Farage backed Mandelson’s appointment, called him a “very intelligent man”,“enormously talented bloke,” and even offered to work with him on a Trump trade deal. The moment it backfired, he changed his tune & said Starmer should resign. He is a charlatan.
#JackDart
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.
Farage backed Mandelson’s appointment, called him a “very intelligent man”,“enormously talented bloke,” and even offered to work with him on a Trump trade deal. The moment it backfired, he changed his tune & said Starmer should resign. He is a charlatan.
#JackDart
The thing about Starmer and Mandelson @mrjamesob.bsky.social isn't so much the mistake of the appointment, as Ed Miliband rightly observed this am, even prime ministers make mistakes
It's about setting standards then applying them fairly, which is what Labour suggested they would do after 14 years
The 'Starmer appointed Mandelson because he needed someone to manage Trump' - not true. What happened was:
1) From the general election there was a desire in Downing Street for a political appointee
2) There was no question that the US embassy had good Trumpworld links as it was
so here's the thing about robbins' committee appearance. if you understand how this all works and you understand how civil servants speak, he's basically destroyed starmer's reputation and any notion he has sound judgement. the problem is the one group you can guarantee don't understand is the media
If nothing else, the decision to sack Robbins, when he didn't need to, must rank as one of the most absurd acts of political self-harm any prime minister has yet committed. All of this eminently foreseeable.
I know we are all obsessed with the Robbins stuff, but another important story today via @estwebber.bsky.social
Despite current need for defence investment, we are not sending a minister to this incredibly important meeting.
www.politico.eu/article/keir...
It all comes down to the fact that Mandelson was obviously a risky pick for the job, doesn't it? The vetting process found some dodgy stuff but there was other dodgy stuff already in the public domain and then dodgy stuff that only came out later. But fundamentally none of it was surprising.
I’ve said it before but it bears repeating because it comes up so often: as Stephen says, there was no urgent need to appoint a new US ambassador, no crisis that Mandelson was needed to fix. This was much more about giving him a job than requiring him to address a problem.
The thing about all this Mandelson stuff is that actually dealing with it would require basically disestablishing at least 3 major political parties, banning their members from politics, jailing a lot of people and shutting down at least 4 national newspapers. Don't really see that happening soon.
"The PM was asked.. did the PM ask him why he overruled the verdict.. the PM replied, I did ask him and I did not accept his explanation. Did the PM ask you?"
Robbins: ".. I must remain quiet on that.."
"Is it fair to say he did ask you?"
"I must reserve my position on that.."
The thing that really annoys me about all this Mandelson stuff is that the US Ambassador role was not vacant! There was already a highly qualified and competent woman in the position
And now this thing about finding a job for Starmer's ex Head of Comms?
Jobs for the Boys alive and well
“The simple, damning story wouldn’t work for No 10: Keir Starmer could hardly admit that he’d known about Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein but decided it didn’t matter, having just sacked him for that reason.
“They needed a different story and came up with one that centred on vetting.”
Starmer's attempt to defend himself yesterday already looking shaky as Olly Robbins points to No 10's initial reluctance to subject Mandelson to vetting and constant pressure to deliver the 'right' decision. Starmer's framing of the whole saga increasingly threadbare.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ce...
Starmer's attempt to defend himself yesterday already looking shaky as Olly Robbins points to No 10's initial reluctance to subject Mandelson to vetting and constant pressure to deliver the 'right' decision. Starmer's framing of the whole saga increasingly threadbare.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ce...
Lies Industry UK - Two posts from the “Lies Industry UK” side by side after the grilling of civil servant Robbins in Parliament. One from a ITV journo — Brand — and one from a Daily Mail shit-stirrer, Hodges. Both saying the exact opposite. You just can’t trust what you see or read in the media.
McTague O @TomMcTague X.com Starmer's position is that Olly Robbins behaved appallingly for not blocking his decision to appoint Mandelson US amb after it had been announced, blessed by the King and agreed by the US in time for the inauguration-as requested by No 10—because of security risks the Foreign Office deemed manageable.
Yeah, but the position of almost everyone in politics and media is that it was just fine for them all to at very least play along with Mandelson’s ludicrous secret wrecking campaign and forcing his friends back into high office via lying and bullshit, but this is unacceptable.
The year is 2030. Britain is under martial law following the Iran fuel crisis, climate change accelerates water access problems. Keir Starmer, still PM as he didn’t think it was the appropriate time for an election, apologises once again for appointing Mandelson. Labour Insiders are “concerned”
“Watching Sir Olly Robbins—the man who was until April 6 permanent secretary to the Foreign Office—giving evidence on Tuesday, one thing became immediately obvious: for reasons that are evident, No 10 has put a lot of work into making a very simple, very damning story look extremely complicated.”
At the end of the day. Starmer didn’t employ Mandelson because Mandelson could make him money or because Mandelson had something on him.
He did it because he wanted to try and get on the good side of Trump, to try and do the best for this country.
Naive for sure but for the right reasons.
I think the select committee members need to stop asking the same question over and over - and engage with Robbins' responses.
Speaking on Sky this AM about Mandelson, energy sec Ed Miliband says:
"Prime ministers make errors. Prime ministers are fallible. Prime ministers are human. As you know, I steered well clear of Peter Mandelson when I became Labour leader in 2010. But people make mistakes." #ustrumpout
