He specifically didn’t implicate Starmer but many believe the entire process would not and could not proceed without a nod from the PM. Seemingly it could/does and diplomatic appointments are normally made without PM approval or knowledge of why red ticks may have been given.
But, and here’s the thing, Robbins said yesterday that No 10 had no interest in Mandelson’s review. They didn’t ask, weren’t told and didn’t care if he had red ticks or not. They simply put pressure on Robbins and his team to get Mandy in post and on a plane to the US.
Thatcher famously categorized people as being "one of us" or not. By asking for the reasons behind the "red ticks," she was bypassing the neutral vetting process to make her own political and personal judgment on an individual’s loyalty. No one since has asked about red ticks. They will now!
Red ticks in a check boxes means “ALARM-DON’T APPOINT”. We don’t know why Mandy got two ticks and neither did Starmer. He didn’t ask/wasn’t told.
Consider - Trust, sacked twice before. Russian connection. Association with Epstein. Strong possibility of blackmail. Etc Etc.
Yet still appointed!
Why?
And if Olly Robbins turns up at the committee today with an email that confirms he did indeed pass the details to the PM, we have a different story and so too will Robbins. It will help confirm his dismissal was unfair and wrongful. NDAs have no authority!
And if I were the PM and learned that someone had failed security but “I don’t need to know why” I would 100% confirm that in writing to chairs of several committees, again to cover my back and almost certainly reject the applicant for the job. Wouldn’t you?
If you were Olly Robbins and had information that in any other circumstance would prevent a person getting a job, you would 100% pass that information on to your boss just to cover your own back. I can’t think of any reason that I should know something about someone that the PM shouldn’t.
The Speaker told Zarah Sultana to “sit down and leave”!
It seems clear to me that Starmer didn’t want to know about the security risks surrounding Mandelson on the basis that, “if I don’t know about it, I can’t answer for it…, so don’t tell me”.
“I don’t think we need to concern ourselves with trivia Prime Minister”
Jeremy Corbyn referred to Diane Abbott’s unanswered question. Starmer repeated that Mandelson was given clearance and implied therefore there were no questions to ask. When it came to his attention that he had failed security, he did ask for the information that he has now put before the house.
if a security risk is so severe it can't even be whispered to the PM, the person involved shouldn't be within a mile of a sensitive diplomatic post. Find someone else. Who’s running the bloody country. The Civil Service or the PM?
Yes but her point is relevant.
Diane Abbott just skewered Starmer. Paraphrasing:
“Peter Mandelson has a history. It’s not a question about why you weren’t told. It’s a question about why didn’t you ask?”.
Burnham has done spectacularly well outside Westminster and is hugely popular, not necessarily with those in the PLP mind but they may have to re-think if Starmer goes. Evette Cooper too may be tainted by this if Robbins pulls an email out tomorrow with their names on it. I wouldn’t bet against it.
I can’t which is why i’m aiming at Burnham.
Staying on because there is no one else would be red meat to the opposition.
It seems to me there is no way Starmer can survive. So the question becomes, if not Starmer who? So assuming he goes, who would you pick? You’ve already said there’s no one equipped to step in but someone has to!
Starmer is a "Dead Man Walking." He may survive the statement today, and he may even survive Olly Robbins tomorrow, but he cannot survive the Local Elections on May 7th. The only way out is to change the name on the door to Andy. It’s a very big ask but it might be all they have left!
The local elections are in 17 days time.
Starmer may hang on through this week’s "mess." but he may be gone by May 8th. Or, if the paper trail" reveals Starmer's fingerprints tomorrow he may resign by Friday. The party appoints an interim and begs Andy Burnham to stand in the first available seat.
Of course change can happen. It happens ultimately at the ballot box but until then we’re stuck with them unless you know of another way?
Ignoring them is fatalism. They’ve managed to get 5 elected MPs into the house of commons and 677 councillors. Polls show that if a General Election were held today, Reform could win between 266 and 324 seats. How is that fatalism and can we ignore it?
I’d forgotten about Steve Bray. Is he still about?
Indeed. TBH I think its more about what sells and let’s face it, Reform sells. If Starmer was more popular and had more draw, we would see more of him and Labour, but hardly anyone will tune in to watch Starmer. Farage puts bums on seats. It’s all about money rather than politics!
Well I didn’t vote for them but they’re still around so i’m stuck with them.
“Ah yes, the tax thingy, I can explain everything …”
I bet you can Ticey!
When did he pay them? After he was caught or when should have paid them?
Many people prompting Tice to resign over his unpaid taxes. Quite rightly in my view, but he won’t go and Farage won’t sack him so we’re stuck with them!
As it turns out Mandelson probably couldn’t deal with the creep any better than anyone else but he certainly had the right friends. Not now though!
What makes it worse is that Labour were elected after they promised transparency because of Johnson’s shenanigans. Starmer sacked Robbins only after the story broke. If he was aware of Mandelson’s failings earlier and still gave approval, he’s on a sticky wicket.