If I were a Machiavellian strategy genius, I would simply avoid a position where *everything written about me ever* supports the “demanding bribes for factional allies” rumour

L M A O
bsky.app/profile/adam...

The only people who are impressed by the ability to stay just on the right side of culpability are pundit weirdos. Ordinary people just look at it and go ‘he seems like he’s lying’.

Will the UK’s most forensic PM have kept more convincing receipts than a career civil servant who’s spent several years working with spies? Let’s find out 🤷

Fatal flaw: Keir Starmer’s leadership vacuum threatens to swallow him up The PM’s current and former colleagues say the Mandelson scandal has exposed the hollowness of his hands-off style.

Here you go. I put a link in the alt text too
www.politico.eu/article/keir...

6. Starmer does not know why vetting was refused 11 The information that was dealt with in the security vetting process has not been made available to me, nor can that detail be made available to me. It's the recommendation that should have been made available to me." Questioned about whether he knew one particular detail about Mandelson's business links, Starmer made it clear that this was the sort of detail he not only did not know about the vetting, but never would. This might sound to outsiders somewhat unlikely - that a prime minister would not know precisely why his choice for an ambassadorship might be seen as a risk - but it does tie in with rules about vetting. The type of vetting carried out on Mandelson is intense, detailed and hugely personal, and knowledge of specifics is kept only to those who need to know.

I know the PM isn’t supposed to say “yeah it was probably all the corruption wasn’t it?”, but are we really supposed to believe he *doesn’t know*

I mean if my boss had obliged me to pretend I knew nothing about the post-politics career of my party’s most notorious fixers/strategists, I would not be in a good mood when it came time to pretend to have suddenly found out for the first time

“He broke the cardinal rule that advisors advise and ministers decide…but you gotta respect that audacity, pure class”

Honestly the kayfabe on this is extraordinary

Starmer says Robbins' sacking does not blight his record as having 'distinguished career' Andrew Mitchell, the former Tory cabinet minister, said Robbins was "a fine and experienced civil servant" who should not be made to take the blame. Starmer said he lost confidence in Robbins because he did not share the vetting information. But, he went on: 14 That doesn't mean [Robbins] hasn't got a distinguished career. He does have a distinguished career.

LOL what the fuck. Mate you’re accusing him of secretly & inexplicably doing something so serious he had to be sacked immediately, and you’re furious about it. You cannot then say “but he’s cool tho I rate him a lot”

“We also liked having the snake in our own house, helping out with election planning, candidate selection, soliciting bribes and the like. Sometimes when you’ve had a rough day it’s fun to unwind by chatting to a nice big snake.”

He can bare his teeth, he can go a bit red in the face, he can start shouting. These things look simple but they’re not - and they’re vital

Tremendous comedy potential for flustered MPs to ask the same question here, but also the “have u checked this doesn’t happen all the time” question, LOL

A dozen politicians, aides and officials — including some who have worked intimately with the prime minister in Downing Street — spoke to POLITICO on condition of anonymity, because the matter is sensitive, and described a leader defined primarily by his absence. Starmer, they say, has no ability to manage a team; an aversion to conflict; no guiding mission for power; no energy to drive change; little interest in people; and no interest in political strategy. While not all agree, some suggest Starmer just isn't willing to do the tough work a prime minister must — perhaps because he likes his time away from the office more than he should.

Those things you heard about Starmer being good? A consummate manager with a thirst for social justice? At the absolute minimum, a hard-worker? All fake news I’m afraid

Yes, did he solve the “total & shocking absence of a plan for government” thing, or did he not do that

Starmer trusted his first-choice chief of staff, Sue Gray, to have prepared an oven-ready plan for power, which Labour would roll out the day after winning the election. It turned out no such plan existed. Starmer then replaced Gray with his election mastermind McSweeney, who had been serving in a political director role. McSweeney was given the power to provide political input on Starmer's behalf into a huge swathe of policy decisions across government and, for a time, things improved. https://www.politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-dangerous-leadership-style-uk-peter-mandelson/

“Starmer assumed Gray had a super-secret plan for governing but she didn’t so they did nothing” is such a wild line, and the hacks seem so uninterested in learning more about this astonishing, farcical setup

Maybe they’ve completely outsmarted a career civil servant who did something inexplicably stupid for no reason…or

If everyone involved needs to explain their terms of reference at the select committee next week, all this hedging is going to look pretty stupid.

This stuff is amazing. Like “everyone knew it was high-risk”. But not *why* it was high-risk? And they didn’t have any questions when he was cleared?

If Global Counsel literally cannot function without a guy at the heart of one of the UK’s main political parties, what does that mean. Are there lessons here. Questions of this nature.

If they wanted, some journalists could try matching up the timelines for when Global Counsel employees told them Mandelson definitely wasn’t involved anymore, vs when the company inexplicably received lots of money right after he got a big new job.
bsky.app/profile/flyi...

easy to get numb to how far previous norms have been eroded, but to see a company that our government plans to embed deeply in the UK's key infrastructure release the corporate equivalent of a school shooter manifesto is really something. companies used to have to at least pretend not to be evil!

LOL they’re going to do Robocop fr

15. The postwar neutering of Germany and Japan must be undone. The defanging of Germany was an overcorrection for which Europe is now paying a heavy price. A similar and highly theatrical commitment to Japanese pacifism will, if maintained, also threaten to shift the balance of power in Asia.

Come on man. Be less obvious.

Yes, all the papers did at least one glowing profile on “the trump whisperer” ambassador who seemed to be doing exactly what they said they wanted Mandelson to do

Lammy did, however, admit there had been "some time pressures" on the Foreign Office last January to confirm Mandelson in post as Donald Trump was re-entering the White House. "There was a feeling that obviously Trump had won the election in November, he was moving into the White House, and it would be good if we had an ambassador. So there were some time pressures around that I recall at the time."

“Look it was a long time ago but I seem to recall we didn’t have an ambassador at the time I forget why, so we thought let’s get one. And there was a chap, you know, hanging around, and as luck would have it he actually wanted to go to America. Anyway long story short it turned out he was a bad egg”

Starmer would have blocked Mandelson role over vetting failure, says Lammy Deputy prime minister says it is ‘inexplicable’ top civil servant kept Downing Street in dark

“Sure, we knew about his shady business links and friendship with the world’s most notorious sex-trafficker and all the other publicly available information. But if we’d known the security services thought that was ‘a red flag’? Heavens no. Not in a million years”
www.theguardian.com/politics/202...

Dave Mathews in a keffiyeh holding up signs that say STOP THE GENOCIDE and STOP KILLING CHILDREN at a concert

This is not a knock on DMB but if you had told me twenty years ago that Dave Mathews would be this outspoken on an issue that Radiohead completely shat the bed on, well... I would've been surprised!

I think a lot of people find centrism confusing because the literature is all like “rule of law, equality, justice, human rights, guiding principles” and the political part is like “No are you insane? In an ideal world maybe.”

a week of the security services and the FO going "ooooh we can't show anyone our supersecret vetting procedures it's a national security issue" and it's the same shit your boss uses to authorise a software purchase