Mandy

[TailWindHome]

Lammy says he knew nothing

You're going to have attack Starmer by insisting how 'on the ball' Lammy is🤣
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...andelson-role-over-vetting-failure-says-lammy

 

[Psamathe]

If he inadvertently mislead parliament he corrects the record and limps on. I don't think politically it makes any difference. The electorate are going to beat the shite out of him in May. Nothing is going to make that better or worse now

If is demonstrated he deliberately mislead parliament he'll be resigning on Tuesday.

If there's enough grey area it'll go to the Privileges committee and could go either way. But not until after May's battering

Irrespective of that, bottom line (ignoring Developed Vetting (DV)) it was a daft decision. Starmer was warned of the risks before DV, warned of the likely outcome, before appointment yet he made a obviously bad judgement call. Somebody in the PM role should not be making such mistakes, showing such disastrous judgement.

 

[briantrumpet]

Irrespective of that, bottom line (ignoring Developed Vetting (DV)) it was a daft decision. Starmer was warned of the risks before DV, warned of the likely outcome, before appointment yet he made a obviously bad judgement call. Somebody in the PM role should not be making such mistakes, showing such disastrous judgement.

As mentioned several times previously, *at the time* a considerable body of opinion was that it was a bit of a masterstroke. There's a lot of post facto 'forgetfulness' in the press and elsewhere about what was said at the time. As our farm vet once pithily (and accurately) said "Hindsight is a bugger".

 

[Psamathe]

As mentioned several times previously, *at the time* a considerable body of opinion was that it was a bit of a masterstroke. There's a lot of post facto 'forgetfulness' in the press and elsewhere about what was said at the time. As our farm vet once pithily (and accurately) said "Hindsight is a bugger".

He was warned before the appointment (documents)

Keir Starmer overruled officials who warned of a “reputational risk” in making Peter Mandelson US ambassador, despite being handed a dossier of evidence about the peer’s relationship with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, documents reveal.
...
They also show that two of the government’s most senior security and foreign policy officials – national security adviser Jonathan Powell and FCDO permanent secretary Philip Barton – raised concerns about Mandelson’s appointment ...
(from https://www.theguardian.com/politic...al-risk-over-mandelson-appointment-files-show)

ie before the appointment, no hindsight.

 

[secretsqirrel]

All prime ministers have to take risks and all have made career defining mistakes at some point. Everybody knows Mandlestein was a huge risk, even from the POV of people find him a deeply unlikeable, creepy character who was an acquaintance of Epstein. Once Starmer found out along with everyone else, the extend of his relationship with Epstein and the passing of sensitive information, he was sacked acknowledging that his appointment was a regrettable.

That was the story up to last September, and I’m struggling to see how the story has moved on. It is being churned into scandal after scandal, but it is the same scandal.

 

[TailWindHome]

Irrespective of that, bottom line (ignoring Developed Vetting (DV)) it was a daft decision. Starmer was warned of the risks before DV, warned of the likely outcome, before appointment yet he made a obviously bad judgement call. Somebody in the PM role should not be making such mistakes, showing such disastrous judgement.

It's interesting that the Tories are now taking this line.
They can't prove that Starmer knew about the 'failed' vetting so are reverting to 'everyone knew it was a bad idea'

 

[AuroraSaab]

Irrespective of that, bottom line (ignoring Developed Vetting (DV)) it was a daft decision. Starmer was warned of the risks before DV, warned of the likely outcome, before appointment yet he made a obviously bad judgement call. Somebody in the PM role should not be making such mistakes, showing such disastrous judgement.

Yes, it should never have got to vetting because Mandelson should have been persona non grata with regard to government office. I'm not excusing Starmer - ultimately the buck stops with him - but it has the hallmarks of him being persuaded that they needed a big character to deal with Trump rather than a career diplomat.

 

[briantrumpet]

It's interesting that the Tories are now taking this line.
They can't prove that Starmer knew about the 'failed' vetting so are reverting to 'everyone knew it was a bad idea'

Which is palpably untrue.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

He was warned before the appointment (documents)

ie before the appointment, no hindsight.

That's true but the 'masterstroke' opinions Brian is referring to came largely from the media, the same people who are now calling for Starmer to resign.

 

[TailWindHome]

Which is palpably untrue.

The criticism from the right was on his inability to get Mandy approved by Trump

The criticism from the left was that he was unsuitable

The centre thought it was a strategically sound appointment of an unsuitable person

 

[Ian H]

The criticism from the right was on his inability to get Mandy approved by Trump

The criticism from the left was that he was unsuitable

The centre thought it was a strategically sound appointment of an unsuitable person

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

 

[BoldonLad]

Lammy says he knew nothing

You're going to have attack Starmer by insisting how 'on the ball' Lammy is🤣
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...andelson-role-over-vetting-failure-says-lammy

Isn't that his default state?

 

[Psamathe]

Lammy says he knew nothing

That I can believe. He might not know anything about Mandelson either.

 

[Stevo 666]

If he inadvertently mislead parliament he corrects the record and limps on. I don't think politically it makes any difference. The electorate are going to beat the shite out of him in May. Nothing is going to make that better or worse now

If is demonstrated he deliberately mislead parliament he'll be resigning on Tuesday.

If there's enough grey area it'll go to the Privileges committee and could go either way. But not until after May's battering

Fair comment I think.

Agree that the May elections could prove the final straw for Labour if the results are bad enough for Labour.

 

[CXRAndy]

See videos of starmer berating Johnson over trashing the ministerial code at the dispatch box

Hypocrisy