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?

I think the trouble was the Lord Ali freebie scandal queered KS pitch right at the start. Where everyone realised we were dealing not with a man of honesty and integrity but a greedy hypocrite who was just as bad as the people he had moralised at while in opposition. It broke trust which is hard to get back. People were very suspicious of politicians but reluctantly willing to give KS a chance but he blew it. And then the inability to govern and do the things necessary to turn the country around (such as reduce the benefits bill even slightly) meant the quick realisation we were dealing with an incompetent. Something he hasn't disuaded many of, apart from the most credulous.

Unemployment seems to be down because fewer students are looking for work. I don’t understand how it works, but this because a lot of students are seeing the hope of getting a part time job whilst working as hopeless.

Yes vacancies are down. Something is happening that means fewer are even looking.

The pp said it’s rising. The reverse is the case, regardless of the reason.

Ah I see. Very Starmer of you there. Ignoring the spirit of what was being discussed.

Ok. I will rephrase. Employment is falling. There are an increasing number of economically inactive people. Is this a good or bad thing regarding raising tax?

Why do you suppose that is happening? If its students do you think it might have something to do with RRs attack on the hospitality industry?

Students have probably given up hope of getting a job and not bothering. Can’t see how this is a good thing

Yep more economically inactive people is not a good thing.

By the way, youre just getting muddled with the system being used to calculate unemployment. If the number of employed is falling then unemployment logically is rising. How the government choses to fiddle the figures by not including the economically inactive is irrelevant.

Students can't sign on as unemployed though, do they, unless they are part time or it is the summer holidays? So how would them not bothering to look for work affect figures? What am I missing here?

Unemployment used to be measured by the number of people claiming unemployment benefits. I’m not getting muddled at all - if you’re not seeking work, you’re not unemployed, you’re economically inactive, ie choosing not to work.

As I said, very Starmer of you. Ignore the real picture and the implications on raising tax.

In any event, neither way of looking at it paints the rosy picture you were aiming for in support of your argument that the government is doing well.

Students aren't working now when previously students worked.

You really hate being wrong, don’t you? 😉

You’re not wrong don’t worry.

No I don't mind being wrong at all. I was wrong about Emily Thornberry for a start. Loved her yesterday. And I agreed with Dianne Abbott which I never thought I would.

I just don't think pedantry is appropriate in all cases particularly when it was clear the point being made. You used a BBC article to try and support your argument that the government was doing well when in fact it showed otherwise.

I used the BBC article to refute your incorrect assertion that unemployment is increasing. Just own it.

I knew before I opened this thread that it would be @ProudAmberTurtle. Yet another Labour/Starmer bashing thread.

For once, why don’t you tell us who you think would be better in leadership right now and what your solutions in government would be instead of your base-level brand of ranting on repeat several times a week?

Unemployment as technically defined not based on actual people that are not working that did previously work.

And your point didn't support your argument that the government are doing well. Which presumably was your aim? Who know!

No one in Labour would be better than Terrible Starmer! That's the whole point! And thats why we are in trouble.

Students aren't working now when previously students worked

So they will be counted as economically inactive, not unemployed.

Anyway, ONS tell me:

Unemployment has gone from 5.2 last quarter to 4.9

The number of people reporting redundancy in the three months before interview decreased in the latest quarter, but increased over the year, to 4.6 per 1,000 employees in December 2025 to February 2026.

Economically in active from 20.7 last quarter to 21

Employment rate from 75.1 last quarter to 75.

In the latest quarter (December 2025 to February 2026), the number of full-time workers increased, while the number of part-time workers decreased. The increase in full-time workers was caused by an increase in self-employed people working full-time, while employees working full-time remained largely unchanged. The decrease in part-time workers was caused by a decrease in employees working part-time, while self-employed people working part-time saw a small increase.

The increase in employment over the year from December 2024 to February 2025 was largely the result of an increase in the number of employees, and in self-employed people working part-time. Self-employed people working full-time saw a decrease over the same period.

Make of all that what you will!

I think she has a full time job with her constant negative posts about Starmer/Labour.... hope it pays well 😂

Unemployment has fallen but instead of welcoming this, its all negativity by the usual posters, across numerous threads.

And they accuse the Left of tribalism…

I’m sure the Tory supporters are riding high following the endorsement from Tommy Robinson - how very different they now are from the days of the likes of Heseltine and Clark. Or will it be the populist charlatan Farage who has all the answers and all the grift? Let’s hope the respective investigations into Covid corruption/VIP lanes (which has already seen Tory peer Michelle Mone’s business convicted and is under a long and wide investigation by the NCA) and Reform’s links to Russia following Nathan Gill’s admission of bribery comes to some clear conclusions soon.

It’s probably due to posts like this and the paid one when others post a lot that only a couple start threads. Good on them though Labour aren’t doing particularly well, why not discuss that

I’m sure the Tory supporters are riding high following the endorsement from Tommy Robinson

Has Badenoch said anything about that? Even Farage distanced himself from TR.

Unemployment has fallen due to a rise in economic inactivity not a rise in employment. Which one do you think would be better for the tax take?