Liberal Democrats winning here? – politicalbetting.com

System · June 1

Liberal Democrats winning here? – politicalbetting.com

As a Tory I know from bitter experience that once the Liberal Democrats win a seat they are harder to shift than Japanese knotweed, it usually takes a once in a generation politician like David Cameron to send the Liberal Democrats into reverse.

Read the full story here

IanB2 · June 1

First! Winning here!

dixiedean · June 1

Second.
Only by voting dixiedean can you stop the menace of IanB2.
The others are a wasted vote who can't win here!

MarqueeMark · June 1

PLUS you might want to consider it is a bet not paying out at all.

IanB2 · June 1

I’d not fancy the LibDem odds as the Tories too might be hard to shift from their remaining seats, continued government unpopularity is probably nailed on, and Reform could easily implode after some scandal or other, or simply because the novelty wears off and so their impact as a GFY vote starts to dwindle.

Mexicanpete · June 1

That is a very interesting interpretation of why Cameron promoted the coalition.

So it was a 12D chess attempt to destroy the Lib Dems once and for all.

MarqueeMark · June 1

FPT to Frank Booth:

"What cannot be denied is that there has been no commensurate increase in health, education, transport or housing infrastructure. We are essentially muddling through with what we had before the change.

Where there were 500 seeking those services, there are now 550. Probably more in centres of population, where that demographic transformation has most manifsted itself. Easy to see why Reform or similar can make hay. Plus, there is clearly no signifcant source of government money to make things materially better. So the argument will remain central to our political dialogue."

Mexicanpete · June 1

Mandelson drop.

Mandelson wanted Trump to be issued with a red box and Mandelson wasn't a fan of VAT on private schools.

OldKingCole · June 1

I think I'm inclined to hold my fire on forecasting forthcoming General Elections until after June 18th, when we have three Parliamentary by-elections and(I think) twenty Council ones. Several of them Reform.

theProle · June 1

FPT

Mexicanpete said:

eek said:
Have we covered this yet https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/01/murrell-bought-108-toilet-rolls-sturgeon-panic-buy/

The headline says all you need to know Murrell bought 108 toilet rolls as Sturgeon was getting ready to tell people not to panic buy.
Three 36 packs of bog roll is hardly panic buying. If he had packed the Winnebago with Andrex that would be panic buying. It would also explain why he needed a Winnebago too.

Everyone buying 3 packs of bog roll rather than the usual one is sufficient to collapse modern just in time supply chains, which in turn make rumors of a bog crisis a self fulfilling prophecy.

Sunil_Prasannan · June 1

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FrankBooth said:

RochdalePioneers said:

dixiedean said:

theakes said:
Dixie Dean at 11.40am
Makerfield, as someone who lived there for a time and indeed stood for the Council may I just confirm that it is not made up of a number of towns but is one complete urban area with ward divisions with there own names, as occurs everywhere..
Re language: I am a "cockney" from Islington, but language was no problem!
Also 40 years ago from my canvassing I recall there were plenty of ethnic Asian and Afro Caribbeans there, two were on our ward committee.
It's 98% ethnic white today. 96%+ White British. There wasn't a single non white at my Primary School in the 70's.
Hindley, Ashton, Abram, Winstanley and Billinge and Orrell were all UDC's with their own Town Council and Mayors before 1974. I consider them to be towns. There are fields and fields between each of them. And occasionally stand alone villages.
Towards the north it begins to merge into Wigan around Highfield, Winstanley and Worsley Mesnes.
I have also door-knocked almost entirely white communities and been told there is an immediate crisis with too many immigrants.

It doesn't matter that they do not see immigrants on their street and in their community. What they see are public services run down and defunded, and the physical landscape crumbling around them. And then on Facebook / Instagram / Twitter they see that migrants are responsible for this enshittification.

Thus they suffer the problems caused by migrants without there actually being any migrants. It makes no sense if you apply facts or logic, but this is now an emotional problem amongst the people who don't know how stuff works and don't want to know how it works.
We are seeing the biggest demographic transformation in our island's history. It's a bit naive to think it wouldn't be an issue with some people. And whilst many arrivals seek to integrate, many others have little to no interest in the indigenous culture.
No we really aren't.
A higher percentage of people in Britain today were born abroad than in the US at any point in their history.

So what if I were born abroad?

Mexicanpete · June 1

theProle said:
FPT
Mexicanpete said:

eek said:
Have we covered this yet https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/01/murrell-bought-108-toilet-rolls-sturgeon-panic-buy/

The headline says all you need to know Murrell bought 108 toilet rolls as Sturgeon was getting ready to tell people not to panic buy.
Three 36 packs of bog roll is hardly panic buying. If he had packed the Winnebago with Andrex that would be panic buying. It would also explain why he needed a Winnebago too.

Everyone buying 3 packs of bog roll rather than the usual one is sufficient to collapse modern just in time supply chains, which in turn make rumors of a bog crisis a self fulfilling prophecy.

Sturgeon was s******* herself at Boris's handling of COVID so the purchase of 108 rolls made perfect sense.

TheScreamingEagles · June 1

Mexicanpete said:
That is a very interesting interpretation of why Cameron promoted the coalition.

So it was a 12D chess attempt to destroy the Lib Dems once and for all.

Lured Nick Clegg like Emperor Valerian at Battle of Edessa and used him as a human footstool.

Or the reality is that the Lib Dems destroyed themselves.

dixiedean · June 1

MarqueeMark said:
FPT to Frank Booth:

"What cannot be denied is that there has been no commensurate increase in health, education, transport or housing infrastructure. We are essentially muddling through with what we had before the change.

Where there were 500 seeking those services, there are now 550. Probably more in centres of population, where that demographic transformation has most manifsted itself. Easy to see why Reform or similar can make hay. Plus, there is clearly no signifcant source of government money to make things materially better. So the argument will remain central to our political dialogue."

This is true.
However. In my small town in Makerfield pop. 25k there are three NHS dentists surgeries taking on patients. Compared to one in Newcastle pop. 315k.
I'm on a waiting list in the latter and have been for over a year. It took two months down there. I travel down every three months. The dentist doesn't find that at all unusual. They get a lot of workers from Windscale. You can get a GP appointment by the radical method of asking for one. And the schools are generally under subscribed.
Nonetheless, folk moan incessantly that all the money is spent elsewhere.

IanB2 · June 1

A belated weekend Rawnsley, coming to you via the mountains:

[Blair]…is possessed by what one old friend calls “a near-manic” desire to be at the centre of debate… he has [also] become exceedingly cross. He has often sounded disappointed about Labour, but he’s never been this brutal. While Dr Blair will carry a lot of people with much of his diagnosis, the Labour audience is gagging on his prescriptions.

When I last talked to him about [AI], I came away with the impression that he is messianic about tech because he thinks its future-facing and “modernity” has always been at the core of his political identity, and was central to his appeal when he was winning elections. His enthusiasm for tech outruns his expertise.

The Blair manifesto would be a dramatic shift to the right at a time when Labour is tilting to the left. Sir Keir’s people have been galvanised to join the war of the essays with a 3,000 word counterblast conceding to some mistakes while contending that this government is not an achievement-free zone, and pointing out, fairly enough, that the circumstances they inherited in 2024 were much bleaker than those facing Sir Tony when he came to power in 1997. He’s also provided a whetstone on which Andy Burnham can sharpen his leftwing critique.

It is not entirely a bad thing that Labour is engaged in a battle of ideas, though it would have been better to have waged it before the 2024 election. Sir Tony’s latest intervention suggests that he is not done with this fight. He is correct that successful political leaders must have “an attitude, a tribe and a project”, as he did at his zenith. But if he thinks that Labour is in a mood to heed his advice, he is himself a victim of self-delusion.

Battlebus · June 1

Sunil_Prasannan said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FrankBooth said:

RochdalePioneers said:

dixiedean said:

theakes said:
Dixie Dean at 11.40am
Makerfield, as someone who lived there for a time and indeed stood for the Council may I just confirm that it is not made up of a number of towns but is one complete urban area with ward divisions with there own names, as occurs everywhere..
Re language: I am a "cockney" from Islington, but language was no problem!
Also 40 years ago from my canvassing I recall there were plenty of ethnic Asian and Afro Caribbeans there, two were on our ward committee.
It's 98% ethnic white today. 96%+ White British. There wasn't a single non white at my Primary School in the 70's.
Hindley, Ashton, Abram, Winstanley and Billinge and Orrell were all UDC's with their own Town Council and Mayors before 1974. I consider them to be towns. There are fields and fields between each of them. And occasionally stand alone villages.
Towards the north it begins to merge into Wigan around Highfield, Winstanley and Worsley Mesnes.
I have also door-knocked almost entirely white communities and been told there is an immediate crisis with too many immigrants.

It doesn't matter that they do not see immigrants on their street and in their community. What they see are public services run down and defunded, and the physical landscape crumbling around them. And then on Facebook / Instagram / Twitter they see that migrants are responsible for this enshittification.

Thus they suffer the problems caused by migrants without there actually being any migrants. It makes no sense if you apply facts or logic, but this is now an emotional problem amongst the people who don't know how stuff works and don't want to know how it works.
We are seeing the biggest demographic transformation in our island's history. It's a bit naive to think it wouldn't be an issue with some people. And whilst many arrivals seek to integrate, many others have little to no interest in the indigenous culture.
No we really aren't.
A higher percentage of people in Britain today were born abroad than in the US at any point in their history.
So what if I were born abroad?

Get a GRC so you can call yourself a bloke.

OldKingCole · June 1

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:
That is a very interesting interpretation of why Cameron promoted the coalition.

So it was a 12D chess attempt to destroy the Lib Dems once and for all.
Lured Nick Clegg like Emperor Valerian at Battle of Edessa and used him as a human footstool.

Or the reality is that the Lib Dems destroyed themselves.

I wonder what Clegg will do next. He's not quite 60 yet; might he come back into politics?

OnlyLivingBoy · June 1

Sunil_Prasannan said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FrankBooth said:

RochdalePioneers said:

dixiedean said:

theakes said:
Dixie Dean at 11.40am
Makerfield, as someone who lived there for a time and indeed stood for the Council may I just confirm that it is not made up of a number of towns but is one complete urban area with ward divisions with there own names, as occurs everywhere..
Re language: I am a "cockney" from Islington, but language was no problem!
Also 40 years ago from my canvassing I recall there were plenty of ethnic Asian and Afro Caribbeans there, two were on our ward committee.
It's 98% ethnic white today. 96%+ White British. There wasn't a single non white at my Primary School in the 70's.
Hindley, Ashton, Abram, Winstanley and Billinge and Orrell were all UDC's with their own Town Council and Mayors before 1974. I consider them to be towns. There are fields and fields between each of them. And occasionally stand alone villages.
Towards the north it begins to merge into Wigan around Highfield, Winstanley and Worsley Mesnes.
I have also door-knocked almost entirely white communities and been told there is an immediate crisis with too many immigrants.

It doesn't matter that they do not see immigrants on their street and in their community. What they see are public services run down and defunded, and the physical landscape crumbling around them. And then on Facebook / Instagram / Twitter they see that migrants are responsible for this enshittification.

Thus they suffer the problems caused by migrants without there actually being any migrants. It makes no sense if you apply facts or logic, but this is now an emotional problem amongst the people who don't know how stuff works and don't want to know how it works.
We are seeing the biggest demographic transformation in our island's history. It's a bit naive to think it wouldn't be an issue with some people. And whilst many arrivals seek to integrate, many others have little to no interest in the indigenous culture.
No we really aren't.
A higher percentage of people in Britain today were born abroad than in the US at any point in their history.
So what if I were born abroad?

I'm not sure the claim you are responding to is true, in any case. Almost 16% of people in the US were born abroad (the highest in US history) as of 2025 and I think the UK figure is lower than that, although the ONS seems to have stopped publishing the data in recent years. The foreign born populations of most western countries has increased a lot in the last couple of decades as they all face the same demographic pressures in the labour market.
In any case, two of my kids were born abroad and they are pretty British, although I've not yet run it past Matt Goodwin who is I believe the final authority on these things.

Battlebus · June 1

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:
That is a very interesting interpretation of why Cameron promoted the coalition.

So it was a 12D chess attempt to destroy the Lib Dems once and for all.
Lured Nick Clegg like Emperor Valerian at Battle of Edessa and used him as a human footstool.

Or the reality is that the Lib Dems destroyed themselves.

On one hand, it's a salient lesson for those that go into coalition with the Conservative. On the other, it's a salient lesson that what you promise in opposition (student fees) may have been totally undeliverable given the cost.

MarqueeMark · June 1

IanB2 said:
A belated weekend Rawnsley, coming to you via the mountains:

[Blair]…is possessed by what one old friend calls “a near-manic” desire to be at the centre of debate… he has [also] become exceedingly cross. He has often sounded disappointed about Labour, but he’s never been this brutal. While Dr Blair will carry a lot of people with much of his diagnosis, the Labour audience is gagging on his prescriptions.

When I last talked to him about [AI], I came away with the impression that he is messianic about tech because he thinks its future-facing and “modernity” has always been at the core of his political identity, and was central to his appeal when he was winning elections. His enthusiasm for tech outruns his expertise.

The Blair manifesto would be a dramatic shift to the right at a time when Labour is tilting to the left. Sir Keir’s people have been galvanised to join the war of the essays with a 3,000 word counterblast conceding to some mistakes while contending that this government is not an achievement-free zone, and pointing out, fairly enough, that the circumstances they inherited in 2024 were much bleaker than those facing Sir Tony when he came to power in 1997. He’s also provided a whetstone on which Andy Burnham can sharpen his leftwing critique.

It is not entirely a bad thing that Labour is engaged in a battle of ideas, though it would have been better to have waged it before the 2024 election. Sir Tony’s latest intervention suggests that he is not done with this fight. He is correct that successful political leaders must have “an attitude, a tribe and a project”, as he did at his zenith. But if he thinks that Labour is in a mood to heed his advice, he is himself a victim of self-delusion.

"“modernity” has always been at the core of his political identity"

How was the invasion of Iraq in pursuit of made-up WMD "modernity"? Wasn't it that most ancient of causes - the land/asset grab?

MarqueeMark · June 1

dixiedean said:

MarqueeMark said:
FPT to Frank Booth:

"What cannot be denied is that there has been no commensurate increase in health, education, transport or housing infrastructure. We are essentially muddling through with what we had before the change.

Where there were 500 seeking those services, there are now 550. Probably more in centres of population, where that demographic transformation has most manifsted itself. Easy to see why Reform or similar can make hay. Plus, there is clearly no signifcant source of government money to make things materially better. So the argument will remain central to our political dialogue."
This is true.
However. In my small town in Makerfield pop. 25k there are three NHS dentists surgeries taking on patients. Compared to one in Newcastle pop. 315k.
I'm on a waiting list in the latter and have been for over a year. It took two months down there. I travel down every three months. The dentist doesn't find that at all unusual. They get a lot of workers from Windscale. You can get a GP appointment by the radical method of asking for one. And the schools are generally under subscribed.
Nonetheless, folk moan incessantly that all the money is spent elsewhere.

Good luck with Burnham running with "Makerfield, you've never had it so good..."!

HYUFD · June 1

For the LDs to win more seats than the Tories you would need the Tories to lose at least half their seats to Reform. The LDs won almost all their Tory seat target list in the 2024 general election

HYUFD · June 1

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:
That is a very interesting interpretation of why Cameron promoted the coalition.

So it was a 12D chess attempt to destroy the Lib Dems once and for all.
Lured Nick Clegg like Emperor Valerian at Battle of Edessa and used him as a human footstool.

Or the reality is that the Lib Dems destroyed themselves.

Cameron destroyed himself too, had the Conservatives only won most seats in 2015 but not a majority as the LDs held more of their southern seats then the Tory-LD coalition would have continued. Clegg would have vetoed an EU referendum and Cameron would not have been forced out of No 10 just a year later after leading the Remain campaign to a humiliating defeat in June 2016

Nigelb · June 1

Mexicanpete said:
Mandelson drop.

Mandelson wanted Trump to be issued with a red box and Mandelson wasn't a fan of VAT on private schools.

His handwritten letter to Lammy, seeking approval, is priceless.
"I promise you won't regret my appointment."

And entirely correct about it being his last job in public life....

A_View_From_Cumbria5 · June 1

Battlebus said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:
That is a very interesting interpretation of why Cameron promoted the coalition.

So it was a 12D chess attempt to destroy the Lib Dems once and for all.
Lured Nick Clegg like Emperor Valerian at Battle of Edessa and used him as a human footstool.

Or the reality is that the Lib Dems destroyed themselves.
On one hand, it's a salient lesson for those that go into coalition with the Conservative. On the other, it's a salient lesson that what you promise in opposition (student fees) may have been totally undeliverable given the cost.

I had it on very good authority at the time that the only reason we Tories went for the hike in Tuition fees was to fuck the Lib Dems. We would have been happier just closing a lot of the Jumped Up Polys

OnlyLivingBoy · June 1

Mexicanpete said:
Mandelson drop.

Mandelson wanted Trump to be issued with a red box and Mandelson wasn't a fan of VAT on private schools.

Another argument in favour of VAT on private schools.

BartholomewRoberts · June 1

HYUFD said:
For the LDs to win more seats than the Tories you would need the Tories to lose at least half their seats to Reform. The LDs won almost all their Tory seat target list in the 2024 general election

Their then-target list. They would have new targets now.

There are many ways this could happen.

1 Tory losses to Reform
2 Tory losses to Lib Dems
3 Tory losses to Labour or others
4 Lib Dem gains from Labour

Big_G_NorthWales · June 1

Good afternoon

The release of the latest Mandelson files gives the impression that whilst he was UK Ambassador to the US he was effectively running Starmer's government

turbotubbs · June 1

Mexicanpete said:
That is a very interesting interpretation of why Cameron promoted the coalition.

So it was a 12D chess attempt to destroy the Lib Dems once and for all.

I'm not convinced. I think the country would have been a better place had the Tories missed a majority and needed Lib Dems again. Best government since early Blair.

williamglenn · June 1

bondegezou said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FrankBooth said:

RochdalePioneers said:

dixiedean said:

theakes said:
Dixie Dean at 11.40am
Makerfield, as someone who lived there for a time and indeed stood for the Council may I just confirm that it is not made up of a number of towns but is one complete urban area with ward divisions with there own names, as occurs everywhere..
Re language: I am a "cockney" from Islington, but language was no problem!
Also 40 years ago from my canvassing I recall there were plenty of ethnic Asian and Afro Caribbeans there, two were on our ward committee.
It's 98% ethnic white today. 96%+ White British. There wasn't a single non white at my Primary School in the 70's.
Hindley, Ashton, Abram, Winstanley and Billinge and Orrell were all UDC's with their own Town Council and Mayors before 1974. I consider them to be towns. There are fields and fields between each of them. And occasionally stand alone villages.
Towards the north it begins to merge into Wigan around Highfield, Winstanley and Worsley Mesnes.
I have also door-knocked almost entirely white communities and been told there is an immediate crisis with too many immigrants.

It doesn't matter that they do not see immigrants on their street and in their community. What they see are public services run down and defunded, and the physical landscape crumbling around them. And then on Facebook / Instagram / Twitter they see that migrants are responsible for this enshittification.

Thus they suffer the problems caused by migrants without there actually being any migrants. It makes no sense if you apply facts or logic, but this is now an emotional problem amongst the people who don't know how stuff works and don't want to know how it works.
We are seeing the biggest demographic transformation in our island's history. It's a bit naive to think it wouldn't be an issue with some people. And whilst many arrivals seek to integrate, many others have little to no interest in the indigenous culture.
No we really aren't.
A higher percentage of people in Britain today were born abroad than in the US at any point in their history.
Isn't the figure currently about 16% in both countries? If so, that would disprove your claim.

It was 16% pre-Boriswave so that figure is out of date.

Big_G_NorthWales · June 1

It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?

dixiedean · June 1

Luke Tryl, of the pollsters More in Common, on Makerfield focus groups:

Some reflections on Makerfield groups so far:
1. People really feel the weight of the vote. People are *far* more engaged than I've had in a by-election. For some its a burden, some a privilege. They don't see this as just electing 1 MP, but a decision with UK wide ramifications
2. There's a bit of a frustration with the Ashton focus. A few residents have said the media don't seem to realise there are other bits of the constituency. Those in Ashton though are embarrassed about the regen works and think it's the wrong time to shine a spotlight. Business owners think the media are putting people off buying things.
3. In a twist, people really seem to like Josh Simons. Across groups people can point to things he's done, interactions they've had on issues like flooding/development - no other group in a seat occupied by a member of the 24 intake as the local MP got that level of praise. Many say they started sceptical, but that he spent time on facebook getting into their concerns or meeting them in libraries etc. Some wonder what the quid pro quo is for standing down, others think it brave and not like most politicians.
4. While the groups split on Kenyon vs Burnham, they are united in dislike of PM. This is definitely one of the more hostile areas for Starmer we've visited. For some vote Burnham to get Starmer out is attractive, for others it's hard to conceive voting Labour might be the best way to change PM.
5. There is going to be a lot of nose holding. Versions of "I don't like Labour but I don't want Reform" "If it weren't Burnham i'd never vote Labour" "I don't like Farage but we've got to get Labour out" "I'd vote Restore but they can't win" Voting 'against' is now a major feature of our politics.

dixiedean · June 1

6. Burnham's record as mayor is respected and people appreciate him as a contrast with Starmer. But there are weaknesses 1. Some think the image he portrays of Manchester is too rosy and "ignores the spice heads" 2. The abortive low emissions zone is biggest black spot on his record.
7. But above all if I were Burnham based on what we've heard I would frame the whole campaign about why places like Makerfield will be better with him as an MP. people aren't naive, they know this isn't just about their seat. But they want to know why having Burnham in parliament and eventually as PM will benefit them - lots talk about the north/south divide, Burnham is seen as a champion of the north - but what are the 5 'Makerfield tests' he'd apply in the future.
8. Kenyon's past comments split people, particularly women, some say everyone says stupid things, others question if they're real, but a sizeable group are put off by them - and in particular the failure of Kenyon to make a proper apology. Many said if he'd apologised properly it would matter less. Substantively the comment about abortion probably seems like it might matter more than the sexist/misogynist comments, and there a degree of 'mind your own business'
9. For Kenyon his strength. story about being outside of the establishment - different to politics as usual and send a message. There is no doubt worries about immigration is an issue in Makerfield even more so than elsewhere - though others still worry the party has no wider plan
10. Restore - who knows if it'll end up with any votes or be squeezed but there's no doubt they've cut through with voters who have noticed their presence.. Some on the right are mainly worried about them splitting the vote and I suspect a Reform squeeze message would land.

bsky.app/profile/luketryl.bsky.social/post/3mn7zwvmjhy2n

TheScreamingEagles · June 1

A_View_From_Cumbria5 said:

Battlebus said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:
That is a very interesting interpretation of why Cameron promoted the coalition.

So it was a 12D chess attempt to destroy the Lib Dems once and for all.
Lured Nick Clegg like Emperor Valerian at Battle of Edessa and used him as a human footstool.

Or the reality is that the Lib Dems destroyed themselves.
On one hand, it's a salient lesson for those that go into coalition with the Conservative. On the other, it's a salient lesson that what you promise in opposition (student fees) may have been totally undeliverable given the cost.
I had it on very good authority at the time that the only reason we Tories went for the hike in Tuition fees was to fuck the Lib Dems. We would have been happier just closing a lot of the Jumped Up Polys

That's bollocks, I heard something very different.

The Tories were going to follow the recommendations of the Browne review, something they had said before the election (so had Labour but they reneged), Dave and George we happy for the Lib Dems to vote against it, as they said they didn't see it as deal breaker for the coalition.

Clegg, Alexander, Cable, and Huhne all said voting for the increase in fees would show the Lib Dems are serious about governing.

williamglenn · June 1

https://x.com/JasonGroves1/status/2061446980908339388

Pat McFadden (to Peter Mandelson) on dealing with the PLP: 'Every meeting I have is "who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others".'

Theuniondivvie · June 1

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good afternoon

The release of the latest Mandelson files gives the impression that whilst he was UK Ambassador to the US he was effectively running Starmer's government

I'm far from a fawning Mandy fanboy, but if that were the case wouldn't they have been a bit less shit?

kle4 · June 1

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/JasonGroves1/status/2061446980908339388

Pat McFadden (to Peter Mandelson) on dealing with the PLP: 'Every meeting I have is "who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others".'

I mean, isn't that just generally assumed? Parties only differ around the margins on that - we expect a lot from government now.

theProle · June 1

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/JasonGroves1/status/2061446980908339388

Pat McFadden (to Peter Mandelson) on dealing with the PLP: 'Every meeting I have is "who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others".'

Seems likely to be a fairly accurate summary, given the general behaviour of the PLP.

viewcode · June 1

Big_G_NorthWales said:
Good afternoon

The release of the latest Mandelson files gives the impression that whilst he was UK Ambassador to the US he was effectively running Starmer's government

Well it obviously wasn't Starmer...

Alphabet_Soup · June 1

Battlebus said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FrankBooth said:

RochdalePioneers said:

dixiedean said:

theakes said:
Dixie Dean at 11.40am
Makerfield, as someone who lived there for a time and indeed stood for the Council may I just confirm that it is not made up of a number of towns but is one complete urban area with ward divisions with there own names, as occurs everywhere..
Re language: I am a "cockney" from Islington, but language was no problem!
Also 40 years ago from my canvassing I recall there were plenty of ethnic Asian and Afro Caribbeans there, two were on our ward committee.
It's 98% ethnic white today. 96%+ White British. There wasn't a single non white at my Primary School in the 70's.
Hindley, Ashton, Abram, Winstanley and Billinge and Orrell were all UDC's with their own Town Council and Mayors before 1974. I consider them to be towns. There are fields and fields between each of them. And occasionally stand alone villages.
Towards the north it begins to merge into Wigan around Highfield, Winstanley and Worsley Mesnes.
I have also door-knocked almost entirely white communities and been told there is an immediate crisis with too many immigrants.

It doesn't matter that they do not see immigrants on their street and in their community. What they see are public services run down and defunded, and the physical landscape crumbling around them. And then on Facebook / Instagram / Twitter they see that migrants are responsible for this enshittification.

Thus they suffer the problems caused by migrants without there actually being any migrants. It makes no sense if you apply facts or logic, but this is now an emotional problem amongst the people who don't know how stuff works and don't want to know how it works.
We are seeing the biggest demographic transformation in our island's history. It's a bit naive to think it wouldn't be an issue with some people. And whilst many arrivals seek to integrate, many others have little to no interest in the indigenous culture.
No we really aren't.
A higher percentage of people in Britain today were born abroad than in the US at any point in their history.
So what if I were born abroad?
Get a GRC so you can call yourself a bloke.

First GI, reading a letter, "They're sending me abroad for Christmas".

Second GI, wistfully, "I wish they'd send me one".

Nigelb · June 1

Interesting exchange with Streeting.
[24/07/2025, 23:00] Wes Streeting: Am sure this will come up in coming days, so wanted to
check in with you on recognition of Palestine and the domestic politics of it.
Keir’ s statement today was excellent, but Macron’ s statement tonight ups the ante.
Morally and politically, I think we need to join France.
Morally, because Israel is committing war crimes before our eyes. Their government talks the
language of ethnic cleansing and I have met with our own medics out there who describe the
most chilling and distressing scenes of calculated brutality against women and children.
Politically, a Commons vote will be engineered in September on recognition and we will lose
it if we’re not ahead of it. There are no circumstances in which people like me or Shabana
could abstain or vote against, for example. Conference will be a sea of Palestinian flags and
the moderates will be waving them.
We need to be leading the charge on this. The alternative is being dragged there with
enormous damage to Keir, the govt and the party.
I’ve never been a shrinking violent on Israel. I’ ve supported LFI for over 20 years. Our sister
party, Haaretz, and progressives are clear about what’ s being done in their name and they
oppose it.
I appreciate these things are always more complicated than they appear to those of us who
aren’ t up close as you are and I also appreciate how much Keir and David are giving to this
personally.
But it is what it is. We need to lead, not follow.
[24/07/2025, 23:11] Peter Mandelson: I can see all this but I am worried that such a gesture
now could blow a 2 SS out of the water if Israel decided that unilateral recognition justified
further WB annexation which the US would be powerless to stop or reverse. That would be
the end of it. So I think we need to employ practical means to get a 2SS, not quickly I grant
but realistically. The PA with reform and new leadership can advance this with
Arab/US/European support. The alternative is a further deadlocked death spiral on an even
greater scale than now.
[24/07/2025, 23:12] Wes Streeting: Israel is doing it anyway
[24/07/2025, 23:12] Wes Streeting: This is rogue state behaviour. Let them pay the price as
pariahs with sanctions applied to the state, not just a few ministers...

williamglenn · June 1

Mandelson urged Starmer to meet with the "interesting and thoughtful" John Major.

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2061444923275055163

BatteryCorrectHorse · June 1

TheScreamingEagles said:

A_View_From_Cumbria5 said:

Battlebus said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:
That is a very interesting interpretation of why Cameron promoted the coalition.

So it was a 12D chess attempt to destroy the Lib Dems once and for all.
Lured Nick Clegg like Emperor Valerian at Battle of Edessa and used him as a human footstool.

Or the reality is that the Lib Dems destroyed themselves.
On one hand, it's a salient lesson for those that go into coalition with the Conservative. On the other, it's a salient lesson that what you promise in opposition (student fees) may have been totally undeliverable given the cost.
I had it on very good authority at the time that the only reason we Tories went for the hike in Tuition fees was to fuck the Lib Dems. We would have been happier just closing a lot of the Jumped Up Polys
That's bollocks, I heard something very different.

The Tories were going to follow the recommendations of the Browne review, something they had said before the election (so had Labour but they reneged), Dave and George we happy for the Lib Dems to vote against it, as they said they didn't see it as deal breaker for the coalition.

Clegg, Alexander, Cable, and Huhne all said voting for the increase in fees would show the Lib Dems are serious about governing.

Is “your heard differently” the BBC documentary on the Tories from 2023?

HYUFD · June 1

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:
For the LDs to win more seats than the Tories you would need the Tories to lose at least half their seats to Reform. The LDs won almost all their Tory seat target list in the 2024 general election
Their then-target list. They would have new targets now.

There are many ways this could happen.

1 Tory losses to Reform
2 Tory losses to Lib Dems
3 Tory losses to Labour or others
4 Lib Dem gains from Labour

On current polls there is basically no swing to the LDs from 2024 and even a small swing from Labour to Tory since 2024. The swing against the Tories is almost all to Reform.

The top 2 LD target seats against Labour, Burnley and Montgomeryshire, likely go Reform.

Sheffield Hallam, their otherwise top Labour held target seat, likely stays Labour just on current polls

https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat

HYUFD · June 1

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Mexicanpete said:
Mandelson drop.

Mandelson wanted Trump to be issued with a red box and Mandelson wasn't a fan of VAT on private schools.
Another argument in favour of VAT on private schools.

Mandelson went to a grammar school, he knows VAT on private schools just makes them even more exclusive and reduces scholarships to them

Dopermean · June 1

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?

What shows that?
None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins.
Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.

Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.

1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report
2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report
3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing
4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting

So the reasons he was sacked would be,

1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself
2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence
3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation
4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred

Big_G_NorthWales · June 1

Dopermean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that?
None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins.
Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.

Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.

1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report
2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report
3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing
4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting

So the reasons he was sacked would be,

1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself
2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence
3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation
4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred

Sam Coates and Adam Boulton referred to a document that they both agreed it exonerated Olly Robbins

There are so many documents and so much happening that it is difficult to keep up but again Boulton suggests it will be difficult for Pat McFadden to continue in office following the e mails between him and Mandelson

BatteryCorrectHorse · June 1

Dopermean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that?
None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins.
Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.

Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.

1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report
2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report
3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing
4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting

So the reasons he was sacked would be,

1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself
2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence
3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation
4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred

Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.

I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.

Mexicanpete · June 1

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?

Exonerated? Are you sure? Is there actually a citation which confirms what you are suggesting?

Big_G_NorthWales · June 1

Mandelson to McFadden

Wes is experiencing an early mid life crisis

BatteryCorrectHorse · June 1

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
Exonerated? Are you sure? Is there actually a citation which confirms what you are suggesting?

The post you’re replying to was written by an AI before the papers were even released.

(AI = ?)

Mexicanpete · June 1

williamglenn said:
Mandelson urged Starmer to meet with the "interesting and thoughtful" John Major.

https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2061444923275055163

That's John Major's hitherto impressive post-PM resume crushed.

Nigelb · June 1

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
Exonerated? Are you sure? Is there actually a citation which confirms what you are suggesting?

I would tend to draw the opposite conclusion.

Nigelb · June 1

Lol

..[18/07/2025, 23:40] Torsten Bell: I'm fine - pensions ministering is a safe politically gig, and
an interesting one policy wise. Then just help help Rachel and Keir out when asked on the
side.
[18/07/2025, 23:41] Torsten Bell: Obviously the big picture is... messy
[20/07/2025, 13:13] Peter Mandelson: It should do. No problems foreseen at present.
It's messy because the government doesn't do policy, generally speaking, well enough. It all
starts with policy.
[20/07/2025, 13:16] Torsten Bell: Which govt?
[20/07/2025, 13:17] Torsten Bell: Will I get to see you on this trip or too much just flying in
and out around the SV itself?
[20/07/2025, 13:18] Peter Mandelson: Our government !
[20/07/2025, 13:18] Torsten Bell: Well that is definitely true - everyone seems to think it's
someone else's job to get the policy right... which is very odd
[20/07/2025, 13:22] Peter Mandelson: As the saying goes, rubbish in rubbish out…..

Big_G_NorthWales · June 1

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
Exonerated? Are you sure? Is there actually a citation which confirms what you are suggesting?

As I have said it was said by Sam Coates and Adam Boulton on Sky following a published e mail

WhisperingOracle · June 1

Aftwenoon all.
Five-year old children of care workers are being sent Home Office letters to "go home". The loveliest department in Whitehall is up to its usual stuff all over again.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/01/home-office-letters-children-care-workers-leave-uk

BatteryCorrectHorse · June 1

I won a sweet £65 betting on the PSG Arsenal game

Big_G_NorthWales · June 1

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dopermean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that?
None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins.
Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.

Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.

1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report
2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report
3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing
4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting

So the reasons he was sacked would be,

1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself
2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence
3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation
4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.

I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.

It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins

BatteryCorrectHorse · June 1

Nigelb said:
Lol

..[18/07/2025, 23:40] Torsten Bell: I'm fine - pensions ministering is a safe politically gig, and
an interesting one policy wise. Then just help help Rachel and Keir out when asked on the
side.
[18/07/2025, 23:41] Torsten Bell: Obviously the big picture is... messy
[20/07/2025, 13:13] Peter Mandelson: It should do. No problems foreseen at present.
It's messy because the government doesn't do policy, generally speaking, well enough. It all
starts with policy.
[20/07/2025, 13:16] Torsten Bell: Which govt?
[20/07/2025, 13:17] Torsten Bell: Will I get to see you on this trip or too much just flying in
and out around the SV itself?
[20/07/2025, 13:18] Peter Mandelson: Our government !
[20/07/2025, 13:18] Torsten Bell: Well that is definitely true - everyone seems to think it's
someone else's job to get the policy right... which is very odd
[20/07/2025, 13:22] Peter Mandelson: As the saying goes, rubbish in rubbish out…..

It just confirms that Mandelson has always thought Starmer a bit rubbish. Same with Blair.

It is obvious they came to office without a plan. And many others called that before me so credit there.

The only things they did plan have been popular. All I can think of is VAT on private schools which despite the backlash here, was planned out and implemented and remains extremely popular.

squareroot2 · June 1

This is all you need to.know about Labour

Peter Mandelson files latest: ‘Every meeting is about who to tax to pay benefits,’ minister told Mandelson

https://www.thetimes.com/article/0380c7bc-0c7b-491e-8c4c-2a81e60c2226?shareToken=1399525476ae5bd47eeecb2c71ccd54a

Big_G_NorthWales · June 1

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
Exonerated? Are you sure? Is there actually a citation which confirms what you are suggesting?
The post you’re replying to was written by an AI before the papers were even released.

(AI = ?)

Grow up

It may be upsetting but these are not AI generated documents unless you are suggesting Sky political commentators are misleading the public

Andy_JS · June 1

"Murrell bought 108 toilet rolls hours before Sturgeon told public not to panic buy"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/01/murrell-bought-108-toilet-rolls-sturgeon-panic-buy

carnforth · June 1

WhisperingOracle said:
Aftwenoon all.
Five-year old children of care workers are being sent Home Office letters to "go home". The loveliest department in Whitehall is up to its usual stuff all over again.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/01/home-office-letters-children-care-workers-leave-uk

I have the strangest idea that parents tend to intercept letters written to their five year olds and read them themselves.

Mexicanpete · June 1

Duplicate

Mexicanpete · June 1

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
Exonerated? Are you sure? Is there actually a citation which confirms what you are suggesting?
As I have said it was said by Sam Coates and Adam Boulton on Sky following a published e mail

Robbins shouldn't have been a sacrificial lamb for Starmer. I have said that was wrong at the time. However I have seen nothing to suggest Robbins was an innocent bystander. Can you provide the reference? Many thanks.

IanB2 · June 1

Mexicanpete said:
That is a very interesting interpretation of why Cameron promoted the coalition.

So it was a 12D chess attempt to destroy the Lib Dems once and for all.

He actually had a golden insurance policy against Brexit destroying his own party, but didn’t have the foresight to see it.

Mexicanpete · June 1

Andy_JS said:
"Murrell bought 108 toilet rolls hours before Sturgeon told public not to panic buy"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/01/murrell-bought-108-toilet-rolls-sturgeon-panic-buy

Posted before. This isn't an FoN poll you know.

Big_G_NorthWales · June 1

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
Exonerated? Are you sure? Is there actually a citation which confirms what you are suggesting?
As I have said it was said by Sam Coates and Adam Boulton on Sky following a published e mail
Robbins shouldn't have been a sacrificial lamb for Starmer. I have said that was wrong at the time. However I have seen nothing to suggest Robbins was an innocent bystander. Can you provide the reference? Many thanks.

In one of the many documents released today and shown live on Sky and read out by Sam Coates alongside Adam Boulton both agreed that the document exonerated Robbins

There are 1500 documents and I do not have access to the one publicly shown and discussed on Sky

williamglenn · June 1

Nigelb said:
Interesting exchange with Streeting.
[24/07/2025, 23:00] Wes Streeting: Am sure this will come up in coming days, so wanted to
check in with you on recognition of Palestine and the domestic politics of it.
Keir’ s statement today was excellent, but Macron’ s statement tonight ups the ante.
Morally and politically, I think we need to join France.
Morally, because Israel is committing war crimes before our eyes. Their government talks the
language of ethnic cleansing and I have met with our own medics out there who describe the
most chilling and distressing scenes of calculated brutality against women and children.
Politically, a Commons vote will be engineered in September on recognition and we will lose
it if we’re not ahead of it. There are no circumstances in which people like me or Shabana
could abstain or vote against, for example. Conference will be a sea of Palestinian flags and
the moderates will be waving them.
We need to be leading the charge on this. The alternative is being dragged there with
enormous damage to Keir, the govt and the party.
I’ve never been a shrinking violent on Israel. I’ ve supported LFI for over 20 years. Our sister
party, Haaretz, and progressives are clear about what’ s being done in their name and they
oppose it.
I appreciate these things are always more complicated than they appear to those of us who
aren’ t up close as you are and I also appreciate how much Keir and David are giving to this
personally.
But it is what it is. We need to lead, not follow.
[24/07/2025, 23:11] Peter Mandelson: I can see all this but I am worried that such a gesture
now could blow a 2 SS out of the water if Israel decided that unilateral recognition justified
further WB annexation which the US would be powerless to stop or reverse. That would be
the end of it. So I think we need to employ practical means to get a 2SS, not quickly I grant
but realistically. The PA with reform and new leadership can advance this with
Arab/US/European support. The alternative is a further deadlocked death spiral on an even
greater scale than now.
[24/07/2025, 23:12] Wes Streeting: Israel is doing it anyway
[24/07/2025, 23:12] Wes Streeting: This is rogue state behaviour. Let them pay the price as
pariahs with sanctions applied to the state, not just a few ministers...

Mandelson wasn't impressed

https://x.com/timothy_stanley/status/2061451085533884508

[25/07/2025, 10:04:34] Peter Mandelson: By way, I received a wild long hysterical message from Wes about Israel. I pushed back. I can forward but reflects pretty badly on his maturity in my view.
[25/07/2025, 10:28:28] Pat McFadden: He is very active on the MPs WhatsApp
groups on this subject

Mexicanpete · June 1

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dopermean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that?
None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins.
Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.

Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.

1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report
2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report
3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing
4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting

So the reasons he was sacked would be,

1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself
2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence
3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation
4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.

I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins

You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.

There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.

Roger · June 1

Wonderful listen for conspiracy theorists who have a spare 45 mins (subject Jeffrey Epstein)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgjThZM8Z8U

Malmesbury · June 1

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:
"Murrell bought 108 toilet rolls hours before Sturgeon told public not to panic buy"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/01/murrell-bought-108-toilet-rolls-sturgeon-panic-buy
Posted before. This isn't an FoN poll you know.

No, it’s a Lord Ashcroft Poll.

108 of them.

Dopermean · June 1

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
Exonerated? Are you sure? Is there actually a citation which confirms what you are suggesting?
As I have said it was said by Sam Coates and Adam Boulton on Sky following a published e mail
Robbins shouldn't have been a sacrificial lamb for Starmer. I have said that was wrong at the time. However I have seen nothing to suggest Robbins was an innocent bystander. Can you provide the reference? Many thanks.
In one of the many documents released today and shown live on Sky and read out by Sam Coates alongside Adam Boulton both agreed that the document exonerated Robbins

There are 1500 documents and I do not have access to the one publicly shown and discussed on Sky

That's the narrative the media decided after Robbins' testimony but was rubbished by Smith's testimony, which had the advantage of being substantiated by contemporaneous notes.

IanB2 · June 1

TheScreamingEagles said:

A_View_From_Cumbria5 said:

Battlebus said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:
That is a very interesting interpretation of why Cameron promoted the coalition.

So it was a 12D chess attempt to destroy the Lib Dems once and for all.
Lured Nick Clegg like Emperor Valerian at Battle of Edessa and used him as a human footstool.

Or the reality is that the Lib Dems destroyed themselves.
On one hand, it's a salient lesson for those that go into coalition with the Conservative. On the other, it's a salient lesson that what you promise in opposition (student fees) may have been totally undeliverable given the cost.
I had it on very good authority at the time that the only reason we Tories went for the hike in Tuition fees was to fuck the Lib Dems. We would have been happier just closing a lot of the Jumped Up Polys
That's bollocks, I heard something very different.

The Tories were going to follow the recommendations of the Browne review, something they had said before the election (so had Labour but they reneged), Dave and George we happy for the Lib Dems to vote against it, as they said they didn't see it as deal breaker for the coalition.

Clegg, Alexander, Cable, and Huhne all said voting for the increase in fees would show the Lib Dems are serious about governing.

Those involved in politics sometimes are too close to it and get wound up with the detail. The LibDems put a lot of effort into turning the fees into less of a loan and more like a graduate tax, failing to realise that they were never going to get the airtime to explain it all. Fact remains that the coalition fees system was fairer than what preceded and followed.

But their biggest mistake was missing the entirely obvious that you couldn’t fight an election on the slogan “no more broken promises” and then immediately go ahead and break your biggest promise. It happened, essentially, because Clegg never believed in the promise to begin with and didn’t foresee how he’d make himself a tad unpopular thereafter. Given the background, politics directed that they simply had to keep the promise; yes, it would have been expensive, but not nearly so as Cameron’s exempting pensioners from almost all austerity, the fallout from which we still live with today.

Big_G_NorthWales · June 1

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dopermean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that?
None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins.
Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.

Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.

1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report
2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report
3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing
4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting

So the reasons he was sacked would be,

1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself
2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence
3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation
4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.

I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins
You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.

There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.

You are accusing me of lying and I object to your comment

If a conversation by political commentators and both agreed their conclusion that I witnessed and you did not then you are questioning my integrity

Mexicanpete · June 1

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
Exonerated? Are you sure? Is there actually a citation which confirms what you are suggesting?
As I have said it was said by Sam Coates and Adam Boulton on Sky following a published e mail
Robbins shouldn't have been a sacrificial lamb for Starmer. I have said that was wrong at the time. However I have seen nothing to suggest Robbins was an innocent bystander. Can you provide the reference? Many thanks.
In one of the many documents released today and shown live on Sky and read out by Sam Coates alongside Adam Boulton both agreed that the document exonerated Robbins

There are 1500 documents and I do not have access to the one publicly shown and discussed on Sky

You need to reference the email in question. Who was it from and who was it to? What did it say?

williamglenn · June 1

https://x.com/CNBC/status/2061449168858583445

Iranian negotiators will stop exchanging messages with the U.S. through intermediaries, and Tehran will move to fully close the Strait of Hormuz, in retaliation for ongoing ceasefire violations, Iran’s state-affiliated news outlet Tasnim said Monday.

MarqueeMark · June 1

Andy_JS said:
"Murrell bought 108 toilet rolls hours before Sturgeon told public not to panic buy"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/01/murrell-bought-108-toilet-rolls-sturgeon-panic-buy

Well, somebody was going to shit themselves when they disovered what he had done...

TheScreamingEagles · June 1

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dopermean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that?
None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins.
Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.

Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.

1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report
2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report
3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing
4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting

So the reasons he was sacked would be,

1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself
2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence
3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation
4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.

I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins
You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.

There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.
You are accusing me of lying and I object to your comment

If a conversation by political commentators and both agreed their conclusion that I witnessed and you did not then you are questioning my integrity

You have form for posting an utterly misleading interpretation about what Sky News have said.

Mexicanpete · June 1

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dopermean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that?
None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins.
Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.

Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.

1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report
2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report
3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing
4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting

So the reasons he was sacked would be,

1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself
2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence
3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation
4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.

I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins
You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.

There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.
You are accusing me of lying and I object to your comment

If a conversation by political commentators and both agreed their conclusion that I witnessed and you did not then you are questioning my integrity

No I am not. I have just asked you to reference the document that was discussed. I can reference the document between Mandelson and Lammy and many others I might comment upon.

Malmesbury · June 1

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:
Interesting exchange with Streeting.
[24/07/2025, 23:00] Wes Streeting: Am sure this will come up in coming days, so wanted to
check in with you on recognition of Palestine and the domestic politics of it.
Keir’ s statement today was excellent, but Macron’ s statement tonight ups the ante.
Morally and politically, I think we need to join France.
Morally, because Israel is committing war crimes before our eyes. Their government talks the
language of ethnic cleansing and I have met with our own medics out there who describe the
most chilling and distressing scenes of calculated brutality against women and children.
Politically, a Commons vote will be engineered in September on recognition and we will lose
it if we’re not ahead of it. There are no circumstances in which people like me or Shabana
could abstain or vote against, for example. Conference will be a sea of Palestinian flags and
the moderates will be waving them.
We need to be leading the charge on this. The alternative is being dragged there with
enormous damage to Keir, the govt and the party.
I’ve never been a shrinking violent on Israel. I’ ve supported LFI for over 20 years. Our sister
party, Haaretz, and progressives are clear about what’ s being done in their name and they
oppose it.
I appreciate these things are always more complicated than they appear to those of us who
aren’ t up close as you are and I also appreciate how much Keir and David are giving to this
personally.
But it is what it is. We need to lead, not follow.
[24/07/2025, 23:11] Peter Mandelson: I can see all this but I am worried that such a gesture
now could blow a 2 SS out of the water if Israel decided that unilateral recognition justified
further WB annexation which the US would be powerless to stop or reverse. That would be
the end of it. So I think we need to employ practical means to get a 2SS, not quickly I grant
but realistically. The PA with reform and new leadership can advance this with
Arab/US/European support. The alternative is a further deadlocked death spiral on an even
greater scale than now.
[24/07/2025, 23:12] Wes Streeting: Israel is doing it anyway
[24/07/2025, 23:12] Wes Streeting: This is rogue state behaviour. Let them pay the price as
pariahs with sanctions applied to the state, not just a few ministers...
Mandelson wasn't impressed

https://x.com/timothy_stanley/status/2061451085533884508

[25/07/2025, 10:04:34] Peter Mandelson: By way, I received a wild long hysterical message from Wes about Israel. I pushed back. I can forward but reflects pretty badly on his maturity in my view.
[25/07/2025, 10:28:28] Pat McFadden: He is very active on the MPs WhatsApp
groups on this subject

I’m in the Never Agree With Wes Streeting camp.

However, what he says in the conversation above, is morality based, reality based *and* sensible politics.

Strange days.

Big_G_NorthWales · June 1

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dopermean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that?
None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins.
Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.

Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.

1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report
2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report
3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing
4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting

So the reasons he was sacked would be,

1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself
2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence
3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation
4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.

I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins
You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.

There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.
You are accusing me of lying and I object to your comment

If a conversation by political commentators and both agreed their conclusion that I witnessed and you did not then you are questioning my integrity

You have form for posting an utterly misleading interpretation about what Sky News have said.

That is unfair and on something as serious as this I did not mislead anyone

noneoftheabove · June 1

WhisperingOracle said:
Aftwenoon all.
Five-year old children of care workers are being sent Home Office letters to "go home". The loveliest department in Whitehall is up to its usual stuff all over again.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/01/home-office-letters-children-care-workers-leave-uk

What, Dudley?

TheScreamingEagles · June 1

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dopermean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that?
None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins.
Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.

Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.

1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report
2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report
3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing
4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting

So the reasons he was sacked would be,

1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself
2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence
3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation
4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.

I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins
You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.

There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.
You are accusing me of lying and I object to your comment

If a conversation by political commentators and both agreed their conclusion that I witnessed and you did not then you are questioning my integrity

You have form for posting an utterly misleading interpretation about what Sky News have said.
That is unfair and on something as serious as this I did not mislead anyone

Lying about Sir Keir and Ukraine was a serious subject.

Gallowgate · June 1

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/CNBC/status/2061449168858583445

Iranian negotiators will stop exchanging messages with the U.S. through intermediaries, and Tehran will move to fully close the Strait of Hormuz, in retaliation for ongoing ceasefire violations, Iran’s state-affiliated news outlet Tasnim said Monday.

Cool

williamglenn · June 1

Kemi getting the government to release all of this is probably the most significant win by any LOTO this millenium.

DougSeal · June 1

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dopermean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that?
None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins.
Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.

Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.

1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report
2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report
3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing
4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting

So the reasons he was sacked would be,

1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself
2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence
3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation
4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.

I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins
You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.

There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.
You are accusing me of lying and I object to your comment

If a conversation by political commentators and both agreed their conclusion that I witnessed and you did not then you are questioning my integrity

You have form for posting an utterly misleading interpretation about what Sky News have said.
That is unfair and on something as serious as this I did not mislead anyone

I called you out on something similar a few months ago. You said Sky were reporting that Starmer was pressuring European leaders to follow Trump’s line on Ukraine, when in fact he was simply urging them not to react in haste. You have a bad habit of pumping out your interpretation of what Sky commentators say and often, being charitable, you’re mistaken.

(EDIT: sorry if it seems I’m piling on but I think TSE is right on this one)

DougSeal · June 1

deleted

TheScreamingEagles · June 1

Andy_JS said:
"Murrell bought 108 toilet rolls hours before Sturgeon told public not to panic buy"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/01/murrell-bought-108-toilet-rolls-sturgeon-panic-buy

Were they expecting Mark Oaten to stay?

Mexicanpete · June 1

williamglenn said:
Kemi getting the government to release all of this is probably the most significant win by any LOTO this millenium.

She is very good at winning political gotchas. Not so authoritative on points of policy.

dixiedean · June 1

Since when have what Sky news people said been gospel anyways?
They've no more authority than you or me.

TheScreamingEagles · June 1

On the Sky News liveblog the only thing (so far) they have talked about Sir Olly Robbins is gifting Trump a red box.

You would have thought if he had been exonerated it would be on the blog.

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-keir-starmer-peter-mandelson-files-defence-investment-kemi-badenoch-12593360

Big_G_NorthWales · June 1

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dopermean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that?
None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins.
Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.

Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.

1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report
2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report
3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing
4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting

So the reasons he was sacked would be,

1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself
2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence
3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation
4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.

I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins
You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.

There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.
You are accusing me of lying and I object to your comment

If a conversation by political commentators and both agreed their conclusion that I witnessed and you did not then you are questioning my integrity

You have form for posting an utterly misleading interpretation about what Sky News have said.
That is unfair and on something as serious as this I did not mislead anyone

I called you out on something similar a few months ago. You said Sky were reporting that Starmer was pressuring European leaders to follow Trump’s line on Ukraine, when in fact he was simply urging them not to react in haste. You have a bad habit of pumping out your interpretation of what Sky commentators say and often, being charitable, you’re mistaken.

I categorically state I was not mistaken and accurately posted Coates and Boultons analysis of one of the 1500 files released today

Malmesbury · June 1

TheScreamingEagles said:

Andy_JS said:
"Murrell bought 108 toilet rolls hours before Sturgeon told public not to panic buy"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/01/murrell-bought-108-toilet-rolls-sturgeon-panic-buy
Were they expecting Mark Oaten to stay?

One of the few joys of COVID times was the discovery of the German word for buying on an excessive scale - Hamsterkauf.

rcs1000 · June 1

TSE is entirely correct: this is a bet on whether Reform fully eclipses the Conservatives by 2029.

I, however, am on the other side of the bet. I think the Conservatives are likely to remain a serious force in 2029. I'd probably want odds of nearer 2:1 to bet on the LibDems here. I mean, sure it's quite possible they outpoll the Conversations, but it's not that likely.

DougSeal · June 1

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dopermean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that?
None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins.
Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.

Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.

1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report
2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report
3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing
4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting

So the reasons he was sacked would be,

1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself
2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence
3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation
4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.

I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins
You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.

There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.
You are accusing me of lying and I object to your comment

If a conversation by political commentators and both agreed their conclusion that I witnessed and you did not then you are questioning my integrity

You have form for posting an utterly misleading interpretation about what Sky News have said.
That is unfair and on something as serious as this I did not mislead anyone

I called you out on something similar a few months ago. You said Sky were reporting that Starmer was pressuring European leaders to follow Trump’s line on Ukraine, when in fact he was simply urging them not to react in haste. You have a bad habit of pumping out your interpretation of what Sky commentators say and often, being charitable, you’re mistaken.
I categorically state I was not mistaken and accurately posted Coates and Boultons analysis of one of the 1500 files released today

Even if that is true your post had no such qualifier. Your precise words were “ It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?”. If you’d qualified that by opening with “Sky commentators are suggesting that…” I’d be more forgiving. You didn’t. And I don’t think they did either.

Sorry, once more, for the pile on but there’s so much bullshit around I feel compelled to call it out sometimes.

Andy_JS · June 1

From the Mandelson files.

"‘Every meeting is about who to tax to pay benefits,’ minister told Mandelson
Pat McFadden said Starmer was ‘asking the wrong questions’, huge tranche of newly released files show"

https://www.thetimes.com/

Battlebus · June 1

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/CNBC/status/2061449168858583445

Iranian negotiators will stop exchanging messages with the U.S. through intermediaries, and Tehran will move to fully close the Strait of Hormuz, in retaliation for ongoing ceasefire violations, Iran’s state-affiliated news outlet Tasnim said Monday.

Just wait until CENCOM get their battle group into the Caspian Sea to cut off all supplies and exports via that route.

Big_G_NorthWales · June 1

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dopermean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that?
None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins.
Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.

Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.

1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report
2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report
3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing
4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting

So the reasons he was sacked would be,

1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself
2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence
3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation
4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.

I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins
You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.

There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.
You are accusing me of lying and I object to your comment

If a conversation by political commentators and both agreed their conclusion that I witnessed and you did not then you are questioning my integrity

You have form for posting an utterly misleading interpretation about what Sky News have said.
That is unfair and on something as serious as this I did not mislead anyone

I called you out on something similar a few months ago. You said Sky were reporting that Starmer was pressuring European leaders to follow Trump’s line on Ukraine, when in fact he was simply urging them not to react in haste. You have a bad habit of pumping out your interpretation of what Sky commentators say and often, being charitable, you’re mistaken.

(EDIT: sorry if it seems I’m piling on but I think TSE is right on this one)

I would just comment I am used to being questioned when I make comments that upset but when I do err I always apologise

We all make mistakes but I accurately described today's exchange between Coates and Boulton on Sky about one specific e mail they showed on screen between officials

I do sometimes wonder why I bother but I am quite thick skinned

Taz · June 1

Gallowgate said:

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/CNBC/status/2061449168858583445

Iranian negotiators will stop exchanging messages with the U.S. through intermediaries, and Tehran will move to fully close the Strait of Hormuz, in retaliation for ongoing ceasefire violations, Iran’s state-affiliated news outlet Tasnim said Monday.
Cool

They’re also going to close the Mandab Strait too.

Well done Trump and Bibi. Played a blinder there 😂

DougSeal · June 1

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DougSeal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Dopermean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:
It appears Olly Robbins has been exonerated in these papers and the question is why was he sacked ?
What shows that?
None of the news reports I've seen post the release say much about Robbins.
Guardian pre-release reported that there were no notes on mitigation of Mandelson's conflicts of interest.

Which leaves the situation as it was post Cat Smith's evidence.

1) Robbins was cleared to, but didn't, view the vetting report
2) Robbins had an un-minuted briefing on the vetting report
3) Un-minuted mitigations for the security concerns were discussed at the briefing
4) Based on the briefing Robbins decided Mandelson had passed vetting

So the reasons he was sacked would be,

1) lack of basic due diligence in not viewing the report himself
2) issuing a vetting clearance without due diligence
3) being uncooperative with the ensuing investigation
4) inadequate explanation as to why 1-3 above had occurred
Some people have decided that because they hate Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins must automatically be innocent. So they’ve gone into these papers with their conclusion already made and have worked backwards.

I find this particularly strange as many of the people now saying how brilliant Robbins was are the same sorts of people that said during Brexit that he was secretly trying to overturn the result and was called a traitor amongst other things.
It has nothing to do with some people and hate for Starmer, but Coates and Boulton on Sky revealing a specific email which in their opinion exonerated Robbins
You do have a habit of making hay with unverified opinion.

There is plenty of ordure covering Starmer and his Ministers. Unless you have details of the email or the direct response to it I suggest you simply reference material that can be verified.
You are accusing me of lying and I object to your comment

If a conversation by political commentators and both agreed their conclusion that I witnessed and you did not then you are questioning my integrity

You have form for posting an utterly misleading interpretation about what Sky News have said.
That is unfair and on something as serious as this I did not mislead anyone

I called you out on something similar a few months ago. You said Sky were reporting that Starmer was pressuring European leaders to follow Trump’s line on Ukraine, when in fact he was simply urging them not to react in haste. You have a bad habit of pumping out your interpretation of what Sky commentators say and often, being charitable, you’re mistaken.

(EDIT: sorry if it seems I’m piling on but I think TSE is right on this one)
I would just comment I am used to being questioned when I make comments that upset but when I do err I always apologise

We all make mistakes but I accurately described today's exchange between Coates and Boulton on Sky about one specific e mail they showed on screen between officials

I do sometimes wonder why I bother but I am quite thick skinned

I don’t think you’re a bad person, and it is possible you’re mistaken, but I really think you need to stop instantly reposting things you see on Sky. A lot of it is palpably wrong. There’s nothing on Sky’s website that uses the word “exonerate”.

Liberal Democrats winning here? – politicalbetting.com

Comments