An early indication of what's to come in November.

Absolutely. A pre-emptive strike, lest Labour members get any ideas that she will be our next Prime Minister.

Yes, I just saw a Labour MP called Brash has 'called for Statmer to resign to end the distraction'. Does he think that he is helping quell the distraction? Does he think that a 12 week leadership election will end it? Does he think that if, say, Angela Rayner became PM the media would love her?

Boring, efficient, quiet, competent Government, does not make for good newspaper sales, clicks or TV news ratings.

The print media is an industry in decline, desperate to survive. They need more chaos and corruption.

It is my opinion, and your reply is unnecessarily abusive and rude. This is BlueSky not X.

Lies Industry UK - Darren Jones: An inquiry is underway into the leaking of confidential information to The Guardian. Tom Whitehead, FCDO Deputy Director of Communications, is the husband of The Guardian political editor Crerar.

Starmer is basically decent and honest. He doesn't have the 'charismatic boyish mischief' that attracted so many people to Johnson, but he is a serious, rather boring politician. He has hugely repaired the standing of the UK on the world stage and is busy rebuilding the UK economy. He should not go.

It is worse than a lack of trust. Former allies in Europe now 'fear' you. We fear that the mad man in the White House is quite capable of turning his armed forces into adversaries. Greenland was a shock. Had he tried to invade, there would have been direct killing between American troops and NATO.

No one? The whole of Europe thinks you are a sucker. You should try and get out more.

I see it was 'Yes'. Very happy for you this morning. A small glint of good news in the gloom.

Robbins corroborated everything Starmer said in Parliament yesterday. He said in his view he did the right thing not to tell Ministers, under the current rules.

Are you able to give a flavour of how your election is going? Indications of yes/no from the turn out levels, for example?

He's desperate to wring a little more out of it somehow. Tedious.

After my mini outburst earlier, it's actually quite hilarious to see all these different actors (in more ways than one) - media, politicians - attempt to bring Starmer down once again and failing miserably.

There is one simple truth at the heart of this:

They have absolutely nothing on Starmer.

To be clear. Starmer has seen off the media. Yet again. For the umpteenth time.

Not because he is cleverer or has some devilish, devious strategies.

Because he's honest and straightforward and always plays a straight bat.

That's what they can't fathom and it's what they hate.

The last gasp.

Yes, maybe Robbins did completely corroborate everything you said yesterday, but resign anyway, just because.

No, just one of the people who pays his wages.

Ooh, a pundit manages to wring out a new angle. "Keir Starmer is wrong to act so upset. Even if he was absolutely enraged that Robbins told no one that Mandelson failed his vetting, Starmer should have pretended to be pretty cool about it all"

They've been given the go-ahead by Tr*mp? I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if this was the back channel message. Tr*mp would see a minor successful attack on Latvia as leverage he could use to blackmail NATO.

"You didn't support me in Iran so now see how it feels".

He is that stupid.

When did people decide the Government and PM who aren't fulfilling all their personal wish lists are failing. We have a Government delivering its manifesto at warp speed, targeting the least well off, of course they aren't doing everything we all want, which Government could or will.

Podcasters, pundits and pontificators who have been on a feeding frenzy since Crerar broke her 'non scoop' last week, are now thrashing around bitterly disappointed that their prey is escaping.

He didn't lie to Parliament. He admitted it was a very bad appointment. Starmer is going nowhere.

Just imagine though, if your President publicly admitted his mistake in appointing, e.g. Hegseth, Patel etc. and then went along to congress where he stood for two hours to apologise and give members the chance to berate him and ask why, why, why?

That's what the British PM did yesterday.

He didn't lie.

BSky has been full of pundits and pontificators who have been on a feeding frenzy since Crerar broke her 'non scoop' last week, and they are now thrashing around bitterly disappointed that their prey is escaping.

He didn't lie to Parliament. He admitted it was a very bad appointment. End.

I agree he should use every opportunity to try and reset the relationship with the media but I am sceptical because, as journalist Lewis Goodall said a couple of days ago, the media have hated Labour since Labour was created in the 1920s

I don't think it's about loyalty to Starmer.

She is a barrister, a professional doing her job. Forensically examining the evidence.

Her role as Committee Chair is on behalf of Parliament not the Government, so she is being 'loyal' to MPs if anyone.

She is a professional. An excellent MP and perfect in the role of Committee Chair.

I'm not sure why Starmer didn't make her AG but whether it's luck, or his judgement, she is in the right place today.

Robbins is embarrassing himself. He's a Permanent Secretary not a 20 year old intern. His primary job was to stand up to Ministers and ensure they are acting with propriety. If he does not have the confidence to stand up to pressure from a SPAD then he should not have applied for the job.

I agree with you. Starmer agrees with you. He admitted months ago it was a terrible error of judgement.

But that's not the current discussion, which is whether he lied to Parliament or not.

He didn't.

"Is there any record of a the phone calls from No10 where this 'pressure was applied?"

"No a modern civil servant can't make a record of every call"

"Okay but a call of such magnitude, to insist on appointing the US Ambassador, was there no record of such a call.?"

"I don't think so, no"

Thornberry's forensic questioning is demolishing Robbins claims of 'pressure'.

"were there emails?

"Er I don't think so"