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?

Apart from Starmer getting it wrong again and sacking someone who was right.

If he had any decency he’d resign.

I saw it all as broadcast not snippets and thought OR was really impressive ..explaining the ethics of vetting meant he couldn’t say more…although he explained the process super well

He’s the PM fgs! The Buck stops with him. He’s just been throwing others under the bus !

I watched the whole thing. What’s also frustrating is that errors keep being made in the national reporting of this. There was no ‘rejection’ on the vetting and OR made that clear. The vetting is advisory and then is considered in the round with regard to how risks may or may not be mitigated before a decision was made. It seems to me that KS, or those writing his recent statements about this, simply didn’t understand the standard process - which is embarrassing/incompetent of them. I’m no supporter of baying for KS to go at this particular time in history with all that’s going on internationally, but I thought OR came across as precise and honest - it seems a inadvisable loss for him to be made a scapegoat for the government’s lack of understanding. And Emily Thornberry was really not truthful in how she presented the findings on the bbc news just afterwards.

This!

I have not been anti KS at all. Of the Labour Party candidates, he is one of the better ones. However, I was really impressed with OR, who came across as intelligent, principled, diligent and overall full of integrity.

i suspect his sacking was to cover KS’s backside over a bad idea to appoint Mandleson. That’s it - everything points to this.

I think it is now impossible to reverse the sacking and the UK has lost someone who is an asset to the country. I hope he will get a really generous payout!

Without intending to, Olly Robbins today was showing what he has to offer a new employer. With a PPE from Oxford and a stellar civil service career working closely with four Prime Ministers, he's a prize. I wish him well. Keir Starmer is much diminished by this affair and has shot himself in the foot by alienating the civil service.

Well he is a Freeman of the Worshipful Company of Leathersellers according to Wiki -says it all really 😂

I think R Reeves appointment was a mistake and if all the others who have been sacked were also mistakes then Starmer is not demonstrating any leadership qualities there

Maybe there was some as yet unexplained reason surrounding Trump for Mandleson to be chosen despite his past

Personally i wonder if he had some sort "interaction" with him or Mandelson has rock solid proof that KS has had liaisons with other men (or less likely women)

Three main areas (at least) seem to me to be unresolved:

1. Why put Mandelson in the job (a) at all, and (b) specifically before Trump’s inauguration? I previously thought this was about pandering to Trump, but it now seems clear that that the Biden administration approved Mandelson almost as their last act, and No 10 didn’t want that to lapse if PM* was not in place before Trump’s inauguration. Meanwhile the highly-regarded incumbent Karen Pierce was told she was off to the Balkans. Political appointments to diplomatic roles are not the norm in the UK. What did Starmer, or McSweeney, think PM could achieve in Washington that an experienced career diplomat could not?
2. Related to (1) above, the chronology doesn’t seem to work. Trump’s 2nd inauguration took place on 20 January 2025. OR said he had his briefing on the “borderline” vetting outcome, and effectively rubber-stamped the decision to appoint with mitigations, on 29 January 2025. But separately he said they had managed to complete due process in the time required, i.e. before the inauguration. Odd. We didn’t see the OR letter to the select committee, though, so perhaps this was explained better in writing.
3. What was the journey between the vetting form being completed as “recommend not to appoint” (“red” zone on the traffic-light summary form) and OR being briefed that it was a borderline outcome with potential for effective mitigation (effectively “amber” zone). They may have to get Chris Wormald back to answer that.

*By PM I of course mean Peter Mandelson and not Prime Minister.

He has confirmed that the PM wasn't lying which was the main criticism against him .
It's very common for special advisers to put pressure on departments it's happens in every government of every colour.
Number 10 isn't Keira Starmer.
The Special mad user in post at the time of of those events isn't in post now

The 1950s are calling. Even if the salacious right-wing rumours are true, being bisexual isn't a crime. I really doubt Starmer and Mandelson were having a "thing". There is zero evidence.

That's compete nonsense.
You obviously don't know how politics works.
Mandelson was a very politically savvy person and despite everything he had a reputation for getting things done, at the time of his appointment many commentators said it was a genius appointment because he knew how to deal with Trump and his cronies. And the UK was chasing a Trade Deal.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It turns out that that Mandy was the perfect person to deal with Trump for all those terrible reasons.

I think that is true, Mandelson has a diplomatic bearing and I think he would get on with and be able to handle Trump with a lot of (necessary) flattering, that many people couldn't stomach. But it does seem to have been jobs for the boys.

I don't think it matters if the vetting was borderline but could be handled or even if he failed it and they thought it could be handled, I don't think these things are black and white. It's the way KS has dealt with it, passing the hot potato to everyone else, although he selected Mandelson himself (for whatever reasons) announced his appointment and notified the King of the new Ambassador and it was all over the press before any vetting had taken place. At the very least he made a huge error of judgement, and jumped the gun and put the reputation of the UK at risk with the US.

The alternatives to Mandelson:

https://news.sky.com/story/who-could-replace-peter-mandelson-as-us-ambassador-13429000

Keira Starmer😂😂😂

If only a woman were in charge right now...

Shows how much Sky knows. They appointed Christian Turner.

Apparently not!

He is not throwing anyone under the bus.

He was given unsound advice by civil servants. He took appropriate action.

If the media had picked up that, on any issue, he was given unsound advice and did nothing, he would get slated for that!

If only a woman were in charge right now... - oh yes - let's bring back Liz Truss! - or the warmongering, community-wrecking, public service destroying Thatcher!

The absence of a penis and balls does not guarantee good sense, humanity or suitability as prime minister.

Thats a good point - I always forget it’s only the Tories who vote women in.