ElmWatch

@stephabouais @KemiBadenoch Saying he relied on Lammy on absolutely anything would be a resigning matter on its own, if we're honest

@KemiBadenoch @ElmWatch Ah, but will he try to sack Lammy …?

Keir Starmer has now sacked everyone involved in Mandelson’s appointment - Chris Wormald, Morgan McSweeney, Olly Robbins. But Starmer was ultimately the one who approved it. He’s got no one left to sack. It’s time for him to take responsibility. He should go.

She's right isn't she. This is no longer debatable. Especially when you set it alongside Starmer's attacks on Boris, demands he take responsibility and boast that if elected PM he would never hide behind his officials.

@PhilMyers53 @Keir_Starmer That is a very personal opinion which has become quite niche

Personally, I don't think @Keir_Starmer is a liar. He's acknowledged his mistake. Nobody died, now back to Trump and Badenoch + Farage and joining his war....

@VoWalesWren @MartinDaubney @nightrider20244 Starmer now resembling one of those Japanese soldiers on a Pacific Island refusing to accept the war was over many years after Japan surrendered

@MartinDaubney @nightrider20244

STARMER SACKS ROBBINS How many more bodies can be thrown overboard before voters ask: Does the captain of the ship - the Prime Minister need to go? gbnews.com/politics/olly-…

When I questioned Keir Starmer's judgment about Mandelson, and how it's always someone else's fault, I was told the correct 'processes' were followed. Aherm, it now turns out they weren't 🫣 But, as always, it's someone else's fault!

Starmer sought the King’s approval for Mandelson's appointment as UK Ambassador to US in December 2024, with an announcement on 20 December 2024 The King tried to dissuade Starmer from appointing him, but Starmer pressed on regardless, exactly as Robbins describes (below)

When you’re prime minister it’s very very bad when you have to say: I appointed the UK’s ambassador to the US without knowing he’d failed his security vetting, no one thought to tell me, I’m furious. And the best outcome is people believe you.

This photo of Peter Mandelson arriving at Downing Street (with the green-striped DV pass visible) is dated 14 January 2025. That's roughly two weeks before the 30 January 2025 Foreign Office letter confirming his clearance. Starmer is clearly lying.

The sacking of Robbins is probably a de minimis measure. It is almost certainly not enough. Starmer told the House of Commons that due process was followed. He should only have done that if he knew both the process and the outcome. He plainly did not.

The stage is now set for a senior Foreign Office mandarin to accuse the PM of lying, hastening the end of their regime etc etc

“I never turn on my staff and you should never turn on your staff”

Strangely, this is exactly what Olly Robbins said he’d been told to do on 3 November 2025 in his evidence before the Foreign Affairs Committee committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1…

Let's assume for one moment that Robbins did overrule the DV. It would seem extraordinary that there is no 'process' around that, whereby others are informed, reasons noted and the decision recorded. @DPJHodges @afneil #madelson #keirstarmer

'I f---ing hate Olly’, said one sworn opponent. ‘But this isn’t right.’ Having now dispensed with the head of the Foreign Office and much of his Downing Street team, will that be enough to save Keir Starmer? Given the list of enemies he has accumulated, many would argue not.

@MouinRabbani "No-one told Captain Starmer of the Titanic about the iceberg. He is now incandescent with rage and has demanded a full inquiry into where all the water came from. The third mate and cabin boy have both been suspended from duty. Other junior ratings may follow" -The Guardian.

Keir Starmer is a lawyer and is trained to speak carefully. He also knows that lying to parliament is a resigning offence. When Starmer insisted to journalists that Peter Mandelson successfully obtained security clearance for his appointment, this was a false statement, but one without legal consequences. When addressing the same topic in parliament, Starmer was careful to avoid repeating this falsehood, instead stating only that Mandelson had been thoroughly vetted. Ministers and officials addressing parliament were also careful to avoid stating that Mandelson had been cleared by the security services prior to his appointment. Like Starmer, they formulated their statements in a way that led parliament to believe he had been cleared by the security services without explicitly claiming that this had happened. Starmer and his minions knew exactly what they were doing. They formulated their statements as they did because they were fully aware of the relevant facts and did not want to get caught lying to parliament. They are guilty as sin.

So we are now in the position where practically nobody believes the Prime Minister’s account but @UKLabour MPs are going to allow him to continue in office because they are completely gormless.

What were the signals Olly Robbins was receiving from higher up that led him to make the bold call to waive Mandelson’s vetting? Had it been made clear that No10 wanted Mandelson, chequered past and all? Even if PM / FS didn’t know about the failed vetting, had they created the reckless motivation?

You know what? I'm going to miss Starmer when he's gone. A baddie hasn't been this hilariously inept since Wile E. Coyote