To think no one can SERIOUSLY want Starmer to go now, it’s media created instability designed to damage the UK.

[partmermaidpartplant]

trump, wars, Israel invading Lebanon, US mid terms…….

it would mental for Starmer to go and it’s a trap.

yabu - of course Starmer has to go, despite what is happening in the world right now.

yanbu - time to move on and deal with trump and the blatant manipulation of the media by Russia, right wing billionaire interests.

OP what's the first thing you are going to do when we rejoin the EU?

I'm going to buy loads of Spanish properties and make a ton of money.

Well, if Mandelson was appointed anyway and no one seemed to know whether he passed the clearance process, then what’s the point of the clearance anyway?

I wonder if PP can provide any links/sources for BJ having failed the security clearance as Foreign Secretary.

No but tell me please - what has Starmer done that is THAT bad?

I am Labour of course, bur apart from the school VAT thing, have they done anything even 5% as bad as Brexit. Please educate me on what you think is as bad.

And Gaza doesn’t count as Tories would have done even less to prevent Bibi’s genocide

https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-access-to-state-secrets-was-restricted-when-he-was-foreign-secretary-2019-7

Ok but he either he did know or he didn’t
either way he’s a mealy face liar and he incompetent either way

its a yes or no answer

yes I knew but still gave him the job
no I didn’t know but still gave him the job

he only sacked him when it became obvious more stuff was going to come out and now he’s trying to save his own skin

not going to look very good if he says I knew he was still friends with a convicted child abuser and abuser of women but I still gave him the highest and most coveted post a diplomat could want

Mandy - The Prince of Darkness he wasn’t called that for nothing back in Labour glory days he’s got the shit on just about everyone and everything.
which is why when he was kicked out of Labour Party twice he always managed to find his way back in more powerful than before

He was/ is an expert political schemer with no morals
hanging about with a wealthy man who has abused children and women and you aren’t aware is one thing

Continuing the “friendship” afterwards when he’s been convicted because he’s incredibly wealthy and money always been what Mandy worships

same as Sarah Ferguson

YANBU.

There were posters adamant on a thread weeks go (when the Peter M allegations first came out) that Keir would be gone within days. I said no and was shouted down.

Some very strange forces at work with trying to push people to think a certain a way.

Allegedly..,,

That’s a re-hashed article based on a BBC report. Neither the original BBC report nor the clickbait version you posted has anything to do with anyone failing security vetting.

The BBC report is clear that the claim of restriction of information to Johnson was disputed and that others claimed May’s temperament was to control and that she didn’t trust Johnson. I can’t say I blame her, but what you posted doesn’t answer Chardonnay’s question.

From the article:

The prime minister wanted the then foreign secretart to not to be shown certain sensitive secret intelligence when he was appointed in July 2016

He really was a secretart 😂

I think he’s just not liked that much. Some still do, I take it you still back him and like him, but the majority of the public just don’t agree.

Do you mean that you were right because Starmer was proved to have done nothing wrong about Mandelson or that you were right because Starmer was able to cling on despite suffering criticism and ridicule, and discontent among his MPs (who forced him to release the papers)?

I agree op. Starmer should absolutely stay.

It's not about me liking or disliking him, I am fairly cynical about politics so don't really back anyone. It's the way people try to force a hive mind.

I don't like Starmer much, I think his government is failing on every count, but I still think he should stay in post. He has a large majority, which could be used well if his party were able to see past the short term. It won't be.

There’s no forcing. Some are posting they think he should stay and he’s done nothing wrong, many don’t rate him.

I rate Streeting, which seems important because AFAICS, the UK is only the NHS with a little country attached.

Helllooooooooooo

all the anti Labour anti Starmer

what has been so terrible? That is as bad a Brexit ? Who has been enriched like the Mone woman and the golden wallpaper designer

what has been so terrible?

It’s not a Tory government is what’s so terrible. This government could transform public services overnight, eliminate poverty, reduce taxes to peanuts and deliver a gold ingot to every household and some people would still be complaining.

Have a read of other threads, this one is like pre GE selling in Labour still.

Having the personality of a chalkboard means you wouldn't want to date him, not that he's unfit for PM.

It sounds like you've completely misunderstood the process. It's not that KS didn't know why he failed vetting. He didn't know at all. It has been confirmed by multiple sources that no minister, or indeed prime minister, would have received those details. Just a "yes approved" or "not approved". He was told he was approved.

Calum Miller (now MP for Bicester but formerly a senior civil servant to the Cabinet Office, Foreign Office & Treasury) confirmed this was entirely normal process. Position announced, vetting commenced, PM passed a yes or no.

Where did you see / read that he was told he was approved?

I don’t think that’s correct. In any case Starmer and co appointed Mandelson before vetting had even finished.

As I just said - announcing the candidate before vetting commences is standard practice (according to Calum Miller & who I just cited and I heard Douglas Alexander confirm again this morning). That tracks with every other area of public and private sector vetting - appointments made pending vetting, commence job once vetting complete, or revoke appointment. PM wasn't sent abroad til Feb 25 - once vetting had concluded.

Starmer has repeatedly said he was not told he failed. He would have been given the green light from the FDCO before sending PM. Surely we can infer from that he was told he was approved to proceed with the post (however that approval came about would not have been passed on, just a yes or no, if the vetting decision had been overturned, it was a yes...however they eventually arrived at the yes). Miller said it was absolutely normal for neither minister nor prime minister to receive further details of the vetting process).

The PM is emphatically denying he knew he failed. We know he must have been given an answer either way and if he's saying he wasn't told no, he must have been told yes. If he had been told no, it would be very easy to prove. So I guess we'll see later today, or at the select committee hearing tomorrow.

My only question is who was putting pressure on OR to overturn the decision, if anyone. I don't believe it was Starmer, genuinely. If that turns out to be incorrect, I'm absolutely behind him going. Otherwise, I think it's madness to lose him now.

Your post said ‘he was told it was approved’. By whom?

Fortunately Olly Robbins has a chance to defend his corner against yet another sacking by Starmer to save his skin. Sue Gray, Morgan McSweeney, Olly Robbins, the others fell on their sword for KS, it doesn’t look like he will.