So after the poor judgment of hiring Mandelson, we’re now learning of his poor judgment in firing Robbins. Toast.

This just utterly indefensible, all of it. There’s nothing that resembles due process anywhere to be seen.

It sounds like a wholly extraordinary process that was very barely remaining within what any reasonable would call ‘due process’. Especially if No 10 was saying DV wasn’t even necessary.

Surely 63% in a world where no mainstream political party is advocating it as a policy position is remarkable?

This both a cogent and compelling narrative. The kind of vision and imagination that will prevent us from having a seventh failed premiership.

The thesis that all British politics needs is a non-entity in No 10 has been proven to be a terrible idea in practice.

Given he has an impressive back catalogue of terrible decisions, dismissing Robbins may well prove to be one that does quite a bit more damage than first realised.

Yeah, I think in the end it’s a working backwards exercise to make it happen. His numbers are irrefutable, and it would be the closest thing that Labour could get to a reset this parliament.

I’m seeing middle management tasks that used to be very manual, become highly automated, extremely quickly.

I think that is unfortunately, potentially, about right.

Is this what Jonathan Powell was referring to when he said the process of appointing Mandelson was “weirdly rushed”?

Normal political appointment process was to complete DV clearance post announcement, this has now changed

You can imagine Case talking to Powell agreeing Mandy needs this beforehand

Became truly endemic during the Brexit years, where govt would brief their preferred negotiated outcome as having been achieved, press repeat breathlessly for a day, only for the other side to come out and say ‘erm, no?’.

What irks me the most is how Starmer and ministers repeat the line that he has taken full responsibility, when I cannot see at all how he has.

How Peter Mandelson became Britain’s ambassador to the US – despite failing vetting Things are much less clear cut than Downing Street has been claiming for the last three days

If this is true then I think it’s game over.

My gut tells me it’ll be allowed/made to happen. His polling numbers can’t be ignored for a governing party.

Plus Andy Burnham is stunted.

Probably not your flavour, but his market is remain/rejoiners.

So the Ambassadorial candidate to the US failed vetting and nobody knew about it.

Hard to think of more favourable circumstances to be talking of a shared European identity, history, and future.

Ten years on, I think a very plausible case can be made for the UK to join the Euro and Schengen.

I’d be interested to hear what Tim Allen would have to say, if asked. Good thing he left No 10 with no ill will.

And this would indicate there was at least one person who was aware of something being amiss. I’m sure we’ll be told that this went no further and no discussion was had.

"Starmer says it is ‘staggering’ and ‘unforgivable’ he was not told Mandelson failed vetting."

But did Starmer ask about vetting before he said Mandelson had passed vetting?

The careful "I was not told" line seems to evade whether he actually asked.

Unless you very deliberately don’t ask that question because you are already aware of the answer. An altogether more serious situation.

They are fundamentally unsophisticated political thinkers and operators; their entire approach is a Blairite redux, regardless of whether that makes political sense 25 years later.

And the original sin has never been sufficiently explained.

The best they have done is said that everyone in the media thought it was a good idea and Mandelson was on a Times podcast, which feels like a not great defence.

It’s just inconceivable that in the intervening period from September to now, nobody in No 10 has asked ‘what did UK Vetting say?’. Impossible.