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.
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”.
Some posters like their obsession with curry, make up their minds LONG before anything is released.
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.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
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”.
Some posters like their obsession with curry, make up their minds LONG before anything is released.
Look
You need to grow up rather than throw slurs at posters
I reported an active exchange on a live Sky broadcast over an e mail discussed by their senior political correspondence
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.
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.
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.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
Personal abuse about a poster you dislike is unbecoming of you
"‘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"
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.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
Personal abuse about a poster you dislike is unbecoming of you
You have accused several of us of unparliamentary behaviour with regard to your Sky analysis. I don't believe that is appropriate. That is borderline gaslighting.
I was very clear. You have been anything but. Provide the evidence.
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...
[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
Hard to disagree with anything Streeting says. Absurd for Mandelson to call it wild or hysterical. Is it generational, I wonder? It feels like a lot of politicians of Mandelson's age can brook no real criticism of Israel. Odd.
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.
"It appears" isn't a qualifier?
Not one with the necessary specificity given where the information is alleged to have come from.
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.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
Personal abuse about a poster you dislike is unbecoming of you
You have accused several of us of unparliamentary behaviour with regard to your Sky analysis. I don't believe that is appropriate. That is borderline gaslighting.
I was very clear. You have been anything but. Provide the evidence.
@Big_G_NorthWales I think I know what you are alluding to from the final question to Jones. It certainly does not exonerate Robbins although it does ask questions of Wormald.
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...
[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
Hard to disagree with anything Streeting says. Absurd for Mandelson to call it wild or hysterical. Is it generational, I wonder? It feels like a lot of politicians of Mandelson's age can brook no real criticism of Israel. Odd.
Mandelson will be in the Blair era mindset of the US at the centre of geopolitics, and with its links to Israel will think the UK should toe the party line to curry favour with the US. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that approach, pragmatically and morally, it worked to an extent in 2000 but simply doesn't in 2025.
Most politicians, and people generally, form their world view early on and stick with it long past its relevance. The most common departure is a big chunk who turn into nostalgic grumpy old men.
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”.
Some posters like their obsession with curry, make up their minds LONG before anything is released.
I still think two things about curry. (1) I bloody love it (2) Starmer did bend the rules and probably deserved the same punishment as Johnson - the equivalent of the parking ticket and (3) Starmer at the time played a blinder with the police - he basically said if you give me 'parking ticket' I will resign. No plod was going to do that to a Labour leader.*
* Johnson, or another Tory, absolutely they would stitch up. See Plebgate for details.
"Born abroad" is also a misleading statistic that some (e.g. Matt Goodwin) use to exaggerate apparent cultural change. With greater international travel, British people end up having children abroad who are raised in the UK. You then get the likes of Boris Johnson or Bradley Wiggins or Emma Watson*, who were born abroad and add to that number, but who do not represent any sort of cultural change!
* Or indeed Florence Nightingale.
Although binning off Cliff Richard would be a cultural change I reckon we could all get behind.
Cliff Richard is an interesting case. His parents were English, but had moved out to India. He was born in India, and then came to England with his family when he was 7 or 8. This was apparently something of a culture shock for him. He had an Indian accent and how he speaks now was a conscious affectation he took on to avoid being bullied at school.
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.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
Personal abuse about a poster you dislike is unbecoming of you
You have accused several of us of unparliamentary behaviour with regard to your Sky analysis. I don't believe that is appropriate. That is borderline gaslighting.
I was very clear. You have been anything but. Provide the evidence.
I would replay the Sky segment if I had recorded it
To be honest I have enough of a pile on today and just rest confident of my observation of Coates and Boulton's comments
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.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
Personal abuse about a poster you dislike is unbecoming of you
You have accused several of us of unparliamentary behaviour with regard to your Sky analysis. I don't believe that is appropriate. That is borderline gaslighting.
I was very clear. You have been anything but. Provide the evidence.
@Big_G_NorthWales I think I know what you are alluding to from the final question to Jones. It certainly does not exonerate Robbins although it does ask questions of Wormald.
Thank you and if it is the same e mail communication then that was Coates and Boultons comment that it exomerates Robbins
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”.
Some posters like their obsession with curry, make up their minds LONG before anything is released.
I still think two things about curry. (1) I bloody love it (2) Starmer did bend the rules and probably deserved the same punishment as Johnson - the equivalent of the parking ticket and (3) Starmer at the time played a blinder with the police - he basically said if you give me 'parking ticket' I will resign. No plod was going to do that to a Labour leader.*
* Johnson, or another Tory, absolutely they would stitch up. See Plebgate for details.
Re (2)... The regulations applicable at the times Johnson was fined for and when "currygate" took place were not the same. On the letter of the law, I think their situations were very different. What they deserved is a much harder question... Johnson got away with things that the police didn't look into. I think he deserved far worse than he got.
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)
Changing the subject in an appeal to TSE's expertise. A Seattle area violent criminal has been spotted several times wearing black and white Nikes. Are those shoes a sign of a violent criminal? Should I duck into a safe place when I see someone wearing them? Call the police?
Or would a criminal wear them to make others think they were harmless?
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”.
Some posters like their obsession with curry, make up their minds LONG before anything is released.
Yes arses like you and a good few other bullshitters
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)
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.
"It appears" isn't a qualifier?
Not one with the necessary specificity given where the information is alleged to have come from.
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.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
Personal abuse about a poster you dislike is unbecoming of you
You have accused several of us of unparliamentary behaviour with regard to your Sky analysis. I don't believe that is appropriate. That is borderline gaslighting.
I was very clear. You have been anything but. Provide the evidence.
@Big_G_NorthWales I think I know what you are alluding to from the final question to Jones. It certainly does not exonerate Robbins although it does ask questions of Wormald.
Thank you and if it is the same e mail communication then that was Coates and Boultons comment that it exomerates Robbins
To be honest I do not know whether Robbins will be exonerated. Interestingly from my quick glance of the documents (page 185ish in the first document = EDIT sorry 145ish) it is clear that Mr Robbins helped draft the note that Wormald sent to the PM saying everything was above board (if a bit expedited. Indeed from what I can make out he provided a lot of text, including:
“The FCDO immediately commenced the national security vetting process, submitting Lord Mandelson as a priority candidate for Developed Vetting to the UK Security Vetting Agency. Clearance was duly given before he commenced his posting on [date]. The FCDO also took on the task of working with Lord Mandelson to understand and mitigate and [sic] conflicts of interest. This process was also concluded before his departure for Washington [can JCS confirm that's true - obv the discussion on his GC shares rumbled on forever but I think I had agreed mitigations with him before he started?].”
Which based on what we know now - he failed the vetting but Robbins approved him based on mitigations - even the most kindest of reading it underplays that fact. Although clearly I have not ploughed through all the papers (and have no intention of doing so).
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”.
Some posters like their obsession with curry, make up their minds LONG before anything is released.
Yes arses like you and a good few other bullshitters
It's just how it goes Malc.
I told them back in July 2024 that Rachel Reeves was a turd in a suit. Howls of self-righteous indignation of course, but I dont see too many of them lining up to say how great she is now.
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.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
Personal abuse about a poster you dislike is unbecoming of you
You have accused several of us of unparliamentary behaviour with regard to your Sky analysis. I don't believe that is appropriate. That is borderline gaslighting.
I was very clear. You have been anything but. Provide the evidence.
I would replay the Sky segment if I had recorded it
To be honest I have enough of a pile on today and just rest confident of my observation of Coates and Boulton's comments
Although to decide whether Coates and Boulton's comments are justified, we need to see the text of the email.
"Born abroad" is also a misleading statistic that some (e.g. Matt Goodwin) use to exaggerate apparent cultural change. With greater international travel, British people end up having children abroad who are raised in the UK. You then get the likes of Boris Johnson or Bradley Wiggins or Emma Watson*, who were born abroad and add to that number, but who do not represent any sort of cultural change!
* Or indeed Florence Nightingale.
Although binning off Cliff Richard would be a cultural change I reckon we could all get behind.
Cliff Richard is an interesting case. His parents were English, but had moved out to India. He was born in India, and then came to England with his family when he was 7 or 8. This was apparently something of a culture shock for him. He had an Indian accent and how he speaks now was a conscious affectation he took on to avoid being bullied at school.
I don't think that children of colonial administrators being born in the colony counts as "foreign born" exactly.
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.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
Personal abuse about a poster you dislike is unbecoming of you
You have accused several of us of unparliamentary behaviour with regard to your Sky analysis. I don't believe that is appropriate. That is borderline gaslighting.
I was very clear. You have been anything but. Provide the evidence.
I would replay the Sky segment if I had recorded it
To be honest I have enough of a pile on today and just rest confident of my observation of Coates and Boulton's comments
Although to decide whether Coates and Boulton's comments are justified, we need to see the text of the email.
No just make up your mind before reading and then misrepresent what others say.
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.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
Personal abuse about a poster you dislike is unbecoming of you
You have accused several of us of unparliamentary behaviour with regard to your Sky analysis. I don't believe that is appropriate. That is borderline gaslighting.
I was very clear. You have been anything but. Provide the evidence.
I would replay the Sky segment if I had recorded it
To be honest I have enough of a pile on today and just rest confident of my observation of Coates and Boulton's comments
Although to decide whether Coates and Boulton's comments are justified, we need to see the text of the email.
No just make up your mind before reading and then misrepresent what others say.
Seriously, some odd recollections of what happened in 2010. As far as student fees were concerned, a number of LD candidates (later MPs) representing University towns had made pledges to the NUS and others not to introduce student fees which was NOT, as I remember, LD policy.
Clegg thought he was doing "grown up politics" by saying there had to be fees because the public finances were in a mess and we were "all i;n this together" as one Mr Cameron was fond of saying and students couldn't expect an easy life if everyone else was having to pay or suffer cuts.
That of course finished the party electorally in the Universities and combined with the very fact of going into coalition with the Conservatives left the party essentially hollowed out and broken - it drifted like a ghost to the ultimate demise of 2015.
There were other factors which added up to a "perfect storm" for the party in 2015.
As to what will happen in 2029, the question currently is whether the Conservatives can survive in their new heartlands - if you put the bet in front of me now, I'd reluctantly concede the Conservatives will win more seats than the LDs but to quote another Tory it "will be a damn close run thing".
Caveats aplenty as we are an eternity from a May or June 2029 poll and one Lord Ashcroft poll notwithstanding, both parties seem relatively becalmed in their current polling with the Conservatives in the high teens and the LDs in the low teens.
Not hard to see LD taking Labour out in parts of Devon and Cornwall and LD holding on to all Tory gains in the same area in 2029.
Tories won't be trusted south of Bristol and West of Dorchester for a generation, outside of Bristol no real Green surge, Reform are not really figuring in many parts.
A vote for LD I think will be seen as a Vote to keep Reform and Tories out and if Labour do offer PR vote, it's hard not to see a Lab / Coalition.
That runs the clock down on Farage and sees Tories extinct and possibly 5th biggest Party behind
"Born abroad" is also a misleading statistic that some (e.g. Matt Goodwin) use to exaggerate apparent cultural change. With greater international travel, British people end up having children abroad who are raised in the UK. You then get the likes of Boris Johnson or Bradley Wiggins or Emma Watson*, who were born abroad and add to that number, but who do not represent any sort of cultural change!
* Or indeed Florence Nightingale.
Although binning off Cliff Richard would be a cultural change I reckon we could all get behind.
Cliff Richard is an interesting case. His parents were English, but had moved out to India. He was born in India, and then came to England with his family when he was 7 or 8. This was apparently something of a culture shock for him. He had an Indian accent and how he speaks now was a conscious affectation he took on to avoid being bullied at school.
I don't think that children of colonial administrators being born in the colony counts as "foreign born" exactly.
When we discuss data on population by place of birth anyone born overseas to British parents would be counted as foreign born in these statistics, though. Eg if I look at my own family: My parents in law: born overseas (as subjects of the British Empire). British citizens by naturalization. Matt Goodwin almost certainly doesn't think they are British. My wife: born here to foreign-born parents. British by birth because like Kemi Badenoch she was born before Thatcher changed the rules. If her parents had come during the "Boriswave" people would be saying she needed to be deported before she got ILR and makes this country unrecognisable. In reality probably way too assimilated for her own good. Two of my children: born overseas to British parents. Like my parents in law counted as foreign born in the data but counted as British citizens. Third child born in the UK to two British parents so hopefully deportation proof whatever happens. This is the messy reality that the data largely fail to capture.
"Born abroad" is also a misleading statistic that some (e.g. Matt Goodwin) use to exaggerate apparent cultural change. With greater international travel, British people end up having children abroad who are raised in the UK. You then get the likes of Boris Johnson or Bradley Wiggins or Emma Watson*, who were born abroad and add to that number, but who do not represent any sort of cultural change!
* Or indeed Florence Nightingale.
Although binning off Cliff Richard would be a cultural change I reckon we could all get behind.
Cliff Richard is an interesting case. His parents were English, but had moved out to India. He was born in India, and then came to England with his family when he was 7 or 8. This was apparently something of a culture shock for him. He had an Indian accent and how he speaks now was a conscious affectation he took on to avoid being bullied at school.
I don't think that children of colonial administrators being born in the colony counts as "foreign born" exactly.
As far as I understand the UK statistics, Cliff Richard is classified as "born abroad". Ditto Joanna Lumley. My point is exactly that it's a misleading statistics in some ways.
The ONS website is not detailed on this, but says...
British nationals born abroad
Some individuals may be born abroad but are British nationals, either through entitlement or naturalisation. This means they will appear in migration datasets as non-UK-born despite being a British national.
Example:
Lucy and both their parents are British nationals. Lucy was born while their parents were working in the armed forces based overseas in Cyprus. They are therefore recorded as non-UK-born, so will appear in the migration data and statistics when looking at country of birth.
Today's revelations will further damage people's confidence in our political system.
When I left Westminster 10 years ago, I did so in the belief that it needed fundamental culture change. I remain of that view and believe that change can't come soon enough.
People have lost faith in a Westminster system which puts private vested interests above the wider public interest and concentrates too much power in too few hands.
We urgently need a national politics which, rather than looking past places like Makerfield, properly works for them. We need a new political culture that is rooted in accountability and a genuine focus on the priorities of working people.
If we are serious about restoring trust in politics we must rebuild a system where public service is at the heart of decision-making.
"Born abroad" is also a misleading statistic that some (e.g. Matt Goodwin) use to exaggerate apparent cultural change. With greater international travel, British people end up having children abroad who are raised in the UK. You then get the likes of Boris Johnson or Bradley Wiggins or Emma Watson*, who were born abroad and add to that number, but who do not represent any sort of cultural change!
* Or indeed Florence Nightingale.
Although binning off Cliff Richard would be a cultural change I reckon we could all get behind.
Cliff Richard is an interesting case. His parents were English, but had moved out to India. He was born in India, and then came to England with his family when he was 7 or 8. This was apparently something of a culture shock for him. He had an Indian accent and how he speaks now was a conscious affectation he took on to avoid being bullied at school.
I don't think that children of colonial administrators being born in the colony counts as "foreign born" exactly.
As far as I understand the UK statistics, Cliff Richard is classified as "born abroad". Ditto Joanna Lumley. My point is exactly that it's a misleading statistics in some ways.
The ONS website is not detailed on this, but says...
British nationals born abroad
Some individuals may be born abroad but are British nationals, either through entitlement or naturalisation. This means they will appear in migration datasets as non-UK-born despite being a British national.
Example:
Lucy and both their parents are British nationals. Lucy was born while their parents were working in the armed forces based overseas in Cyprus. They are therefore recorded as non-UK-born, so will appear in the migration data and statistics when looking at country of birth.
Indeed. At one time Aldershot was the place with the highest proportion of foreign-born residents. No it wasnt all the former Gurkhas who have settled there (although they are part of it) it was all the Army families with people born in Germany
Selected Whatsapp messages today from a 23-year-old friend working in AI on a business trip to California:
- I’ve handed my notice in at my place and I’m headed to the competitor starting 19th. - Talked to five recruiters last week. It's mad - AI is mindless lol - Cash in while we all can - The whole [Silicon] valley is just AI ads. It’s mental. It HAS to be a bubble!!!
It's amazing how people have got so carried away by pattern recognition.
Good that he's keeping his head and cynically exploiting it while it lasts anyway.
Today's revelations will further damage people's confidence in our political system.
When I left Westminster 10 years ago, I did so in the belief that it needed fundamental culture change. I remain of that view and believe that change can't come soon enough.
People have lost faith in a Westminster system which puts private vested interests above the wider public interest and concentrates too much power in too few hands.
We urgently need a national politics which, rather than looking past places like Makerfield, properly works for them. We need a new political culture that is rooted in accountability and a genuine focus on the priorities of working people.
If we are serious about restoring trust in politics we must rebuild a system where public service is at the heart of decision-making.
I wonder if he'll challenge Sir Keir in his acceptance speech?
"Born abroad" is also a misleading statistic that some (e.g. Matt Goodwin) use to exaggerate apparent cultural change. With greater international travel, British people end up having children abroad who are raised in the UK. You then get the likes of Boris Johnson or Bradley Wiggins or Emma Watson*, who were born abroad and add to that number, but who do not represent any sort of cultural change!
* Or indeed Florence Nightingale.
Although binning off Cliff Richard would be a cultural change I reckon we could all get behind.
Cliff Richard is an interesting case. His parents were English, but had moved out to India. He was born in India, and then came to England with his family when he was 7 or 8. This was apparently something of a culture shock for him. He had an Indian accent and how he speaks now was a conscious affectation he took on to avoid being bullied at school.
I don't think that children of colonial administrators being born in the colony counts as "foreign born" exactly.
This has long been considered, Daniel O'Connell in 1843, referring to Wellington:
“The poor old duke, what shall I say of him? To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.”
BREAK: Foreign Office staff advised Peter Mandelson to mislead vetting officers about his foreign connections in order to obtain the highest level of security.
New documents released by the Cabinet Office reveal extra scrutiny was placed on Mandelson’s connections to foreign nations by vetting officers.
In response to a request for a detailed list of his overseas connections during the process, the then-Head of US Global Issues and Canada Team at the Foreign Office advised Mandelson send a “handful of names” even though he didn’t consider them “close contacts”.
“That will reassure the vetting team that you’ve been comprehensive,” the Foreign Office official told Mandelson, “even if it’s all quite artificial”.
Big questions about how this process was managed under severe time (and political) pressures.
"Sikh Federation attacks CPS for 'massive blunder' during trial The Sikh Federation has criticised the Crown Prosecution Service for making a "massive blunder" during the trial of Vickrum Digwa.
It says the CPS should have made clear that the weapon used by Digwa during the murder was "not a kirpan" (a Sikh ceremonial knife) as it had been described throughout the trial.
In the UK, carrying a kirpan is legal, provided it is for religious reasons.
The Sikh Federation says the decision not to release the photograph of the murder weapon is "controversial" and adds to the "huge mistakes made by the police when they arrived on the scene".
It says "politicians and commentators on the right who have made controversial statements based on incorrect information should have the decency to recognise the facts and stop attacking the Sikh identity"."
This sounds like another cock-up from the authorities.
"Sikh Federation attacks CPS for 'massive blunder' during trial The Sikh Federation has criticised the Crown Prosecution Service for making a "massive blunder" during the trial of Vickrum Digwa.
It says the CPS should have made clear that the weapon used by Digwa during the murder was "not a kirpan" (a Sikh ceremonial knife) as it had been described throughout the trial.
In the UK, carrying a kirpan is legal, provided it is for religious reasons.
The Sikh Federation says the decision not to release the photograph of the murder weapon is "controversial" and adds to the "huge mistakes made by the police when they arrived on the scene".
It says "politicians and commentators on the right who have made controversial statements based on incorrect information should have the decency to recognise the facts and stop attacking the Sikh identity"."
Mikel Arteta could learn a lot from him. Some of the best football I'd ever seen as a player and a manager. Loved it when Newcastle were playing Liverpool.
Today's revelations will further damage people's confidence in our political system.
When I left Westminster 10 years ago, I did so in the belief that it needed fundamental culture change. I remain of that view and believe that change can't come soon enough.
People have lost faith in a Westminster system which puts private vested interests above the wider public interest and concentrates too much power in too few hands.
We urgently need a national politics which, rather than looking past places like Makerfield, properly works for them. We need a new political culture that is rooted in accountability and a genuine focus on the priorities of working people.
If we are serious about restoring trust in politics we must rebuild a system where public service is at the heart of decision-making.
Isn’t he meant to be inheriting this? I.e most of his backbenchers want to tax more to fund ever more benefits. Quite a shift required
"Born abroad" is also a misleading statistic that some (e.g. Matt Goodwin) use to exaggerate apparent cultural change. With greater international travel, British people end up having children abroad who are raised in the UK. You then get the likes of Boris Johnson or Bradley Wiggins or Emma Watson*, who were born abroad and add to that number, but who do not represent any sort of cultural change!
* Or indeed Florence Nightingale.
Although binning off Cliff Richard would be a cultural change I reckon we could all get behind.
Cliff Richard is an interesting case. His parents were English, but had moved out to India. He was born in India, and then came to England with his family when he was 7 or 8. This was apparently something of a culture shock for him. He had an Indian accent and how he speaks now was a conscious affectation he took on to avoid being bullied at school.
I don't think that children of colonial administrators being born in the colony counts as "foreign born" exactly.
As far as I understand the UK statistics, Cliff Richard is classified as "born abroad". Ditto Joanna Lumley. My point is exactly that it's a misleading statistics in some ways.
The ONS website is not detailed on this, but says...
British nationals born abroad
Some individuals may be born abroad but are British nationals, either through entitlement or naturalisation. This means they will appear in migration datasets as non-UK-born despite being a British national.
Example:
Lucy and both their parents are British nationals. Lucy was born while their parents were working in the armed forces based overseas in Cyprus. They are therefore recorded as non-UK-born, so will appear in the migration data and statistics when looking at country of birth.
Indeed. At one time Aldershot was the place with the highest proportion of foreign-born residents. No it wasnt all the former Gurkhas who have settled there (although they are part of it) it was all the Army families with people born in Germany
My OH is an Army baby born abroad (boom, tish). And I have siblings with 3 different passports. Nationality is a flexible concept.
BREAK: Foreign Office staff advised Peter Mandelson to mislead vetting officers about his foreign connections in order to obtain the highest level of security.
New documents released by the Cabinet Office reveal extra scrutiny was placed on Mandelson’s connections to foreign nations by vetting officers.
In response to a request for a detailed list of his overseas connections during the process, the then-Head of US Global Issues and Canada Team at the Foreign Office advised Mandelson send a “handful of names” even though he didn’t consider them “close contacts”.
“That will reassure the vetting team that you’ve been comprehensive,” the Foreign Office official told Mandelson, “even if it’s all quite artificial”.
Big questions about how this process was managed under severe time (and political) pressures.
Everyone with the slightest involvement in vetting, and most of us beyond, knew he was a wrong un before the vetting process.
The vetting question is a big red herring. The relevant questions are about judgment.
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...
[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
Hard to disagree with anything Streeting says. Absurd for Mandelson to call it wild or hysterical. Is it generational, I wonder? It feels like a lot of politicians of Mandelson's age can brook no real criticism of Israel. Odd.
I can only think that this will do Wes Streeting absolutely no harm with the left of the Labour Party. Especially since he would have thought this would never be published.
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”.
Some posters like their obsession with curry, make up their minds LONG before anything is released.
Look
You need to grow up rather than throw slurs at posters
I reported an active exchange on a live Sky broadcast over an e mail discussed by their senior political correspondence
You are guilty of nothing more than giving undue credence to Sky presenters' opinions, Big_G.
I'd recommend a touch more scepticism, but I'm not going to condemn you for it.
Lots of talk for a while now about the value of NHS/GP patient record data - and how US IT companies want to (or are already) getting hold of this for their own profit. Oracle (who fund Tony Blair Institute to millions of £/$) Palantir and others are often mentioned.
Could the UK government not somehow extract the financial value of this data on behalf of the UK patient population to help fund the NHS - rather than sell/give it away to US companies? Maybe the govt introduce a new NHS tax (1% of taxable income) but people are exempted from paying if they consent to use of their anonymised data?
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...
[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
Hard to disagree with anything Streeting says. Absurd for Mandelson to call it wild or hysterical. Is it generational, I wonder? It feels like a lot of politicians of Mandelson's age can brook no real criticism of Israel. Odd.
I can only think that this will do Wes Streeting absolutely no harm with the left of the Labour Party. Especially since he would have thought this would never be published.
I found it notable, if only because several PBers predicted the publishing of Streeting's messages would be seriously embarrassing for him.
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”.
Some posters like their obsession with curry, make up their minds LONG before anything is released.
Look
You need to grow up rather than throw slurs at posters
I reported an active exchange on a live Sky broadcast over an e mail discussed by their senior political correspondence
You are guilty of nothing more than giving undue credence to Sky presenters' opinions, Big_G.
I'd recommend a touch more scepticism, but I'm not going to condemn you for it.
For clarity I have posted the Sky piece (6.09) where Coates and Boulton clearly discuss the e mail evidence and Boulton states it suggest blame is not justified re Robbins
I accept fair criticsm but some of it was way too personal and unnecessary
Lots of talk for a while now about the value of NHS/GP patient record data - and how US IT companies want to (or are already) getting hold of this for their own profit. Oracle (who fund Tony Blair Institute to millions of £/$) Palantir and others are often mentioned.
Could the UK government not somehow extract the financial value of this data on behalf of the UK patient population to help fund the NHS - rather than sell/give it away to US companies? Maybe the govt introduce a new NHS tax (1% of taxable income) but people are exempted from paying if they consent to use of their anonymised data?
There are two things going on here
Palantir are offering to “common up” all the NHS patient data into a single unified dataset
The sale of medical data to third parties for research is a somewhat different area. Though it has cross concerns with the Palantir work.
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...
[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
Hard to disagree with anything Streeting says. Absurd for Mandelson to call it wild or hysterical. Is it generational, I wonder? It feels like a lot of politicians of Mandelson's age can brook no real criticism of Israel. Odd.
I can only think that this will do Wes Streeting absolutely no harm with the left of the Labour Party. Especially since he would have thought this would never be published.
I found it notable, if only because several PBers predicted the publishing of Streeting's messages would be seriously embarrassing for him.
They seem a bit meh in that respect.
Yes, I thought he was meant to be Mandelson's protege?
"Born abroad" is also a misleading statistic that some (e.g. Matt Goodwin) use to exaggerate apparent cultural change. With greater international travel, British people end up having children abroad who are raised in the UK. You then get the likes of Boris Johnson or Bradley Wiggins or Emma Watson*, who were born abroad and add to that number, but who do not represent any sort of cultural change!
* Or indeed Florence Nightingale.
Although binning off Cliff Richard would be a cultural change I reckon we could all get behind.
Cliff Richard is an interesting case. His parents were English, but had moved out to India. He was born in India, and then came to England with his family when he was 7 or 8. This was apparently something of a culture shock for him. He had an Indian accent and how he speaks now was a conscious affectation he took on to avoid being bullied at school.
I don't think that children of colonial administrators being born in the colony counts as "foreign born" exactly.
As far as I understand the UK statistics, Cliff Richard is classified as "born abroad". Ditto Joanna Lumley. My point is exactly that it's a misleading statistics in some ways.
The ONS website is not detailed on this, but says...
British nationals born abroad
Some individuals may be born abroad but are British nationals, either through entitlement or naturalisation. This means they will appear in migration datasets as non-UK-born despite being a British national.
Example:
Lucy and both their parents are British nationals. Lucy was born while their parents were working in the armed forces based overseas in Cyprus. They are therefore recorded as non-UK-born, so will appear in the migration data and statistics when looking at country of birth.
Indeed. At one time Aldershot was the place with the highest proportion of foreign-born residents. No it wasnt all the former Gurkhas who have settled there (although they are part of it) it was all the Army families with people born in Germany
My OH is an Army baby born abroad (boom, tish). And I have siblings with 3 different passports. Nationality is a flexible concept.
My mother was born abroad in Southern Africa, her birth registered to British parents and only came to the UK on a parental passport at around 6-7 years old, only obtaining her own British passport in her fifties.
There is a suspicion that her father as registered may not be correct, and that she may partly be of East African Arab extraction.
Given the precedent of Windrush and what Palantir might do with the data they are allowed into, you cannot totally rule out that she might edge into the bottom 10 million on Rupert Lowe's Britishness scale. Her complexion is probably in the bottom 20 million for paleness, in the older order where Italians and Spaniards were considered non-white, she may have had trouble, even though I grew up not regarding her as anything other than British.
Lots of talk for a while now about the value of NHS/GP patient record data - and how US IT companies want to (or are already) getting hold of this for their own profit. Oracle (who fund Tony Blair Institute to millions of £/$) Palantir and others are often mentioned.
Could the UK government not somehow extract the financial value of this data on behalf of the UK patient population to help fund the NHS - rather than sell/give it away to US companies? Maybe the govt introduce a new NHS tax (1% of taxable income) but people are exempted from paying if they consent to use of their anonymised data?
There are two things going on here
Palantir are offering to “common up” all the NHS patient data into a single unified dataset
The sale of medical data to third parties for research is a somewhat different area. Though it has cross concerns with the Palantir work.
Commoning up the NHS patient data is where the previous project utterly fell apart.
But I still wouldn't be wanting Palantir anywhere near the final dataset.
Lots of talk for a while now about the value of NHS/GP patient record data - and how US IT companies want to (or are already) getting hold of this for their own profit. Oracle (who fund Tony Blair Institute to millions of £/$) Palantir and others are often mentioned.
Could the UK government not somehow extract the financial value of this data on behalf of the UK patient population to help fund the NHS - rather than sell/give it away to US companies? Maybe the govt introduce a new NHS tax (1% of taxable income) but people are exempted from paying if they consent to use of their anonymised data?
There are two things going on here
Palantir are offering to “common up” all the NHS patient data into a single unified dataset
The sale of medical data to third parties for research is a somewhat different area. Though it has cross concerns with the Palantir work.
Commoning up the NHS patient data is where the previous project utterly fell apart.
But I still wouldn't be wanting Palantir anywhere near the final dataset.
As most of you know, both myself and my wife have had recent health issues requiring the intervention of hospital consultants and the fact we have to take our GP summary to the consultants so they can extract the information they want including the prescribed medication is bizarre in that they are not permitted access to our GP records
It frankly beggars belief and the sooner the data is made available across the health service the better for those in health care and the patients
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...
[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
Hard to disagree with anything Streeting says. Absurd for Mandelson to call it wild or hysterical. Is it generational, I wonder? It feels like a lot of politicians of Mandelson's age can brook no real criticism of Israel. Odd.
I can only think that this will do Wes Streeting absolutely no harm with the left of the Labour Party. Especially since he would have thought this would never be published.
I found it notable, if only because several PBers predicted the publishing of Streeting's messages would be seriously embarrassing for him.
They seem a bit meh in that respect.
People were hoping for some "lol, oh Peter you're just the best xx" type material, I think.
"Born abroad" is also a misleading statistic that some (e.g. Matt Goodwin) use to exaggerate apparent cultural change. With greater international travel, British people end up having children abroad who are raised in the UK. You then get the likes of Boris Johnson or Bradley Wiggins or Emma Watson*, who were born abroad and add to that number, but who do not represent any sort of cultural change!
* Or indeed Florence Nightingale.
Although binning off Cliff Richard would be a cultural change I reckon we could all get behind.
Cliff Richard is an interesting case. His parents were English, but had moved out to India. He was born in India, and then came to England with his family when he was 7 or 8. This was apparently something of a culture shock for him. He had an Indian accent and how he speaks now was a conscious affectation he took on to avoid being bullied at school.
I don't think that children of colonial administrators being born in the colony counts as "foreign born" exactly.
As far as I understand the UK statistics, Cliff Richard is classified as "born abroad". Ditto Joanna Lumley. My point is exactly that it's a misleading statistics in some ways.
The ONS website is not detailed on this, but says...
British nationals born abroad
Some individuals may be born abroad but are British nationals, either through entitlement or naturalisation. This means they will appear in migration datasets as non-UK-born despite being a British national.
Example:
Lucy and both their parents are British nationals. Lucy was born while their parents were working in the armed forces based overseas in Cyprus. They are therefore recorded as non-UK-born, so will appear in the migration data and statistics when looking at country of birth.
Indeed. At one time Aldershot was the place with the highest proportion of foreign-born residents. No it wasnt all the former Gurkhas who have settled there (although they are part of it) it was all the Army families with people born in Germany
My OH is an Army baby born abroad (boom, tish). And I have siblings with 3 different passports. Nationality is a flexible concept.
My mother was born abroad in Southern Africa, her birth registered to British parents and only came to the UK on a parental passport at around 6-7 years old, only obtaining her own British passport in her fifties.
There is a suspicion that her father as registered may not be correct, and that she may partly be of East African Arab extraction.
Given the precedent of Windrush and what Palantir might do with the data they are allowed into, you cannot totally rule out that she might edge into the bottom 10 million on Rupert Lowe's Britishness scale. Her complexion is probably in the bottom 20 million for paleness, in the older order where Italians and Spaniards were considered non-white, she may have had trouble, even though I grew up not regarding her as anything other than British.
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...
[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
Hard to disagree with anything Streeting says. Absurd for Mandelson to call it wild or hysterical. Is it generational, I wonder? It feels like a lot of politicians of Mandelson's age can brook no real criticism of Israel. Odd.
I can only think that this will do Wes Streeting absolutely no harm with the left of the Labour Party. Especially since he would have thought this would never be published.
I found it notable, if only because several PBers predicted the publishing of Streeting's messages would be seriously embarrassing for him.
They seem a bit meh in that respect.
People were hoping for some "lol, oh Peter you're just the best xx" type material, I think.
The paedo-protector label isn't going away for the GOP.
Howard Lutnick, Trump’s Commerce Secretary, got caught lying about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats grilled him about it and finally got him to agree to testify before the House Oversight Committee.
Four weeks later, Lutnick wrote a $5 million check to the super PAC that funds House Republicans, including members who sit on that committee. Then he showed up for a closed-door interview where, despite pushback from Democrats, no cameras or recordings were allowed. ..
A police force is facing legal action for allowing men who identify as women to use female facilities. Gwent police in south Wales have been accused by the campaign group Women’s Rights Network (WRN) of breaching new guidance on single-sex spaces by allowing transgender women to use female toilets, changing rooms and showers"
Do any of our Reformistas have a view on whether Ref UK will dissociate themselves from "Raise the Colours", given that one of the RTC founders has been charged with murder after punching a pub manager in Lichfield?
The Ref UK Chief Whip has previously firmly backed the organisation, but in contrast has distanced the party from Yaxley-Lennon.
Lots of talk for a while now about the value of NHS/GP patient record data - and how US IT companies want to (or are already) getting hold of this for their own profit. Oracle (who fund Tony Blair Institute to millions of £/$) Palantir and others are often mentioned.
Could the UK government not somehow extract the financial value of this data on behalf of the UK patient population to help fund the NHS - rather than sell/give it away to US companies? Maybe the govt introduce a new NHS tax (1% of taxable income) but people are exempted from paying if they consent to use of their anonymised data?
There are two things going on here
Palantir are offering to “common up” all the NHS patient data into a single unified dataset
The sale of medical data to third parties for research is a somewhat different area. Though it has cross concerns with the Palantir work.
Commoning up the NHS patient data is where the previous project utterly fell apart.
But I still wouldn't be wanting Palantir anywhere near the final dataset.
As most of you know, both myself and my wife have had recent health issues requiring the intervention of hospital consultants and the fact we have to take our GP summary to the consultants so they can extract the information they want including the prescribed medication is bizarre in that they are not permitted access to our GP records
It frankly beggars belief and the sooner the data is made available across the health service the better for those in health care and the patients
I can already access GP records for patients whose care I am involved in.
Do any of our Reformistas have a view on whether Ref UK will dissociate themselves from "Raise the Colours", given that one of the RTC founders has been charged with murder after punching a pub manager in Lichfield?
The Ref UK Chief Whip has previously firmly backed the organisation, but in contrast has distanced the party from Yaxley-Lennon.
Lots of talk for a while now about the value of NHS/GP patient record data - and how US IT companies want to (or are already) getting hold of this for their own profit. Oracle (who fund Tony Blair Institute to millions of £/$) Palantir and others are often mentioned.
Could the UK government not somehow extract the financial value of this data on behalf of the UK patient population to help fund the NHS - rather than sell/give it away to US companies? Maybe the govt introduce a new NHS tax (1% of taxable income) but people are exempted from paying if they consent to use of their anonymised data?
There are two things going on here
Palantir are offering to “common up” all the NHS patient data into a single unified dataset
The sale of medical data to third parties for research is a somewhat different area. Though it has cross concerns with the Palantir work.
Commoning up the NHS patient data is where the previous project utterly fell apart.
But I still wouldn't be wanting Palantir anywhere near the final dataset.
As most of you know, both myself and my wife have had recent health issues requiring the intervention of hospital consultants and the fact we have to take our GP summary to the consultants so they can extract the information they want including the prescribed medication is bizarre in that they are not permitted access to our GP records
It frankly beggars belief and the sooner the data is made available across the health service the better for those in health care and the patients
I can already access GP records for patients whose care I am involved in.
As far ascI am aware not here in North Wales under Wales NHS
Certainly in our experience when being triaged there is no access to our gp records
This month marks Gypsy, Roma and Traveller History Month.
Despite facing discrimination in many areas of life, our Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities have long contributed to life in our capital and today we celebrate that rich legacy.
"Born abroad" is also a misleading statistic that some (e.g. Matt Goodwin) use to exaggerate apparent cultural change. With greater international travel, British people end up having children abroad who are raised in the UK. You then get the likes of Boris Johnson or Bradley Wiggins or Emma Watson*, who were born abroad and add to that number, but who do not represent any sort of cultural change!
* Or indeed Florence Nightingale.
Although binning off Cliff Richard would be a cultural change I reckon we could all get behind.
Cliff Richard is an interesting case. His parents were English, but had moved out to India. He was born in India, and then came to England with his family when he was 7 or 8. This was apparently something of a culture shock for him. He had an Indian accent and how he speaks now was a conscious affectation he took on to avoid being bullied at school.
If only all Indian-born people spoke like Joanna Lumley!
Do any of our Reformistas have a view on whether Ref UK will dissociate themselves from "Raise the Colours", given that one of the RTC founders has been charged with murder after punching a pub manager in Lichfield?
The Ref UK Chief Whip has previously firmly backed the organisation, but in contrast has distanced the party from Yaxley-Lennon.
A police force is facing legal action for allowing men who identify as women to use female facilities. Gwent police in south Wales have been accused by the campaign group Women’s Rights Network (WRN) of breaching new guidance on single-sex spaces by allowing transgender women to use female toilets, changing rooms and showers"
"Born abroad" is also a misleading statistic that some (e.g. Matt Goodwin) use to exaggerate apparent cultural change. With greater international travel, British people end up having children abroad who are raised in the UK. You then get the likes of Boris Johnson or Bradley Wiggins or Emma Watson*, who were born abroad and add to that number, but who do not represent any sort of cultural change!
* Or indeed Florence Nightingale.
Although binning off Cliff Richard would be a cultural change I reckon we could all get behind.
Cliff Richard is an interesting case. His parents were English, but had moved out to India. He was born in India, and then came to England with his family when he was 7 or 8. This was apparently something of a culture shock for him. He had an Indian accent and how he speaks now was a conscious affectation he took on to avoid being bullied at school.
If only all Indian-born people spoke like Joanna Lumley!
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.
The poster in general is a professional bullshit spreader.
Personal abuse about a poster you dislike is unbecoming of you
You have accused several of us of unparliamentary behaviour with regard to your Sky analysis. I don't believe that is appropriate. That is borderline gaslighting.
I was very clear. You have been anything but. Provide the evidence.
@Big_G_NorthWales I think I know what you are alluding to from the final question to Jones. It certainly does not exonerate Robbins although it does ask questions of Wormald.
Thank you and if it is the same e mail communication then that was Coates and Boultons comment that it exomerates Robbins
To be honest I do not know whether Robbins will be exonerated. Interestingly from my quick glance of the documents (page 185ish in the first document = EDIT sorry 145ish) it is clear that Mr Robbins helped draft the note that Wormald sent to the PM saying everything was above board (if a bit expedited. Indeed from what I can make out he provided a lot of text, including:
“The FCDO immediately commenced the national security vetting process, submitting Lord Mandelson as a priority candidate for Developed Vetting to the UK Security Vetting Agency. Clearance was duly given before he commenced his posting on [date]. The FCDO also took on the task of working with Lord Mandelson to understand and mitigate and [sic] conflicts of interest. This process was also concluded before his departure for Washington [can JCS confirm that's true - obv the discussion on his GC shares rumbled on forever but I think I had agreed mitigations with him before he started?].”
Which based on what we know now - he failed the vetting but Robbins approved him based on mitigations - even the most kindest of reading it underplays that fact. Although clearly I have not ploughed through all the papers (and have no intention of doing so).
Yes i think Robbins thought vetting was pointless for someone the PM clearly wanted. Overruling UKSV rid himself of a major headache and no one would ever know.
Then when the proverbial hit the fan, he tried to cover it up/argue we shouldnt release because he knew he hadn't covered himself.
A police force is facing legal action for allowing men who identify as women to use female facilities. Gwent police in south Wales have been accused by the campaign group Women’s Rights Network (WRN) of breaching new guidance on single-sex spaces by allowing transgender women to use female toilets, changing rooms and showers"
So, the women who work there are fine with it, but a campaigning group isn't?
Often people may not be ‘fine with it’ but choose to stay silent for a quiet life. My uni is intending to ignore the latest guidance if the message sent last week holds. I would not raise an objection for fear of the consequences. Too many GC people have had bad experiences in situations like this.
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...
[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
Hard to disagree with anything Streeting says. Absurd for Mandelson to call it wild or hysterical. Is it generational, I wonder? It feels like a lot of politicians of Mandelson's age can brook no real criticism of Israel. Odd.
I can only think that this will do Wes Streeting absolutely no harm with the left of the Labour Party. Especially since he would have thought this would never be published.
I found it notable, if only because several PBers predicted the publishing of Streeting's messages would be seriously embarrassing for him.
They seem a bit meh in that respect.
Wasn’t the Israel exchange published a while back? I’ve definitely read it before.
This month marks Gypsy, Roma and Traveller History Month.
Despite facing discrimination in many areas of life, our Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities have long contributed to life in our capital and today we celebrate that rich legacy.
"Born abroad" is also a misleading statistic that some (e.g. Matt Goodwin) use to exaggerate apparent cultural change. With greater international travel, British people end up having children abroad who are raised in the UK. You then get the likes of Boris Johnson or Bradley Wiggins or Emma Watson*, who were born abroad and add to that number, but who do not represent any sort of cultural change!
* Or indeed Florence Nightingale.
Although binning off Cliff Richard would be a cultural change I reckon we could all get behind.
Cliff Richard is an interesting case. His parents were English, but had moved out to India. He was born in India, and then came to England with his family when he was 7 or 8. This was apparently something of a culture shock for him. He had an Indian accent and how he speaks now was a conscious affectation he took on to avoid being bullied at school.
I don't think that children of colonial administrators being born in the colony counts as "foreign born" exactly.
As far as I understand the UK statistics, Cliff Richard is classified as "born abroad". Ditto Joanna Lumley. My point is exactly that it's a misleading statistics in some ways.
The ONS website is not detailed on this, but says...
British nationals born abroad
Some individuals may be born abroad but are British nationals, either through entitlement or naturalisation. This means they will appear in migration datasets as non-UK-born despite being a British national.
Example:
Lucy and both their parents are British nationals. Lucy was born while their parents were working in the armed forces based overseas in Cyprus. They are therefore recorded as non-UK-born, so will appear in the migration data and statistics when looking at country of birth.
Indeed. At one time Aldershot was the place with the highest proportion of foreign-born residents. No it wasnt all the former Gurkhas who have settled there (although they are part of it) it was all the Army families with people born in Germany
My OH is an Army baby born abroad (boom, tish). And I have siblings with 3 different passports. Nationality is a flexible concept.
My mother was born abroad in Southern Africa, her birth registered to British parents and only came to the UK on a parental passport at around 6-7 years old, only obtaining her own British passport in her fifties.
There is a suspicion that her father as registered may not be correct, and that she may partly be of East African Arab extraction.
Given the precedent of Windrush and what Palantir might do with the data they are allowed into, you cannot totally rule out that she might edge into the bottom 10 million on Rupert Lowe's Britishness scale. Her complexion is probably in the bottom 20 million for paleness, in the older order where Italians and Spaniards were considered non-white, she may have had trouble, even though I grew up not regarding her as anything other than British.
My mum's father was conceived in the Dutch East Indies, born in colonial South Africa and grew up in the Netherlands. This meant he had British as well as Dutch citizenship and he moved to London as a young man. He died when my Mum was young, killed by a bomb in the Blitz. My Mum was raised by her English mum and Scottish stepfather. Would that be British enough for Lowe or Goodwin?
Having been raised an atheist, she converted to Christianity later in life, so maybe that would be OK for Lowe.
Comments
You need to grow up rather than throw slurs at posters
I reported an active exchange on a live Sky broadcast over an e mail discussed by their senior political correspondence
Sturgeon regime uses inside info to keep a clean arse.
I was very clear. You have been anything but. Provide the evidence.
Most politicians, and people generally, form their world view early on and stick with it long past its relevance. The most common departure is a big chunk who turn into nostalgic grumpy old men.
* Johnson, or another Tory, absolutely they would stitch up. See Plebgate for details.
Very embarrassing for Starmer. Absolute zingers from Mandelson.
To be honest I have enough of a pile on today and just rest confident of my observation of Coates and Boulton's comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/01/sweden-urges-parents-to-restrict-phone-use-around-children
He became one
Or would a criminal wear them to make others think they were harmless?
I am thick skinned
To be honest I do not know whether Robbins will be exonerated. Interestingly from my quick glance of the documents (page 185ish in the first document = EDIT sorry 145ish) it is clear that Mr Robbins helped draft the note that Wormald sent to the PM saying everything was above board (if a bit expedited. Indeed from what I can make out he provided a lot of text, including:
“The FCDO immediately commenced the national security vetting process, submitting Lord Mandelson as a priority candidate for Developed Vetting to the UK Security Vetting Agency. Clearance was duly given before he commenced his posting on [date]. The FCDO also took on the task of working with Lord Mandelson to understand and mitigate and [sic] conflicts of interest. This process was also concluded before his departure for Washington [can JCS confirm that's true - obv the discussion on his GC shares rumbled on forever but I think I had agreed mitigations with him before he started?].”
Which based on what we know now - he failed the vetting but Robbins approved him based on mitigations - even the most kindest of reading it underplays that fact. Although clearly I have not ploughed through all the papers (and have no intention of doing so).
I told them back in July 2024 that Rachel Reeves was a turd in a suit. Howls of self-righteous indignation of course, but I dont see too many of them lining up to say how great she is now.
Hide your bawbees
QTWTAIY.
Seriously, some odd recollections of what happened in 2010. As far as student fees were concerned, a number of LD candidates (later MPs) representing University towns had made pledges to the NUS and others not to introduce student fees which was NOT, as I remember, LD policy.
Clegg thought he was doing "grown up politics" by saying there had to be fees because the public finances were in a mess and we were "all i;n this together" as one Mr Cameron was fond of saying and students couldn't expect an easy life if everyone else was having to pay or suffer cuts.
That of course finished the party electorally in the Universities and combined with the very fact of going into coalition with the Conservatives left the party essentially hollowed out and broken - it drifted like a ghost to the ultimate demise of 2015.
There were other factors which added up to a "perfect storm" for the party in 2015.
As to what will happen in 2029, the question currently is whether the Conservatives can survive in their new heartlands - if you put the bet in front of me now, I'd reluctantly concede the Conservatives will win more seats than the LDs but to quote another Tory it "will be a damn close run thing".
Caveats aplenty as we are an eternity from a May or June 2029 poll and one Lord Ashcroft poll notwithstanding, both parties seem relatively becalmed in their current polling with the Conservatives in the high teens and the LDs in the low teens.
Not hard to see LD taking Labour out in parts of Devon and Cornwall and LD holding on to all Tory gains in the same area in 2029.
Tories won't be trusted south of Bristol and West of Dorchester for a generation, outside of Bristol no real Green surge, Reform are not really figuring in many parts.
A vote for LD I think will be seen as a Vote to keep Reform and Tories out and if Labour do offer PR vote, it's hard not to see a Lab / Coalition.
That runs the clock down on Farage and sees Tories extinct and possibly 5th biggest Party behind
Lab or Reform
Ld
Green
SNP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cx21zjnjd2go
Eg if I look at my own family:
My parents in law: born overseas (as subjects of the British Empire). British citizens by naturalization. Matt Goodwin almost certainly doesn't think they are British.
My wife: born here to foreign-born parents. British by birth because like Kemi Badenoch she was born before Thatcher changed the rules. If her parents had come during the "Boriswave" people would be saying she needed to be deported before she got ILR and makes this country unrecognisable. In reality probably way too assimilated for her own good.
Two of my children: born overseas to British parents. Like my parents in law counted as foreign born in the data but counted as British citizens. Third child born in the UK to two British parents so hopefully deportation proof whatever happens.
This is the messy reality that the data largely fail to capture.
The ONS website is not detailed on this, but says...
British nationals born abroad
Some individuals may be born abroad but are British nationals, either through entitlement or naturalisation. This means they will appear in migration datasets as non-UK-born despite being a British national.
Example:
Lucy and both their parents are British nationals. Lucy was born while their parents were working in the armed forces based overseas in Cyprus. They are therefore recorded as non-UK-born, so will appear in the migration data and statistics when looking at country of birth.
Today's revelations will further damage people's confidence in our political system.
When I left Westminster 10 years ago, I did so in the belief that it needed fundamental culture change. I remain of that view and believe that change can't come soon enough.
People have lost faith in a Westminster system which puts private vested interests above the wider public interest and concentrates too much power in too few hands.
We urgently need a national politics which, rather than looking past places like Makerfield, properly works for them. We need a new political culture that is rooted in accountability and a genuine focus on the priorities of working people.
If we are serious about restoring trust in politics we must rebuild a system where public service is at the heart of decision-making.
- I’ve handed my notice in at my place and I’m headed to the competitor starting 19th.
- Talked to five recruiters last week. It's mad
- AI is mindless lol
- Cash in while we all can
- The whole [Silicon] valley is just AI ads. It’s mental. It HAS to be a bubble!!!
It's amazing how people have got so carried away by pattern recognition.
Good that he's keeping his head and cynically exploiting it while it lasts anyway.
“The poor old duke, what shall I say of him? To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse.”
BREAK: Foreign Office staff advised Peter Mandelson to mislead vetting officers about his foreign connections in order to obtain the highest level of security.
New documents released by the Cabinet Office reveal extra scrutiny was placed on Mandelson’s connections to foreign nations by vetting officers.
In response to a request for a detailed list of his overseas connections during the process, the then-Head of US Global Issues and Canada Team at the Foreign Office advised Mandelson send a “handful of names” even though he didn’t consider them “close contacts”.
“That will reassure the vetting team that you’ve been comprehensive,” the Foreign Office official told Mandelson, “even if it’s all quite artificial”.
Big questions about how this process was managed under severe time (and political) pressures.
"Sikh Federation attacks CPS for 'massive blunder' during trial
The Sikh Federation has criticised the Crown Prosecution Service for making a "massive blunder" during the trial of Vickrum Digwa.
It says the CPS should have made clear that the weapon used by Digwa during the murder was "not a kirpan" (a Sikh ceremonial knife) as it had been described throughout the trial.
In the UK, carrying a kirpan is legal, provided it is for religious reasons.
The Sikh Federation says the decision not to release the photograph of the murder weapon is "controversial" and adds to the "huge mistakes made by the police when they arrived on the scene".
It says "politicians and commentators on the right who have made controversial statements based on incorrect information should have the decency to recognise the facts and stop attacking the Sikh identity"."
https://news.sky.com/story/vickrum-digwa-sentencing-live-killer-who-murdered-student-and-told-wicked-racism-lie-about-victim-faces-jail-13549752
"Sikh Federation attacks CPS for 'massive blunder' during trial
The Sikh Federation has criticised the Crown Prosecution Service for making a "massive blunder" during the trial of Vickrum Digwa.
It says the CPS should have made clear that the weapon used by Digwa during the murder was "not a kirpan" (a Sikh ceremonial knife) as it had been described throughout the trial.
In the UK, carrying a kirpan is legal, provided it is for religious reasons.
The Sikh Federation says the decision not to release the photograph of the murder weapon is "controversial" and adds to the "huge mistakes made by the police when they arrived on the scene".
It says "politicians and commentators on the right who have made controversial statements based on incorrect information should have the decency to recognise the facts and stop attacking the Sikh identity"."
https://news.sky.com/story/vickrum-digwa-sentencing-live-killer-who-murdered-student-and-told-wicked-racism-lie-about-victim-faces-jail-13549752
https://www.youtube.com/live/Bak2DEulc0Q?si=bBxZjQY8aT4j6ZCr
The vetting question is a big red herring. The relevant questions are about judgment.
Upon downing it, @malcolmg opines upon your character, your appearance etc.
This is the formal Swearing In.
Then everyone cheers.
I'd recommend a touch more scepticism, but I'm not going to condemn you for it.
Could the UK government not somehow extract the financial value of this data on behalf of the UK patient population to help fund the NHS - rather than sell/give it away to US companies? Maybe the govt introduce a new NHS tax (1% of taxable income) but people are exempted from paying if they consent to use of their anonymised data?
They seem a bit meh in that respect.
I accept fair criticsm but some of it was way too personal and unnecessary
Palantir are offering to “common up” all the NHS patient data into a single unified dataset
The sale of medical data to third parties for research is a somewhat different area. Though it has cross concerns with the Palantir work.
Short of being found astride Starmer in No 10 it's endlessly boring piffle.
The positive impact though for potential leadership candidates like Streeting could define the next 10 to 15 years of Labour governance
There is a suspicion that her father as registered may not be correct, and that she may partly be of East African Arab extraction.
Given the precedent of Windrush and what Palantir might do with the data they are allowed into, you cannot totally rule out that she might edge into the bottom 10 million on Rupert Lowe's Britishness scale. Her complexion is probably in the bottom 20 million for paleness, in the older order where Italians and Spaniards were considered non-white, she may have had trouble, even though I grew up not regarding her as anything other than British.
But I still wouldn't be wanting Palantir anywhere near the final dataset.
It frankly beggars belief and the sooner the data is made available across the health service the better for those in health care and the patients
Howard Lutnick, Trump’s Commerce Secretary, got caught lying about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats grilled him about it and finally got him to agree to testify before the House Oversight Committee.
Four weeks later, Lutnick wrote a $5 million check to the super PAC that funds House Republicans, including members who sit on that committee. Then he showed up for a closed-door interview where, despite pushback from Democrats, no cameras or recordings were allowed. ..
https://x.com/RepMikeLevin/status/2061439619527213071
A police force is facing legal action for allowing men who identify as women to use female facilities.
Gwent police in south Wales have been accused by the campaign group Women’s Rights Network (WRN) of breaching new guidance on single-sex spaces by allowing transgender women to use female toilets, changing rooms and showers"
https://www.facebook.com/timesandsundaytimes/posts/a-police-force-is-facing-legal-action-for-allowing-men-who-identify-as-women-to-/1442246457932746/
The Ref UK Chief Whip has previously firmly backed the organisation, but in contrast has distanced the party from Yaxley-Lennon.
https://www.birminghamdispatch.co.uk/raise-the-colours-founder-charged-with-murder/
Evening all.
Strugeon and Mandelson? We are being spoiled.
The alleged culprit a person very disliked by people aware of his football hooligan past.
Certainly in our experience when being triaged there is no access to our gp records
This month marks Gypsy, Roma and Traveller History Month.
Despite facing discrimination in many areas of life, our Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities have long contributed to life in our capital and today we celebrate that rich legacy.
Just imagine - over 1.5 billion Joanna Lumleys...
Then when the proverbial hit the fan, he tried to cover it up/argue we shouldnt release because he knew he hadn't covered himself.
Having been raised an atheist, she converted to Christianity later in life, so maybe that would be OK for Lowe.