Forum menu
Why on earth would there need to be a cross-party consensus when the government has a majority of more than 150?
That's why he is such a disappointment. With imagination and will UK could be much improved for the people in the bottom 60% of the populace. Instead of which he fannying around trying to Reform-lite instead of ensuring those that would vote for the light blue fash are discouraged because the Labour party has their backs.
I stll believe that the problem is not so much Starmer as the folk he has surrounded himself by and listens to
Starmer is merely the one chosen by Labour Together to front their project. He doesn't have any political commitments at all, just a strong commitment to his own personal career ambitions.
Which is precisely why he was the perfect person to lead the Labour Together project.
Starmer didn't choose his advisors, they chose him.
And that is how Starmer can go with seamless ease from his 10 pledges based on, quote, "the moral case for socialism", to proudly announcing that he is perfectly happy to be called, quote, "a conservative".
proudly announcing that he is perfectly happy to be called, quote, "a conservative".
...at what point does distortion become lying?
This is something he never said at all let alone "proudly announced".
Starmer seems perfectly proud of his conservativism, as proud as he previously was of his socialism, quote, "And look – if that sounds conservative, then let me tell you: I don’t care."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-stamer-conservative-new-labour-b2337901.html
Btw I'm lovin the supreme irony of making accusations of lying when trying to defend Sir Keir Starmer
.and what he actually said:
We must understand there are precious things – in our way of life, in our environment, in our communities – that it is our responsibility to protect and preserve and to pass on to future generations,” he said. “And if that sounds Conservative, then let me tell you: I don’t care. Somebody has got to stand up for the things that make this country great, and it isn’t going to be the Tories.”
[He said Rishi Sunak’s party did not stand up for] “our rivers and seas, not our NHS or BBC, not our families, not our nation”.
Yes I know what Starmer said because not only did I link the article but I also read it.
I fully agree with the sentiments behind The Independent's headline :
I don’t care if people think I’m a conservative, says Starmer
That ^^ very much sounds like Starmer declaring being proud of his newfound commitment to conservativism.
Which is in very sharp contrast to him publicly declaring "the moral case for socialism" 3 or 4 years earlier. Most people understand that socialism and conservativism are not the same thing. And Starmer's transition from one to the other has been seamless.
That is not a distortion, as you falsely claim, nor is it a lie.
That ^^ very much sounds like Starmer
Apart from him not saying it.
I don't think Starmer has changed in the last 3 or 4 years, Ernie, he's just not as nervous about saying what he really thinks.
I also feel that he's being about as socialist as he can be and still have any chance of being reelected. I had a week back in the UK recently and pretty much every person I met or media source I consulted was way to the right of me, and after years of sparring on here I think you'll agree I'm not exactly far left myself. A worrying number were definitely in the Reform zone.
There seems to be a complete disconnect in people's heads between the socialist stuff they want (NHS, public services etc.) and the fact they'll have to pay for it one way or another whether it's in national insurance or tax on something that means they'll ultimately conctribute.
There seems to be a complete disconnect in people's heads between the socialist stuff they want (NHS, public services etc.) and the fact they'll have to pay for it one way or another whether it's in national insurance or tax on something that means they'll ultimately conctribute.
I'm definitely seeing a lot of this. Also, more and more the term "lefty" is being used in a massively derogatory way. I did challenge someone to define what left wing was and they floundered.
I also feel that he's being about as socialist as he can be and still have any chance of being reelected.
Again, the term socialist is viewed very negatively in the mainstream press and on some social media platforms.
Once again frogface farage is throwing his tuppence into the ring, crying out for steel industry to be nationalized.
Farage will say the thing that he thinks will get him the headline he craves.
There seems to be a complete disconnect in people's heads between the socialist stuff they want (NHS, public services etc.) and the fact they'll have to pay for it one way or another whether it's in national insurance or tax on something that means they'll ultimately conctribute.
I'm definitely seeing a lot of this. Also, more and more the term "lefty" is being used in a massively derogatory way. I did challenge someone to define what left wing was and they floundered.
I also feel that he's being about as socialist as he can be and still have any chance of being reelected.
Again, the term socialist is viewed very negatively in the mainstream press and on some social media platforms.
It's unfortunate... Like some very vocal Americans desperate to 'own the lib-tards'.
They probably have no idea what liberal actulay means.
There pensions are worth less and they get less health care but that's somehow a price worth paying for the feeling of one-upmanship.
It's like they want to punish certain demographics, but failing to realise that they too benefit from the benefits.
Imagine being diabetic in the USA and working a job that doesn't provide very comprehensive healthy insurance.
Anyone can be afflicted with any manner of health condition at any time and it could literally bankrupt you in the USA.
There are stories of married couples getting divorced in the USA following a diagnosis as a financial strategy, so the medical bills of the unfortunate partner won't bankrupt the family unit and force them to sell the house to pay for it, etc.
It's insane.
That ^^ very much sounds like Starmer
Apart from him not saying it.
So The Independent's headline is false too! Is there anyone not falsely reporting and lying about what Sir Keir Starmer said?!?!
Starmer is without doubt a liar and a fraud, everything about him is dishonest - he fought the Labour Party leadership election on a platform of lies and he also fought the general election on a platform of lies.
But let's pretend that he is the victim of misrepresentation!
Independent's headline is false too!
It is clearly distorting what he said. It's attention getting but misleading as headlines sometimes are, and is not what he said. This is apparent if you read his quoted words. Which again were “And if that sounds Conservative, then let me tell you: I don’t care. Somebody has got to stand up for the things that make this country great, and it isn’t going to be the Tories.” which you translate as him telling folks he's a Tory.
Starmer is careful with his choice of words and I think most people can understand what he's actually saying.
There's no point hammering this, Ernie, we can all read, we can even differentiate between a small "c" and a big "C". Context is everything, I vote left of center/green but in some respects I'm conservative in the sense that I'm in favour of some traditional social and cultural values; a good education for example. That's conservative but doesn't make me a Conservative as in Tory as a good education is not incompatible with socialism.
The "platform of lies" I sympathise with but take heart from shreds of the manifesto that are being followed.
a good education is incompatible
With reaching the upper echelons of the Tory/Fash parties is probably more en-point.
we can all read, we can even differentiate between a small "c" and a big "C"
Apparently not. No one has used the"big C". Have a read again.
There seems to be a complete disconnect in people's heads between the socialist stuff they want (NHS, public services etc.) and the fact they'll have to pay for it one way or another whether it's in national insurance or tax on something that means they'll ultimately conctribute.
I think this is a fair description of a lot of normal working people. Ten years ago I think a fair few people , not all , would have not been averse to say a penny on income tax for investment in the NHS . But now people on pretty reasonable incomes have found their disposable income heavily reduced after the cost of living crisis.
People want the services , they know the Tories broke them by underfunding them , they know that more money is needed, they just feel like they can't afford to contribute any more .
If Britain is the 6th largest economy in the world there's obviously money around , maybe someone could see where all that money is and maybe see if we could tax a little bit of that .
maybe someone could see where all that money is and maybe see if we could tax a little bit of that .
yep... the 'elites' are not who you think they are, it's not the middle earners mortgaged up to the eyeballs with a brand new 5 series beemer on finance who are 3 pay checks away from bankruptcy, who are desperatly trying to appear sucessfull.
It's Amazon, it's Meta, It's Alphabet, etc.
A really heavy digital/offshore operation tax is needed on operations like this if they want to do business in the UK.
They won't like it, but if they are allowed to make 'reasonable profits' rather than insane tax free profits, they won't leave..profit is profit.
Said several times the evidence says there's no appetite for taxation apart from question time audiences.
Trying to pretend we need to get money to pay for things is broken across the board.
If we separate the reality (government creates the money) and taxation for redistribution (removal of money) then we might get somewhere.
Look around you. No amount of taxation is going to fix the mess we have.
Factually deficits are not big enough currently to make inroads into solutions. Unless, of course we shifted interest income to deficit spending instead. Systematically, it's by design easier to create money (happens every day) than take money from the wealthy which only serves to limit their power etc.
Time to accept currently politics and the economy is organised to never fix the problems we discuss on here.
Imagine 45 years of transfer of state assets. You think 1% tax here and there is going to reverse that? That's ridiculous on every level.
I was quite upbeat when Labour started talking about saving S****horpe (it's a no brainer and should have been prepped ages ago) but Reynolds is talking like a stupid Tory - propping up until commercially viable. Really?
Certain things should not have 'commercially viable' attached to them - but for public purpose. I don't know what it's going to take for this ridiculous party to see the big picture
A major rebellion appears to be hardening on the Labour benches rather than subsiding, despite frantic efforts by whips and government ministers to talk MPs round.
Many of the several dozen Labour MPs who are angry at their party’s cuts say they will refuse to get involved in any such “trade off” involving children in poverty and the disabled.
Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, who is planning to vote against the legislation, said: “You can’t compromise with a trade-off under which you say you will take more children from poor families out of poverty by placing more disabled people into poverty. That simply cannot be right.
Another Labour MP opposed to the cuts, Neil Duncan-Jordan, who won the seat of Poole in Dorset by just 18 votes last July, overturning a Conservative majority of 19,000, said he had more than 5,000 Pip recipients in his seat.
He said he could not support any compromise or “trade off”. “There is not a hierachy of need,” he said. “The whole policy is wrong. It goes without saying that if these benefits cuts go through, I will be toast in this seat.”
It would appear that the centrist's central argument "unfortunately we cannot do as we wish, we have to listen to voters, because that's how you win elections" no longer applies.
Guess it’s time to resurrect this old thread, last post was exactly a year ago and I figure there’s no chance of Starmer being here in a years time so how long do we think he has before he walks the plank/given his marching orders?…………I give him 3 weeks.
while the latest shitshow is damning as , im not sure anything has changed in terms of a viable replacement, which makes replacing him a gamble.
I also still think that they hired mandlescum to be trumps ambassador BECAUSE he was a corruptable noncewhisperer, everyone knew it and despite it all starmer didn't really break the rules, because the rules are designed to protect the PM, even if morally hes bang to rights
but if he does go straight after the locals os the time to do it
Robbin's said that telling the prime minister about any details of the vetting, other than the outcome of the process, would have been against the rules. So I guess that means if the FO gave the clearance the PM didn't have to be informed even if something dodgy had been discovered in the vetting process.
So poor communications really.
The right wing press, Kemi, Farage and gang are having a field day with this.
The right wing press, Kemi, Farage and gang are having a field day with this.
I'm not sure Kemi, her party or Farage are in any position to take the high moral ground on vetting.
Yep, but their memory's are selective and they're aided my murdoch's screeming tags.
I'm not sure Kemi, her party or Farage are in any position to take the high moral ground on vetting.
They wont let that get in the way or, indeed, that most of them thought the turd was a good choice at the time.
Oddly it was only those "far left" loons who suggested a turd like Mandelson might not be a good choice and we all know the grown ups in the room should ignore anyone of a vaguely leftwing viewpoint.
Which is what sums up Starmer as a ****wit. He selected an absolute turd who appeals to the right since they know his "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes" quote has a caveat of "but can pay donations to lower those tiresome taxes" but didnt think through that a)it would piss off leftwingers and b)the right wingers would turn on him at the slightest opportunity.
and despite it all starmer didn't really break the rules, because the rules are designed to protect the PM, even if morally hes bang to rights
Olly Robbins in his evidence says that "If we turn DV into a pass/fail purity test, what we end up doing, is robbing the British state of a lot of very very capable people with complicated lives and potential vulnerabilities".
The right wing press, Kemi, Farage and gang are having a field day with this.
Pippa Crerar's (political editor of the Guardian) partner is Tom Whitehead, who is a senior civil servant in the FCDO
I also still think that they hired mandlescum to be trumps ambassador BECAUSE he was a corruptable noncewhisperer,
That’s obvious isn’t it? Who better to grease round Trump than a member of the same club ?
The problem all seems to have come from announcing the appointment before the vetting. And I'm sure that was done against advice. That in itself seems to have been very poor judgement and it must have been totally obvious to the foreign office that this appointment had to go through.
I've been through DV and it took 6 months and I doubt I'd had quite as "interesting" life as Mandelson at the time or since.
Starmer needs to come out and apologise for the fact that number 10 didn't go about it in the right way and put undue pressure on people and that led to this mess. It's a "who will rid me of this turbulent priest" moment for him. I don't think he's got the character to take responsibility though. He'll just keep apologising for the result while never acknowledging that the result was ultimately down to him and those closest to him in number 10. He needs to admit that he would have put Mandelson in place no matter what and against any advice.
Who better to grease round Trump than a member of the same club ?
The professional diplomat who was already in post and was doing a great job of handling him?
If we turn DV into a pass/fail purity test, what we end up doing, is robbing the British state of a lot of very very capable people with complicated lives and potential vulnerabilities
The whole point of vetting is to make sure that people have no/minimal vulnerabiulities and cannot be influenced because of their past. It is literally the reason for it to exist.
It should be an impartial decision based on what people admit and what the DVA know about them and their past. If those two do not match: Fail. If the risk based on what they have said is too great: Fail.
If that is not the case, I fail to see how DV can be used as a yarstick for trustworthiness within the government, unless it genuuinely is one type of DV for politicians/government and another for everyone else (which is really, really fscking retarded).
I'm not sure Kemi, her party or Farage are in any position to take the high moral ground on vetting.
It's a bit rich for both the right wing press and the Tories to be kicking off about anyone appointing their unsuitable mates with little or no oversight. Hypocrisy, much.
Its also worth noting that when Mandy was appointed, Farage was purring about him being a “very intelligent man” and an “enormously talented bloke,” and offered to work alongside him on negotiating a trade deal with Trump.
As usual, he did his full reverse ferret once it all kicked off
I just despair in the Labour Party though. After 14 years of the Tories and with the country crying out for worthwhile change, it's difficult to imagine how they could have more comprehensively ****ed it all up. Quite the achievement, in a facepalmy sort of way
If we turn DV into a pass/fail purity test, what we end up doing, is robbing the British state of a lot of very very capable people with complicated lives and potential vulnerabilities
The whole point of vetting is to make sure that people have no/minimal vulnerabiulities and cannot be influenced because of their past. It is literally the reason for it to exist.
It should be an impartial decision based on what people admit and what the DVA know about them and their past. If those two do not match: Fail. If the risk based on what they have said is too great: Fail.
If that is not the case, I fail to see how DV can be used as a yarstick for trustworthiness within the government, unless it genuuinely is one type of DV for politicians/government and another for everyone else (which is really, really fscking retarded).
Well said. Robbins with his 'purity test' bullshit is being highly irresponsible. Give it whatever emotive and misleading phrase you like, it is literally about assessing the suitability and vulnerability of an individual to hold positions within sensitive areas of work.
Would Robbins describe EDBS for healthcare workers and teachers a purity test as well?
I have known people not being able to go on and work in certain areas of defence for far less then being a known associate of a convicted sex offender and an all round ****ing lizard.
It's an absolute lickout of a process that took me a little longer to clear due to poor choices and unmanaged debt in my younger years. If I'd had a fewer years between me and the debt DVA likely said no.
I'm not one for calling for people to be sacked, but in this instance anyone that directly interfered or even sniffed in the direction of that process should be booted.
As for Starmer, that ****ing idiot needs better mates.
Starmer needs to come out and apologise for the fact that number 10 didn't go about it in the right way
Olly Robbins - again in his evidence- says that what Starmer said in Parliament on Monday was accurate. There was obvious pressure from No10 - read McSweeney presumably, but that didn't actually make any difference to the outcome.
If that is not the case, I fail to see how DV can be used as a yarstick for trustworthiness within the government,
That's not what it's used for though. That's the point Robbins is making. Anyone, he points out, that gets to the position of being offered a senior governmental post, can and probably does have 'things' in their past, and it's better to know about them than not.
Robbins is also right to ask - "who does this all serve?"
it's difficult to imagine how they could have more comprehensively ****ed it all up.
We could have Boris though, who was such a risk that SIS briefed May that they were not going to share certain intelligence with him, and he managed to shake off his protection to go to a party with ex-KGB officers. I can't remember if the press went after her with as much vehemence. Lewis Goodall on Threads over the weekend said (paraphrasing) "The press have always got it in for Labour"
I can see both sides of this, No.10 made the decision that they were going to try to keep Trump on side, and in that context; Mandelson's appointment makes sense. That that decision has subsequently blown up in their faces because Trump is an unhinged demented narcissist un-moored from even the remotest outpost of reason, was probably not in the power-point presentation.
With the benefit of hindsight etc etc.
EDIT: It's also worth keeping in mind that the fact Mandelson knew Epstein wasn't the reason his DV came back as 'borderline'
Lewis Goodall on Threads over the weekend said (paraphrasing) "The press have always got it in for Labour"
Good to see the centrists catching up on that basic idea.
No.10 made the decision that they were going to try to keep Trump on side, and in that context; Mandelson's appointment makes sense.
This is claimed but isnt supported by the facts.
The ambassador at the time was doing a good job of keeping him on side. It was reported that he was upset she was being removed and wasnt overly happy about Mandelson being appointed. After all he was already trying to distance himself from Epstein so going "hey the new ambassador is also a mate of Epstein" isnt necessarily a winning move.
I think the answer is far simpler. It was a reward for Mandelson. Just think if he had got that Oxford Chancellorship all this might have been avoided.
The ambassador at the time was doing a good job of keeping him on side. It was reported that he was upset she was being removed and wasnt overly happy about Mandelson being appointed.
sure, but that's irrelevant, no? All ambassador posts are pretty much at the gift of the government, I mean you'd hope that good service would bring good reward, but in this line of work, it's just not how it works. A school friend of my wife was a Canadian diplomat, and was appointed to work in China, the Chinese didn't like that her husband's an ex-Mountie , and that was pretty much the end of her diplomatic career, she now works in a different part of govt.
sure, but that's irrelevant, no?
Your claim was "Trump on side, and in that context; Mandelson's appointment makes sense."
I was pointing out this was incorrect. If anything appointing Mandelson was seen as a backward step.
I was pointing out this was incorrect.
The point is not what you or I think, but what Govt wants, isn't it? They may have been brilliant at the job, but it doesn't matter if they want some-one else there, or your face doesn't fit. Look at Robbins career for instance, he's been in and out of govt several times, been criticized for being "not brexity enough" when he was May's private sec and resigned to join a bank. If anything, what this whole confected charade reveals is that it's all an incestuous merry-go-round of the same people working in and out of the govt/press/civil servant machine.
Edit: If the DV process is used for anything, it should be stuff like Pippa Crerar of the Guardian partner works at the Foreign office, and that the political editor of the Sun is dating a Tory MP...and so on.
The point is not what you or I think, but what Govt wants, isn't it?
Errrrmmm yes. Maybe I am missing something here but you seem determined to divert away from your original statement which is what I am challenging.
Again your claim was "Trump on side, and in that context; Mandelson's appointment makes sense."
It didnt and it doesnt.
So given we both agree its the governments choice to give him the role the question is why?
What did he bring to the table given it wasnt the ability to handle Trump better than the professional previously in place.
The problem all seems to have come from announcing the appointment before the vetting. And I'm sure that was done against advice. That in itself seems to have been very poor judgement and it must have been totally obvious to the foreign office that this appointment had to go through.
I watched all of Robbins evidence yesterday. He was at pains to present himself as the perfect civil servant who would never allow any political complications to affect his judgement. He repeatedly stated the outcome of the vetting (FCDO granting DV) would have been no different if it has been done before the announcement.
Whilst I understood the rationale for not sharing vetting details, it does feel like there is a fundamental bit of the process that is broken. It appears Robbins was part of the decision on Mandleson's DV status without himself having all of the information, or even the summary of the UKSV findings in writing. If, as Robbins described it, UKSV discuss their leanings before recording the findings that seems to be a process which is not particularly robust, especially if the leanings were "borderline no" but the record becomes "strong no" but there is no process to alert those who discussed the mitigations. I think the idea that UKSV make recommendations but departments then are free to overrule those, seemingly with no paperwork which is available for general scrutiny, is something most people will find hard to get their head around. For probably good reasons, the mitigations are not something which gets shared, but its not obvious how anyone outside the inner circle would know if the mitigations were or were not being followed and again that seems to be a huge gap.
The equally surprising thing to me this week was that Ministers do not seem to undergo vetting themselves. I can see why they don't but it seems the PM would have been free to appoint Mandelson to ministerial positions with access to sensitive information but not to him being employed by FCDO with the same sort of info. Alternatively do Civil Servants just not share details with ministers who can't be trusted?
What did he bring to the table given it wasnt the ability to handle Trump better than the professional previously in place.
Who knows? Your claim that the professional in place was doing the job well already is entirely immaterial. if PM/Foreign Sec think - for whatever reason they care to come up with - to replace her with anyone else they want; is entirely up to them.
If they wanted to give it to Mandy as gift or reward, or because they think he can schmooze better that's entirely their decision. Either one is entirely plausible, regardless of how well or not previous incumbent did the job.