I read yesterday that Labour would have preferred Reform to have won the by-election and Starmer seems to be wanting to paint the Greens as extreme hard-left.
From where Starmer is standing, the Greens probably are extreme hard-left. Mind you, from where Starmer stands, Harold Macmillan was left wing.
And Starmer's tantrum about 'secterianism' lent oxygen to Reform's claim about family voting.
Starmer is only seeing behind him as he watching his back. He has survived the bye election. The local and other elections coming up may take him out. Welsh Labour are still trying to distance themselves from Westminster. I don’t know if they can.
Starmer remains only as a punching bag until after the May elections. Might as well let him soak up all the inevitable bad news. Presumably Streeting is hoping people forget about Mandelson by then. Sarwar will, I assume, also be forced to walk the plank.
Starmer is only seeing behind him as he watching his back. He has survived the bye election. The local and other elections coming up may take him out. Welsh Labour are still trying to distance themselves from Westminster. I don’t know if they can.
In Wales things could get very complicated with two new forces, Reform and The Greens, potentially splitting the vote up to six ways (if the Tories get anything at all). Somehow the “anti Reform” vote has to mobilise sensibly which could be disastrous for Starmer, or merely a poor show.
It seems that the Labour Home Secretary, whose name I forget, is today talking about ways to punish refugees. I guess it is because she thinks they are not homeless in sufficient numbers.
We are in a dangerous moment. The Iran war looks like it could get a lot worse, currently fuel prices are spiking because of blockages in the Strait of Hormuz. There seems potential that this could spiral into a full inflationary crisis.
Without oil and gas imports the economy is going to grind to a halt within weeks.
The Chancellor’s reassurances yesterday don’t look so good today. This could get out of control quickly. I feel a little sorry for her. It is not her fault Trump decided to take matters into his own hands.
I'm not sure who this is supposed to appeal to, presumably there are Labour supporters somewhere who really want the UK PM to be Presidential -- though the adenoidal voice somewhat undermines the footage of helicopters.
I read yesterday that Labour would have preferred Reform to have won the by-election and Starmer seems to be wanting to paint the Greens as extreme hard-left.
From where Starmer is standing, the Greens probably are extreme hard-left. Mind you, from where Starmer stands, Harold Macmillan was left wing.
And Starmer's tantrum about 'secterianism' lent oxygen to Reform's claim about family voting.
And one looks obviously false and the other terribly cynical given the outcome of the investigation.
Meanwhile even his friends are finding out that Goodwin has a very off putting Partridge-like persona:
Apropos of nothing I enjoyed this Martin Rowson piece in the Guardian about how Keir Starmer is (checks notes) very popular in Beijing - I particularly like the restaurant menu with his face on it...
Can our prime minister escape, Houdini like, from this Mandleson affair? I think the last thing we need now is a new prime minister.
Depends who it is. The problem is that the Labour Party is sorely lacking in "big beasts" just now. There's no Brown, no Cook, no Mowlam, just a gang of hacks and spivs.
... and if not for the Americans burning people they don't care about he'd still be in post. So much for the curiosity and investigation skills of the British media.
Just now we seem to be at the "Heads will roll. Assistant heads, anyway." stage.
I'm reminded of Mandelson's letter to Epstein after he had been sentenced in 2008, where he assured him that such a thing "just could not happen in Britain"
Starmer has said he will not resign. I never thought he would. The call from the leader of the opposition for him to go was the right thing for her to do, but it is not going to happen. Not before the upcoming elections at least
True, but with the exception of Gordon Brown, he never let anyone really develop in office to the point where they could be a serious alternative leader to him.
There is that. I could never understand it, but you are right. The tribute act is critically defective, and appears to have appointed a centenary edition of Oswald Moseley as health secretary.
True, but with the exception of Gordon Brown, he never let anyone really develop in office to the point where they could be a serious alternative leader to him.
I think, to an extent, some of that was circumstantial - thinking of Mo Mowlam and Robin Cook here in particular - and other Blair-era remnants such as Yvette Cooper are unfortunately worse now than they were under Blair. I don't think Starmer has done anything close to introducing minimum wage for instance, which even the Lib Dems at the time opposed.
True, but with the exception of Gordon Brown, he never let anyone really develop in office to the point where they could be a serious alternative leader to him.
He didn’t have the choice. Gordon Brown got where he did on his own terms. He was very unlucky to be at the top in the aftermath of the Credit Crunch. He wasn’t perfect but he was better than Blair and Starmer.
True, but with the exception of Gordon Brown, he never let anyone really develop in office to the point where they could be a serious alternative leader to him.
I think, to an extent, some of that was circumstantial - thinking of Mo Mowlam and Robin Cook here in particular - and other Blair-era remnants such as Yvette Cooper are unfortunately worse now than they were under Blair. I don't think Starmer has done anything close to introducing minimum wage for instance, which even the Lib Dems at the time opposed.
True, but with the exception of Gordon Brown, he never let anyone really develop in office to the point where they could be a serious alternative leader to him.
I think, to an extent, some of that was circumstantial - thinking of Mo Mowlam and Robin Cook here in particular - and other Blair-era remnants such as Yvette Cooper are unfortunately worse now than they were under Blair. I don't think Starmer has done anything close to introducing minimum wage for instance, which even the Lib Dems at the time opposed.
The issue is that it wasn't his policy, it's significantly watered down from the original proposal, and it's complete insufficient to the economic circumstances.
I do not understand the point of security vetting, if you are not going to tell the person making the appointment if the appointee passed or failed.
Nobody refuses to tell an employer if someone has passed or failed a CRB check on the grounds of confidentiality.
Likewise in jobs where you have occupational health and CRB checks, you typically make the offer subject to the person being cleared to work.
I don’t understand Olly Robinson’s position on Mandleson’s vetting at all. Passing on whether someone has passed or failed security vetting, is not the same as passing on all the information examined in the process of the vetting.
I watched it with my Dad who is a retired career diplomat. He feels Olly Robbins was right about the information sharing. I think Robbins may have followed the process, but to me the process seems to be both wrong and confusing. Robbins doesn’t know, for example, how often the vetting agency recommendations are overruled on professional judgement - this seems poor. It is unclear how the the process is audited and checked. If it’s all done on without minutes of conversations - then you just need one bad actor to fuck it up.
Essentially, Robbin’s argument was that - vetting is a black box of confidentiality due to the intrusive nature of the scrutiny and that is of overriding importance. For certain departments, including FCO and defence - the vetting agency outcome is only a recommendation not the outcome of the vetting, which is the outcome of a review by those depts internal teams including consideration of what they can mitigate. He as line manager would not see the raw vetting materials.
He was *told* (did not see the vetting agency paperwork) that it was borderline but FCO thought it could mitigate - and therefore the outcome was a vetting “pass”.
He never told the pm the vetting agency recommendations.
So:
Keir Starmer told parliament Mandelson passed vetting, according to Robbins this was true.
Keir Starmer told parliament Mandelson was subject to due process, according to Robbins this was true.
Keir Starmer told parliament he was not told by civil servants that Mandelson had not passed some element the vetting process, according to Robbins this was true.
The fundamental disagreement seems to be whether vetting agency recommendations should have been passed on or not. Also, Robbins claimed he didn’t think he was under undue pressure, nor were the risks they were talking about mitigating anything to do with Epstein.
Also Robbins seemed to be operating without minutes for many important discussions and decisions.
I presume that the government was confident Mandelson would pass security vetting, because he’d previously been a cabinet minister and was currently a peer - ie had already held senior responsibility in government and had therefore presumably passed security vetting before.
As Emily Thornberry pointed out, a key fact is the vetting process didn’t work. In that they now know Mandelson had passed government information on (though not this time around.)
I get the feeling from where I am that this is one more thing in a line of miss fires. Giving the job to Mandleson is just the latest problem. The elections in May could be his last hope.
Robbins doesn’t know, for example, how often the vetting agency recommendations are overruled on professional judgement - this seems poor.
I'm not sure why this is that surprising, that's fundamental to a process built on personal discretion by the senior civil servants in charge of each department.
Also, Robbins claimed he didn’t think he was under undue pressure, nor were the risks they were talking about mitigating anything to do with Epstein.
He does however use the phrase 'constant pressure'.
I get the feeling from where I am that this is one more thing in a line of miss fires. Giving the job to Mandleson is just the latest problem. The elections in May could be his last hope.
The fundamental problem is that this is Mandelson's and co's project, of which Starmer is just the figurehead, and now two of the prime movers have disappeared from the scene.
The nature of vetting is that it will always be, to an extent, a "black box", especially the deeper vetting associated with national security. If done properly, vetting will always include personal information, some of which may not be relevant to the questions to be answered and the panel should have the discretion to limit what's in their report to just what is relevant. Because the report will contain personal information it's going to be covered by GDPR, in addition to any restrictions that might relate to the security aspects of the process, and hence the people who would have access to the full report would be heavily restricted. Certainly there would be no reason for the PM to have the full report, just as when hiring staff the answers to any equality monitoring questions will be retained by HR and not passed to the selection/interview panel or even the line manager upon appointment unless relevant (eg: if certain accommodations will be needed in the work environment). Though, that doesn't explain why a summary of some form wasn't passed up to the person ultimately making the appointment, just a statement along the lines of "after completing security vetting and consideration of the outcome which highlighted some concerns, we recommend appointment with the following mitigations in place ...", which might well result in the PM asking "what concerns?" before confirming the appointment.
My understanding is that the security vetting was only concerned with risks of Mandelson passing restricting information to people who didn't have clearance to have that, and we now know that that had happened in the past, and other issues directly related to national security. So, the absence of any questions about Epstein is entirely consistent with that, the one thing that is certain is that Mandelson wouldn't pass any information on to a dead man. Risks associated with institutional reputation wouldn't be an obvious concern for a security related vetting, that's something for politicians to consider. Likewise, if the PM had been told there were concerns about security vetting, the risks to institutional reputation of having announced an appointment only to withdraw it (which obviously raises questions of "why?") would also need to be a political decision.
Comments
And Starmer's tantrum about 'secterianism' lent oxygen to Reform's claim about family voting.
In Wales things could get very complicated with two new forces, Reform and The Greens, potentially splitting the vote up to six ways (if the Tories get anything at all). Somehow the “anti Reform” vote has to mobilise sensibly which could be disastrous for Starmer, or merely a poor show.
https://bsky.app/profile/jdportes.bsky.social/post/3mgcdxh3fpc2z
Without oil and gas imports the economy is going to grind to a halt within weeks.
https://bsky.app/profile/politicsuk.com/post/3mgdvb7uj3s2t
I'm not sure who this is supposed to appeal to, presumably there are Labour supporters somewhere who really want the UK PM to be Presidential -- though the adenoidal voice somewhat undermines the footage of helicopters.
And one looks obviously false and the other terribly cynical given the outcome of the investigation.
Meanwhile even his friends are finding out that Goodwin has a very off putting Partridge-like persona:
https://bsky.app/profile/huwcdavies.bsky.social/post/3mi2zbdzlls2e
https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-issues-48-hour-ultimatum-over-reckless-doctors-strikes-13526295
Depends who it is. The problem is that the Labour Party is sorely lacking in "big beasts" just now. There's no Brown, no Cook, no Mowlam, just a gang of hacks and spivs.
Oh, hold on, that's now called 'Reform'.
I'm reminded of Mandelson's letter to Epstein after he had been sentenced in 2008, where he assured him that such a thing "just could not happen in Britain"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_Peter_Mandelson_and_Jeffrey_Epstein#Support_of_Epstein
True.
But if he did know when why take him on? If he didn't know he should have done. It's a crucial appointment.
If there was anyone resembling an alternative to Starmer, they would be a shoo-in. But Andy Burnham isn’t in Parliament.
And seems to be actively being blocked by Starmer. The commitment by Starmer to prevent absolutely any dissent in the PLP is shameful.
Blair was confident in his abilities (too confident...) and therefore wasn't paranoid about backbenchers who disagreed with him.
I think a lot of that is down to the weakness of the Opposition at the time, and the backing of The Sun.
I think, to an extent, some of that was circumstantial - thinking of Mo Mowlam and Robin Cook here in particular - and other Blair-era remnants such as Yvette Cooper are unfortunately worse now than they were under Blair. I don't think Starmer has done anything close to introducing minimum wage for instance, which even the Lib Dems at the time opposed.
He didn’t have the choice. Gordon Brown got where he did on his own terms. He was very unlucky to be at the top in the aftermath of the Credit Crunch. He wasn’t perfect but he was better than Blair and Starmer.
I don’t think that’s fair - day one sickness leave and parental leave rights are significant.
The issue is that it wasn't his policy, it's significantly watered down from the original proposal, and it's complete insufficient to the economic circumstances.
Nobody refuses to tell an employer if someone has passed or failed a CRB check on the grounds of confidentiality.
Likewise in jobs where you have occupational health and CRB checks, you typically make the offer subject to the person being cleared to work.
I don’t understand Olly Robinson’s position on Mandleson’s vetting at all. Passing on whether someone has passed or failed security vetting, is not the same as passing on all the information examined in the process of the vetting.
"Could the Labour Party replace Keir Starmer without telling him?"
After this mornings testimony it's seems some information was passed over to the PM.
Essentially, Robbin’s argument was that - vetting is a black box of confidentiality due to the intrusive nature of the scrutiny and that is of overriding importance. For certain departments, including FCO and defence - the vetting agency outcome is only a recommendation not the outcome of the vetting, which is the outcome of a review by those depts internal teams including consideration of what they can mitigate. He as line manager would not see the raw vetting materials.
He was *told* (did not see the vetting agency paperwork) that it was borderline but FCO thought it could mitigate - and therefore the outcome was a vetting “pass”.
He never told the pm the vetting agency recommendations.
So:
Keir Starmer told parliament Mandelson passed vetting, according to Robbins this was true.
Keir Starmer told parliament Mandelson was subject to due process, according to Robbins this was true.
Keir Starmer told parliament he was not told by civil servants that Mandelson had not passed some element the vetting process, according to Robbins this was true.
The fundamental disagreement seems to be whether vetting agency recommendations should have been passed on or not. Also, Robbins claimed he didn’t think he was under undue pressure, nor were the risks they were talking about mitigating anything to do with Epstein.
Also Robbins seemed to be operating without minutes for many important discussions and decisions.
I presume that the government was confident Mandelson would pass security vetting, because he’d previously been a cabinet minister and was currently a peer - ie had already held senior responsibility in government and had therefore presumably passed security vetting before.
As Emily Thornberry pointed out, a key fact is the vetting process didn’t work. In that they now know Mandelson had passed government information on (though not this time around.)
I'm not sure why this is that surprising, that's fundamental to a process built on personal discretion by the senior civil servants in charge of each department.
He does however use the phrase 'constant pressure'.
The fundamental problem is that this is Mandelson's and co's project, of which Starmer is just the figurehead, and now two of the prime movers have disappeared from the scene.
My understanding is that the security vetting was only concerned with risks of Mandelson passing restricting information to people who didn't have clearance to have that, and we now know that that had happened in the past, and other issues directly related to national security. So, the absence of any questions about Epstein is entirely consistent with that, the one thing that is certain is that Mandelson wouldn't pass any information on to a dead man. Risks associated with institutional reputation wouldn't be an obvious concern for a security related vetting, that's something for politicians to consider. Likewise, if the PM had been told there were concerns about security vetting, the risks to institutional reputation of having announced an appointment only to withdraw it (which obviously raises questions of "why?") would also need to be a political decision.