I genuinely don’t understand people saying that Starmer should be more curious about this. At the time the US was imposing trade barriers, now it’s Iran. When exactly was he supposed to do all this vetting or could it be that he trusted his 250 K cabinet sec to make the right decision?
It didn’t seem to occur to Robbins that he wrote anything down either did it? So we just have his word on it, the word of a man who’s just been fired and he felt he didn’t need to inform the prime minister of a serious anomaly.
I’m pretty sure that he said that the idea was dropped quite quickly.
He also said it didn’t go very far and was dropped. It might have simply been thinking out loud and as such he wouldn’t have wanted to involve anybody else.
The child benefit is lifted, lying to millions is just hyperbole, and honestly the elderly pacifist were there to be arrested and were actually protesting about Gaza. They were protesting about the right to protest, which is okay but actually took the light off Gaza which is where it needed to be
When it’s going to be a labour politician because we still have an enormous majority. So it’s between Angela Rayner, Andy Burnham if he can get a seat or Wes Streeting. I think he should say that he’ll go on until the party conference and then the hustings can be done over the summer.
Starmer genuinely embodies the Peter principle of economics. He’s working flat out and he’s done some good things but he simply isn’t up to the job although not for lack of trying. I feel quite sorry for him. I don’t think he realised that politics would be part of this job and he s shit at it.
She’s not the sixth former on work experience. She’s paid to represent her constituents and she knows perfectly well what the rules are. She could have made exactly the same point, not got thrown out and remain in the debate to represent a constituent but she wanted to create drama
He’s already apologised and said it was the wrong decision on more than one occasion, so let’s not pretend that didn’t happen
Nonsense. It was the behaviour of a sixth form student. She knows the rules, she’s paid to represent a constituency not get thrown out.
"16-year-old Mohamed al‑Jabari... was riding his bicycle on his way to school, he was run over by... security guards of an Israeli minister...
...Raja Owais... was pronounced dead... succumbing to wounds she sustained from #Israeli army gunfire 2 ys ago."
english.palinfo.com/news/2026/04...
#News
You pretty much summed it up. I hold no brief for Starmer but OR had lots of recollections but no notes to back them up, which both I and Emily Thornbury found odd, especially as he’s already been to the foreign Aff committee once and didn’t say anything. The press will damn Starmer completely.
Mayor Mamdani and a group of children hold hands while running through red tape in a hallway.
For too long, bureaucracy kept 7 child care centers across our city empty — spaces that should have been alive with laughter instead collected dust.
We've run through that red tape. This fall, all 7 will open their doors, bringing an additional 240 free 3-K seats & real relief to working families.
It’s either naive or it’s not entirely true. He’s lost his job, he’s clearly highly intelligent and he must know that there are things that he can say that cannot be proved either way 100%.
Yes apparently
But the facts matter. There are plenty of reasons Starmer should go, not least that he seems to have been gullible enough to allow McSweeney free reign, but he shouldn’t go on the back of assertions via high ranking civil servant that he cannot actually back up.
I’m concerned that he has regurgitated all of this but didn’t take any notes. The press is swallowing it whole, but there is no actual proof of anything. At that level you keep records surely? I agree with Emily Thornberry that he should have been honest last time he gave evidence in HoC.
NEW | On an odd choice…
WHY DID BBC BREAKFAST GIVE REFORM UK A SPECIAL GRAPHIC?
A small detail in a brief report sparks some big questions about what the national broadcaster is doing during the run up to local and national elections.
brokenbottleboy.substack.com/p/why-did-bb...
A lot of people spent days going "OMG OMG OMG popcorn at the ready SiR kEiTh obvs lying; Olly Robbins has the receipts". Now they're like "too clever to get caught, they did it with VIBEZ."
From "Starmer is really bad at politics" straight to "Starmer is Machiavelli reincarnated" - like every week.
Not bothered by people who want Starmer to go. I agree. My reasons are selfishly practical - he lacks the vision and charisma to lead the UK through impossibly challenging times. What bothers me is when people cosplay moral outrage to not just oust, but destroy him, because it gives them a thrill.
And everybody believes every word that Ollie Robbins said even though he didn’t have any notes to back it up, which is very odd in a civil servant, particularly in such a high position. But the press don’t question it because it adds to the drama.
I actually don’t like him because of his stance on Israel so I will struggle to vote for labour if he is still in charge but that doesn’t mean to say that I think it’s okay that the press is doing what it’s doing.
He removed the whip because they voted against the king s speech, which they had just been elected on. That matters when a government just comes into office for the first time in 14 years.. but this is an example of how the truth is bent to imply that Starmer has done something that he hasn’t done.
I think you need to listen to Emily Thornbury’s opinion on Ollie Robbins. She’s less starry eyed about his qualities as a minister. He had the opportunity to tell her what was going on and he didn’t take it.
“A very good civil servant was sacrificed”. The one who made a decision and told no one.
So you have believed absolutely everything that Ollie Robbins said without any question at all? You don’t know what he said to Starmer, he was clearly a clever man playing things to his own advantage and you’ve gone with it for clicks. I don’t like Starmer but I don’t think Robbins his blameless.
He did say he made a mistake, and he has repeatedly apologised, but he can’t say the second part
We already know that it was his decision about Mandelson. Robbins made numerous assertions but when asked about whether he had notes to prove them, he demured. But we don’t like Starmer so we will believe Robbins even though he doesn’t actually have the proof.
It is a good thing there is nothing else important going on the world.
What we really need is political instability and enforced crises, cause by pearl-clutching over who knew what when at a time when we are a isolated, economically suffering former world power facing a crises easily as big as WW3.
No, it’s not that you ignore lies, you simply rephrase it. And she knows that perfectly well. There’s a reason why MPs aren’t supposed to abuse each other in the House of Commons, because if they were, there would be arguments in place of debate.