Are we all looking forward to David Lammy becoming PM?

[ProudAmberTurtle]

There's no way Starmer can survive this latest scandal.

Lord Mandelson failed his security vetting for the US ambassador job, but he still got the post anyway.

Starmer stood up in Parliament last September and insisted "full due process" was followed — three times.

He therefore either misled parliament and has to resign under the Ministerial Code, or his advisors have misled him and parliament, which is likely a criminal matter and suggests a level of almost unbelievable government incompetence or corruption.

What great things are you hoping this country will achieve under PM Lammy?

Can’t wait for Keir to go. He completely destroyed the Labour Party.

Who do you see taking over and successfully rebuilding the Labour Party?

@HellenicOfTroyAt this stage, Darren Jones seems as a better choice. It will give the party a breathing space to rebuild the trust.

Do you think he's got the support, @duckfordinner? I don't know a great deal about him - he wasn't really on my radar til recently. Seems like he has quite broad experience within Westminster but would you say he's left of current Labour? I'm not convinced that more centrism is the future for Labour.

@HellenicOfTroyWho would be your choice, apart from Keir Starmer ( he is too toxic at this stage)?

I honestly don't know, @duckfordinner 😳 hence at the mo I'm wary about Starmer going - I just don't think it'll be anything approaching the silver bullet that's needed. I'm drawn to Burnham although obvs there are logistical probs at the mo. I have a soft spot for Rayner (with some reservations) but I'm not conviced she's electable (that old Corbyn chestnut). Wes Streeting inspires very little confidence for me. I don't mind Miliband but don't think he has the desire or the support.

”That man couldn’t lie straight in bed”.
Who said it?

Lee Anderson just said it in parliament as he was being kicked out for refusing to withdraw his claim that Starmer is a liar

Not really, you don't seem to know how vetting works.

So in this case, his previous "errors" were not the issue, it was lobbying firms links to China (that even you, knew nothing about) became the concern.

But even then, its probable he did not disclose them, SV found them out, thats always the issue with vetting failures, if you tell them, they can deal with that, its people trying to hide things that make them susceptible to blackmail etc etc.

I wonder if Lammy will be another sacrificial lamb after OR’s testimony today?

Oh stop it. The whole of the H of C, most Labour MPs included were laughing at Keir Starmer yesterday about his failure to ask questions based on Peter Mandelson's track record. Diane Abbott was hilarious. I never thought I'd approve of her but there you go.

I love how you are suddenly the pro about "how vetting works" as if no one else on this thread has been reading the extensive coverage in the media about "how vetting works".

Yes Mandleson's previous was known and so might not have been an issue for vetting if everything was disclosed this time round.

Problem is that his previous behaviour might also lead those with long memories to wonder just how honest he was likely to be with the vetting people this time round.

..and lo and behold...

..and that's why some are thinking the way his appointment was handled and announced was somewhat strange.

The PM must at the very least have known the appointment was highly risky.

People knew anyway. It was in the press already. David Maddox covered it in the Independent and it was raised in the house last year, clip on one of these threads.

I don't think he will. I predict OR will argue that he followed the "process" correctly and that KS had already appointed PM and wanted PM to stay in place and had probably made that clear to OR. And so OR made it happen for Starmer. And he was able to by following the process.

I think OR and the "process" is a red herring. KS had appointed PM anyway. Without waiting for vetting. Despite as Dianne Abbott put it, PMs "history".

Agree that Lammy is unlikely to go - nobody cares enough about him tbh 😳

I think @Pineneedlesincarpet is right - OR will say the process allowed him to do what he did. I don't think he'll go particularly rogue.

OR will have a good employment case though. He doesn't seem to have done anything to warrant sacking.

KS is trying to muddy the waters regarding the vetting/blaming the civil service. The damage was done before any of that happened when KS appointed PM before vetting had happened.

Yes I think that's broadly right, Pineneedles.

Juste watching it now - I'd forgotten it was Emily Thornberry that chaired the Foreign Affairs SC!! I wonder if there's any desire from her for leadership, or support for it.

Considering she got about five votes in the last leadership contest it’s unlikely.

Does anyone know if the Ella someone (i think) that ET just referred to is a SpAd? Although I know OR just talked about not dropping other CS in it.

Oh I think she's a Private Secretary. I wonder if any SpAds are going to get named and blamed?

He’s better than KS for this.

100%

Olly Robbins is shooting up in the estimation of all CS right now.

Yep. That and protecting the information in the DV from media speculation. Starmer managed to scapegoat someone who is decent and competent.

So hand on heart, you knew he had links to China? no you didn't, thats the point here.
Not that MPs laugh at Starmers ridiculous choice of words... who the fuck cleared his speech yesterday???

That you think the PM should be asking questions about a DV clearance, shows how little you know.

Olly Robbins himself has said the case was "borderline" listening to him, he sounds like a waffler, who admits he never told PM or anyone else but accepts due diligence was done prior to the appointment.
Robbins also allowed himself to be bounced into making the decisions over DV.

But Starmer has also been an idiot over this, as he himself has acknowledged or words to that effect.

Almost all jobs are given, even started, on the understanding IF SC or DV isn't given, then the job offer will be withdrawn.

So apparently Robbins was verbally briefed on the DV and never saw any documentation, he went against the recommendation of UKSV, unilaterally decided that the risks raised by the vetting could be “mitigated” and told nobody any of this, not even his boss, the Cabinet Secretary. He also refuses to say who in No 10 put pressure on him. In other words he completely failed to cover his back. How do people like this get to run government departments?