General News Thread

[CornwallFox]

48 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Beyond wanting to blame the civil servant or the prime minister for this mess... How on earth do we have a process in place that is supposed to keep wrong uns out of powerful positions that is somehow open to interpretation?

 

How the hell can Starmer and Robbins both think they are right? How on earth is our system of checks not absolutely ironclad black and white? 

Dominic Cummings was never vetted at all. 

 

Whether starmar should go or not, tbh I don't really care either way, it's not a story I've followed that closely but I'd be very happy with Burnham finding his way in, though not sure how that could happen in the required timeframe. 

 

This is very much just politics playing by opposition parties though. Plenty of previous appointments without vetting or with vetting issues that they ignored in government but somehow now it's a really big deal. I don't really buy it tbh. 

 

Whatever the outcome for starmar, I'm far more interested in the government finding a way to communicate effectively with the electorate and to make some decisions that affect cost of living in short order.

[Clogger_]

Meanwhile, why has everyone stopped banging on about immigrants crossing the channel?

[Trav Le Bleu]

8 minutes ago, Clogger_ said:

Meanwhile, why has everyone stopped banging on about immigrants crossing the channel?

Are they?

[st albans fox]

28 minutes ago, Clogger_ said:

Meanwhile, why has everyone stopped banging on about immigrants crossing the channel?

I think it’s very much weather dependent (stiff nor’easter will make for a quiet few days) 

the media are currently busy elsewhere 

they’ll be back soon 

 

[Salisbury Fox]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Beyond wanting to blame the civil servant or the prime minister for this mess... How on earth do we have a process in place that is supposed to keep wrong uns out of powerful positions that is somehow open to interpretation?

 

How the hell can Starmer and Robbins both think they are right? How on earth is our system of checks not absolutely ironclad black and white? 

The vetting process isn’t black and white as it requires flexibility. In some cases an individual may be appointed with mitigations in place, such as restrictions on access to classified materials as part of a management plan. 

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

The vetting process isn’t black and white as it requires flexibility. In some cases an individual may be appointed with mitigations in place, such as restrictions on access to classified materials as part of a management plan. 

That's not the black and white bit I'm referring to. I'm talking about the idea that both the prime minister and this sacked civil servant can have an opposing view on who is right and who is wrong in relation to who's responsibility it is. 

 

The process itself should be black and white. If "Mr x" approves the appointment then it's "Mr x" responsible for it. 

 

It's no good for Starmer to be saying "He should have told me Mandelson failed vetting" and Robbins replying "No I shouldn't have". 

 

Where's the clear cut rules on who's responsibility it is? 

 

This is about appointing someone to an ambassador position to the most powerful country on earth, not some tiny little fiefdom in the middle of nowhere. It matters who makes that call. 

[kenny]

44 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Dominic Cummings was never vetted at all. 

 

Whether starmar should go or not, tbh I don't really care either way, it's not a story I've followed that closely but I'd be very happy with Burnham finding his way in, though not sure how that could happen in the required timeframe. 

 

This is very much just politics playing by opposition parties though. Plenty of previous appointments without vetting or with vetting issues that they ignored in government but somehow now it's a really big deal. I don't really buy it tbh. 

 

Whatever the outcome for starmar, I'm far more interested in the government finding a way to communicate effectively with the electorate and to make some decisions that affect cost of living in short order.

Cummings was a SpAd like Mcsweeney, not an Ambassador or Civil Servant. They are all vetted dependant on their level of access to information. Probably both Cummings and McSweeney had full DV vetting due to their access to Top Secret information.

 

I heard yesterday that this was the 3/4 time an Ambassador had been selected in this way in the past 30 years. It was fairly unusual but not unheard of.

 

Chucking the Civil Servant under the bus is very very unusual though. Particularly if he is truthful at present, he will be getting a fat pay-off.

 

Oliver Robbins is coming accross very well to be honest, considerably more professional than the people that have sacked him.

 

Well done to the right wing MSM for showing how the Cabinet Office have been behaving.  In this, the Guardian investigations and reporting has been excellent thus far.

[CornwallFox]

26 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

That's not the black and white bit I'm referring to. I'm talking about the idea that both the prime minister and this sacked civil servant can have an opposing view on who is right and who is wrong in relation to who's responsibility it is. 

 

The process itself should be black and white. If "Mr x" approves the appointment then it's "Mr x" responsible for it. 

 

It's no good for Starmer to be saying "He should have told me Mandelson failed vetting" and Robbins replying "No I shouldn't have". 

 

Where's the clear cut rules on who's responsibility it is? 

 

This is about appointing someone to an ambassador position to the most powerful country on earth, not some tiny little fiefdom in the middle of nowhere. It matters who makes that call. 

I might be wrong, but I suspect there's probably no such thing as 'failing' vetting. 

 

In exactly the same way as that's no such thing as a footballer 'failing ' a medical. 

 

It's a determination of risk. If a club really wants a player they might accept more risk around potential future injuries. 

 

If a prime minister really wants an ambassador, civil servants might deal with risk in a different way to enable the appointment. 

 

It may well not al be a yes or no issue in the first place. Though if it isn't, you'd think starmar would have said that. But then he isn't the best communicator it turns out.

Edited 21 April by CornwallFox

[kenny]

15 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

I might be wrong, but I suspect there's probably no such thing as 'failing' vetting. 

 

In exactly the same way as that's no such thing as a footballer 'failing ' a medical. 

 

It's a determination of risk. If a club really wants a player they might accept more risk around potential future injuries. 

 

If a prime minister really wants an ambassador, civil servants might deal with risk in a different way to enable the appointment. 

 

It may well not al be a yes or no issue in the first place. Though if it isn't, you'd think starmar would have said that. But then he isn't the best communicator it turns out.

All correct from what Robbins has said today.

 

Essentially the Cabinet Office wanted the appointment and applied pressure to ensure it happened. Any risks were brushed aside. Reckon this whole saga is Morgan McSweeney and Starmer went along with it.

 

Other interesting this was they were hunting for a position for Matthew Doyle. They had to settle for a peerage in the end, unfortunately he currently has the whip withdrawn due to his associations with a sex offender.

[Salisbury Fox]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

That's not the black and white bit I'm referring to. I'm talking about the idea that both the prime minister and this sacked civil servant can have an opposing view on who is right and who is wrong in relation to who's responsibility it is. 

 

The process itself should be black and white. If "Mr x" approves the appointment then it's "Mr x" responsible for it. 

 

It's no good for Starmer to be saying "He should have told me Mandelson failed vetting" and Robbins replying "No I shouldn't have". 

 

Where's the clear cut rules on who's responsibility it is? 

 

This is about appointing someone to an ambassador position to the most powerful country on earth, not some tiny little fiefdom in the middle of nowhere. It matters who makes that call. 

Apologies, my bad.
 

The person who is ultimately responsible has to be the person making the decision on whether to appoint them in the first place. The grey area that Starmer is obviously using is that his decision wasn’t an informed one, but given everything that is in the public domain it shows an appalling lack of judgement anyway.  I agree with Kenny that it was likely that the appointment was being pushed by McSweeney with Starmer signing it off.

[st albans fox]

4 hours ago, Clogger_ said:

Poor judgement to appoint Mandelson. Nobody will argue with that (despite widespread praise for the decision at the time.)

 

Lots of frothing anger on this thread about "lying" and suchlike, but I'm seeing the square root of no evidence of that at all. It seems like entrenched anti-Labour and/or anti-Starmer folks getting excited about nothing at all. Confirmation bias. RW (and hard LW!) echo chamber stuff.

 

Starmer won't make it to the next election, but this won't be the reason!

Before yesterday I would have agreed

but not now 

 

someone mentioned him hanging around till after the local elections. Not sure he’ll manage this weekend !

[Robo61]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Boris is an arse, but not as far as we know a best buddy of Epstein or in bed with the Chinese.

Did he not appoint the son of a former KGB agent to the House of Lords.  

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge0grppe3po

 

There is no war. There is only the harvest. 

 

Or the grift. 

[leicsmac]

And it looks like The Onion are going to finally take full possession of the InfoWars IP.

 

Great stuff. Now Alex Jones can start paying what he owes to the Sandy Hook victims. 

[CornwallFox]

Things you WON'T see in the news today:

 

Unemployment - Down

Economic growth - Up

NHS waiting lists - Down

Asylum hotels - Massively cut

Small boat crossings - Down

Immigration - Down

Crime - Down

Train fares - Held

Water leaks - Down

Water bosses - Held to account

Min. wage - Up

Children out of poverty - 450,000

Tax on the most wealthy - Up

Illegal wars - Zero

Renewables - Up

Trade with EU - Up

Erasmus+ - Joined

Link between energy bills and gas - To be broken

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

Things you WON'T see in the news today:

 

Unemployment - Down

Economic growth - Up

NHS waiting lists - Down

Asylum hotels - Massively cut

Small boat crossings - Down

Immigration - Down

Crime - Down

Train fares - Held

Water leaks - Down

Water bosses - Held to account

Min. wage - Up

Children out of poverty - 450,000

Tax on the most wealthy - Up

Illegal wars - Zero

Renewables - Up

Trade with EU - Up

Erasmus+ - Joined

Link between energy bills and gas - To be broken

Leicester City - down

[Jon the Hat]

20 hours ago, Innovindil said:

That's not the black and white bit I'm referring to. I'm talking about the idea that both the prime minister and this sacked civil servant can have an opposing view on who is right and who is wrong in relation to who's responsibility it is. 

 

The process itself should be black and white. If "Mr x" approves the appointment then it's "Mr x" responsible for it. 

 

It's no good for Starmer to be saying "He should have told me Mandelson failed vetting" and Robbins replying "No I shouldn't have". 

 

Where's the clear cut rules on who's responsibility it is? 

 

This is about appointing someone to an ambassador position to the most powerful country on earth, not some tiny little fiefdom in the middle of nowhere. It matters who makes that call. 

I think the point is, if you announce someone, get the approval of Trump and align his official accreditation as Starmer did, then chase daily for the approvals, you created an impossible situation where you effectively approved them and the sign off of Robbins was assumed.  Robbins didn't have any choice imo.

[Wycombe Fox]

PMQs should be box-office today.

 

Popcorn ready.

[CrazyKopCorner]

8 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

Things you WON'T see in the news today:

 

Unemployment - Down

Economic growth - Up

NHS waiting lists - Down

Asylum hotels - Massively cut

Small boat crossings - Down

Immigration - Down

Crime - Down

Train fares - Held

Water leaks - Down

Water bosses - Held to account

Min. wage - Up

Children out of poverty - 450,000

Tax on the most wealthy - Up

Illegal wars - Zero

Renewables - Up

Trade with EU - Up

Erasmus+ - Joined

Link between energy bills and gas - To be broken

FM those are some red rose tinted spectacles you've got on there 

 

Elsewhere Leicester City managed to grab a point yesterday to secure relegation 

Edited 22 April by CrazyKopCorner

[CrazyKopCorner]

3 hours ago, Wycombe Fox said:

PMQs should be box-office today.

 

Popcorn ready.

Starmer is some piece of work. 

 

The Labour party need to do the honourable thing and get rid of him

 

[leicsmac]

On 21/04/2026 at 10:02, leicsmac said:

The only figure across any of the political landscape (including all parties) that seems to appear to be suitable is Burnham. 

 

Not sure what the mechanics involved would be to get him in, though. 

Repeated for emphasis, unless someone has a name that hasn't been thought of yet.

[Lionator]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Repeated for emphasis, unless someone has a name that hasn't been thought of yet.

Westminster turns competent politicians into leeches. Sadiq Khan is a very good mayor of London and in a fair system would be a great PM but obviously he’s brown and Muslim, and his name is toxic, so doesn’t stand a chance. 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Repeated for emphasis, unless someone has a name that hasn't been thought of yet.

For burnham to be elected leader of the party (and therefore pm) he needs a seat.  To stand for a seat his nomination has to be approved by the labour NEC.  There are people on that nec who want the top job (or are v close to those who do). I don’t see him getting a seat because I don’t see his nomination being approved until the next GE. 

[st albans fox]

59 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Westminster turns competent politicians into leeches. Sadiq Khan is a very good mayor of London and in a fair system would be a great PM but obviously he’s brown and Muslim, and his name is toxic, so doesn’t stand a chance. 

How did the last mayor of London get on as pm? 😜

 

(we have had a brown pm btw- he wasn’t elected though) 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

Westminster turns competent politicians into leeches. Sadiq Khan is a very good mayor of London and in a fair system would be a great PM but obviously he’s brown and Muslim, and his name is toxic, so doesn’t stand a chance. 

 

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

For burnham to be elected leader of the party (and therefore pm) he needs a seat.  To stand for a seat his nomination has to be approved by the labour NEC.  There are people on that nec who want the top job (or are v close to those who do). I don’t see him getting a seat because I don’t see his nomination being approved until the next GE. 

These are all factual arguments, but another fact remains that every other candidate has more flaws (politically and/or personally) than he does, imo.