Indeed, and those who find the Home Secretary's policies too restrictive have made similar criticisms of Noem and ICE, and of comparable restrictions by the EU/its Member States, usually adopted by white politicians too
A bad policy is a bad policy, IDGAF if the politician is white, brown or purple
The Iran Embassy in South Africa to Americans:
“Your enemies aren't in Iran. They are in the Epstein files.”
🍿
It is preposterous and honestly rather shameful for Starmer to act so upset over the Mandelson affair. He is basically attacking Robbins for doing precisely what he wanted him to do inews.co.uk/opinion/unbe...
Well let's see how this strategy of telling "white liberals" to "fuck right off" works out in the local elections
Robbins: "I was told that UKSV [UK Security Vetting] were leaning towards recommending against, but accepted it was a borderline case" www.theguardian.com/politics/liv...
U.S. forces boarded a sanctioned tanker in the Indo-Pacific without incident, the Pentagon said.
Robbins claiming in March 2025 he was asked to "potentially" find PM's then director of comms Matthew Doyle a job as an ambassador or high commissioner: www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ce...
Sir Humphrey reincarnated
Further confirmation that gloom over the labour market was considerably overdone.
Employment numbers also look broadly stable, and real wages still rising (slowly).
www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
I would also note that despite the (understandable) concern about youth unemployment/NEETs, the number of 18-24 years old on payrolls is actually *up* year on year.
www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...
Prime Ministers who demand that they are brought solutions not problems, end up being presented with even bigger problems.
Good morning, and welcome to another day of law and process being used to obscure and evade questions of politics and accountability.
Often politicians and political pundits tut-tut at issues of law and process being raised in political contexts, but many of them are happily doing it themselves.
So far, the position appears to be:
There was no legal/constitutional restriction on FCO on reporting the vetting result to PM.
But!
There was also no legal/constitutional obligation on FCO to report the vetting result to PM.
It was a judgement call: a question of accountability, and politics.
And that judgement call has to be seen in context of a PM publicly announcing a key political ally as Ambassador to the US, despite PM being warned by Case that the vetting had to take place before announcement.
If Robbins thought the risks shown by vetting were manageable, he was serving the PM.
The PM has since changed the process.
But the PM has sacked Robbins for following the process in place at the time, and for finding a way for putting into effect the PM's public decsion.
Again (with ex government lawyer wig on): nothing in data protection law or otherwise *either* (a) legally obliged FCO to share vetting result with PM or (b) legally prevented FCO from sharing vetting result with PM.
It was a choice either way.
Here vetting result distinct from the personal data.
Netanyahu claimed last week that Magyar invited him to Hungary.
Today Magyar said that Netanyahu will be arrested if he enters Hungary:
“I made it clear to the Israeli PM — we will not back down... If a state is an ICC member and a person who is wanted enters that territory, they must be detained”
If nothing else, the decision to sack Robbins, when he didn't need to, must rank as one of the most absurd acts of political self-harm any prime minister has yet committed. All of this eminently foreseeable.
Robbins says given the way I have been treated in recent days (i.e. sacked) ... he regrets he didn't have some of the points made by the PM subsequently put to him before he was sacked.
Robbins says he doesn't fully understand why he is in the situation he is in (i.e. sacked) but that is subject to a different process.
And wishes he was still there leading his colleague in FCDO.
Robbins says Starmer should have made it explicitly clear that he didn't want Mandelson appointed if UKSV was not cleared without reservations.
UK was pushing for US to grant agrement before UKSV had even started.
Robbins cited Foreign Office Minister Doughty's line from 16 Sep that:
"the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome"
i.e. Robbins had no obligation (quite the opposite) to tell Ministers of nuances
Reform really should be an absolute gift to a sitting government. Deeply target-rich opposition leader who is badly tainted by Trump. Back rank of even more unlikeable characters. Real nervousness among voters about them.
That Labour is still doing so badly shows exactly why Starmer needs to go
Genuinely one of the most preposterous things I've heard in in this whole affair.
Further evidence of a lack of deep thinking in government about the reality of the world. Or even waist-high thinking.
www.politico.eu/article/keir...
The idea that being *a member of the House of Lords* in any way means you can be trusted with Top Secret/STRAP material without proper vetting is so beyond absurd that this must surely be a joke?
MPs are furious about this - especially the quotes from Epstein victims.
Ouch, Robbins says there was discussion in No10 as to whether Mandelson, as a peer, needed to be vetted *at all* for the job of ambassador to the US
BREAKING - Robbins says that there was a "live debate" prior to his employment about whether Mandelson should undergo any vetting whatsoever before he was appointed as ambassador.
Robbins says that when he arrived in post, a due diligence report had been undertaken by the Cabinet Office, and the PM had announced the appointment - and [Mandelson] was already being given higher classification briefings
Robbins says there was generally dismissive attitude towards his clearance.
