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?

You’re not saying much other than OR should have been clearer - when and how?

It's also the most irrelevant part of this whole mess. Nobody needed notes or vetting to tell them that Mandelson was a wrong 'un with links to Russia, China and Epstein.

Exactly. He knew The Dark Lord's history. He knew what had come out of due diligence was not good, Simon Case said don't appoint him until after vetting. And KS appointed him anyway. Why? Because he wanted to and was willing to gamble national security on it. And he lost.

I used to work as a PS in PR-OFF (for a Tory SofS as it happens) so just saying what I know.

After months of investigation by the Guardian, it was the best they could come up with.

It’s irrelevant and a bizarre focus from Labour. UKSV will have evidence at their end.

Agree. NF has been in politics for decades and has been the focus of people trying to get something on him all that time. There's really not much to see.

I heard one of the "victims" on Radio 4. Almost immediately went into a diatribe about Brexit and NFs involvement in it. It was rather embarrassing how he wanted to make a political point so much that he tainted any story he may have had about NFs childhood behaviour.

Out of all the parts of this… it’s note taking

@Pineneedlesincarpet I listened to Starmer today and agree with you. Note Robbins had his Trades Union rep behind him yesterday. This will end up in a Tribunal.

I think OR said as much. He indicated at the end there will be more info on KSs behaviour to come which he can't say now due to his future employment claim. He was masterful in the care he took about exactly what he could and couldn't say. A true diplomat.

What is in reality more relevant and of concern to the UK population today and (as you claim) similar to the facists of the 1930s? The words of a child in the 1970s? Or the actual actions of an authoritarian government today who, in power now, are attacking free speech and equality before the law?

One is the target of a smear campaign and not in power. The other is a clear and present danger to us all. And in actual power. Carrying out actual acts that are usually attributed to a facist state.

Ironic really that the crimes you accuse Reform that they aren't committing are the crimes that Labour are committing themselves. But let's ignore that and focus on the 1970s and the words of a child. In this topsy turvy world it seems perfectly logical.

I have been following this thread very closely. Are you aware that in 2020 Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party found unlawful acts of discrimination and harrassment? Or does that not matter?

We need to cut benefit payments - Gov pays out more than it takes in - raising minimum wage reduced employment, it is not the time for more workers rights. The country needs to get on its feet first.

Workers rights are useless if people can’t get work.

I am aware, and they have addressed that.

Farage however has not sorted the vetting system for his party and calls his teenage racism 'banter'

What is your view on Farage?

True

The benefits bill, about half of which is pensions, exceeds the income tax take - which is about a quarter of total tax revenue. It’s always time to make employers pay wages people can actually live on otherwise they’re subsidised by taxpayers.

Employers aren't some limitless bank that the government can just decide to withdraw more and more from. They generally have overheads and have to balance the books despite the massive headwinds at the moment. And the payroll is usually their first and main concern.

The government should be making employers lives easier by reducing corporation tax and uturning on the destructive employers NI rise so that employers have the money to pay their staff more.

If you want more unemployment put more financial pressure on employers.

We live in a free market society. If employers can’t afford to pay decent wages their businesses are unviable. We have the ludicrous situation whereby employers paying the minimum they can get away with and private landlords exploiting their tenants are being made wealthy with tax funded subsidies. As a taxpayer I take exception to that. I’m not sufficiently naive to believe for one moment that reducing the tax burden on employers would mean the money would find its way into employees’ pay packets.

If they pay the legally set minimum wage then let market forces do the rest. Someone can chose to work for a company or not. The government shouldn't limit the amount of jobs available.

And actually not all employers want to treat their staff badly. And many will pay a good wage to keep the best staff or lure the best staff over.

Good thing it doesn’t then.

Well in practice at the moment it has. Max 4 staff being the cut off now for many businesses.

Look, I am not interested if Starmer did technically lie, but I know he is guilty. Guilty of choosing these people and promoting them well beyond any post they should be in. Mandelson was a liability, even without Epstein connections. He rushed, made it public and put pressure in the system. There is no doubt.
He is a mates, all men of course, type of person.
He is not a working people person. Puts pressure on the civil service to fast track his BS decission, tries to get secretly around others and then..... fires Olly Robinson. Just like this. Not suspended till investigation. Nope. Fired. Now... does that comply with usual HR in UK?
Starmer needs to face the mirror. He cannot be allowed to make Robins pay for it. If Starmer is going to be the Labour leader, then he needs to think and act as Labour. No more favouring his dodgy mates (he should pause to consider who he mingles with, by the way, and stay away from entitled elitism), no more mistreatment of his own staff and a bit of love for the working people of this country. Abiding by the rules, listening to experience and professionals around him (he dismissed the email telling him to do the vetting before announcement).
I, personally, wish Labour was lead by someone with a bit of socialism and love for hard work. But they chose this guy. So I put up with him. I think Labour can take us out of this shit, particularly keep us out of this Iran war and build an international coalition to deal with the geopolitic and financial crisis consequences. At that Starmer is doing well. But he is not a person of likeable character, because he likes to mix with those that think they are about the rest of us, completely immune and entitled to our young children and money. So he either changes that like by yesterday or Labour changes leader today. The stain will not go either way. I would go for changing leader today. A relatable, reliable, working person, with nerves of steel and sheer determination. An actual good leader, for once, please.

The reports about another of his great pals Hermer today make for interesting reading.

I suppose one must judge a man by the company he keeps?