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?

Astonishing though that if Starmer didn’t know, that the person/people who did know just let him merrily say over and over that due process was followed when they knew that it wasn’t.

Also, what a massive decision for ‘somebody’ to take unilaterally and seemingly tell not one other person.

Unless Robins messaged McSweeney on WhatsApp on the missing phone and he said it was fine…

Olly Robins was in post when the vetting override took place. He was not in post when Starmer announced Mandelson for ambassador post.

Anyway Starmer is digging in his heels as usual and has announced that he will not resign. So as always with slippery (man of integrity?) Keir Starmer, there is nothing to see here!

If it's true this leads to the political demise of Starmer it does suggest that the civil service have this odd power over the PM, not unlike that of local councils, who enjoy disproportionate power, albeit behind the scenes. Their bad behaviour leads to the PM's resignation.

It could be argued that what did it for Boris Johnson was all the lockdown breaking parties put on by the civil service, rather than anything he did - though the real reason would surely be his disastrous attitude to Covid as it advanced towards our shores, virtually going AWOL, letting it do its worst, along with alienating the parliamentary party. But the State doesn't like to cite the real reason, so it went with the lockdown parties.

Well presumably they were being deliberately deceptive? Otherwise they would have told him wouldn't they? They're not going to make a choice to lie and then say 'oh don't keep saying due process was followed cos it wasn't'

Maybe I’m just applying my own values, I’d just struggle to let somebody keep saying something so important when I knew it wasn’t true. But perhaps that’s why I don’t work in the CS…

It’s very unlikely OR didn’t tell someone vetting failed but Mandelson was already in place.

The bigger question is why did they appoint him without waiting for vetting?

Just seen something else on the news: Starmer says he found out about the vetting failure on Tuesday.

The protocol is that you tell the House you've misled them at the next available opportunity.

He was in the House of Commons the next day for PMQs and said..

Nothing.

Well then presumably you wouldn't have lied in the first place? So it's not really relevant what you'd do after the fact.

Derran Brown has revealed to us that before he discontinued this capability today, government departments, in this case the FO, had the right to override security vetting and were under no obligation to inform the PM. That is their line and they are sticking to it.

So Lammy will have to carry the can.

AWOL to intensive care?

Not even Starmer is saying that Robbins or anyone else in the Foreign Office lied. Starmer says he wasn’t told.

Cor what a day for you, going to be foaming at the mouth all day aren't you 😂

I'm so baffled why anyone would revel in the potential instability of our own government. What benefit do you see in him stepping down and being replaced by another member of parliament?

The pp isn’t ’foaming at the mouth’ that’s more Starmer and co plus others.

Now that is another story! Why was Lammy moved when he was?

What would you prefer we all do? Just tug our forelock and not criticise Our Glorious Leader?

I mean you might be right, but I've yet to see 238921641374912 posts on MN started by Starmer.

Want to bet.

If this was the only thing she's criticised him of, I'd have more sympathy. She starts multiple posts a week picking him apart. We aren't going to get a GE if that's the aim.

The country needs stability, chopping in PMs every five mins does no one any favours. He's been told to resign every other day by someone on here. It's ludicrous.

Well it’s not all about mn is it? Plus no one has to post on these threads if too frequent for them.

Theres a lot of dodgy stuff to get through with this particular government TBF.

Hes a bad PM. There's no escaping it unfortunately. And most people think it, looking at the polls.

No it's not all about mumsnet, but we're currently on mn so be daft of me to discuss any other forum.

All ears as to the benefit of removing starmer though... to have who take over?

And therein lies the rub. Starmer is bad but I'm even more scared of who could replace him.

I’m ambivalent on this so will see what happens