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).
Of course there's a double standard. Both houses of parliament have members who'd fail any such checks. Civil servants are held to higher standards, and must pass more stringent checks. Which brings us to the core "mistake" made by the PM... we have a civil service full of screened, trained, experienced diplomats... deciding to go along a route similar to the USA, where supporters and cronies are dropped into key diplomatic roles instead of the professionals, was the key mistake that I hope this and future PMs avoid from now on.
I believe McSweney is going to give evidence on this? he was by all accounts the driver for appointing Mandleson and I suspect the source of the pressure from the cabinet office that Robbins was talking about, Streeting is also very quiet at the moment and he was apparently also keen on his appointment
was the key mistake that I hope this and future PMs avoid from now on.
It isn't. The key error here is that the FCO civil servants wanted to do their DV, and that took as long as it takes, all the while No.10 is shouting at them to get a move on and at the end of all that shenanigans the civil servants won't tell them diddly squat about the outcome, ignore the recommendations of their own DV agency and say everything is fine.
Again, Mandy was borderline on his DV for different reasons than he was sacked.
From the BBC
Sir Keir Starmer has accused officials in the Foreign Office of deliberately and repeatedly withholding the fact Lord Mandelson initially failed security vetting for the role of US ambassador.
Giving a statement to MPs, the prime minister said if he had known, he would not have gone ahead with the appointment.
Sir Keir found out last Tuesday the Foreign Office had gone against the recommendation of the security vetting agency and cleared Lord Mandelson for the job.
In his evidence to the select committee, Robbins says that Starmer's version of events in the Commons on Monday was accurate.
Again, Mandy was borderline on his DV for different reasons than he was sacked.
Yet the PM has said that if he'd known about the outcome of the DV, he wouldn't have appointed him.
Anyway... all that you've typed there only came about because the PM wanted to side step the civil service and appoint someone from outside.
Yet the PM has said that if he'd known about the outcome of the DV, he wouldn't have appointed him.
Who knows what the conversation were, and what Starmer's red lines were, or even if he had any. Mandy's problems were all financially based AFAIK, perhaps if the FCDO had been more upfront then perhaps this wouldn't have happened like this, perhaps Starmer might've have ignored them anyway, and still appointed Mandy because as @dissonance points out; he wanted to reward him. regardless, Starmer gets to play the hand he played because the FCO ****ed it up and Mandy was a bad 'un anyway for completely different reasons. Mandy's been sacked, he's likely to either go to prison or be fined into penury, either option is fine by me. I think the odious part of this entire performance is lifting the stone to see just about enough of the slimy relationships that are at play in the press/CS/political world.
In amongst all this confection, Parliament just passed a bill that starts the countdown to banning people from smoking. In theory at least a generation (currently all under 18s) of people will never be allowed to smoke...
In theory at least a generation (currently all under 18s) of people will never be allowed to smoke...
Judging by the way we successfully control access to illegal narcotics, I am not massively confident that this will be the roaring success some people think it will.
In theory at least a generation (currently all under 18s) of people will never be allowed to smoke...
As if! All it will do is create a shadow market of older people selling legally bought cigs to kids. It's possibly the worst piece of nanny-state legislation I've ever seen. What next? Banning fat people from buying junk food?
In theory at least a generation (currently all under 18s) of people will never be allowed to smoke...
As if! All it will do is create a shadow market of older people selling legally bought cigs to kids. It's possibly the worst piece of nanny-state legislation I've ever seen. What next? Banning fat people from buying junk food?
This morning the BBC were on about loads of shops now selling weed, coke and nitrous, under the counter. I feel certain that they definitely wouldn't dream of selling 20 b&H to anyone who appears to be whatever age it is they're meant to be.
Don't forget that they've also made it illegal to vape if you have kids in the car. I bet that if you had a look in ten years time, there won't have been a single incident of anyone ever having been done for that.
Its a good job that there's nothing important going on, leaving the government free to concentrate on such irrelevant nonsense
Public health is important. Squeezing the tobacco companies out of our public space is important. It’ll never be total or complete, and yes there are always even more important things to deal with, but that shouldn’t be used as excuse to not bother.
Oh god, I’m agreeing with Sunak here, aren’t I.
I doubt there will suddenly be a black market for tobacco to people below the age limit. The sales of tobacco to 18-21yr olds must already be tiny. On one hand it felt like this was closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. BUT I suspect this is actually a pre-emption to trying to introduce taxation on vapes: it’s a counter to the argument of “you’ll just encourage people back to the even worse world of smoking”.
what the legislation won’t touch is people selling illegally imported fags. HOWEVER it MIGHT have some impact on how smuggled tobacco is perceived - currently “it’s a bit naughty but the only people it’s harming is the tax man” is the perception.
This morning the BBC were on about loads of shops now selling weed, coke and nitrous, under the counter. I feel certain that they definitely wouldn't dream of selling 20 b&H to anyone who appears to be whatever age it is they're meant to be.
the weird thing is we “all” know the sort of shop in our locality who will sell booze, fags etc to people who are probably underage. Probably none of us would be that surprised if they also sold other dodgy shit too. That knowledge must apply to the police, trading standards etc - so why does this need the BBC to investigate? If I might posit a suggestion that we’ve developed a culture where we turn a blind eye. Some of it may be related to policing resources but it’s really not difficult to police, compared to things we do find resource for. Eg whilst historical sex offences are horrific, is locking up some 70 yr old who was a creepy 40 yr old going to protect any 15 yr olds today? I’m not advocating that people be let away with historic offences but I am questioning if limited police, prosecutors, courts and prison resources are being used sensibly. Similarly I’d much rather we break the big OCGs than make some addict who is selling a small amount to fund their own habit’s live even worse. BUT it seems to have become policy that we don’t routinely bother with low level dealing. So here’s a question for those of you with locally elected police and crime commissioners - what are they promising about the sort of stuff that it didn’t need the BBC to highlight because every local community already knows it? And if you know which shops are problem - have you stopped using them?
Is that a symptom of a pointless law or a sign that by laying down the “rules” the vast majority of parents will comply? Personally I’d just ban smoking and vaping whilst driving - like using a handheld phone is.Don't forget that they've also made it illegal to vape if you have kids in the car. I bet that if you had a look in ten years time, there won't have been a single incident of anyone ever having been done for that.
depends whether you think the number of kids getting sucked into vaping is trivial or not? Personally I think that is a real issue and saying “we were trying to avoid ww3 and manage the oil price” is a shit excuse because 95% of uk politicians have almost zero influence on either.Its a good job that there's nothing important going on, leaving the government free to concentrate on such irrelevant nonsense
Oh god, I’m agreeing with Sunak here, aren’t I.
It’s OK, just because he’s a Tory - doesn’t mean he’s always wrong!
id go further and suggest we need to look at “energy drinks” - probably with laws on age to buy drinks either >x% caffeine, and a tax too.
BUT it seems to have become policy that we don’t routinely bother with low level dealing.
IMO / IME it tends to be reactive policing. So if it becomes a nuisance and folk complain they get busted or if its under the polices noses they get busted but if its not creating a nuisance or being visible they don't get busted. so dealing out of a council house with loads of noisy cars pulling up and youths on emotos being a pain doing deliveries it gains police attention. If its done subtly then no police atytention. cops know its just a waste of time
Back in the 90s the old Port of Leith pub was full of folk obviously full of eccys. Across the road from the police station. Never caused a nuisance, no police action. the cops must have known
It's possibly the worst piece of nanny-state legislation I've ever seen.
Smoking kills 75,000 people a year, either through lung disease or cardiovascular disease it's still the biggest cause of preventable illness and disease. Roughly half of all long-term smokers die from it. People with long term conditions who smoke are mostly the reason you can't get an appointment at the GP anymore, but you know all that
If we can create a generation of folks who don't have ready access to smoking and fewer of them start then we have an opportunity to reduce those numbers and break a cycle that destroys countless lives. We either do something about fags or we spend an increasing part of the nation's wealth looking after folks who've taken it up, can't stop and will die because of it.
I'm pretty sure there were folks who had the same attitude and complained about 'nanny state' for all the preventable workplace death that used to blight heavy industry and construction.
BUT it seems to have become policy that we don’t routinely bother with low level dealing.
IMO / IME it tends to be reactive policing. So if it becomes a nuisance and folk complain they get busted or if its under the polices noses they get busted but if its not creating a nuisance or being visible they don't get busted. so dealing out of a council house with loads of noisy cars pulling up and youths on emotos being a pain doing deliveries it gains police attention.
I'm working on anecdote here. But I think what you describe was the situation a decade ago, but now its even less action.
is it? I'm not looking for a debate on drug policy or whether lifting "subtle" low level dealers is better than taking out the ring leaders. But assuming that subtly dealt drugs cause no harm seems naive. No children ever get them? Nobody commits crime to fund them? Nobody ends up in hospital from taking them?If its done subtly then no police atytention. cops know its just a waste of time
There may be a rational decision that leaving them in one place lets the situation be 'managed' rather than disrupting them. But I'm not convinced that doing nothing is a long term good solution.Back in the 90s the old Port of Leith pub was full of folk obviously full of eccys. Across the road from the police station. Never caused a nuisance, no police action. the cops must have known
No children ever get them? Nobody commits crime to fund them? Nobody ends up in hospital from taking them?
The point is that busting users and low level dealers changes nothing. Cops know this. You do not get behaviour change on behalf of the busted, you do not get any reduction in supplies
edit - removed discussion
In amongst all this confection, Parliament just passed a bill that starts the countdown to banning people from smoking. In theory at least a generation (currently all under 18s) of people will never be allowed to smoke...
Well I'm not going into a shop to buy cigarettes for some 25 year old in the future.
"Back in the 90s the old Port of Leith pub was full of folk obviously full of eccys."
Back in the 90's most of Edinburgh was full of folk obviously full of eccys. I worked in a petrol station for a few months and one of my coworkers regularly turned up out his box.
Superb speech Keir. Incremental change won't cut it, what we really need is revamped YTS scheme and allowing young people to live and work in Europe. And nationalising a steel smelter in S****horpe, that'll make everyone feel better and help pay the rent and utlity bills.
It's like he's trolling the country. It can't be possible for him to think this answers the criticisms of not having a plan, strategy, or the political will to change anything.
Edit: I see the swear filter is working beautifully, it's really a wonderful experience not being trusted to use names like S****horpe.
I've not seen the speech, what with being a work and such, but surely the best time for a radical improvement plan, (or even a non-radial one!) would have been 18 months ago. Did he use the work 'reset'... again?.
I had high hopes for this government, it's very disappointing and now they've started the internal squabbling and introspection just like the tories did, nothing substantial will get done, or at least that'll be the perception as all will get reported is leadership battles.
The problem remains the same... who would replace him?
Has to be a competent leader to get stuff done & with charisma to see off farage in a GE
Streeting is continuity Starmer (tho my slightly fash sis-in-law likes him?!)
Milliband (Ed) not sure he'd fare any better second time round
Rayner- The press will destroy her, utterly, even tho Id love to see her do it
Burnham- The only one with the charisma to make it work, but if hes not an MP & cant sort his arse out to actually be in position despite everyone & their dog knowing that a leadership challenge was coming after the lcoals- what does that say about his competency?
Burnham- The only one with the charisma to make it work
3rd time's a charm? Triggers a vote for the Manchester mayoralty which Labour would undoubtedly loose. Not a great look for a prospective leader challenger. Can we also acknowledge that outside the press, just 36 Labour MP have come out as wanting a change of leader; a whopping 8.5% of sitting MPs
Burnham would need to be selected first in order to become an MP - something that didn't happen in the Gorton by-election.
3rd time's a charm? Triggers a vote for the Manchester mayoralty which Labour would undoubtedly loose. Not a great look for a prospective leader challenger.
Which is why at the time I thought it was correct not to select Burnham.
something that didn't happen in the Gorton by-election.
Speaking with the local party when I helped out with some canvassing. They didn't want him, either.
Speaking with the local party when I helped out with some canvassing. They didn't want him, either.
Maybe they thought "hello Gorton, we're Labour, you always vote for us right"?
Maybe they thought "hello Gorton, we're Labour, you always vote for us right"?
It became pretty clear that most Labour votes were going Green on the doorstep. Same thing just happened in the Local elections for Chorlton (v similar to Gorton demographically) Don't tell anyone in my local party, but I know the Green candidate, and she's OK, and will do well, at the very least she's 'our side' of the fence. Can't say the same for the great swathes surrounding us though. What's really wild about the results is I know lots about the demographics of areas that went heavily Reform, and I cannot get my head around who the **** was voting for them (or more likely who didn't come out to vote against them)
Speaking with the local party when I helped out with some canvassing. They didn't want him, either.
The Gorton CP and wider Labour party could do worse than absorbing the latest piece by Clive Lewis. Burnham represents the real radical change which will finally challenge the structural inequalities in the British state. Decades of asset stripping and papering over the cracks doesn't serve anyone. I think he's probably the only person in the Labour party who can challenge Farage, if they miss the opportunity they'll deserver everything theyt get.
https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/2053538238384787606?s=20
the latest piece by Clive Lewis. Burnham represents the real radical change which will finally challenge the structural inequalities in the British state.
While he makes some good points, it's still pretty incoherent. All at once we're dependent on the Bond Market and up to our eyeballs in debt servicing interest payments, but at the same time our problems aren't a lack of cash. Make your mind up Clive.
Don't tell anyone in my local party, but I know the Green candidate, and she's OK, and will do well, at the very least she's 'our side' of the fence. Can't say the same for the great swathes surrounding us though. What's really wild about the results is I know lots about the demographics of areas that went heavily Reform, and I cannot get my head around who the **** was voting for them
Yes I was very happy (and somewhat surprised) by the Green votes and on the back of that some more Green wards in the local elections. As I said, I didn't think at the time that risking the Manchester Mayoral position was worth the risk. One more Green MP makes no difference in Parliament though I do think Burnham would have the ability to attract traditional Labour voters back to the party by not appearing radically left wing.
Re. demographics, it amazes me too that areas which are traditionally Labour swing to the far right. But that's nationalism/populism for you.
Make your mind up Clive.
The point about the bond markets is peripheral so not sure why you focus on that. The central point is that after decades of asset stripping the purpose of govt now is mitigating the damage and compensating people and businesses via benefits, bailouts and subsidies. Treat/prevent the disease rather than the symptoms. I reckon you're better placed than most people to understand that.
I think he's probably the only person in the Labour party who can challenge Farage, if they miss the opportunity they'll deserver everything theyt get.
I agree - but they've ballsed these things up in the past. Like choosing Ed over David Miliband.
If they choose Rayner they are screwed.
The point about the bond markets is peripheral so not sure why you focus on that.
We have for some time spent more money that we we earn, and the difference is the Bond market (or the kindliness of strangers) betting on the long term stability of a country that's never not failed to pay its debtors. The ownership (or otherwise) of it's institutions and services is separate budget (day-to-day spending vs capital investments). I agree with him in so much that they've been run down, and need rebuilding, although much of the impact that makes the basics of "everyday life more expensive" is outside of the control of any UK govt, thanks Trump.
I agree that we're going to have to think radically about defence, although the comparison to Finland while ignoring entirely that countries recent military history, its proximity to Russia, and it's lack of NATO responsibilities up until recently kinda misses the point. We don't have that history and it's bananas to think we should have the same here.
If they choose Rayner they are screwed.
Rayner is clearly not as good an option as Burnham, but I don't think you can dismiss her that easily. Almost all the anti-Rayner stuff I hear is grounded in mysogism and classism. Everything from being a 16 year old mother to questions about her sexual habits and the barely disguised 'she's a bit thick' comments. The tories and Farage will of course use those but if she becomes leader then the question is whether the Labour right will be able to resist piling in on her too.
I've got nothing against Rayner - she's got a lot more character than Starmer (who makes John Major look exciting - at least he was rummaging in the stationery cupboard with Edwina Currie!).
But taking Rayner would be handing a loaded gun of criticism to the opposition and they'll have a field day.
Any successor will have the public turned against them by the time we get to a general election… they have enough (ie very little in most cases, but that’s all it takes) in their backgrounds for the media to destroy them. You only have to look at Miliband and his bacon butty and a father with solid political beliefs, or Rayner and her attempts to set her disabled child up for the difficult life ahead of them… anything can and will be used against them. Comparing how Starmer and his football box or the glasses bought for him for the last campaign (both mistakes that I wouldn’t defend) and Farage’s secret millions are handled by press and public alike makes it obvious how things are stacked against any possible Labour leader.
IMHO If he/labour want to survive now is the time to start implementing some of the Reform immigration policies.
But TBH a tumble driers got more charm than Keir.
IMHO If he/labour want to survive now is the time to start implementing some of the Reform immigration policies.
Uh huh? Those are what exactly?
Also bearing in mind that immigration has already been reduced from its peak under Johnson what do you see the reform approach adding on top?
Also given the overlap between Johnsons cabinet ministers and reform mps exactly why should we be trusting them to do a good job?
But taking Rayner would be handing a loaded gun of criticism to the opposition and they'll have a field day.
The tories/reform/media will slaughter whoever is leader. Labour are just going to have to accept that and fight it. The only way they can do that is if the whole Labour party can unite around the leader and put all their efforts into rebuffing tory/reform/media attacks. Streeting and his fellow rightwingers don't exactly have a good track record in doing that so they're probably going to be screwed whoever is leader.
But taking Rayner would be handing a loaded gun of criticism to the opposition and they'll have a field day.
They will just make shit up anyway. Which is the main problem with Labour they keep trying to keep the unpleasable pleased.
It cant and wont happen so best to let them complain whilst Labour do stuff to improve life for everyone.
IMHO If he/labour want to survive now is the time to start implementing some of the Reform immigration policies.
This would be a fkn terrible idea for reasons which are barely worth arguing. The only chance labour have of turning things round is to focus on bread and butter issues which are important to working people and start putting money back in their pockets. The cost of living, the NHS, schools, crime, training + jobs for young people etc are all higher up the list than immigration for the vast majority. Reform have almost no answers on any of these so let them be the single issue party while Labour focus on the important stuff.
They will just make shit up anyway. Which is the main problem with Labour they keep trying to keep the unpleasable pleased.
The odds are already stacked against Rayner though. Her profile extends beyond politics and people already have entrenched views of her.
Burnham would be new to many people (outside of Manchester and those who follow politics), and a fresh face for Labour to promote.
Take my wife, she's not political, doesn't really follow news or SM - but she 100% knows of Angela Rayner (and has her own opinion of her!). She wouldn't be able to put a name to Andy Burnhams face though.
Rayner is clearly not as good an option as Burnham
i don't think it would make the slightest difference. The press speculation of a leadership challenge or resignation would begin on day two. Each of the last 5 PM of the country has been in turn, the most unpopular from May onward, and including Starmer, I'd not take bets that Burnham or Raynor wouldn't just be the next in line.
Interestingly Catherine West (making a name for herself this morning about Starmer having to resign) was sacked from Corbyn's front bench and was recently reshuffled out by Starmer - which perhaps has more to do with her calling for him to resign.
Yes, I was wondering if Catherine West was feeling so harassed and threatened that she felt the need to "Ask for Angela".
