If Robbins/Corbyn wanted to appoint Mandelson the easiest way would be to accept the lead from No10 and not do any vetting.
Or do you suggest that Robbins delayed the vetting so that the appointment would be done before it was available?
"After a day or two the idea got dropped..." Hardly serious pressure then.
And he should have told the Foreign Secretary, no matter what.
Sir Humphrey Appelby is rolling in his grave ....
He hasn't produced any emails (yet anyway). Top civil servants know well that they need to cover their ass in writing in tricky situations and I would assume he did this.....
and his vetting would only be useful if he ensured that the result was available before the appointment decision was made.
He should have been putting pressure on the vetters himself.
Top civil servants dont get themselves into this situation. If his political masters wanted Mandy, no matter what, and said vetting wasn't needed, he was playing with fire by doing it himself.
Minister personally or Ministers private office?
Evasive response of No10 Communications to question about vetting last September does suggest some knowledge.
It's even worse. It's not that somebody is counterfeiting well known butter brands.
It's that the butter brands themselves are counterfeiting their own product.
Essentially selling margarine as their butter.
Things must be bad when businesses trash their own brands.
Perhaps he feels that he needs protection...
Surely there is a check list before appointments are made?
Did nobody say " PM, he hasn't been vetted yet"?
What would PM have done if two days later he was told that there were some issues in the vetting, after rushing the process?
Everybody knows; it's decision already taken. Time to move on.
The Government hasn't changed in Hungary yet.
Maybe they are but we just aren't being told. They get fired or transferred.
Yep, thats a well known journalistic rule. I think it even has a name.
If the answer was yes the headline would state it as a fact.
Another bonus for russia from the Iran war.
Good inventive lawyers know that there are several ways to attack a problem like this. One State for example has just made company contributions illegal. And there is always the big stick of SCOTUS reform which should be done anyway.
At least say it as an objective if they get power.
The case will go nowhere.
And these are the people who are buying politicians everywhere they can.
OMG. What's he on?
Well this is some truly creepy shit I'd missed.
As you read this remember Palantir are not your friend, they want your privacy and your compliance nothing more
techcrunch.com/2026/04/19/p...
Dem could announce a policy that if elected they will set a maximum donation, in person or via a PAC, of say $20 or $50 per person and ban company donations entirely.
Democracy is one vote per person so it should also be one donation per person. They can donate as much personal time as they want.
Somebody is in charge of the Republican Party. This is how they get the candidates they want and also why there is GOP discipline in Congress.
Who is in charge of the Democrats? Muddling through isn't good enough these days.
The courts would rule that illegal which would set the stage for a "leave the ECHR" debate.
The lack of a proper Constitution in the UK strikes again! That would have been a good project for Starmer to begin .....
You are right about the scale but its the flawed system that needs to be fixed not the individuals taking advantage of it.
As long as some Dems are feeding at the trough, attacks at GOPs for doing the same will be less effective, regardless of the scale.
Dems need a plan to fix this when in power.
You think people like Schumer don't listen to their donors?
Another side effect of the authorities restricting the internet which has made card payments unreliable so people turn back to using cash.
Also personal indebtedness is high so they might not want to route funds through banks who would grab them against unpaid loans.
Everything is collapsing in russia.
Good to see drones quickly returning to finish the job.
I think the Pope would agree.
As would any decent person.
Venice can't be relocated. That's completely unrealistic.
If sea levels rise it will either be some kind of tidal barrage or abandonment.
Unless they mean "relocation" like the one in Las Vegas.