Thread 47 Starmer: Vai ficar tudo bem esta noite. Rock and roll.

[DuncinToffee]

Welcome to our long running thread for political discussion, general chit chat, a friendly hug and taxes in kind

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5507723-thread-46-starmer-meloj-kaj-kastoroj-sur-monbiletoj-arbaro-de-kolero?page=40&reply=151658840

This Spectator article gives good insight.

Conversely, the Act assigns the power to manage the diplomatic service to the Secretary of State (that is, the Foreign Secretary), and expressly says that this includes the power to make appointments to the diplomatic service. The Foreign Secretary, not the Prime Minister, is thus the relevant appointing authority for the diplomatic service. The Prime Minister clearly has political influence, and in practice may be consulted on or even politically try and direct major appointments, but he has no formal legal role in the selection of ambassadors.

The Act also says that the management powers over both the home civil service and the diplomatic service do not cover national security vetting. Vetting sits outside the ordinary management power. A diplomatic appointment and a vetting decision are legally distinct things. Official vetting guidance likewise treats national security vetting as a separate process from the appointment itself.
Final decisions on difficult vetting questions and any waiver process ordinarily rest at permanent secretary level. That strongly implies the probability that Sir Olly Robbins, the Permanent Secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, authorised Mandelson’s clearance. A letter sent jointly by Robbins and Yvette Cooper to the Foreign Affairs select committee on 16 September last year seems to imply this by stating that ‘the [vetting] process is also independent of ministers who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome’.
On the legal front, therefore, it seems correct to say that the Prime Minister should have been informed only of the outcome of the appointment and vetting process conducted within the Foreign Office, not treated as a formal decision-maker himself. The official vetting process also appears to mandate that ministers not be told anything about vetting other than the final decision.

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/2026.04.17-054720/spectator.com/article/in-defence-of-olly-robbins-2/?edition=us" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.is/2026.04.17-054720/spectator.com/article/in-defence-of-olly-robbins-2/?edition=us

I should have added these paras -

“This is potentially the true scandal of this entire affair: the process as outlined by Sir Olly in his letter to the Foreign Affairs committee requires that he alone bear the responsibility for overturning the findings of the security vetting procedure. He is notionally forbidden from informing ministers of anything other than the final outcome which, taken literally, would prohibit him from revealing that he overruled the security services’ determination.

It is very clear in retrospect that Robbins should not have reached the judgment he did. But it is worth readers and politicians alike reflecting on how appropriate it is that an unelected career bureaucracy is expected to make such monumental decisions with no democratic oversight. Sir Olly made a mistake, but it was a mistake he was effectively boxed into making by a system very clearly designed to keep ministers out of the decision-making chain.”

So Robbins may have made a mistake in overturning the security concerns but he had followed the accepted procedures in making the appointment & in not passing on information to Starmer.

Thank you @Notonthestairs. I wonder if that will ever see the light of day.

It won't.

The media is either ignorant of the procedure Or

Is aware of the FCDO procedure but thinks the public is too dumb to understand it OR

Prefers to frame the story to villify Starmer.

It makes you wonder how many other times an appointment failed the vetting

unless it directly impacts you and their role you won’t be told, you have to be closely and directly involved.

in my area the line managers aren’t even told when people are submitted for vetting and definitely not the outcome.

Option no.3, without doubt. We don’t even need to look too far on MN to find some people are salivating about it.

You don’t need to be disappointed. It’s explained here

Thanks, good to know- a PM can’t cover every single thing done by a government- wish whoever did know had let Starmer know as soon as it all came out. I’m sure he asked, he was DPP so thorough and would want to be prepared however bad it was, or how it could be twisted.

Also though I don’t agree with all the policies Labour have been delivering some things from the promises. This Guardian article is the end of last year.

Looking the realistic alternative parties I’d certainly want this government dealing with the Iran conflict, economic fall out.

They aren’t allowed to tell him. The process is walled off from ministers. They can only be told pass or fail.
Edit: Toynbee is wrong there and criticising for the sake of it. The government has tried to tell us all that. It’s on their socials. The media just refuse to discuss it.

https://bylinetimes.com/2026/04/10/14-government-reforms-the-media-has-largely-ignored-over-recent-weeks/

Bylines reports on what Labour is doing

And there is the Full Fact government tracker

Seems like Starmer really is on borrowed time.

Allies of Andy Burnham have identified a fresh path for the Greater Manchester mayor to return to Westminster and potentially run for Labour leader, as Sir Keir Starmer battles calls to resign over the Lord Peter Mandelson scandal.

Burnham, one of Labour’s most popular politicians, was blocked from standing in a by-election in February by members of the governing party’s national executive committee, including the prime minister. But the former cabinet minister is looking to a shake-up of the body that controls the Labour machinery this summer as a route back into national politics and potentially Downing Street, according to his allies.

FT.

Here's a little serenade for you.

1

Thanks for the superb earworm 😊

Excellent, @pointythings .

There is an interesting thread running atm. The majority think Starmer should stay.

Rather irrelevant.

It’s obvious to the whole country that Starmer isn’t up to the job. It’s not just the inability to communicate any vision, it’s not even that there’s no vision there in the first place, it’s the fact that he is hopelessly incompetent.

The Mandelson debacle is just the latest example of incompetence. It was obvious to anyone who looked that Mandelson’s links with Epstein were inappropriate (not least because he failed the Andrew test and maintained the friendship after the conviction). Only a fool would have appointed him in the first place.

To those posters it doesn't matter if Starmer goes, his replacement will be attacked just the same.

Whilst others will defend him, no matter how many times he commits an error or omission.

It must hurt to see that Starmer is rating highly when it comes to the Iran war,.

No really - it will not save him (but deep down, you know that).

Why are the anti-Labour lot so bothered by this thread. Why do they constantly feel the need to police it? 🚔

Even if Starmer goes, Labour will still be in government. That must also hurt them.

I don't really care what you think Troika but you already know that.

Wat will be your next name 🤔Russian linked is quite bold.

So who do you think is up to the job? Come on,give us all a good laugh. Had really sad news today so could do with one

Doubt that anyone else on this thread cares either - bit pointless really

I'm so sorry, @countrygirl99 .

Anyone whose first post is a sneer at our cat tax isn't worth listening to. It's all they've got, sadly.