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?

@TheLandlordsAreFrowning - the younger generation get most of their information on social media (and I strongly suspect that will be a prime form of recruitment for the likes of Reform). Even mainstream media is now going all comment section heavy, massive development in the last few years. MN includes social media and you are free to post here whatever you want. It is freedom of speech, one of our fundamental values and part of our democracy. You are posting your opinion on a public forum accessible to millions of people?

I completely agree with you!

And those experiences and the cultural capital gained is so impactful for kids from deprived backgrounds.

I was sickened (although not surprised) to see Jenrick raging recently about visitor attractions like London Zoo offering discounts to low-income families.

Nope, Labour always get it in the neck, in opposition too... i give you the hate directed at Kinnock, Miliband, Corbyn...

The moment Labour got in, the press suddenly came up with expense scandals, most of which they had known about for months, even years, going back to Covid.

Why? very clear they had one aim, a long term aim to get Labour out by 2029 and its going very well for them.

The Mandelson stuff is a study in how they do this, the UK is facing its worst economic crisis for perhaps decades, what are the right wing focused on ? not this but Mandelson, making up lie after lie, subsequently proven to be untrue.

Even on here.

& yes Farage is a latter day Moseley, Reforms policies on mass deportations inc people granted asylum/right to remain, he ignored, never even commented on.

The people annoyed Labour are in the spotlight did the same to the last gov. Media scrutiny is not going away.

As I am not party political and have been on here for years, I think it was all just as vicious against Sunak, Bojo, Theresa May as well (personal opinion, of course).

Sorry but Mandelson is unforgivable. Common sense left the room. I do not care what technicality there is or not to cover up. It undermines the public’s confidence in politicians full stop. Although I agree I do not want further political turmoil but I do want a ban on political appointments of this kind and I do want some serious introspection as there has been tons of sleaze from Labour right from the get go.

If that’s aimed at me, then you are wrong: I’ve already said it isn’t party political - this isn’t petty sniping, it’s about an urgent need to focus on media and social media, as our current systems and processes need updating to adapt to world we live in now.

And media scrutiny shouldn’t go away, it’s as vital as ever.

It’s not I didn’t read your post only the one I replied to.

Generally Labour benefited from media and SM pre GE to get in and now feel the force of it, they can’t benefit then turn it off, it’s not possible anyway to do so.

It shouldn’t stop, people should post however they feel about politicians and politics etc (within the law of course).

Pleased to hear it - thanks for responding.

Going back to the thread title having listened to the select committee there’s few people who get the explosive and intrusive nature of the press and I’d say OR is one of them.

If you want to keep a document away from the public due to national security you can’t share it, the procedure has to be extremely limited. Starmer dangerously misunderstands this. And many others.

The proof is in the pudding. As soon as a potentially highly explosive doc is circulated it’s more likely it will be in The Guardian / other main paper.

All the politicians who are slow on this don’t get they’ve undermined the security system, Starmer included.

The frenemy situation with China is not going to go away. However, I think pushing China away is just as risky as keeping them close. So onwards and upwards.

Cat Little today has pretty much cleared Starmer of wrong doing over Mandelson, she is the leading CS at no10.

Though of course that wont stop the media and their non stop hounding.

Starmer is no where near clear as much as some want their man to be cleared.

He sacked someone who followed process over a document no one should have seen, and clearly got that wrong - that’s a major error. Didn’t vet before appointing Mandelson despite Simon Case’s advice not to. And can’t grasp national security issues whatsoever.

The committee seem to be realising slowly the UKSV doc is meant to be kept secure not demanded by anyone else.

Hopefully they’ll invite KS to the committee, if they have any sense or decency. It ain’t over yet for Labour as much as a few of the most loyal want it to be.

It looks like what it is. A craven and inadequate leader through a decent man under the bus to save his own skin. It’s a pattern of behaviour. The public just glaze over when the players in this start wanging on about process. At this level people want to see judgement and integrity. No excuses. No convaluted arguments.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/23/olly-robbins-refused-mandelson-vetting-summary-cabinet-office-cat-little

Of course. The whole point is no one else sees it. When you go through the intrusive process you will be advised and reassured no one will see it.

A CS won’t hand it over to a politician such as KS who can’t grasp the process, and ultimately it won’t end up on the front pages of The Guardian or other.

Given that’s exactly what happened due to the doc being handed around OR is right on the risk to national security.

Time to introduce some enhanced security checks for all members of parliament, both House of Commons and the Lords. I vaguely recall something along those lines suggested by Labour around anno 2016?

And clearly they all need some formal training from both M5 and M6 as well.

Might exclude some dodgy Reform types as an added bonus?…

True. Sorcha Eastwood summed it up well.

British citizen. Why would we be interested in encouraging non UK citizens to have more children?

Hmmm...seem a few more dodgy types in Labour? Topical issue?

Why wouldn't we?

So this UK/US couple, they shouldn't be encouraged because one of them isn't a UK citizen?

“British citizen. Why would we be interested in encouraging non UK citizens to have more children?”

Because our values have always been tolerant and since going back to pre Huguenot time (and even before that) we have benefitted from those coming here and embracing our values and contributing and also the Commonwealth you know. As long as you respect our values and contribute to our society positively, that has always been how England, Britain and more widely the UK has thrived historically speaking.
Just because some have forgotten their history, it need not change now. The children here are our children who we look after and bring up as the next generation. Also ageing population/demographic etc, we actually need them anyway.

I ve been through SC and DV also been a referee for DV, the end result is also shared with the employees company sec dept, of course it would be, how else would they know the employee's status?

Cat Little says "Due process was followed by no10"

That scotches the lies told by Badenoch et al who once again always goes off at the deep end, last time on wishing to put UK armed forces in harms way in Iran.

Though course she herself wont be in danger.

If they can support themselves and not claim benefits. Why would we encourage anyone to have children that they can't afford and want other people to pay for? Im fairly sure thats not Reform policy.