Olly Robbins has just nuked the premiership of Sir Keir Starmer

[ProudAmberTurtle]

What are the implications of Olly Robbins’s testimony for Starmer?

There was so much in his testimony that was damaging but surely the worst was that:

• He was instructed by No. 10 to find an ambassador's job for Starmer's then director of communications, Matthew Doyle
• He was told not to tell the foreign secretary about this
• Robbins considered leaving his role because this request was so unusual and inappropriate
• Doyle was then suspended from the Labour Party due to his links with a convicted paedophile (not Epstein).

And on Mandelson, he said there was "constant pressure" for him to fast-track the appointment, there was no interest in the vetting from the PM, concerns about the vetting were dismissed by No. 10 and Mandelson had already been given IT access that should only have been granted after the vetting process.

What can Starmer do now? Say Robbins was lying?

So the issue has now moved to Starmer's relationship with the CS?

I think I read that OR is getting a handsome payout

Yep. Goalposts shifting.

Firstly not proven. Secondly he was a child. Bit desperate.

The issues were in the actual post, read back. It was about his lack of decency. You can’t just sack people who are good at their jobs because you can’t understand what’s going on.

If Labour have any decency they’ll remove him.

It’s answering questions. If you don’t want that, don’t ask them.

Your wilful ignorance and dismissal here is shameful.

You are conflating something someone not in power allegedly did as a child with the actual actions of the Government.

Id suggest it is you that is being wilfully ignorant and your dismissal is shameful.

I thought the issue was that Robbins nuked Starmer for lying? Which didn't happen.

Robbins should have made it clear what was going on, that was his job.

He did his job, to the guidance. Did you follow the committee at all?

But Robbins followed "The Process". Which as we know, is what everyone needs to do.

You think it is not a big deal because Farage was a child, teenager? It was a big deal to the children who the racism was aimed at.

Have you seen how many Reform candidates are posting racist stuff?

Absolute rubbish. I’m categorically stating that you dismissing the people going on record / public with accusations of Farage’s record of racism and anti-semitism as abhorrent - because it is.

Maybe if people watched the committee rather than just repeating Starmer’s misunderstanding and incorrect statements they’d get it.

Yes and the process he followed confirmed that Starmer was not lying.

You assume a lot.

Why do you think people didn't watch it? Because the views don't align with yours?

For a start, in what way did Mandelson "lie" (as claimed by KS in Parliament) bearing in mind he failed vetting and KS didnt speak to him?

Why did KS appoint someone well known to be a security risk and after he had read the due diligence which indicated links to China and Russia after the invasion of Crimea and which Simon Case said should not be appointed until after vetting? Do you think that was taking an unnecessary risk with national security?

The Independent was told back in Sept that vetting had been done in the normal way. Which would have included the outcome being confidential. The Independent investigated claims that Mandelson had failed vetting and said -

"A WhatsApp exchange from that time between The Independent and Downing Street’s then director of communications, Tim Allan – in which Mr Allan responds that “vetting was done by FCDO in the normal way”

So either process was followed and the vetting outcome was kept confidential.
So Starmer didn't lie and Robbins should probably not have been sacked.

Or, someone was leaking that Mandelson failed the vetting, in which case Robbins would be ultimately responsible and should be sacked. Whether Starmer was aware of the actual truth can't really be demonstrated one way or another.

There! Sorted!

Can you explain why if you watched it why OR needed to make things clearer in his job?

Which part did you think he got wrong?

Are you moving the goal posts again?

I have already said that Starmer shouldn't have appointed Mandelson

But that was not the point of the debate.

I have tried but you are not listening.

His lack of record keeping was surprising. Anyone familiar with Whitehall knows that it is very anal about record keeping, to the point of absolute tedium.

I can’t believe this is all Labour have.

It still makes Starmer wrong on his assumption re UKSV and doubling down today is still not correct. He lacks understanding, decency and ability to grasp process. I think it’s dawning on a few Labour MPs who will rightly feel uncomfortable about the sacking.

But OR confirmed yesterday that he never saw the vetting sheet stating that PM had failed. Which KS incorrectly said today that OR knew he had failed vetting yet had concealed it. OR actually said they found "nothing against" and that the risk could be mitigated against..he didnt say he knew that vetting had failed PM. So KS wasnt telling the truth today.

I am not "Labour". I am just someone who enjoys politics.

Emily Thornberry said the same about note taking and it’s repeated on here.

It’s got to be the most irrelevant part of what the committee should be assessing, they didn’t even grasp the process.

Hopefully Barton will help them get it.