Did I miss anything in the ongoing Starmer/Mandelson fiasco by not discussing it yesterday? The answer would appear to be that I did not. Speculation continued, but, so far as I can work out, not much more is known.
What we do now is this.
In 2024 Keir Starmer decided to replace a well respected, competent and experienced ambassador in Washington DC, appointing in her place Peter Mandelson, a man with a proven record of poor judgement, who has had to be sacked from government more than once before now, and who was known to have associated with Jeffrey Epstein, and who had, when out of office, created a lobbying organisation with a range of clients that most people would think created more than enough conflicts of interest to ensure that he should not have been considered for any such appointment. No security vetting was required to reach this conclusion.
Security vetting did, however, take place, and Mandelson was, wholly unsurprisingly, correctly identified as a security risk as a consequence, with the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office being advised of this fact. Despite that, Sir Olly Robbins, the holder of that position at the time, decided not to pass these concerns on to Downing Street, but instead suggested the appointment proceed, knowing that Keir Starmer had already publicly committed himself to it.
Starmer, under pressure regarding the appointment, failed to determine what had actually happened in the Foreign Office by asking pertinent questions, and then expressed outrage and astonishment at the situation about which he should have known if he had exercised proper due diligence, and sacked Sir Olly Robbins as a consequence.
I am sure there are many more nuances to the story than this, but I believe the above captures the substance of what happened, and to me, that is what is important. Several things follow.
The first is that Keir Starmer is a man possessed of remarkably poor political judgement. That would be true of anyone who might have even considered appointing Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. Such an act was obviously one of extreme folly, embracing exceptional political risk. All the precedents suggested that this was going to end in tears, or something worse.
The second is that, to have considered this appointment, we must presume that Keir Starmer was under some considerable pressure to progress in this direction. We know that he has been used by those with powerful influence to effectively destroy all the political foundations of the Labour Party, and we know that Peter Mandelson was a key architect of that process of destruction, and we must presume, as a consequence, that those who put pressure on Starmer to first become leader of the Labour Party, to second abandon all the principles to which he had committed, and third to expel from Labour membership all those who believed in Labour principles, must also have influenced the appointment of Peter Mandelson.
Thirdly, we have to conclude that everything about the appointment of Peter Mandelson was political and had nothing to do with competence or suitability, let alone vetting.
Fourthly, we have to assume that Sir Olly Robbins read the runes correctly on this and appreciated that whatever he said, Mandelson was going to be appointed, given that it was reasonable to assume that Starmer knew of the risks without being advised of the outcome of any vetting process.
Fifthly, we do at the same time have to appreciate that those at the top of the civil service are not now people of principle, but are more than willing to bend themselves to the wishes of their political masters, meaning that they do, as a result, frame their advice to meet what they believe to be ministers' needs rather than suggesting the right course of action on which ministers must then decide. This represents a major degradation of ethics and competence in the civil service.
Sixth, as any competent professional person knows, leaving a trail of evidence in advance to justify the course of action you have adopted is essential if decisions are subsequently to be justified. Starmer, who chose not to create that trail of evidence by asking the right questions at the right time, failed in his professional duty, of which he should have been aware as a lawyer.
So, where does this leave us? Ultimately, there is one conclusion to reach. That is, Starmer is a weak and even professionally incompetent and negligent man who has been willingly used by others to achieve a politically destructive outcome at considerable cost to the UK, about which consequence he is indifferent.
In itself, that is precisely why Labour MPs should condemn him, and the public should reject the Labour Party and those who stand for it at any future election if they do not do this now, because failure to do so would prove them as unfit for public office as was Peter Mandelson, or is Keir Starmer.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
and who to replace him? Not Cooper, Lammy, Reeves, Streeting, Raynor or Philipson.
Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher had several alternatives for their position.
Does this mean that Starmer should stay, as I have heard argued recently?
Ahh, it’s realpolitik. There’s no one better so we keep Starmer.
That’s what 70 million in the USA thought when they voted for Trump. Yes, we know he’s badly flawed. But he says he’ll do something we want. It’s a transactional vote. And we don’t want that black woman. So they voted Trump, and look where we are.
Please let’s not go down that route. Starmer must go.
I agree he must go
If not Starmer, then who? Seriously, and that doesn’t include Polanski. Starmer has been a huge disappointment but the signs are Farage or some sort of coalition with Badenoch might be next. Is that what you want?
The age old argument from a desperate Labour supporter – vote Labour or get the right. Labour is far right in any reasonable reading now. It has no interest at all in serving people. Why are you arguing for abuse by a neoliberal elite?
@Tim Kent
Agreed, entirely – he must indeed go. But must take with him his Neoliberal, Zionist, 1%-worshipping Cabinet of Keystone Kops 4th-raters, & all the 6th-raters he parachuted into the Likud-Labour Party, to àllow the REAL Labour Party of progressive Socialist Internationalism to regenerate.
Except that there’s no chance of that happening – the Labour Party is now a clapped out banger, from which the wheels have been removed, and the engine wrecked, only able to give the illusion of movement by the passage of events beside it.
The REAL blames lies with the likes of McSweeney and Trevor China, who manoeuvred this piece of political plasticine, which takes on the shape of whatever is impressed on it, thereby damaging one of the great instruments of change and betterment for the country – think of what Labour at its best has done for the UK with the NHS, the Open University and Race and Sex Discrimination and Equality Pay legislation, to name a few. McSeeeney and Chinn have exacted a high price, lumbering Labour, and worse, thecwholebUJ.
I’d guess Starmer is the child of Secret Service patronage – useful as head of DPP and CPS – and Zionist backing. As I said, the useful political plasticine upon which the desired shape can be impressed.
Apologies for dreadful typo – all done on small mobile, so mistakes hard to spot
The gobbledegook thecwholebUJ should read “the whole UK”
,
@Tim Kent.
“And we don’t want that black woman.”
In my arrogant YANK opinion, I think Kamala Harris’s defeat had more to do with being from California (and thus being perceived as coming from the “California Fruitcake” wing of the Democrat Party) than being a mixed-race woman of color.
Footnote: Kamala Harris is definitely NOT from the “California Fruitcake” wing of the Democrat Party.
Spot on.
Looking at the state of the world I remain perplexed that this is still an issue, I really do. This ‘story’ to me is just being used to take our minds off more important stuff happening right under our noses. I think that we are being played.
For me the facts are plain. For some reason, the British government knew that sending Mandelson to Washington was shall we say right up Mandelson’s alley and in the national interest because of his lack of principle and ability to work with dodgy geezers. Being a social climber himself, and a worshipper of the rich, Mandelson was in good company with Trump and his crew. And you know, if Mandelson wanted a loan or two……………
To me that is all there is to it.
We already know that Starmer’s premiership is an avatar for the powerful forces turning back the post war progress we made and selling us off to the world – he is their continuity candidate – and everyone else’s – including the shady world of the mega rich carving the world up for themselves.
The fact that Epstein was involved in this shady world is just a co-incidence. It is a tribute to the victims who have spoken up however that we know about him. Power based on money always has a fundamental weakness because the mega rich think their money is like armour and will protect them when they are caught out. But as we know, a lot of that money does not really exist at all. It’s just numbers on pieces of paper and in computers and is not immune from human courage.
I would hope Clive Lewis might challenge. The sad thing is, most of the people who understand that the Starmer/Reeves/ Streeting cabal has betrayed the party’s principles wholesale and blown the chance of a social democratic transformation for which we had waited 14 long years have left the party already (I number myself among them). As such, as Ian Stevenson implies, whoever replaces Starmer will likely be cut from similar uninspiring cloth.
This is a shame, because either a formalised electoral coalition or a Labour PM prepared to bring in PR is likely going to be needed at the next electionto defeat the inevitable Tory/Reform coalition – that will stand down candidates on each other’s behalf
Cilve, I have no idea who would replace Starmer if he goes, but Clive Lewis is one name that would be encouraging.
Those like Clove Lewis would not be allowed to win a leadership election, if indeed he were allowed to stand!
As Corbyn was disposed of by those who have taken charge, by any means, the same will happen now.
So we will probably get Mandelson disciple Streeting who will complete the corporate changes in the NHS and continue dancing to the Zionist piper’s tune.
Apologies, Clive Lewis
Mobile phone keyboards inc..
Starmer is a lawyer. My working hypothesis: Starmer is using a form of words that is not semantically a lie, but is intentionally misleading.
I wonder what part the protégé of Mandelson, his former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney took in shielding the non-political Kier Starmer from this and much more?
I accept your fifth point about the degraded quality of the civil service generally. But I do think that this business is revealing that the FO has its own agenda which doesn’t necessarily align with “the wishes of their political masters”, and in fact seems to be routinely kept from them. Both the BBC yesterday and the Guardian today spoke vaguely of “rules” governing what FO officials do or do not reveal to ministers, but I’m willing to bet that no such rules exist in any formal sense. Instead I get a sense of an ingrained culture of Chinese walls, which the government appears more than willing to stay on the wrong side of. Deep State, anyone?
I agree the possibility that there is such a thing.
I care very little for the Labour Party or its leadership, but I strongly suspect that it has to go through a process like that of the Tories in 1997, which over the next few years went through 3 fairly useless leaders before deciding on Cameron. Not that Cameron was much good, but he came at a time – after 2008 – when the opportunity was there. The Tories are probably staggering on in the same vein with Badenoch now, though complicated by the rise of Reform of course. So – Streeting (disastrous), Rayner (probably not a lot of good), Lammy (not really, surely?) and Burnham (after a while); but the difference is of course obvious. The Tories were in opposition. Labour is in power (or at least sitting there in govt, not always the same thing). A lame duck Starmer stumbling on seems very probable, perhaps after all.
The difference is back then we had a solid 2 party system. This is no longer the case. No leader is going to save on Labour from being absolute toast in this May’s local elections or the eventual general election. We just need to hold off a general election until the shine has well and truly come off Nigel Farage and Reform.
It may be even worse. Starmer may indeed be weak and incompetent and negligent , but he – or indeed the coterie which have make him their figurehead are authoritarian to the last degree. Every independent thinker or group within Labour have been cleared out. Many of the MP’s who would vote to depose him have been hand picked and parachuted in by the McSweeney/Blair/Mandelson /Reed faction which has given us Starmer.<p>
Paul Holden’s book shows .’..they conquered the party on false pretences, McSweeney and his allies set about purging opponents, marginalising the membership, and dragging party policy to the right. …… traces the Labour Party’s transformation into a censorial, authoritarian machine, and sounds the alarm about the possible corruption of British politics by dark money.'<p>
Richard asked recently – ‘have we a – government within a government?’, I now think it is entirely possible that after Corbyn’s near election victory, the deep state – Security/intelligence services / MI5, entwined as it is , with CIA/Mossad, could well have been behind the whole Labour Together disinformation project, and the weaponizing of antisemitism.<p>
The fact that Labour is destroyed to the extent that there are no alternatives to Starmer – shows how at risk our democracy is.
A reminder about some of the adulatory praise heaped on Starmer, just after Labour Together stooges had successfully, dishonestly and corruptly defenestrated Corbyn as Labour leader after several years of smears and carefully orchestrated sabotage (see “Fraud” by Paul Holden, OR Books).
Forensic solicitor-like approach
Responsible approach to the pandemic
A return to grown-up politics
Uniting the party
A commitment to “moral socialism”
An ideological lawyer of the left, the justice system as a means to effect social change
Serious person – fiercely intelligent
Surrounded himself with a team of very good people
Every confidence in his ability to do the job
Pledged to revitalise Corbynism with a dose of lawyerly competence.
Somone with a big inner confidence –
“He’s able to move very fast and very ruthlessly towards various ends without being burdened by the baggage or friendship or ideology or faction.”
Kuenssberg 2021 –
“No question about his overall credibility or his experience – expert at preparing arguments”
Did I believe any of this by the time of the 2020 leadership election? Absolutely not. It’s quite chilling, looking back at my “Starmer” bookmarks. The Labour Party has been in a terrible slow-motion process of mendacious, arrogant, self-destruction for many years, and now, quite deservedly, they face obliteration and haven’t a clue what to do about it.
All the guilty perpetrators will survive quite nicely, but the country will pay a heavy price, unless MPs wake up FAST and face the responsibilities of government instead of filling their own pension pots in one tortuous display of incompetence and moral cowardice.
Thanks
By all accounts, Sir Olly Robbins is arguing, and will argue when he appears before MPs on Tuesday, that the problem was created when Keir Starmer announced the appointment before vetting. Never having worked in the civil service I don’t know how much courage it would take to go against a publicly announced political decision like this, but quite a lot you would think, even for the head of a department. I’m not arguing that he should of course have done so, just the reality. If the PM took the advice he would, presumably, have had the embarrassment of having to withdraw Mandelson’s appointment, but that would have been a much better situation than the one he is in now and he would have got over the embarrassment no doubt. All confirms his drastic lack of political nous. As Steve Richards pointed out last week, previous Labour PMs had years to get ready – Jim Callaghan, for example, was an MP for 30 years before he stepped up. Keir Starmer only became an MP in 2015 and leader five years later. Again, not making excuses, just pointing out the reality.
Ralph
Civil servants are expected to challenge ministers and ask for ministerial diretions in writing if expected to do things they would not choose to do or disagree with. The system exists and Robbins, just appointed, was in a powerful position at the time.
He should have done his job, and it seems likely he did not. He was paid a lot to stand up to the minister.
Richard
GOV.UK even publish all the Ministerial Directions unless they are “secret”. Its a fascinating list, with interesting implications for arguments on MMT. Also includes some v stupid decisions, including, “Eat out to help spread Covid”.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/ministerial-directions
I know we can’t run out of money, but it seems we’ve run out of backbones (our authoritarian leaders sacked them all).
That’s my last comment on this one!
🙂
Ralph pretty much agree. But if we get down to basics (as others have said)…
Don’t promise if you can’t deliver, ie if the role needs a vetting pass DO NOT announce the appointment if vetting hasn’t been completed and passed.
In this case the announcement of the post was made prior to whatever vetting was needed/took place, so the vetting became irrelevant…unless everything hit the fan, which it did….oops
Bad judgement from No.10 aka BAU…. Naivety at best!
Real question should be, despite all the froth…..
Who wanted Mandelson appointed? Who is pulling KS strings?
….As ever follow the money
Still no answer to my previous question. If not Starmer – then who? And please don’t say Polanski, because he isn’t credible as a future prime minister.
Is that Mossad you’re channeling there? They seem to define these things these days.
I suggest you go and find somewhere else to comment Robert. I am finding your neoliberal Starmerism offensive.
“because he isn’t credible as a future Prime Minister…”
That’s the sort of assertion that requires verifiable evidence.
Here’s a list of predecessors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom
Admittedly he needs to become an MP first.
Vlodimir Zelensky was a comedian &Vaclav Havel was a playright, before leading their countries at supremely challenging times in their histories. Here are some others, whose strange pasts didn’t hold them back
https://www.digitalphablet.com/infotainment/50-world-leaders-who-had-unexpected-past-jobs/
Thank you.
An appropriate response.
Robert D
The next Labour leader will be the ‘You’ll do’ candidate, selected by the same people who orchestrated Sir Stymied(sic). This has already happened to the Tory party – I mean look at Badenoch for goodness sake and any number of reprobates before her (the Tories are always bound to get in when the markets blow up the place anyway – hanging around long enough for disasters is their ploy these days).
I don’t wish to be rude Robert D but you conduct the discussion on this topic as if it is serious politics, serious democracy. Be assured that it is not. This is just a game to those who really call the shots who have a never ending conveyor belt of ineffective but well rewarded numpties to hold the status quo and prevent anything positive at all from taking place.
There. You’ve been told, Sir.
Not at all Richard. It was a genuine question. I’m deeply worried about Reform and the far right, and who might be able to stop him. Starmer certainly won’t.
So you prove yourself to be a troll by seeking to get round a ban. And based on your previous comments I do not believe you.
And where do these entities go when they want to hide…Scotland…charles windsor skelped up to Balmoral during covid to hide..( followed by his sidekick.)..oh lucky us. And true to form…. Stammer did the same..ran to Faslane ..didn’t tell us or say hi… just had his pic taken next to the rusting nuclear hulks polluting our land …without our permission…and then disappeared again. Will he go and who will take his place but more importantly who in Scotland gives a scooby..his party are on route to annihilation in Scotland helped by ‘scottish’ labour ‘rep ‘..Anwas… useful after all. We have no say who is in charge but we’re learning to destroy them….best tell all those politicians/royals who want to hide here..don’t come ….it’s a graveyard!
As someone with a stammer, I hope the reference to Keir Starmer as Stammer was a typo.
Much could happen in 3 years, and I hope that includes a (continued) decline in the popularity of Farage and his gang. Rather than the unlikely, though interesting, prospect of Polanski as PM, a more plausible possibility is no overall majority, therefore shouldn’t we hope for some form of progressive coalition. In that case, short of the also unlikely prospect of Clive Lewis taking over leadership (assuming he doesn’t shift to the Green Party after May), the best Labout leader would be someone who is politically realistic, is open to PR, open to compromise and open to working with, and acceptable to, other progressive parties. I think Andy Burnham has previously indicated support for PR and seems to understand political realities, but I’d like to believe there are other talented Labour MPs currently keeping a low profile who could fit the above requirements.