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?

Posters seem to forget that Johnson was replaced! He didn’t get to stay as pm.

The uk has always appointed career diplomats to Ambassador posts, not political mates. The USA uses well connected people but we use FO diplomat civil servants with extensive training over years . Olly Robbins knew this departure was causing issues and political appointments were fraught with problems, not least for the FO diplomats who now could not get the top job or other jobs. KS was clearly wanting political expediency over the standard route of diplomatic service.

I heard on the radio, that the man sitting behind Robbins was his union rep. I assume an unfair dismissal case is coming. Watch this space. I’m amazed KS ever got to be DPP. He’s not Robbins that’s for sure in terms of intellect. Or has politics changed him? Join the political classes and you start losing your common sense? We need a political reset!

By the standards to which MN is holding KS, why wasn’t Boris Johnson sent packing much sooner? Was it because he was funny and charming?

Boris didnt do such bad things that Keir Starmer has though. And yet he resigned.

And we’re full circle back to tribalism of ‘but Labour are worse’…

And I’m pretty sure that the National Crime Agency investigating Tory corruption and the High Court who convicted Mone’s business have more to focus on than Johnson eating cake, but perhaps you know better than either of those institutions.

Everyone else bar Starmer. Starmer is accountable even with deflections to others.

The media did raise the story in 2025 and KS ignored it. David Maddox The Independent for a start, and it was brought up in the house. Labour were more just fucking approve it than anything.

But Labour are objectively worse? It's not tribalism to say so. And most of Labour bankbenchers seem to agree, looking at the H of C last week.

Of course it’s tribalism. You’re about as far from objective as it’s possible to get. So am I probably but at least I try!

Well at least I'm in good company looking at the polls!

Ha yes. Most can see through Labour by now.

He’s not level-headed though, is he? He seems it because of his plodding style, but he’s not. He’s impetuous, stubborn, and then folds.

On domestic policy he has U-turned repeatedly.

There is a pattern of rushed appointments against advice: Sue Gray, Mandelson, even Antonia Romeo.

Under pressure over the latest flap he has already sacked three people.

On the Gulf he blocked the US from using our bases, before reversing himself within 36 hours of US starting operations.

What level-headed are you seeing?

The huge political problem we have at the moment is lack of experience and intellect. Too many Labour MPs have no experience and too many are not worthy of ministerial positions. There is clearly not the depth of intellect and political nous that Tony Blair had. There are too many MPs who solely think their job is being a mouthpiece for minorities in their constituencies. They haven’t risen much above student politics level. This means there is poor governance and the latest bullying of the civil service and sacking make this abundantly clear. The yes men and women don’t stand up for our political systems because they don’t respect them. With more parties in the system this will get worse. A few loud mouths and lowering of standards.

This is when it’s a good thing we have the House of Lords

Solution No. 1 - cut taxes

Solution No. 2 - cut spending (let's start with Net Zero and the £20 billion extra we give Scotland every year, before we get to the benefits bill)

Solution No. 3 - if there's no-one better than Starmer, and no-one in the Labour Party who can say women don't have penises, then let's have a GE and give someone competent a chance to have a go at the above

This is absolutely spot on.

People think he's something he isn't. I don't think being 'good at foreign politics' whatever that means is reason to cling on to him when he's so poor on the domestic front.

Keeping him on because of the Iran war is daft. He hasn't shown any real instinct over the whole saga; I think people are lauding him for staying out but it was a default position rather than a decision, influenced by Cabinet rather than his political instinct.

That said, I don't want him to go because I absolutely dread what would follow and what that would do to our shattered economy.

I'm very happy for him to be boring. Based on how he led the party and handled his rivals, I thought he was going to be an unflashy yet quietly ruthless PM delivering a technocratic mission, which he said was growth and cost of living. I was very hopeful about him.

But he's flip-flopped all over the place on policy, so he's not a policy person. Many of his worst failings have been process failings, so he's not a capable bureaucrat. And he has shown terrible political judgment too. And he has a habit of throwing underlings under the bus, so he's not got particularly great personal character either.

I am still puzzled at why he's quite as unpopular as he is, but still. He's demonstrably bad at the things that are quoted as his strengths.

It would be as if Boris Johnson were terrible at jokes, a boring public speaker, and a turgid writer, and yet people still lauding him as such a laugh, not like the others, etc. It's a weird mismatch.

Rory Stewart was on The Rest of Politics wondering if his role as DPP has been overplayed and he's not that impressive a person, as it turns out.

That might explain it. I've also read that his style as PM is to endlessly read briefs but never really have an instinct on what he wants to achieve. That might explain being a good DPP but bad PM.

The polls say that people still prefer Starmer over Badenoch, Farage, Davey, Polanski.

I am surprised how much loyalty to Johnson there still is.

His approval ratings are the lowest out of all these by a long shot.

Well, staying out of Iran influenced more by practical considerations I'd suggest. We can't even kick out a Russian warship going up the Channel.

Which polls? Yougov has him at -57% compared to Farage at -37% and Badenoch at -51%. And that's before this Mandelson carry on.

That's not true at all - Starmer's unpopularity is unprecedented.

Every other party leader is more popular than him, all but Farage are miles more popular than him. Badenoch is more than 30 points higher than Starmer.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/04/03/badenoch-most-popular-party-leader-poll-finds/

This is what’s coming up for each

Latest UK Leader Net Favourability (March/April 2026)

• Ed Davey (Lib Dem): -14 (as of late March 2026)
• YouGov
• Zack Polanski (Green): -14 (as of late March 2026)
• YouGov
• Kemi Badenoch (Conservative): -25 (as of late March 2026)
• YouGov
• Nigel Farage (Reform UK): -39 (as of late March 2026)
• YouGov
• Keir Starmer (Labour): -48 (as of March 23, 2026)

Yes maybe the pp missed the - sign?

As ever, it’s the self righteousness and hypocrisy from Labour which really angers people. I’m genuinely surprised Kier hasn’t blamed the ‘far right’ yet. From almost word go this Government has been a total disaster. They are an utter embarrassment.