The Labour Government

Palerider said:
Plausible deniability is the ability of senior officials or individuals to deny knowledge of or responsibility for illegal, unethical, or unpopular actions committed by subordinates, because there is no evidence confirming their involvement. It relies on creating enough ambiguity or lack of evidence, making the denial believable (plausible)

My own opinion is that if it happens on your watch then you are responsible for it. Whether you should resign is a matter of personal conscience but ultimately a boss who continually blames his subordinates loses the respect of everyone and probably loses elections.
Click to expand...

The PM admitted that he knew in Dec 24 prior to appointing Mandelson of “reputational risk” but still went ahead with appointment prior to DV being received (which they can do, it has happened with other government appointments) - but at a minimum you would want to be informed of the outcome of the DV. He is on the record as saying he spoke to Mandelson about concerns. To not ask “was everything ok with the DV” would be pure incompetence. For Starmer’s sake he needs an audit trail showing he asked and was lied to that there were no problems.

Nonetheless once he failed DV his security clearance would be pulled - someone in authority has overruled it. Civil Servants rarely make decisions of this magnitude- they present options and ministers make decisions. The only person I can think of who might have the perceived authority is that McSweeney fella but he is on record for saying in his resignation letter he “did not oversee the due diligence and vetting process”.

So we are left with Robbins, a highly experienced civil servant, wanting to impress his new boss and make a decision way beyond his station - not the sort of maverick behaviour that gets you far in the CS or a minister has made the decision.
 
metalblue said:
The PM admitted that he knew in Dec 24 prior to appointing Mandelson of “reputational risk” but still went ahead with appointment prior to DV being received (which they can do, it has happened with other government appointments) - but at a minimum you would want to be informed of the outcome of the DV. He is on the record as saying he spoke to Mandelson about concerns. To not ask “was everything ok with the DV” would be pure incompetence. For Starmer’s sake he needs an audit trail showing he asked and was lied to that there were no problems.

Nonetheless once he failed DV his security clearance would be pulled - someone in authority has overruled it. Civil Servants rarely make decisions of this magnitude- they present options and ministers make decisions. The only person I can think of who might have the perceived authority is that McSweeney fella but he is on record for saying in his resignation letter he “did not oversee the due diligence and vetting process”.

So we are left with Robbins, a highly experienced civil servant, wanting to impress his new boss and make a decision way beyond his station - not the sort of maverick behaviour that gets you far in the CS or a minister has made the decision.
Click to expand...
Where Robins fucked up more was after Starmer appointed Mandelson, not having a word in his shell like to say he failed DV
 
mosssideblue said:
Where Robins fucked up more was after Starmer appointed Mandelson, not having a word in his shell like to say he failed DV
Click to expand...

If you believe that a highly experienced Civil Servant would overrule the failed DV off his own back. It’s possible but I would be shocked if that was the case.
 
It is totally beyond belief that the Prime Minister had no knowledge whatsoever of all these events. He may be a useless “politician” or leader with all the charisma of a bag of crisps and the vision of Stevie Wonder - but he is a very clever lawyer who will have tried to steer these events to ensure none of his fingerprints on are anything. He is also tenacious and determined and will fight to the end. We have seen enough of Sir Keir Starmer to know his entire worldview revolves around rules and he’s trying to navigate this utter shit show with ever more implausible and convoluted pleas of “I knew nothing, nobody tells me anything” which is utter bollocks. He will have had full knowledge and sanctioned the Mandy appointment by some slippery indirect means (a smoke-signal, a raised eyebrow perhaps ?). It is inconceivable that Starmer, David Lammy all knew nothing, or McSweeney’s official phone happened to be stolen at just the right time etc.
This was the appointment of Ambassador to our greatest and closest ally with the terrifying and unpredictable spectre of Trump in the White House. Trump is Starmer’s worst nightmare personified and he will have been racking his lawyer’s brain on how to deal with him. The amoral and cunning Lord Mandelson seemed the answer.
Will Starmer go ? Not easily, but his position is untenable.
 
Don Karleone said:
Do you believe that Downing Street didn’t know that Mandelson had failed the vetting process? The political editor of the independent seems to have known.
Click to expand...

Officially? Downing St didn’t know. Unofficially? Yes, they ‘would have been aware of issues’, so steps will have been taken to insulate No. 10 from any future fallout.

Mandelson was a deliberate decision to put a viper in to work with an Administration of vipers. Everyone knew it at the time, I said it made sense when he was appointed. That Mandelson was more involved than people realised meant he became too toxic and he was jettisoned.

Do I care? Not especially. It was a political gamble, it didn’t work, life’s a bitch and all that. Or as my Gran used to say ‘people being too clever by half’.
 
Uncle Wally One Ball said:
Nope. And I wont be voting for them again after they have decided to fuck workers over with tax either
Click to expand...
I thought it was employers that were being shafted. Until last week, not a single worker was paying more tax as a result of a Labour policy. They are now paying the same as they were before as a result of the freezing of tax thresholds. Many workers are better off in different ways due to the introduction of the new worker protection legislation.
 
BobKowalski said:
Officially? Downing St didn’t know. Unofficially? Yes, they ‘would have been aware of issues’, so steps will have been taken to insulate No. 10 from any future fallout.

Mandelson was a deliberate decision to put a viper in to work with an Administration of vipers. Everyone knew it at the time, I said it made sense when he was appointed. That Mandelson was more involved than people realised meant he became too toxic and he was jettisoned.

Do I care? Not especially. It was a political gamble, it didn’t work, life’s a bitch and all that. Or as my Gran used to say ‘people being too clever by half’.
Click to expand...
If you don’t care, then you and people like you are part of the problem. I think you have been labelled as such before by someone else.
 
BobKowalski said:
Officially? Downing St didn’t know. Unofficially? Yes, they ‘would have been aware of issues’, so steps will have been taken to insulate No. 10 from any future fallout.

Mandelson was a deliberate decision to put a viper in to work with an Administration of vipers. Everyone knew it at the time, I said it made sense when he was appointed. That Mandelson was more involved than people realised meant he became too toxic and he was jettisoned.

Do I care? Not especially. It was a political gamble, it didn’t work, life’s a bitch and all that. Or as my Gran used to say ‘people being too clever by half’.
Click to expand...
This is undoubtedly true. Our last but one ambassador to the US - a highly skilled and respected career diplomat - got sacked by Johnson for telling the truth in a series of confidential briefings which “somehow” got leaked to the Daily Mail. Another career diplomat was judged to be not the right call, and equally there is no way Madelson would have been appointed as our ambassador to France or Spain.

Mandelson was a particular horse for a particular course.
 
Rory Bluelow said:
It is totally beyond belief that the Prime Minister had no knowledge whatsoever of all these events. He may be a useless “politician” or leader with all the charisma of a bag of crisps and the vision of Stevie Wonder - but he is a very clever lawyer who will have tried to steer these events to ensure none of his fingerprints on are anything. He is also tenacious and determined and will fight to the end. We have seen enough of Sir Keir Starmer to know his entire worldview revolves around rules and he’s trying to navigate this utter shit show with ever more implausible and convoluted pleas of “I knew nothing, nobody tells me anything” which is utter bollocks. He will have had full knowledge and sanctioned the Mandy appointment by some slippery indirect means (a smoke-signal, a raised eyebrow perhaps ?). It is inconceivable that Starmer, David Lammy all knew nothing, or McSweeney’s official phone happened to be stolen at just the right time etc.
This was the appointment of Ambassador to our greatest and closest ally with the terrifying and unpredictable spectre of Trump in the White House. Trump is Starmer’s worst nightmare personified and he will have been racking his lawyer’s brain on how to deal with him. The amoral and cunning Lord Mandelson seemed the answer.
Will Starmer go ? Not easily, but his position is untenable.
Click to expand...

An excellent summary.
 
BobKowalski said:
Probably.

I refer you to the quote from Thomas Macaulay in 1830

“We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality."
Click to expand...

Or the periodical and convenient abandonment of morals, standards and demands they once held dear.

It’s amazing what such a short time in politics can do for some on here.
 
BobKowalski said:
Probably.

I refer you to the quote from Thomas Macaulay in 1830

“We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality."
Click to expand...
I’ll go back a bit further, Marcus Aurelius:-

Time is a sort of river of passing events, and strong is its current; no sooner is a thing brought to sight than it is swept by and another takes its place, and this too will be swept away."

The sooner the better imo
 
blueinsa said:
Or the periodical and convenient abandonment of morals, standards and demands they once held dear.

It’s amazing what such a short time in politics can do for some on here.
Click to expand...

We had this convo yesterday when you were equally outraged at lawyers doing their jobs. Your naivety is sweet and endearing, but it’s not for me, thanks.
 
Jimmieblue said:
I’ll go back a bit further, Marcus Aurelius:-

Time is a sort of river of passing events, and strong is its current; no sooner is a thing brought to sight than it is swept by and another takes its place, and this too will be swept away."

The sooner the better imo
Click to expand...

You should heed that quote as it reminds us of the impermanence of events and not to get too worked up over small matters for they shall soon pass. It’s all very Zen.
 
BobKowalski said:
We had this convo yesterday when you were equally outraged at lawyers doing their jobs. Your naivety is sweet and endearing, but it’s not for me, thanks.
Click to expand...

You’re “not bothered” posts are hilarious.

You never used to be so laid back about it all as well.
 
blueinsa said:
You’re “not bothered” posts are hilarious.

You never used to be so laid back about it all as well.
Click to expand...

Being ‘not bothered’ on one topic or event does not equate to being ‘not bothered’ by all topics or events.

I have been consistently ‘unbothered’ by the Mandelson affair. I like to be consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top