The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[sadoldgit]

On 17/04/2026 at 12:04, trousers said:

It's all very well having "I wasn't told, guv" as a line of defence, but how credible is it that he didn't ask what the result of the security vetting was...? 

Why would he if he was told all was good to go? From what I understand it wasn’t about him not being told that he hadn’t cleared that particular vetting process but that he was told that the appointment was signed off by the people whose job it is to make sure all is ok. It sounds like Starmer has been caught up in a nightmare episode of Yes Prime Minister. It will be interesting to see what comes of the statement from Robbins this week.

Whatever you think of Starmer he is no fool. His main problem seems to be that he lacks the political nous of a career politician. As a lawyer he will been sharp on following due process. The fact that he hasn’t stepped down indicate that he is confident that the facts that he will present to the House this week will back up his position.

If it is proven that he deliberately lied to Parliament then of course he must go. I think, if that was the case, he would have gone already.

Apparently Boris Johnson failed the vetting process when May appointed him as Foreign Secretary but it would appear that the media didn’t see that as a big deal. Odd that considering his association with some very dodgy Russians.

Edited Sunday at 15:20 by sadoldgit
Typo

[Lord Duckhunter]

36 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Whatever you think of Starmer he is no fool. His main problem seems to be that he lacks the political nous of a career politician. As a lawyer he will been sharp on following due process.

Due process, as per the ministerial code is if you mislead parliament, even “inadvertently”, you correct the record at the earliest opportunity. He found out he’d “inadvertently “ misled parliament on Tuesday evening, he should have corrected the record at, or after PMQ’s on weds.

Not so “sharp on due process” before The Guardian broke the story was he. 
 

You’re so biased it’s laughable, he might not be a fool, but you are if you believe he the pony excuses coming out of number 10. The bloke engaged in a cover up after appointing somebody clearly unsuitable for such an important role, and the net is closing in. Instead of owning it, and coming clean from the off, he’s demeaned the potion  of PM every bit as much as your arch villain Boris and he’s blamed everyone else apart from himself. I used to think he was an incompetent decent man, but it’s becoming obvious he’s an incompetent selfish liar, a typical politician…..

[Farmer Saint]

BBC News - UK unemployment rate sees surprise fall to 4.9%

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjd84pkkjgpo

Employment fell by 0.3%, wage growth at 3.6%.

[Farmer Saint]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79jg43vd8no

Sounds like sensible changes.

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

BBC News - UK unemployment rate sees surprise fall to 4.9%

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjd84pkkjgpo

Employment fell by 0.3%, wage growth at 3.6%.

People not working, but not looking for work, aren't included in the numbers though. Regardless, I fear it's the calm before the storm. 

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

On 17/04/2026 at 03:53, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I was wondering who Starmer would find as a scapegoat this time, after McSweeney had gone.

Olly, not Oily, Robbins from the foreign office is to blame. Honest he is.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c747r3v90k3o

 

Poor form all round. Starmer looks like a dick for not doing his own due diligence. 

Olly Robbins - supposedly one of the more sensible ones as well.

Edited 9 hours ago by JohnnyShearer2.0

[egg]

55 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Poor form all round. Starmer looks like a dick for not doing his own due diligence. 

Olly Robbins - supposedly one of the more sensible ones as well.

Yep. Blatant cronyism, poor judgement, dishonesty, lack of humility, etc, etc. I'm staggered that Starmer looks like he'll survive this. 

[AlexLaw76]

FCDO did not overrule vetting recommendation, No.10 were “dismissive” of the findings.

guess more sackings from within about to take place.

[The Kraken]

Starmer when asked yesterday “did you inadvertently mislead the House of Commons?”

Starmer: “No, I did not mislead the house. I accept that information that I should have had and information that the house should have had should have been before the house. But I did not mislead the house”.

In amongst that word salad, I must admit I’m struggling to see how he didn’t, even if it was done inadvertently.

[tdmickey3]

33 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep. Blatant cronyism, poor judgement, dishonesty, lack of humility, etc, etc. I'm staggered that Starmer looks like he'll survive this. 

He wont

[whelk]

Not been impressed by Starmer but still struggling to see why so many are so bothered by this Mandelson appointment.  Naive to think shit like this hasn’t always gone on. It was a dreadful appointment.

You were all saying he would go previously and now again. I don’t think he will although is doing a pretty shit job convincing anyone he has the character and personality to run the country. 
 

[egg]

25 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

He wont

We'll see. He certainly won't jump, and I'm not sure he'll be pushed. My guess is he'll survive this, but get binned after the locals. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

17 minutes ago, egg said:

We'll see. He certainly won't jump, and I'm not sure he'll be pushed. My guess is he'll survive this, but get binned after the locals. 

I think Rayner is making a speech today. Just getting in some early practice before the post locals election challenge (tax case resolution also making a difference in the timing)

From what I've picked up, Starmer is hiding behind no one explicitly telling him that part of the vetting had failed.

Never mind that Mandelson was the mentor of McSweeney, who pushed for his appointment and persuaded Starmer. Without much effort, they announced him prior to the conclusion of vetting. 

Starmer put having a political operator and chum over any concerns he had over publically known links to Epstein.

Another reason he didn't get told about the vetting failure, was that he was already fully aware of the reasons why it failed, which were the Russia and China links.

There was nothing new in there, that would have changed his mind, no matter what ministers say now. Because he already knew.

Robbins will shed more light on it.

- The level of detail, if any, that was passed on.

- The timing of vetting pre/post appointment.

- The meetings held by him and predecessor to make sure the appointment happened.

It turns out a few other people did know, and we're going through a process of finding out how much they could tell Starmer. That area dropped from the list of places Starmer said had never been informed.

 

[The Kraken]

Robbins is being grilled as we speak. No killer shots yet but more reinforcement of what we assumed: strong influence from number 10 to get it done (even number 10 arguing that Mandelson didn’t need clearance in the first place due to his ‘status’). Starmer and MPs hiding behind the “I didn’t know guv, honest” line is looking more and more shady.

Robbins is claiming that Mandelson’s DV was “borderline but leaning towards being denied”. Other reports state that the initial recommendation was for a firm denial. So the question remains, who exerted power on the decision, and is it really credible to believe that not one single minister was aware of it, as Starmer has claimed.

Edited 6 hours ago by The Kraken

[tdmickey3]

Pointless, stupid and predictably no balance, SKY News asking a sunday daily mail rag representative his opinion on this fiasco about the vetting of Mandelson

Edited 5 hours ago by tdmickey3

[whelk]

Problem with Starmer, and his advisors,  is they seem incapable of straight talking which many voters will accept. Should have just said it was a risk appointing someone known as the Prince of Darkness , and we knowingly took it thinking the benefits would outweigh due to Mandelson’s relationship with Trump. Turns out we were wrong but fuck it no big deal. Most actual people would probably shrug, apart from the political nonces of course.

Edited 5 hours ago by whelk

[rallyboy]

Starmer is the worst PM in history, scream people still embarrassed about themselves voting for two of the last three.

Yes, he's been a right twat on this one, and a few other things, and he's doing a pretty crap job, but he's only just on the podium for the worst in the last twenty years, and that's if you ignore the darker aspects of Cameron's business dealings.

Looking forward, if Reform get in, Starmer will be shunted out of the medals.

 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, rallyboy said:

Starmer is the worst PM in history, scream people still embarrassed about themselves voting for two of the last three.

Yes, he's been a right twat on this one, and a few other things, and he's doing a pretty crap job, but he's only just on the podium for the worst in the last twenty years, and that's if you ignore the darker aspects of Cameron's business dealings.

Looking forward, if Reform get in, Starmer will be shunted out of the medals.

 

I had hoped he would fare better than he has.  He's clearly intelligent to have had the career he's had.

Unfortunately, I think he's just politically naive rather than a nasty, vindictive person and either hasn't surrounded himself with great advisors or has done but ignored their advice.

If Reform get in, he'll look like one of the best PMs in our history.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I had hoped he would fare better than he has.  He's clearly intelligent to have had the career he's had.

Unfortunately, I think he's just politically naive rather than a nasty, vindictive person and either hasn't surrounded himself with great advisors or has done but ignored their advice.

If Reform get in, he'll look like one of the best PMs in our history.

You're left with the impression of him being a careerist, but not a careerist politician. Able to get to the top, but with no method, he's not willing to change his mind on along the way.

Points for flexibility. But his political career has left him looking like he's been led by the nose through it all by McSweeney (and behind him, mentor Mandelson). McSweeney got him as far as he did, so giving rewards for loyalists must have seemed like a non issue. Any revelations brushed easily away.

The Doyle revelations (more today) show he's happy to promote the careers of pals of paedos.

Even after that, he was still happy to promote the career of a national security risk -tnrough Epstein, Russia and China. He did that knowingly. The vetting result is a bit of a red herring in that respect.

One day a politician will decide not to listen to his damage limitation shouting team. It invariably ends up in drip fed disaster, with any integrity burned along the way. 

I saw clips on Sky of a number of times he stood up for the moral compass and accountability he'd bring to leadership. What a disappointment.

 

[egg]

39 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

You're left with the impression of him being a careerist, but not a careerist politician. Able to get to the top, but with no method, he's not willing to change his mind on along the way.

Points for flexibility. But his political career has left him looking like he's been led by the nose through it all by McSweeney (and behind him, mentor Mandelson). McSweeney got him as far as he did, so giving rewards for loyalists must have seemed like a non issue. Any revelations brushed easily away.

The Doyle revelations (more today) show he's happy to promote the careers of pals of paedos.

Even after that, he was still happy to promote the career of a national security risk -tnrough Epstein, Russia and China. He did that knowingly. The vetting result is a bit of a red herring in that respect.

One day a politician will decide not to listen to his damage limitation shouting team. It invariably ends up in drip fed disaster, with any integrity burned along the way. 

I saw clips on Sky of a number of times he stood up for the moral compass and accountability he'd bring to leadership. What a disappointment.

 

Agreed. I'm unsure why he'd shelve a successful career as a silk, likely earning a small fortune, for politics. If he wanted to be successful in public service, with a copper bottomed pension, he could have walked into a judicial gig. It can only be an ego thing.