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?

There are government elections in May!

But the point is Starmer's not going to resign before the English local and Scottish and Welsh national elections in May. After, perhaps. Maybe Bad enoch will go too. A good shake up of politics might be very interesting.

Yes and he shows Starmer’s severe lack of understanding and petulance. And lack of decency.

where was the Foreign Secretary in all this? is FS not involved?

I recall he said, "We will tread lightly on your toes."

What he meant was Labour were putting on their hobnail boots in order to tank the economy, raise taxes, restrict freedom of speech and generally destroy the British public.

I fervently hope that KS does not go both because we need his level head on the international stage right now and because I do not think.hebhas done anything wrong.
He acted on advice which proved to be inaccurate.

This isn’t a correct take.

Wasn't it David Lammy at the time?

I thought Robbins was quite restrained, I'm sure he could have said much worse, and he refused to pass the buck to any other individuals, unlike Starmer.

He wasn't. KS took an enormous risk on him being a good 'Trump Whisperer' but its backfired spectacularly.

I'm fascinated by this insistence I keep seeing that Keir Starmer has a level head despite all the evidence to the contrary.

How was it level headed to appoint Peter Mandelson in the first place?

He acted before the advice, Starmer had given Mandelson the job and had told the King of the appointment before Robbins was even appointed. Starmer wanted Mandelson in the US straight away before Trump's inauguration, and apparently there was pressure that vetting wasn't even necessary, it was pretty much a fait accompli before Robbins was appointed. Robbins insisted on the vetting but it was pretty much too late and Mandelson being removed as ambassador just as he was starting the job would have been a huge embarrassment for Starmer and damaging for the US relationship.

The failed vetting was in the press 7 months ago, didn't Starmer or any of his advisors read the papers and investigate, assuming they didn't already know, truly unbelievable.

I wasn’t impressed by OR.

He was vague about where the pressure was coming from and evasive about whether there would be a record of it.

Such pressure sounds like it was about time and did not extend to ‘we want you to ignore the outcome of vetting’.

He is unclear about whether the vetting outcome was an actual ‘fail’ or just advice about mitigating risk. Everyone else seems to understand it was a fail.

That’s just the bit I listened to.

He was very impressive, the whole thing goes into detail. KS got it wrong.

You aren't allowed this view on MN

Obviously there’s still some on mn who think Starmer is great but that last line isn’t correct.

I think it’s clear that the funding for the Starmer premiership came from Morgan Mc Sweeney’s ‘Labour Together’ project to move the Labour Party to the right and in a pro-Isreal direction.

Mandleson had a lot to do with Labour donors such as Trevor Mann and so I think it was a case of McSweeney & Mandelson choosing and promoting Starmer.
Mandelson was already announced as Ambassador before the vetting process was finalised, it’s a joke to suggest he would have cared about the vetting process.

Guardian article about Labour Together

Two things:

1. I don't think Starmer was very involved in the appointment of Mandelson. I think it was cooked up between Morgan McSweeney and Mandelson - but Starmer can't admit to that and is now having to take responsiblity for it.
2. Technically, Mandelson as a peer and a political appointee didn't need vetting - this is usually a civil servant process. But it was an unusual appointment so Simon Case (Cab Sec and head of civil service) advised Starmer to carry out vetting.

It's not about thinking starmer is great. no one has been allowed to express any opinion on any of these (many many) threads, unless it's KS is a liar.

I always had the impression that Mandelson and McSweeney were the ones who masterminded ousting Corbyn and replacing him with Starmer - I could be wrong. But if that were true then Starmer owed Mandelson something. Mcsweeney has gone quietly but you can bet he knows a lot more….

Obviously you are allowed that opinion as you’re posting it. Many will disagree of course.

Devil is in the detail, who said this? KS, the cabinet office or an adviser to KS? Anyway security clearance at this level isn’t black and white, they look at everything and decide if they are risks that can be mitigated, everyone will have things that come up, a black sheep in their family, a former colleague perhaps or acquaintances who have unsavoury friends, I’ve been through vetting (no issues) but it’s not as simple as pass fail, you get questioned eg was I in contact with x or y (no in my case, not for 15 years)

My opinion is KS knew exactly what a sleeze Mandelson is and that's exactly why he was appointed so he could get info on trump and the USA. KS is a clever man obviously he couldn't say that as that would undermine the relationship with the USA

Well that couldn’t have backfired more then. Not so clever.

He wasn’t…but he was part of the Epstein gang that are governing the US …so a fit …an unethical fit

Olly Robbins came across as hurt and disappointed – but also honest. He seemed to impress members of the foreign affairs committee, and that made his evidence all the more compelling, he did not say anything that contradicts what Keir Starmer told MPs yesterday. They both agree Starmer, and No 10 generally, were not told about the reservations UKSV (UK Security Vetting) had about Peter Mandelson. So I'm not sure there is anything else to see really

Guardian