it, Reform will carpet bomb your constituency to ensure all your constituents know you voted to save the most unpopular PM of all time.
Vote wisely.
Almost as much of a snitch as Kemi. Laughable.
Good evening
I would expect that will be used by all the opposition parties including the Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid
I cannot imagine a worse look than a PM ordering his mps to vote down the privileges probe when even Boris didn't
And by the way it did take Boris down
Anyway my wife has some serious health issues we are grappling with and I am not posting much as she is my centre of attention
I look with continual bafflement at the Burnham odds.
Has it been revealed in any sense what the great messiah's path to power will be? Any indication in particular as to which MP will fall on Burnham's sharpened tyre irons for the cause?
I see there are some true believers in this story here. For example Mr Battery it seems. Would any care to enlighten me?
(Betting disclosure: I am actually green on Burnham, but very much more green on almost everyone else)
So it appears that the appointment of Lord Mandelson wasn’t the worst job given out by Starmer.
The appointment of Lord Hermer is considerably worse.
Most of us are only realising today, that Hermer, Starmer, and Phil Shiner, were the three biggest advocates of lawsuits against British soldiers, on evidence that was at best obtained through coercion, and at worst was simply fabricated.
Yes. Hermer and maybe Starmer will be lucky to avoid prosecution if a proper right wing government comes to power. And if they are convicted they need to do very serious time
You have this bizarre obsession with prosecuting people for "crimes", without actually specifying what the crime you think they've committed is.
Are you OK with Farage being prosecuted by a left wing government if things don't go swimmingly when Reform is in charge?
Personally I am 100% up for anyone who has committed an actual crime (defined in those law things), being prosecuted. And those that haven't, not.
I look with continual bafflement at the Burnham odds.
Has it been revealed in any sense what the great messiah's path to power will be? Any indication in particular as to which MP will fall on Burnham's sharpened tyre irons for the cause?
I see there are some true believers in this story here. For example Mr Battery it seems. Would any care to enlighten me?
(Betting disclosure: I am actually green on Burnham, but very much more green on almost everyone else)
Burnham’s problem is that he’s not in Parliament, and that the process to do so isn’t certain.
So it appears that the appointment of Lord Mandelson wasn’t the worst job given out by Starmer.
The appointment of Lord Hermer is considerably worse.
Most of us are only realising today, that Hermer, Starmer, and Phil Shiner, were the three biggest advocates of lawsuits against British soldiers, on evidence that was at best obtained through coercion, and at worst was simply fabricated.
Yes. Hermer and maybe Starmer will be lucky to avoid prosecution if a proper right wing government comes to power. And if they are convicted they need to do very serious time
You sound like 'Lucky' and Aspers' and the gang chuntering about Harold Wilson over their mediocre claret and lamb chops in a 70s Mayfair gaming club.
I am fairly sure that Lucan and Aspinall were in the same card school as Leon.
Any sane Labour MP looking at this poll must surely realise the only two options are:
1) Stick with Starmer 2) Burnham
So whilst Burnham is not an MP, they have to stick with Starmer.
As for Burnham, Peter Dowd's seat of Bootle looks almost impossible to lose. 2024 result:
Labour 69 Reform 12 Green 10
If Starmer lets him stand, Burnham surely wins Bootle and then challenges Starmer at some point.
But if Starmer holds firm, he doesn't let Burnham stand and he shows every Labour MP this YouGov poll - showing everyone else will do worse than him as PM.
Any sane Labour MP looking at this poll must surely realise the only two options are:
1) Stick with Starmer 2) Burnham
So whilst Burnham is not an MP, they have to stick with Starmer.
As for Burnham, Peter Dowd's seat of Bootle looks almost impossible to lose. 2024 result:
Labour 69 Reform 12 Green 10
If Starmer lets him stand, Burnham surely wins Bootle and then challenges Starmer at some point.
But if Starmer holds firm, he doesn't let Burnham stand and he shows every Labour MP this YouGov poll - showing everyone else will do worse than him as PM.
I'm not sure these hypothetical polls help much. Perhaps there might not be a bounce in time for the local elections next week but the general election is still three years off so what matters is how any new Prime Minister performs over that period.
The problem with the Priviliges Committee is the time it takes to report and given the spurious nature of what he’s being referred for .
If Labour MPs want rid of Starmer quickly the last thing they should do is vote for Starmer to be referred.
So Labour suffer very bad results . Starmer then says we need now to wait for the committee to report and then if they find he’s not guilty of misleading the Commons he can use that to justify staying on .
He didn’t lie to the Commons and it’s now down to a subjective view of pressure . Hoyle should never have allowed a debate and vote given the ridiculous and impossible to prove nature of the likely accusation .
The problem with the Priviliges Committee is the time it takes to report and given the spurious nature of what he’s being referred for .
If Labour MPs want rid of Starmer quickly the last thing they should do is vote for Starmer to be referred.
So Labour suffer very bad results . Starmer then says we need now to wait for the committee to report and then if they find he’s not guilty of misleading the Commons he can use that to justify staying on .
He didn’t lie to the Commons and it’s now down to a subjective view of pressure . Hoyle should never have allowed a debate and vote given the ridiculous and impossible to prove nature of the likely accusation .
Hoyle has had his partisan pants pulled down a couple of times before. I don't see how he could refuse this time.
The problem with the Priviliges Committee is the time it takes to report and given the spurious nature of what he’s being referred for .
If Labour MPs want rid of Starmer quickly the last thing they should do is vote for Starmer to be referred.
So Labour suffer very bad results . Starmer then says we need now to wait for the committee to report and then if they find he’s not guilty of misleading the Commons he can use that to justify staying on .
He didn’t lie to the Commons and it’s now down to a subjective view of pressure . Hoyle should never have allowed a debate and vote given the ridiculous and impossible to prove nature of the likely accusation .
Could it be that Hoyle is a secret Burnham supporter and is trying to delay things until Burnham is in Parliament so could become leader.
The problem with the Priviliges Committee is the time it takes to report and given the spurious nature of what he’s being referred for .
If Labour MPs want rid of Starmer quickly the last thing they should do is vote for Starmer to be referred.
So Labour suffer very bad results . Starmer then says we need now to wait for the committee to report and then if they find he’s not guilty of misleading the Commons he can use that to justify staying on .
He didn’t lie to the Commons and it’s now down to a subjective view of pressure . Hoyle should never have allowed a debate and vote given the ridiculous and impossible to prove nature of the likely accusation .
If Labour MPs do vote en masse for referral then it will be clear Starmer no longer controls the party so he may as well resign anyway cf Liz Truss, Boris, Theresa May and Mrs Thatcher, all of whom could technically have staggered on hoping for a miracle.
The problem with the Priviliges Committee is the time it takes to report and given the spurious nature of what he’s being referred for .
If Labour MPs want rid of Starmer quickly the last thing they should do is vote for Starmer to be referred.
So Labour suffer very bad results . Starmer then says we need now to wait for the committee to report and then if they find he’s not guilty of misleading the Commons he can use that to justify staying on .
He didn’t lie to the Commons and it’s now down to a subjective view of pressure . Hoyle should never have allowed a debate and vote given the ridiculous and impossible to prove nature of the likely accusation .
Could it be that Hoyle is a secret Burnham supporter and is trying to delay things until Burnham is in Parliament so could become leader.
Or that he has no interest in protecting the PM from his own MPs. Let the cards land where they fall and all that.
So it appears that the appointment of Lord Mandelson wasn’t the worst job given out by Starmer.
The appointment of Lord Hermer is considerably worse.
Most of us are only realising today, that Hermer, Starmer, and Phil Shiner, were the three biggest advocates of lawsuits against British soldiers, on evidence that was at best obtained through coercion, and at worst was simply fabricated.
Yes. Hermer and maybe Starmer will be lucky to avoid prosecution if a proper right wing government comes to power. And if they are convicted they need to do very serious time
You sound like 'Lucky' and Aspers' and the gang chuntering about Harold Wilson over their mediocre claret and lamb chops in a 70s Mayfair gaming club.
I am fairly sure that Lucan and Aspinall were in the same card school as Leon.
So it appears that the appointment of Lord Mandelson wasn’t the worst job given out by Starmer.
The appointment of Lord Hermer is considerably worse.
Most of us are only realising today, that Hermer, Starmer, and Phil Shiner, were the three biggest advocates of lawsuits against British soldiers, on evidence that was at best obtained through coercion, and at worst was simply fabricated.
Yes. Hermer and maybe Starmer will be lucky to avoid prosecution if a proper right wing government comes to power. And if they are convicted they need to do very serious time
You have this bizarre obsession with prosecuting people for "crimes", without actually specifying what the crime you think they've committed is.
Are you OK with Farage being prosecuted by a left wing government if things don't go swimmingly when Reform is in charge?
Personally I am 100% up for anyone who has committed an actual crime (defined in those law things), being prosecuted. And those that haven't, not.
Or is that old fashioned, shameful or something?
Starmer's greatest dereliction of duty is doing the square root of SFA about the PPE Fast Lane grift.
The problem with the Priviliges Committee is the time it takes to report and given the spurious nature of what he’s being referred for .
If Labour MPs want rid of Starmer quickly the last thing they should do is vote for Starmer to be referred.
So Labour suffer very bad results . Starmer then says we need now to wait for the committee to report and then if they find he’s not guilty of misleading the Commons he can use that to justify staying on .
He didn’t lie to the Commons and it’s now down to a subjective view of pressure . Hoyle should never have allowed a debate and vote given the ridiculous and impossible to prove nature of the likely accusation .
If Labour MPs do vote en masse for referral then it will be clear Starmer no longer controls the party so he may as well resign anyway cf Liz Truss, Boris, Theresa May and Mrs Thatcher, all of whom could technically have staggered on hoping for a miracle.
Interesting point . But I just don’t see Labour MPs joining in big numbers with the opposition parties .
So it appears that the appointment of Lord Mandelson wasn’t the worst job given out by Starmer.
The appointment of Lord Hermer is considerably worse.
Most of us are only realising today, that Hermer, Starmer, and Phil Shiner, were the three biggest advocates of lawsuits against British soldiers, on evidence that was at best obtained through coercion, and at worst was simply fabricated.
Yes. Hermer and maybe Starmer will be lucky to avoid prosecution if a proper right wing government comes to power. And if they are convicted they need to do very serious time
You have this bizarre obsession with prosecuting people for "crimes", without actually specifying what the crime you think they've committed is.
Are you OK with Farage being prosecuted by a left wing government if things don't go swimmingly when Reform is in charge?
Personally I am 100% up for anyone who has committed an actual crime (defined in those law things), being prosecuted. And those that haven't, not.
Or is that old fashioned, shameful or something?
Starmer's greatest dereliction of duty is doing the square root of SFA about the PPE Fast Lane grift.
The Process State.
I recall be told here, that it wasn’t feasible to prosecute Trump for treason in a meagre 3 years after Jan 6th.
Of course Poland is in an "on their doorstep" trade organisation and we are not.
Even when we were in that organisation, Poland was catching up with us.
The key fact about EU membership in this context is that they subsidised Poland by about 3% of GDP/year for 20 years, and are still doing so, while much of that came from our taxpayers until we wisely put a stop to it.
A prosperous Poland is entirely to our benefit. This zero sum approach that seems to have become a notable part of our political discourse in recent years (and accelerated during the Brexit debate) is so disspiriting. The economic reneissance of Eastern Europe is a testament to the EU. Maybe if we invested in our skills and infrastructure in the same way we could also enjoy better growth.
A prosperous Poland is very marginally to our benefit, as our 19th largest export market which takes about 0.5% of our GDP in exports. Funds drained from us by the EU a much larger disbenefit - about twice that in total, including multiplier effects. Simple economics of transfer payments.
Maybe we would have invested more infrastructure and skills if the EU hadn't taken it from us. We could have done so if we'd wanted.
They themselves fully subscribe to the zero sum game of the EU budget and play the game ruthlessly when it comes to subsidies, as I remember from my time in Brussels. Unfortunately we haven't done likewise, at least since Margaret got our money back more than four decades ago, much of which that clown Blair gave away.
The problem with the Priviliges Committee is the time it takes to report and given the spurious nature of what he’s being referred for .
If Labour MPs want rid of Starmer quickly the last thing they should do is vote for Starmer to be referred.
So Labour suffer very bad results . Starmer then says we need now to wait for the committee to report and then if they find he’s not guilty of misleading the Commons he can use that to justify staying on .
He didn’t lie to the Commons and it’s now down to a subjective view of pressure . Hoyle should never have allowed a debate and vote given the ridiculous and impossible to prove nature of the likely accusation .
If Labour MPs do vote en masse for referral then it will be clear Starmer no longer controls the party so he may as well resign anyway cf Liz Truss, Boris, Theresa May and Mrs Thatcher, all of whom could technically have staggered on hoping for a miracle.
Interesting point . But I just don’t see Labour MPs joining in big numbers with the opposition parties .
They won't but it is a gift to all the opposition parties who are backing the referral
Gordon Brown has now rowed in behind the prime minister, telling Labour MPs to 'put the needs of the country first' at a time when there are 'conflicts raging around the World'
Broontervention klaxon.
It's amazing the Labour Party have developed the technology to keep him in stasis in such a way that he can be thawed out quickly when there's a major constitutional crisis on the horizon, and/or (increasingly) step in to help keep some element of the Labour party above water, and then he can be put back on ice until the next crisis.
So it appears that the appointment of Lord Mandelson wasn’t the worst job given out by Starmer.
The appointment of Lord Hermer is considerably worse.
Most of us are only realising today, that Hermer, Starmer, and Phil Shiner, were the three biggest advocates of lawsuits against British soldiers, on evidence that was at best obtained through coercion, and at worst was simply fabricated.
Yes. Hermer and maybe Starmer will be lucky to avoid prosecution if a proper right wing government comes to power. And if they are convicted they need to do very serious time
You have this bizarre obsession with prosecuting people for "crimes", without actually specifying what the crime you think they've committed is.
Are you OK with Farage being prosecuted by a left wing government if things don't go swimmingly when Reform is in charge?
Personally I am 100% up for anyone who has committed an actual crime (defined in those law things), being prosecuted. And those that haven't, not.
Or is that old fashioned, shameful or something?
Starmer's greatest dereliction of duty is doing the square root of SFA about the PPE Fast Lane grift.
The Process State.
I recall be told here, that it wasn’t feasible to prosecute Trump for treason in a meagre 3 years after Jan 6th.
Merrick Garland sat on his hands assuming that Trump could never become POTUS 47, or as I prefer to say, the last President of the United States.
Foreign donations are illegal. Politicians who funnel and hide unlawful money should face the full force of the law.
The police must investigate Reform UK’s spokesman for Financial Affairs Robert Jenrick. The Conservative Party has also reported Mr Jenrick to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, given the apparent serious breach of House of Commons rules.
Parliament, the public and the Conservative Party all appear to have been deceived. While Robert Jenrick has been kicked out of the Conservative Party and is now Nigel Farage’s right hand man, this represents serious malpractice in a leadership contest.
Police assess evidence on £40,000 donation to Robert Jenrick’s campaign
Exclusive: Some donations to 2024 Tory leadership campaign allegedly originated from US businessman in breach of electoral rules
Police are assessing evidence about donations to Robert Jenrick’s campaign to become Conservative leader in 2024 after a referral from the elections watchdog, the Guardian can reveal.
The information was passed on by the Electoral Commission, which the Guardian understands has been investigating allegations that almost £40,000 of donations to Jenrick’s leadership campaign before he defected to Reform UK, were from a foreign source in breach of electoral rules.
The Met said: “On Tuesday, 6 January we received a referral from the Electoral Commission concerning donations connected to a leadership campaign. This referral is under review and until it has been completed, we’re not in a position to comment further.”
The Electoral Commission confirmed that it had sent evidence about a leadership campaign to the Met after conducting its own investigation, with its inquiries now paused while the police review the material. The exact scope of the review is unclear and the police have not confirmed whether it relates to any specific individual. They could decide to open an investigation or take no further action.
A spokesman for Jenrick said: “The suggestion that Robert knowingly accepted impermissible donations is an untrue, politically motivated smear, put about years later by the Conservatives, despite the fact that Mr Ullman was introduced to Robert by a Tory MP, and had his donations’ permissibility checked by the party.
Blue on blue suicide pact?
More like shitting the bed.
Since Badenoch became leader, there seems to have been a tightening up in the donations department. Came across a couple of instances via the work.
Nothing to do with the reality that no one wants to donate to the Tories anymore?
They returned (very rapidly) large donations, on a couple of occasions, that failed compliance.
Somehow autocorrect autocorrected "kicking and screaming" to "very rapidly" in your post.
Unlike the Lib Dem then. Still profiting from the proceeds of crime (and relying on a technicality to not return the money to the victims. Who are probably dead now having suffered penury in their old age)
If he’d read the story, he’d know that the Berenberg donation was returned in 2 working days, by the Conservative donations compliance people. It took 2 days because of the legal notifications required. Then they notified the electoral commission.
This was of interest, because it suggests that the Conservatives have actually hired some professionals.
Unlike the due diligence of other parties.
And if @StillWaters knew the law, they would know that returning it to the alleged victims was not an option for the Conservatives. The law (Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 section 56(2) to be precise) is clear that, on receiving an impermissible donation, the party must return it to the donor within 30 days. Paying the money to anyone else is classed as accepting the donation.
Yes, you would have returned it to court appointed administrators who would have paid it out to the victims.
So it appears that the appointment of Lord Mandelson wasn’t the worst job given out by Starmer.
The appointment of Lord Hermer is considerably worse.
Most of us are only realising today, that Hermer, Starmer, and Phil Shiner, were the three biggest advocates of lawsuits against British soldiers, on evidence that was at best obtained through coercion, and at worst was simply fabricated.
Yes. Hermer and maybe Starmer will be lucky to avoid prosecution if a proper right wing government comes to power. And if they are convicted they need to do very serious time
You have this bizarre obsession with prosecuting people for "crimes", without actually specifying what the crime you think they've committed is.
Are you OK with Farage being prosecuted by a left wing government if things don't go swimmingly when Reform is in charge?
Personally I am 100% up for anyone who has committed an actual crime (defined in those law things), being prosecuted. And those that haven't, not.
Or is that old fashioned, shameful or something?
Starmer's greatest dereliction of duty is doing the square root of SFA about the PPE Fast Lane grift.
The Process State.
I recall be told here, that it wasn’t feasible to prosecute Trump for treason in a meagre 3 years after Jan 6th.
Merrick Garland sat on his hands assuming that Trump could never become POTUS 47, or as I prefer to say, the last President of the United States.
They were having a high old time. Investigating. Lawyers billing. No prosecution - because what lawyer wants to suffer Premature Conviction.
We are heading to the system the Italians had. Prosecutions, of rich people, for serious crimes, would time out. Always.
So lots of people were always under indictment. But no one went to jail.
Of course Poland is in an "on their doorstep" trade organisation and we are not.
Even when we were in that organisation, Poland was catching up with us.
The key fact about EU membership in this context is that they subsidised Poland by about 3% of GDP/year for 20 years, and are still doing so, while much of that came from our taxpayers until we wisely put a stop to it.
A prosperous Poland is entirely to our benefit. This zero sum approach that seems to have become a notable part of our political discourse in recent years (and accelerated during the Brexit debate) is so disspiriting. The economic reneissance of Eastern Europe is a testament to the EU. Maybe if we invested in our skills and infrastructure in the same way we could also enjoy better growth.
A prosperous Poland is very marginally to our benefit, as our 19th largest export market which takes about 0.5% of our GDP in exports. Funds drained from us by the EU a much larger disbenefit - about twice that in total, including multiplier effects. Simple economics of transfer payments.
Maybe we would have invested more infrastructure and skills if the EU hadn't taken it from us. We could have done so if we'd wanted.
They themselves fully subscribe to the zero sum game of the EU budget and play the game ruthlessly when it comes to subsidies, as I remember from my time in Brussels. Unfortunately we haven't done likewise, at least since Margaret got our money back more than four decades ago, much of which that clown Blair gave away.
Strong statements, almost all completely wrong. D-
So it appears that the appointment of Lord Mandelson wasn’t the worst job given out by Starmer.
The appointment of Lord Hermer is considerably worse.
Most of us are only realising today, that Hermer, Starmer, and Phil Shiner, were the three biggest advocates of lawsuits against British soldiers, on evidence that was at best obtained through coercion, and at worst was simply fabricated.
Yes. Hermer and maybe Starmer will be lucky to avoid prosecution if a proper right wing government comes to power. And if they are convicted they need to do very serious time
You have this bizarre obsession with prosecuting people for "crimes", without actually specifying what the crime you think they've committed is.
Are you OK with Farage being prosecuted by a left wing government if things don't go swimmingly when Reform is in charge?
Friendly note to Labour MPs ahead of the vote tomorrow to decide if Starmer should face an ethics probe:
If you vote against it, Reform will carpet bomb your constituency to ensure all your constituents know you voted to save the most unpopular PM of all time.
Vote wisely.
Almost as much of a snitch as Kemi. Laughable.
Good evening
I would expect that will be used by all the opposition parties including the Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid
I cannot imagine a worse look than a PM ordering his mps to vote down the privileges probe when even Boris didn't
And by the way it did take Boris down
Anyway my wife has some serious health issues we are grappling with and I am not posting much as she is my centre of attention
Andy Burnham? Of the Stafford Hospital scandal? And to think Barbara Castle was never Prime Minister and yet we are talking about Angela Raynor becoming PM? Has the calibre of MPs really fallen that dramatically in my lifetime? I feel despair.
Friendly note to Labour MPs ahead of the vote tomorrow to decide if Starmer should face an ethics probe:
If you vote against it, Reform will carpet bomb your constituency to ensure all your constituents know you voted to save the most unpopular PM of all time.
Vote wisely.
Almost as much of a snitch as Kemi. Laughable.
Good evening
I would expect that will be used by all the opposition parties including the Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid
I cannot imagine a worse look than a PM ordering his mps to vote down the privileges probe when even Boris didn't
And by the way it did take Boris down
Anyway my wife has some serious health issues we are grappling with and I am not posting much as she is my centre of attention
Tory vote on referring Keir Starmer to the Privilege’s Committee is a political stunt but to blow it out of the water Keir Starmer should show confidence & refer himself, demonstrating there is nothing to hide. Whipping a vote against will produce smears we’re backing a cover up.
Andy Burnham? Of the Stafford Hospital scandal? And to think Barbara Castle was never Prime Minister and yet we are talking about Angela Raynor becoming PM? Has the calibre of MPs really fallen that dramatically in my lifetime? I feel despair.
What is Burnham specifically accused of re Stafford? There are hundreds of hospitals under the watch of the minister for Health. The culture at any individual one ought not be solely down to the minister.
Andy Burnham? Of the Stafford Hospital scandal? And to think Barbara Castle was never Prime Minister and yet we are talking about Angela Raynor becoming PM? Has the calibre of MPs really fallen that dramatically in my lifetime? I feel despair.
What is Burnham specifically accused of re Stafford? There are hundreds of hospitals under the watch of the minister for Health. The culture at any individual one ought not be solely down to the minister.
Slow walking the enquiries and trying to use "protect the NHS" to cover up the extent of what was going on.
Andy Burnham? Of the Stafford Hospital scandal? And to think Barbara Castle was never Prime Minister and yet we are talking about Angela Raynor becoming PM? Has the calibre of MPs really fallen that dramatically in my lifetime? I feel despair.
What is Burnham specifically accused of re Stafford? There are hundreds of hospitals under the watch of the minister for Health. The culture at any individual one ought not be solely down to the minister.
Slow walking the enquiries and trying to use "protect the NHS" to cover up the extent of what was going on.
21 July 2009 Burnham announces an independent inquiry 24 February 2010 inquiry reports - given that it had 18 recommendations that doesn't feel that long especially compared to more recent ones.
Andy Burnham? Of the Stafford Hospital scandal? And to think Barbara Castle was never Prime Minister and yet we are talking about Angela Raynor becoming PM? Has the calibre of MPs really fallen that dramatically in my lifetime? I feel despair.
Barbara Castle as PM versus Margaret Thatcher, LotO is quite a counter-factual to ponder....
Andy Burnham? Of the Stafford Hospital scandal? And to think Barbara Castle was never Prime Minister and yet we are talking about Angela Raynor becoming PM? Has the calibre of MPs really fallen that dramatically in my lifetime? I feel despair.
What is Burnham specifically accused of re Stafford? There are hundreds of hospitals under the watch of the minister for Health. The culture at any individual one ought not be solely down to the minister.
Slow walking the enquiries and trying to use "protect the NHS" to cover up the extent of what was going on.
21 July 2009 Burnham announces an independent inquiry 24 February 2010 inquiry reports - given that it had 18 recommendations that doesn't feel that long especially compared to more recent ones.
Andy Burnham? Of the Stafford Hospital scandal? And to think Barbara Castle was never Prime Minister and yet we are talking about Angela Raynor becoming PM? Has the calibre of MPs really fallen that dramatically in my lifetime? I feel despair.
What is Burnham specifically accused of re Stafford? There are hundreds of hospitals under the watch of the minister for Health. The culture at any individual one ought not be solely down to the minister.
Slow walking the enquiries and trying to use "protect the NHS" to cover up the extent of what was going on.
21 July 2009 Burnham announces an independent inquiry 24 February 2010 inquiry reports - given that it had 18 recommendations that doesn't feel that long especially compared to more recent ones.
Of course Poland is in an "on their doorstep" trade organisation and we are not.
Even when we were in that organisation, Poland was catching up with us.
The key fact about EU membership in this context is that they subsidised Poland by about 3% of GDP/year for 20 years, and are still doing so, while much of that came from our taxpayers until we wisely put a stop to it.
A prosperous Poland is entirely to our benefit. This zero sum approach that seems to have become a notable part of our political discourse in recent years (and accelerated during the Brexit debate) is so disspiriting. The economic reneissance of Eastern Europe is a testament to the EU. Maybe if we invested in our skills and infrastructure in the same way we could also enjoy better growth.
A prosperous Poland is very marginally to our benefit, as our 19th largest export market which takes about 0.5% of our GDP in exports. Funds drained from us by the EU a much larger disbenefit - about twice that in total, including multiplier effects. Simple economics of transfer payments.
Maybe we would have invested more infrastructure and skills if the EU hadn't taken it from us. We could have done so if we'd wanted.
They themselves fully subscribe to the zero sum game of the EU budget and play the game ruthlessly when it comes to subsidies, as I remember from my time in Brussels. Unfortunately we haven't done likewise, at least since Margaret got our money back more than four decades ago, much of which that clown Blair gave away.
Strong statements, almost all completely wrong. D-
It’s bizarrely one-dimensional. A prosperous Poland is good for Germany, for example, which happens to be a significant trade partner direct trade partner for the UK. One of our major defence companies builds frigates there that supports a UK supply chain, all while providing economic security in the Baltic.
It also happens to be a bastion against the Russians, democratic, and a traditionally ally. Reducing them to “0.5% of our exports” is so insular, so mercantilist it’s laughable.
I look with continual bafflement at the Burnham odds.
Has it been revealed in any sense what the great messiah's path to power will be? Any indication in particular as to which MP will fall on Burnham's sharpened tyre irons for the cause?
I see there are some true believers in this story here. For example Mr Battery it seems. Would any care to enlighten me?
(Betting disclosure: I am actually green on Burnham, but very much more green on almost everyone else)
Burnham’s problem is that he’s not in Parliament, and that the process to do so isn’t certain.
Yes.
He needs to:
Get selected for a seat Win the seat Get proposed as leader Win the leadership race
He might be short odds in some of these steps, but added up it seems unlikely. And that's even without the timing element, which given SKS's predilection for car crashes seems very pertinent.
Andy Burnham? Of the Stafford Hospital scandal? And to think Barbara Castle was never Prime Minister and yet we are talking about Angela Raynor becoming PM? Has the calibre of MPs really fallen that dramatically in my lifetime? I feel despair.
What is Burnham specifically accused of re Stafford? There are hundreds of hospitals under the watch of the minister for Health. The culture at any individual one ought not be solely down to the minister.
Slow walking the enquiries and trying to use "protect the NHS" to cover up the extent of what was going on.
21 July 2009 Burnham announces an independent inquiry 24 February 2010 inquiry reports - given that it had 18 recommendations that doesn't feel that long especially compared to more recent ones.
I look with continual bafflement at the Burnham odds.
Has it been revealed in any sense what the great messiah's path to power will be? Any indication in particular as to which MP will fall on Burnham's sharpened tyre irons for the cause?
I see there are some true believers in this story here. For example Mr Battery it seems. Would any care to enlighten me?
(Betting disclosure: I am actually green on Burnham, but very much more green on almost everyone else)
Burnham’s problem is that he’s not in Parliament, and that the process to do so isn’t certain.
Yes.
He needs to:
Get selected for a seat Win the seat Get proposed as leader Win the leadership race
He might be short odds in some of these steps, but added up it seems unlikely. And that's even without the timing element, which given SKS's predilection for car crashes seems very pertinent.
Whichever leadership rival persuaded Starmer to make sure Burnham was kept out of parliament is very happy right now.
Andy Burnham? Of the Stafford Hospital scandal? And to think Barbara Castle was never Prime Minister and yet we are talking about Angela Raynor becoming PM? Has the calibre of MPs really fallen that dramatically in my lifetime? I feel despair.
Paul Rose, who acted as Parliamentary Private Secretary to [Barbara] Castle between 1966 and 1968, later claimed that after his visit to the six counties in 1967, she asked why a young man like him was concerned about Northern Ireland, “’What about Vietnam? What about Rhodesia?’
I just looked at her with incomprehension and said ‘You’ll see when they start shooting one another’. She was totally oblivious to this. I think their priorities were focused on other things to the extent that they were totally blinded as to what was going on in their own backyard”.
Perhaps it was not so surprising that two years later, on 14th August 1969, Barbara Castle wrote in her diary that she “was astonished to learn from the news that British troops have moved into Derry”.
The referral is about Mandelson's appointment and whether Starmer lied. I have seen no credible evidence that he did. The referral should be about the Palantir meeting and contract. Much, much more serious questions for Starmer there.
Andy Burnham? Of the Stafford Hospital scandal? And to think Barbara Castle was never Prime Minister and yet we are talking about Angela Raynor becoming PM? Has the calibre of MPs really fallen that dramatically in my lifetime? I feel despair.
What is Burnham specifically accused of re Stafford? There are hundreds of hospitals under the watch of the minister for Health. The culture at any individual one ought not be solely down to the minister.
Slow walking the enquiries and trying to use "protect the NHS" to cover up the extent of what was going on.
21 July 2009 Burnham announces an independent inquiry 24 February 2010 inquiry reports - given that it had 18 recommendations that doesn't feel that long especially compared to more recent ones.
I look with continual bafflement at the Burnham odds.
Has it been revealed in any sense what the great messiah's path to power will be? Any indication in particular as to which MP will fall on Burnham's sharpened tyre irons for the cause?
I see there are some true believers in this story here. For example Mr Battery it seems. Would any care to enlighten me?
(Betting disclosure: I am actually green on Burnham, but very much more green on almost everyone else)
My friend, who is steeped deeply in the Labour Party for decades and a former union rep, says it will be Burnham.
Of course Poland is in an "on their doorstep" trade organisation and we are not.
Even when we were in that organisation, Poland was catching up with us.
The key fact about EU membership in this context is that they subsidised Poland by about 3% of GDP/year for 20 years, and are still doing so, while much of that came from our taxpayers until we wisely put a stop to it.
A prosperous Poland is entirely to our benefit. This zero sum approach that seems to have become a notable part of our political discourse in recent years (and accelerated during the Brexit debate) is so disspiriting. The economic reneissance of Eastern Europe is a testament to the EU. Maybe if we invested in our skills and infrastructure in the same way we could also enjoy better growth.
A prosperous Poland is very marginally to our benefit, as our 19th largest export market which takes about 0.5% of our GDP in exports. Funds drained from us by the EU a much larger disbenefit - about twice that in total, including multiplier effects. Simple economics of transfer payments.
Maybe we would have invested more infrastructure and skills if the EU hadn't taken it from us. We could have done so if we'd wanted.
They themselves fully subscribe to the zero sum game of the EU budget and play the game ruthlessly when it comes to subsidies, as I remember from my time in Brussels. Unfortunately we haven't done likewise, at least since Margaret got our money back more than four decades ago, much of which that clown Blair gave away.
Strong statements, almost all completely wrong. D-
It’s bizarrely one-dimensional. A prosperous Poland is good for Germany, for example, which happens to be a significant trade partner direct trade partner for the UK. One of our major defence companies builds frigates there that supports a UK supply chain, all while providing economic security in the Baltic.
It also happens to be a bastion against the Russians, democratic, and a traditionally ally. Reducing them to “0.5% of our exports” is so insular, so mercantilist it’s laughable.
Against that, one of my contacts received Eur 500m in grants from the EU to build a factory in Eastern Germany. He sold it for Eur 400m and kept the proceeds.
I look with continual bafflement at the Burnham odds.
Has it been revealed in any sense what the great messiah's path to power will be? Any indication in particular as to which MP will fall on Burnham's sharpened tyre irons for the cause?
I see there are some true believers in this story here. For example Mr Battery it seems. Would any care to enlighten me?
(Betting disclosure: I am actually green on Burnham, but very much more green on almost everyone else)
My friend, who is steeped deeply in the Labour Party for decades and a former union rep, says it will be Burnham.
I am betting accordingly although not wildly.
Quite a few people think so clearly. I make most of my profits (such as they are) on Labour related betting, so I'm sort of going with my instincts that the price is way wrong, but as I said above there are enough people saying that the impossible might happen that I'm, relatively speaking, sitting on the fence a bit.
(I'm a natural Tory, and never make a bean on betting there)
Sir Keir Starmer's allies are increasingly confident that they will avoid a mass rebellion over Lord Mandelson tomorrow
We're expecting a three-line whip and most Labour MPs we've spoken to - including those who were wavering earlier - now suggest they will back the government
Angela Rayner, the former deputy prime minister, has made clear to allies that she views tomorrow's vote as a 'Tory-led political stunt'
Lucy Powell, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, has also been urging colleagues to vote down the motion
She believes that the move is 'politically motivated' and that the combination of the Humble Address and the ongoing inquiry by the foreign affairs select committee already demonstrate 'huge transparency'
Of course Poland is in an "on their doorstep" trade organisation and we are not.
Even when we were in that organisation, Poland was catching up with us.
The key fact about EU membership in this context is that they subsidised Poland by about 3% of GDP/year for 20 years, and are still doing so, while much of that came from our taxpayers until we wisely put a stop to it.
A prosperous Poland is entirely to our benefit. This zero sum approach that seems to have become a notable part of our political discourse in recent years (and accelerated during the Brexit debate) is so disspiriting. The economic reneissance of Eastern Europe is a testament to the EU. Maybe if we invested in our skills and infrastructure in the same way we could also enjoy better growth.
A prosperous Poland is very marginally to our benefit, as our 19th largest export market which takes about 0.5% of our GDP in exports. Funds drained from us by the EU a much larger disbenefit - about twice that in total, including multiplier effects. Simple economics of transfer payments.
Maybe we would have invested more infrastructure and skills if the EU hadn't taken it from us. We could have done so if we'd wanted.
They themselves fully subscribe to the zero sum game of the EU budget and play the game ruthlessly when it comes to subsidies, as I remember from my time in Brussels. Unfortunately we haven't done likewise, at least since Margaret got our money back more than four decades ago, much of which that clown Blair gave away.
Strong statements, almost all completely wrong. D-
It’s bizarrely one-dimensional. A prosperous Poland is good for Germany, for example, which happens to be a significant trade partner direct trade partner for the UK. One of our major defence companies builds frigates there that supports a UK supply chain, all while providing economic security in the Baltic.
It also happens to be a bastion against the Russians, democratic, and a traditionally ally. Reducing them to “0.5% of our exports” is so insular, so mercantilist it’s laughable.
Prosperity accompanied by an absence of hostility anywhere in the world is a win win. It wins because it is good in itself, and it wins because one of the simplest truths in economics is that prosperous neighbours make good customers.
Sir Keir Starmer's allies are increasingly confident that they will avoid a mass rebellion over Lord Mandelson tomorrow
We're expecting a three-line whip and most Labour MPs we've spoken to - including those who were wavering earlier - now suggest they will back the government
Angela Rayner, the former deputy prime minister, has made clear to allies that she views tomorrow's vote as a 'Tory-led political stunt'
Lucy Powell, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, has also been urging colleagues to vote down the motion
She believes that the move is 'politically motivated' and that the combination of the Humble Address and the ongoing inquiry by the foreign affairs select committee already demonstrate 'huge transparency'
Of course it’s playing politics, but you could bet your bottom dollar SKS would have been falling over himself to do the exact same thing when he was LOTO.
Sir Keir Starmer's allies are increasingly confident that they will avoid a mass rebellion over Lord Mandelson tomorrow
We're expecting a three-line whip and most Labour MPs we've spoken to - including those who were wavering earlier - now suggest they will back the government
Angela Rayner, the former deputy prime minister, has made clear to allies that she views tomorrow's vote as a 'Tory-led political stunt'
Lucy Powell, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, has also been urging colleagues to vote down the motion
She believes that the move is 'politically motivated' and that the combination of the Humble Address and the ongoing inquiry by the foreign affairs select committee already demonstrate 'huge transparency'
Of course it’s playing politics, but you could bet your bottom dollar SKS would have been falling over himself to do the exact same thing when he was LOTO.
The irony is that the Tories, Reform and the Greens want Starmer to stay in as long as possible whereas Rayner and Burnham want that crown for themselves
I look with continual bafflement at the Burnham odds.
Has it been revealed in any sense what the great messiah's path to power will be? Any indication in particular as to which MP will fall on Burnham's sharpened tyre irons for the cause?
I see there are some true believers in this story here. For example Mr Battery it seems. Would any care to enlighten me?
(Betting disclosure: I am actually green on Burnham, but very much more green on almost everyone else)
My friend, who is steeped deeply in the Labour Party for decades and a former union rep, says it will be Burnham.
I am betting accordingly although not wildly.
Quite a few people think so clearly. I make most of my profits (such as they are) on Labour related betting, so I'm sort of going with my instincts that the price is way wrong, but as I said above there are enough people saying that the impossible might happen that I'm, relatively speaking, sitting on the fence a bit.
(I'm a natural Tory, and never make a bean on betting there)
My hesitation about Burnham is the obstacle of becoming an MP. UK voters don't like a stitch up, and every other party would look to benefit from any party other than Labour winning such a contest, which would in the end drift towards a Burnham v X rather than Burnham v Split Votes of all the Others.
Of course it could play out quite otherwise. Eg Burnham as PM puts Labour back in the driving seat, reducing support for Reform among others, which helps the Tories make the argument that they represent best the Right Of Centre as they creep past Reform in the polls.
Labour MPs need to hold firm and not fold just because Polanski is making all the young and millenial people faint in excitement.
Rayner might make some inroads with Green voters, she has a 36% favourable rating and -4% net rating with them compared to 18% and -57% for Starmer.
However she has a -79% rating with Tories, -78% with Reform voters and -19% with LDs which is little better than Starmer's and even her +15% with Labour voters is far below Burnham's +41% with Labour voters
Sir Keir Starmer's allies are increasingly confident that they will avoid a mass rebellion over Lord Mandelson tomorrow
We're expecting a three-line whip and most Labour MPs we've spoken to - including those who were wavering earlier - now suggest they will back the government
Angela Rayner, the former deputy prime minister, has made clear to allies that she views tomorrow's vote as a 'Tory-led political stunt'
Lucy Powell, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, has also been urging colleagues to vote down the motion
She believes that the move is 'politically motivated' and that the combination of the Humble Address and the ongoing inquiry by the foreign affairs select committee already demonstrate 'huge transparency'
Of course it’s playing politics, but you could bet your bottom dollar SKS would have been falling over himself to do the exact same thing when he was LOTO.
Who cannot play politics, if not a politician?
(Obviously the point of such an accusation is one side is indulging in games and the other is not, but few are fooled)
I look with continual bafflement at the Burnham odds.
Has it been revealed in any sense what the great messiah's path to power will be? Any indication in particular as to which MP will fall on Burnham's sharpened tyre irons for the cause?
I see there are some true believers in this story here. For example Mr Battery it seems. Would any care to enlighten me?
(Betting disclosure: I am actually green on Burnham, but very much more green on almost everyone else)
My friend, who is steeped deeply in the Labour Party for decades and a former union rep, says it will be Burnham.
I am betting accordingly although not wildly.
Quite a few people think so clearly. I make most of my profits (such as they are) on Labour related betting, so I'm sort of going with my instincts that the price is way wrong, but as I said above there are enough people saying that the impossible might happen that I'm, relatively speaking, sitting on the fence a bit.
(I'm a natural Tory, and never make a bean on betting there)
My hesitation about Burnham is the obstacle of becoming an MP. UK voters don't like a stitch up, and every other party would look to benefit from any party other than Labour winning such a contest, which would in the end drift towards a Burnham v X rather than Burnham v Split Votes of all the Others.
Of course it could play out quite otherwise. Eg Burnham as PM puts Labour back in the driving seat, reducing support for Reform among others, which helps the Tories make the argument that they represent best the Right Of Centre as they creep past Reform in the polls.
Agree entirely.
I was hoping to smoke out the odd Burnham backer with my comment too.
I look with continual bafflement at the Burnham odds.
Has it been revealed in any sense what the great messiah's path to power will be? Any indication in particular as to which MP will fall on Burnham's sharpened tyre irons for the cause?
I see there are some true believers in this story here. For example Mr Battery it seems. Would any care to enlighten me?
(Betting disclosure: I am actually green on Burnham, but very much more green on almost everyone else)
Burnham’s problem is that he’s not in Parliament, and that the process to do so isn’t certain.
Yes.
He needs to:
Get selected for a seat Win the seat Get proposed as leader Win the leadership race
He might be short odds in some of these steps, but added up it seems unlikely. And that's even without the timing element, which given SKS's predilection for car crashes seems very pertinent.
You've missed out some of the highest hurdles.
Burnham needs to:
1. Hope that none of his rivals triggers a contest in the wake of the locals OR that Starmer wins such a contest 2. Persuade an MP to stand down in a normally very safe seat 3. Persuade the NEC (i.e.Starmer) to let him stand after the MP stands down 4. Get selected for the seat 5. Persuade Starmer to move the by-election quickly to forestall a challenge from one of his rivals 6. Win the seat 7. Get proposed as leader 8. Win the leadership race
The big hurdles are 1, 2, 3, 5 and possibly 6 depending on the safeness of 2.
NEW: Head of UK vetting Ian Collard says No10 DID apply pressure over Lord Mandelson's clearance - but he says this did not affect the outcome.
Well that's alright then.
Apart from being pressure whem we were told none was applied.
The only witness corroborating no10 story works for the cabinet office… which reports to one of the PMs closest allies…
Also the only witness with a paper trail and contemporaneous notes, unlike Robbins who was recalling an un-minuted discussion and had no records substantiating that he'd been refused a copy of the vetting summary. That witness has handed over the copies of that audit trail to parliament. PB has several lawyers who can explain the relative worth of contemporaneous records vs recollection.
I don't think Starmer will be hauled before the Privilieges Committee, but I do think there could be a fair few abstentions from Labour. I think all Labour MPs will have to think very carefully about whether a unanimous show of support will encourage him. Surely some of them have to be washing their hair, just to send some sort of message.
Labour MPs need to hold firm and not fold just because Polanski is making all the young and millenial people faint in excitement.
Rayner might make some inroads with Green voters, she has a 36% favourable rating and -4% net rating with them compared to 18% and -57% for Starmer.
However she has a -79% rating with Tories, -78% with Reform voters and -19% with LDs which is little better than Starmer's and even her +15% with Labour voters is far below Burnham's +41% with Labour voters
The point is that she doesn't really need to worry about losing the vote of you and others prepared to vote Tory even in 2024. So the -79% won't worry her.
When you read the evidence from Ian Collard, the head of security at the foreign office, it begs an overwhelming question - why did Keir Starmer sack Sir Olly Robbins?
Starmer said he sacked him for failing to inform him of the fact that Mandelson had failed to pass UK Security Vetting
But Robbins told MPs he didn’t know this. He says he was told it was a borderline case and decided to grant Mandelson developed vetting with appropriate mitigations in place
Specifically never saw the box ticked by UKSV explicitly warning against appointing Mandelson.
His argument was twofold: 1) He couldn’t tell the PM something he didn’t know and 2) that the PM had misunderstood the vetting process. The role of UKSV was advisory, and the decision rested with him and the foreign office security team
Ian Collard, the former head of the foreign office security team, has tonight corroborated his entire account. He said he told him that it was a borderline case. That he didn’t see the ticked box recommending against Mandelson’s appointment either. And that he also felt under pressure
We expect Sir Philip Barton, Robbins’s predecessor, to corroborate his account re pressure tomorrow
So again, why did Starmer sack Robbins? He couldn’t tell him something he didn’t not know and had not seen
Labour MPs need to hold firm and not fold just because Polanski is making all the young and millenial people faint in excitement.
Rayner might make some inroads with Green voters, she has a 36% favourable rating and -4% net rating with them compared to 18% and -57% for Starmer.
However she has a -79% rating with Tories, -78% with Reform voters and -19% with LDs which is little better than Starmer's and even her +15% with Labour voters is far below Burnham's +41% with Labour voters
The point is that she doesn't really need to worry about losing the vote of you and others prepared to vote Tory even in 2024. So the -79% won't worry her.
Rayner's -32% rating with all voters though will worry her, slightly better than Farage's -38% but worse than Kemi's -21%. Still also far below Burnham's +9% with all voters
I don't think Starmer will be hauled before the Privilieges Committee, but I do think there could be a fair few abstentions from Labour. I think all Labour MPs will have to think very carefully about whether a unanimous show of support will encourage him. Surely some of them have to be washing their hair, just to send some sort of message.
I think his best tactic is to lance the boil and refer himself. Take the wind out of the opponents’ sails and get ahead of the story. Deny the chance for opponents to accuse Labour MPs of voting against oversight.
This is what he did over Currygate and it was successful.
I don’t think Starmer has handled this whole episode well at all, and it has raised an awful lot of questions over his leadership style and his fitness for the role, but this all has the risk of descending into semantics and I don’t expect the Committee to find against him, at least in such a way as to be a resigning offence.
I look with continual bafflement at the Burnham odds.
Has it been revealed in any sense what the great messiah's path to power will be? Any indication in particular as to which MP will fall on Burnham's sharpened tyre irons for the cause?
I see there are some true believers in this story here. For example Mr Battery it seems. Would any care to enlighten me?
(Betting disclosure: I am actually green on Burnham, but very much more green on almost everyone else)
Burnham’s problem is that he’s not in Parliament, and that the process to do so isn’t certain.
Yes.
He needs to:
Get selected for a seat Win the seat Get proposed as leader Win the leadership race
He might be short odds in some of these steps, but added up it seems unlikely. And that's even without the timing element, which given SKS's predilection for car crashes seems very pertinent.
You've missed out some of the highest hurdles.
Burnham needs to:
1. Hope that none of his rivals triggers a contest in the wake of the locals OR that Starmer wins such a contest 2. Persuade an MP to stand down in a normally very safe seat 3. Persuade the NEC (i.e.Starmer) to let him stand after the MP stands down 4. Get selected for the seat 5. Persuade Starmer to move the by-election quickly to forestall a challenge from one of his rivals 6. Win the seat 7. Get proposed as leader 8. Win the leadership race
The big hurdles are 1, 2, 3, 5 and possibly 6 depending on the safeness of 2.
Burnham needs to:
1. Wind his neck in. 2. Get on with the job he was elected and is paid to do.
When you read the evidence from Ian Collard, the head of security at the foreign office, it begs an overwhelming question - why did Keir Starmer sack Sir Olly Robbins?
Starmer said he sacked him for failing to inform him of the fact that Mandelson had failed to pass UK Security Vetting
But Robbins told MPs he didn’t know this. He says he was told it was a borderline case and decided to grant Mandelson developed vetting with appropriate mitigations in place
Specifically never saw the box ticked by UKSV explicitly warning against appointing Mandelson.
His argument was twofold: 1) He couldn’t tell the PM something he didn’t know and 2) that the PM had misunderstood the vetting process. The role of UKSV was advisory, and the decision rested with him and the foreign office security team
Ian Collard, the former head of the foreign office security team, has tonight corroborated his entire account. He said he told him that it was a borderline case. That he didn’t see the ticked box recommending against Mandelson’s appointment either. And that he also felt under pressure
We expect Sir Philip Barton, Robbins’s predecessor, to corroborate his account re pressure tomorrow
So again, why did Starmer sack Robbins? He couldn’t tell him something he didn’t not know and had not seen
How can the head of foreign office security not see the ticked red box as he should have access to all the info ?
It seems that everyone seems to be avoiding seeing anything . His department are the ones that made the borderline decision .
NEW: Head of UK vetting Ian Collard says No10 DID apply pressure over Lord Mandelson's clearance - but he says this did not affect the outcome.
Well that's alright then.
Apart from being pressure whem we were told none was applied.
The only witness corroborating no10 story works for the cabinet office… which reports to one of the PMs closest allies…
Also the only witness with a paper trail and contemporaneous notes, unlike Robbins who was recalling an un-minuted discussion and had no records substantiating that he'd been refused a copy of the vetting summary. That witness has handed over the copies of that audit trail to parliament. PB has several lawyers who can explain the relative worth of contemporaneous records vs recollection.
Interesting that Collard has written his response to the FASC in collaboration with the FCDO. The "pressure" on the vetting appears to complete the process, not for a particular outcome. That Collard did not view the UKSV summary himself before meeting with Robbins, but gave an oral briefing based on an oral briefing is extremely poor practice IMO. Given Little was able to obtain the summary from UKSV there's clearly no reason Collard and Robbins couldn't have had the summary at their discussion and Collard viewed it in September when the shit hit the fan.
Comments
Are you OK with Farage being prosecuted by a left wing government if things don't go swimmingly when Reform is in charge?
I would expect that will be used by all the opposition parties including the Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid
I cannot imagine a worse look than a PM ordering his mps to vote down the privileges probe when even Boris didn't
And by the way it did take Boris down
Anyway my wife has some serious health issues we are grappling with and I am not posting much as she is my centre of attention
Has it been revealed in any sense what the great messiah's path to power will be? Any indication in particular as to which MP will fall on Burnham's sharpened tyre irons for the cause?
I see there are some true believers in this story here. For example Mr Battery it seems. Would any care to enlighten me?
(Betting disclosure: I am actually green on Burnham, but very much more green on almost everyone else)
Or is that old fashioned, shameful or something?
@SeanTsJokers in every pack?1) Stick with Starmer
2) Burnham
So whilst Burnham is not an MP, they have to stick with Starmer.
As for Burnham, Peter Dowd's seat of Bootle looks almost impossible to lose. 2024 result:
Labour 69
Reform 12
Green 10
If Starmer lets him stand, Burnham surely wins Bootle and then challenges Starmer at some point.
But if Starmer holds firm, he doesn't let Burnham stand and he shows every Labour MP this YouGov poll - showing everyone else will do worse than him as PM.
Rayner 4.2/4.6
Burnham 5.1/6
If Labour MPs want rid of Starmer quickly the last thing they should do is vote for Starmer to be referred.
So Labour suffer very bad results . Starmer then says we need now to wait for the committee to report and then if they find he’s not guilty of misleading the Commons he can use that to justify staying on .
He didn’t lie to the Commons and it’s now down to a subjective view of pressure . Hoyle should never have allowed a debate and vote given the ridiculous and impossible to prove nature of the likely accusation .
I recall be told here, that it wasn’t feasible to prosecute Trump for treason in a meagre 3 years after Jan 6th.
Maybe we would have invested more infrastructure and skills if the EU hadn't taken it from us. We could have done so if we'd wanted.
They themselves fully subscribe to the zero sum game of the EU budget and play the game ruthlessly when it comes to subsidies, as I remember from my time in Brussels. Unfortunately we haven't done likewise, at least since Margaret got our money back more than four decades ago, much of which that clown Blair gave away.
It's amazing the Labour Party have developed the technology to keep him in stasis in such a way that he can be thawed out quickly when there's a major constitutional crisis on the horizon, and/or (increasingly) step in to help keep some element of the Labour party above water, and then he can be put back on ice until the next crisis.
WATCH: Keir Starmer reveals his wife Victoria is encouraging him to stay on as Prime Minister
"I confide in her all the time. Hers is the best advice. I'm just thankful that I've got her everyday"
Starmer Q2 exit drifting
Burnham Next PM shortening
It looks like nothing will be happening immediately after the Local Election results.
YouGov and now Brown intervention all pointing towards nobody making a decisive move.
How do you guys sleep at night?
We are heading to the system the Italians had. Prosecutions, of rich people, for serious crimes, would time out. Always.
So lots of people were always under indictment. But no one went to jail.
Tory vote on referring Keir Starmer to the Privilege’s Committee is a political stunt but to blow it out of the water Keir Starmer should show confidence & refer himself, demonstrating there is nothing to hide. Whipping a vote against will produce smears we’re backing a cover up.
NEW: Head of UK vetting Ian Collard says No10 DID apply pressure over Lord Mandelson's clearance - but he says this did not affect the outcome.
Apart from being pressure whem we were told none was applied.
24 February 2010 inquiry reports - given that it had 18 recommendations that doesn't feel that long especially compared to more recent ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Hospital_scandal
It also happens to be a bastion against the Russians, democratic, and a traditionally ally. Reducing them to “0.5% of our exports” is so insular, so mercantilist it’s laughable.
He needs to:
Get selected for a seat
Win the seat
Get proposed as leader
Win the leadership race
He might be short odds in some of these steps, but added up it seems unlikely. And that's even without the timing element, which given SKS's predilection for car crashes seems very pertinent.
I just looked at her with incomprehension and said ‘You’ll see when they start shooting one another’. She was totally oblivious to this. I think their priorities were focused on other things to the extent that they were totally blinded as to what was going on in their own backyard”.
Perhaps it was not so surprising that two years later, on 14th August 1969, Barbara Castle wrote in her diary that she “was astonished to learn from the news that British troops have moved into Derry”.
https://radicalmanchester.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/paul-rose-and-the-campaign-for-democracy-in-ulster/
The conversation was also reproduced in Peter Taylor's "Provos" book trilogy, where I first read about it.
(I know we're not allowed to say such things as 'shoot on sight', so I won't)
I am betting accordingly although not wildly.
Edit. I see Mexican Pete got there before me.
(I'm a natural Tory, and never make a bean on betting there)
Steven Swinford
@Steven_Swinford
Sir Keir Starmer's allies are increasingly confident that they will avoid a mass rebellion over Lord Mandelson tomorrow
We're expecting a three-line whip and most Labour MPs we've spoken to - including those who were wavering earlier - now suggest they will back the government
Angela Rayner, the former deputy prime minister, has made clear to allies that she views tomorrow's vote as a 'Tory-led political stunt'
Lucy Powell, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, has also been urging colleagues to vote down the motion
She believes that the move is 'politically motivated' and that the combination of the Humble Address and the ongoing inquiry by the foreign affairs select committee already demonstrate 'huge transparency'
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2048837931125584088
Of course it’s playing politics, but you could bet your bottom dollar SKS would have been falling over himself to do the exact same thing when he was LOTO.
Patrick English
@PME_Politics
Ah, you thought we were done with projections for this year’s local elections?
Stay tuned for 10pm tonight 👀🗳️🚨
https://x.com/PME_Politics/status/2048818104294142001
Of course it could play out quite otherwise. Eg Burnham as PM puts Labour back in the driving seat, reducing support for Reform among others, which helps the Tories make the argument that they represent best the Right Of Centre as they creep past Reform in the polls.
However she has a -79% rating with Tories, -78% with Reform voters and -19% with LDs which is little better than Starmer's and even her +15% with Labour voters is far below Burnham's +41% with Labour voters
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_Favourability_260421.pdf
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine Gordon Britas pronouncing that he has followed the process - forever."
(Obviously the point of such an accusation is one side is indulging in games and the other is not, but few are fooled)
This is hell.
I was hoping to smoke out the odd Burnham backer with my comment too.
Burnham needs to:
1. Hope that none of his rivals triggers a contest in the wake of the locals OR that Starmer wins such a contest
2. Persuade an MP to stand down in a normally very safe seat
3. Persuade the NEC (i.e.Starmer) to let him stand after the MP stands down
4. Get selected for the seat
5. Persuade Starmer to move the by-election quickly to forestall a challenge from one of his rivals
6. Win the seat
7. Get proposed as leader
8. Win the leadership race
The big hurdles are 1, 2, 3, 5 and possibly 6 depending on the safeness of 2.
That witness has handed over the copies of that audit trail to parliament.
PB has several lawyers who can explain the relative worth of contemporaneous records vs recollection.
When you read the evidence from Ian Collard, the head of security at the foreign office, it begs an overwhelming question - why did Keir Starmer sack Sir Olly Robbins?
Starmer said he sacked him for failing to inform him of the fact that Mandelson had failed to pass UK Security Vetting
But Robbins told MPs he didn’t know this. He says he was told it was a borderline case and decided to grant Mandelson developed vetting with appropriate mitigations in place
Specifically never saw the box ticked by UKSV explicitly warning against appointing Mandelson.
His argument was twofold: 1) He couldn’t tell the PM something he didn’t know and 2) that the PM had misunderstood the vetting process. The role of UKSV was advisory, and the decision rested with him and the foreign office security team
Ian Collard, the former head of the foreign office security team, has tonight corroborated his entire account. He said he told him that it was a borderline case. That he didn’t see the ticked box recommending against Mandelson’s appointment either. And that he also felt under pressure
We expect Sir Philip Barton, Robbins’s predecessor, to corroborate his account re pressure tomorrow
So again, why did Starmer sack Robbins? He couldn’t tell him something he didn’t not know and had not seen
This is what he did over Currygate and it was successful.
I don’t think Starmer has handled this whole episode well at all, and it has raised an awful lot of questions over his leadership style and his fitness for the role, but this all has the risk of descending into semantics and I don’t expect the Committee to find against him, at least in such a way as to be a resigning offence.
1. Wind his neck in.
2. Get on with the job he was elected and is paid to do.
It seems that everyone seems to be avoiding seeing anything . His department are the ones that made the borderline decision .
➡️ Ref: 29% (+29)
🟠 Lib: 27% (-)
🔵 Con: 21% (-30)
🟢 Grn: 13% (+9)
🔴 Lab: 8% (-5)
Via
@YouGov
, 27 March-21 April
---
(+/- vs 2021)
https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/2048803646062678242?s=20
https://www.facebook.com/groups/390711811137535/posts/2344789549063075/
The "pressure" on the vetting appears to complete the process, not for a particular outcome.
That Collard did not view the UKSV summary himself before meeting with Robbins, but gave an oral briefing based on an oral briefing is extremely poor practice IMO. Given Little was able to obtain the summary from UKSV there's clearly no reason Collard and Robbins couldn't have had the summary at their discussion and Collard viewed it in September when the shit hit the fan.