• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Yeah, you could see what happened a mile off:
Starmer: "i want Mandelson in post"
Foreign Office: "but hang on a...."
Starmer: "i don't want to hear it, i just want it done, no excuses"
Foreign Office: "But...the Russian.."
Starmer: "I'm not interested. Mandelson as ambassador. Make it happen"

Starmer to MPs: "They never told me about the vetting"
 
LutonSpurs said:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...
Is this 'time pressure ' on completing the vetting procedure??

If so. Government department taking ages to do anything, quelle surprise.

If the pressure made them rush the job...not great.

Surely this isn't as important as who knew what and when in regards to the vetting procedure outcome?
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Yeah, you could see what happened a mile off:
Starmer: "i want Mandelson in post"
Foreign Office: "but hang on a...."
Starmer: "i don't want to hear it, i just want it done, no excuses"
Foreign Office: "But...the Russian.."
Starmer: "I'm not interested. Mandelson as ambassador. Make it happen"

Starmer to MPs: "They never told me about the vetting"
Click to expand...
Close, but not quite.

No 10 - we want Mandy in post
No 10 - releases it publicly.
UKSV identifies serious risk and, based on the DV criteria, doesn't recommend DV clearance
FCDO - thank you UKSV, we'll make further risk assessments and review of mitigations from here, and decide from there whether appointment is appropriate.

Mandelson was appointed to a highly sensitive role as ambassador to a highly toxic US administration. The appointment was a risk - that isn't new.
My view is it was a poor appointment, and events post appointment have shown it to be a taken that went wrong.

Re; Starmer knowing about the Developed Vetting - he clearly didn't. It would be improper, and undermine the process, to do so.

Summary -
Appointing Mandelson - poor judgement.
Process - followed correctly.

Literally nothing new here - well, not to me anyway.

Further - Emily Thornberry appears to have a note taking kink.

Further further - it's hilarious how fascinated everyone has suddenly become about a process they would have dismissed up until recently or just said "get it done".
You can't have both. You either want good governance (the civil service is essentially one massive governance department) or you don't
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Is this 'time pressure ' on completing the vetting procedure??

If so. Government department taking ages to do anything, quelle surprise.

If the pressure made them rush the job...not great.

Surely this isn't as important as who knew what and when in regards to the vetting procedure outcome?
Click to expand...
He wasn't involved in the vetting procedure, the pressure was on getting Mandelson appointed and in role in the US as quickly as possible. Not completing the vetting. Completing the appointment. He has even told the committee that no 10's view was that Mandelson might not even need vetting.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Is this 'time pressure ' on completing the vetting procedure??

If so. Government department taking ages to do anything, quelle surprise.

If the pressure made them rush the job...not great.

Surely this isn't as important as who knew what and when in regards to the vetting procedure outcome?
Click to expand...
The time pressure was because of a desire by no 10 to have Mandelson in post before Trump's inauguration.
To facilitate this FCDO used a queue jump mechanism to expedite his DV. This speeds up the process, it doesn't reduce the standards.
Govt depts "take ages" in most (not all) situations for good reason.
 
monkeybarry said:
Close, but not quite.

No 10 - we want Mandy in post
No 10 - releases it publicly.
UKSV identifies serious risk and, based on the DV criteria, doesn't recommend DV clearance
FCDO - thank you UKSV, we'll make further risk assessments and review of mitigations from here, and decide from there whether appointment is appropriate.

Mandelson was appointed to a highly sensitive role as ambassador to a highly toxic US administration. The appointment was a risk - that isn't new.
My view is it was a poor appointment, and events post appointment have shown it to be a taken that went wrong.

Re; Starmer knowing about the Developed Vetting - he clearly didn't. It would be improper, and undermine the process, to do so.

Summary -
Appointing Mandelson - poor judgement.
Process - followed correctly.

Literally nothing new here - well, not to me anyway.

Further - Emily Thornberry appears to have a note taking kink.

Further further - it's hilarious how fascinated everyone has suddenly become about a process they would have dismissed up until recently or just said "get it done".
You can't have both. You either want good governance (the civil service is essentially one massive governance department) or you don't
Click to expand...
Think you have nailed it. Process was followed correctly. It is Starmer that has tried to imply it wasn't to cover for his own poor judgement (he has implied he should have been told about the vetting when the reality is that it would not be usual for the PM to be told. The risks surrounding Mandelson were mostly public knowledge before the appointment. This is a guy that was openly referred to as "the prince of darkness"
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Think you have nailed it. Process was followed correctly. It is Starmer that has tried to imply it wasn't to cover for his own poor judgement (he has implied he should have been told about the vetting when the reality is that it would not be usual for the PM to be told. The risks surrounding Mandelson were mostly public knowledge before the appointment. This is a guy that was openly referred to as "the prince of darkness"
Click to expand...
I know. I did that pages back.

It's more nuanced than that.
No 10 will have trusted the process, and did so.
The process was followed.
No. 10 also needed Mandelson in post asap, and rightly so (irrespective of whether you think he's the right appointment).

As with many civil service processes, they are underfunded and under supported - there is a gulf between what UK Govt needs and what it enables the civil service to provide. (And what the public would be prepared to pay for)

The question here wasn't about the decision to appoint Mandelson, it was about process.

Starmers reaction to attack the civil service publicly is stupid - it makes his relationship, and the position of the Govt to work together, untenable.
Thr civil service is excellent (not perfect) at following the rules - if you attack on that basis, you need to be accurate.

Olly Robins will clearly be going to employment tribunal from here - even the existence of that is such a significant distraction from the role of government, at which Starmer will be central to.
 
If process was followed correctly, even under heavy pressure (nb.life and work is full of it), then it's really just an 'owning it' situation if in hindsight it looks a bad judgement call. How poor that call was is better judged on who knew what and when? Are we going to find that bit out, or is that the bit Starmer is being shifty about?

Irony is, if this situation was happening in the States, Trump would just get thru it with one of his silly faces expressions.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
If process was followed correctly, even under heavy pressure (nb.life and work is full of it), then it's really just an 'owning it' situation if in hindsight it looks a bad judgement call. How poor that call was is better judged on who knew what and when? Are we going to find that bit out, or is that the bit Starmer is being shifty about?

Irony is, if this situation was happening in the States, Trump would just get thru it with one of his silly faces expressions.
Click to expand...

Starmers issue is that he has lost confidence in the commons along with losing the public a while ago. His fall from grace since the "adults were back in charge" is a genuinely extraordinary fall from grace. Dudes boring and everyone thinks he is a liar.

For the sake of the Labour party he should step down now. Or a senior member needs to send a letter of NC.

If the prick hadn't blocked Burnham we could now be looking at a unity type figure but hey ho
 
Seeing the absolute shambles of all the parties bar the greens is a really interesting scenario. Reform are a shambles but I don't think they will be held to the scrutiny needed by the media but let's see.

Question. Will we really be seeing a reform v green as main parties world before end of decade in the UK?

Like is it even a possibility. Can they absord the dredges from the centre? And maybe from the more left but shambles your party clowns?
 
LutonSpurs said:
Starmers issue is that he has lost confidence in the commons along with losing the public a while ago. His fall from grace since the "adults were back in charge" is a genuinely extraordinary fall from grace. Dudes boring and everyone thinks he is a liar.

For the sake of the Labour party he should step down now. Or a senior member needs to send a letter of NC.

If the prick hadn't blocked Burnham we could now be looking at a unity type figure but hey ho
Click to expand...
Yeah the Burnham thing was a bugger.

Suppose most people protect their position.

Always said Starmer is someone to have in your cabinet....never a leader though.
 
LutonSpurs said:
Thanks for your input here @monkeybarry. It won't be heard above the hyperbole. Tbh without understanding the complex nuances be looks guilty as sin. However technically it seems the misleading of parilament part cannot be proved.
Click to expand...
Cheers. My pleasure - it's what I do.

I don't think he's misled parliament. That's a high bar.

I'm disappointed a d equally feel sorry for Starmer.
He has done well when being a technocrat and when dealing with aggression on the world stage.
He will be brought down when he's tried to be a more traditional British politician. That's a systematic issue as much as a Starmer issue.

Don't sack people without iron clad justification..
 
monkeybarry said:
Cheers. My pleasure - it's what I do.

I don't think he's misled parliament. That's a high bar.

I'm disappointed a d equally feel sorry for Starmer.
He has done well when being a technocrat and when dealing with aggression on the world stage.
He will be brought down when he's tried to be a more traditional British politician. That's a systematic issue as much as a Starmer issue.

Don't sack people without iron clad justification..
Click to expand...

I am struck by Olly performance on the stage. He knows the world is watching but he seems to be handling it as well as anyone. What that indicates to me also is that while he is being careful with words he is not bluffing up there. Super intelligent dude
 
LutonSpurs said:
I am struck by Olly performance on the stage. He knows the world is watching but he seems to be handling it as well as anyone. What that indicates to me also is that while he is being careful with words he is not bluffing up there. Super intelligent dude
Click to expand...
It was good. But also exactly what I'd expect of a Senior Civil Servant
But honestly, that's just what a civil service meeting looks like if the circumstances dictate it.
It's almost like "Civil Servant mode - activated" 🤣
 
monkeybarry said:
It was good. But also exactly what I'd expect of a Senior Civil Servant
But honestly, that's just what a civil service meeting looks like if the circumstances dictate it.
It's almost like "Civil Servant mode - activated" 🤣
Click to expand...

As a senior BA on a bad project, the retrospective with leadership can be brutal. I've been there. You battle behween self incriminating and being a corporate snitch. You always have friends and foes in the room. This is on another scale I guess. Intriguing from an audience perspective
 
LutonSpurs said:
As a senior BA on a bad project, the retrospective with leadership can be brutal. I've been there. You battle behween self incriminating and being a corporate snitch. You always have friends and foes in the room. This is on another scale I guess. Intriguing from an audience perspective
Click to expand...
Funnily enough, these are the exact reasons I get in trouble sometimes - I'll happily admit when I'm wrong, and when someone else is.
Improvement needs honesty, integrity, accuracy, candor and humility. Apparently most people can't deal with that 🤣
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back