Matthew Passenger

@clairebubblepop Yes he did laugh in our faces had a beer and pizza night. But got it brushed under the table. And the voice coach bullshit too. The man’s an habitual liar. And he’s about to get got.

You know people can hate Starmer but did he laugh in your face by giving his mates £Bs in Covid contracts? Did he laugh in your face by partying when our loved ones died alone? Tories saw their tenure as a cash grab and destroyed this country with 14 YEARS of austerity… FOR WHAT

@Peston @dakppc It will stick until the May elections then they’ll feed Smear Starmer to the sharks.

Downing Street says neither the PM or the then foreign secretary David Lammy knew that Peter Mandelson failed security vetting to be US ambassador till a few days ago. Sources say they are incandescent that they were not told. The clear implication is that the permanent under secretary at the foreign office Olly Robbins over-ruled the vetting recommendation and never told ministers. If that is right, and no official is denying that, it is impossible to see how he keeps his job

All loss of human life is sad, this should be reason enough to stop the boats. These death are on the heads of human right lawyers who line their pockets with death and misery.

The moment he lied!

Which party leader do you trust to have the best interests of Britain and its’ people at heart? Please repost for a larger audience.

@Neccccy I think his front bench will have quit before this parasite lets go.

How many HOURS do you think Starmer the liar has got left?

@JChimirie66677 Clear and concise as always.

The Security Services Said No. Starmer Told Parliament They Said Yes. He Has to Go The security services said no. That should have been the end of it. A man with documented links to a convicted paedophile, active connections to Chinese state enterprises, and a history of contact with a Russian oligarch under scrutiny applied for developed vetting clearance to become Britain's ambassador to Washington. The security services reviewed his file and declined to recommend him. The answer was no. Foreign Office officials overruled them. Peter Mandelson was denied developed vetting clearance in January 2025. That clearance exists for a reason. It covers access to top secret information: market-sensitive data, military plans, diplomatic cables. The people who assess it are professionals whose entire function is to identify exactly the kind of risk that Mandelson's file presented. They identified it. They recorded it. They said no. And then officials in the Foreign Office, under David Lammy as Foreign Secretary, reached for exceptional powers and sent him to Washington anyway. Before he even took up his post, US Senators were so alarmed by Mandelson's Chinese connections that they handed a dossier to the FBI. He had denied ever conducting business in China. The Chinese internet told a different story, recording his high-level meetings with state-owned enterprises in his own words. The FBI had the file. The security services had said no. And Britain's man in Washington was already in post. Keir Starmer then told Parliament on December 10 and again on February 4 that full due process had been followed. On February 5 he said Mandelson had been cleared through all proper procedures. He said the security services had given Mandelson clearance for the role. Every one of those statements was false. The security services had done the opposite. They had withheld clearance. The proper procedures had been bypassed. Due process had not been followed. It had been overruled. Starmer was informed of this on Tuesday night. Prime Minister's Questions was on Wednesday. He said nothing. The story broke on Thursday evening when the Guardian published it. The Ministerial Code is explicit: ministers must correct any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Amber Rudd resigned as Home Secretary in 2018 for inadvertently misleading Parliament over Windrush. Starmer did not mislead Parliament inadvertently. He had the correct information in his possession and chose not to deploy it. Downing Street's response has been to blame Foreign Office officials. Senior sources are briefing that Sir Olly Robbins, the permanent under-secretary, is being set up as the fall guy. Robbins has told friends he will not accept that role. What is developing inside this government is not an accountability process. It is a blame auction, with each institution pointing at the other while the central question goes unanswered. That question is this. A man whose file included Epstein payments, Chinese state enterprise meetings, FBI scrutiny, and contact with a sanctioned Russian oligarch's circle was denied security clearance by the professionals whose job it is to make exactly that call. Someone then decided that the judgment of those professionals was less important than Peter Mandelson's usefulness to the network. That person has not been named. That decision has not been explained. And the Prime Minister who told Parliament three times that the process had been followed correctly knew by Tuesday night that none of it was true. The Ministerial Code has a word for this. So does the public.

@Liam_Holman99 Oh and just so you understand a group of liars is called a conspiracy, which is far worse. Your boys fried mate. He's only still in place so they wipe the shit off their shoes with him after the May elections. x.com/MattyDread/sta…

Starmer did not lie. He was lied to.

'I can't see Starmer lasting beyond May elections' - Diane Abbott MP youtube.com/shorts/Rw5Yqgc… via @YouTube

@TheGriftReport He already used that excuse, this would mean he's too stupid to be Prime Minister. He was lied to about the lie that he was lied to about?

Who was the better Prime Minister and who would you rather have running the UK right now out of these two?

This gave me a chuckle

@GamewithDave Scorched Tanks on the Amiga 1200. Me and my mate played it every night for about three months.

For anyone who used a computer between 1990 & 2005… what’s the one game you still think about?

@Keir_Starmer @Sara78187546 Ukrainian flaming arse onists?

We need a transparency revolution. There should be no power without accountability, and true accountability requires transparency.

Today I am announcing my plans to reform and unite our party into a more open, respectful, creative and engaging movement. [Thread] cards.twitter.com/cards/18ce547k…

@Keir_Starmer @Sara78187546 We all see through your bullshit Starmer. Whomever is writing your X posts is not doing you any favours you prat.

@Bronda59Bronda @NotFarLeftAtAll

@MattyDread @NotFarLeftAtAll Unfollowed you.

Poll Who are you voting for ?

@JillWitherjay17 @BethRigby Starmer round Beth’s after the interview?

@MattyDread @BethRigby You mean she’s not?

NEW: Anger in No 10 tonight - am told by a source that neither the PM nor his advisors were told, over a series of months, that Mandelson had been granted security clearance against the recommendation of UK security vetting. That suggests this information was held in foreign office and not shared. Big Qs now about the PM misleading the House. I am told the PM had been asking Qs about vetting and not been told this information while giving statements to parliament. Told this week PM had been trying to get answers about what happened since Tues night - Guardian got ahead of story. The critical point is that the minister has to have ‘knowingly misled’ the House, and clearly No 10 saying tonight the PM was not aware. I understand the PM had been intending to update the HoC as soon as No 10 had established facts, which they have been doing since Tues. So expect to see the PM come to HoC on Monday to correct the record I asked PM on March 16 whether he has misled the House when he said due process was followed. This is what he told me BETH RIGBY: On the Mandelson files, your national security adviser said the process was quote, weirdly rushed, and Mandelson was appointed before developed vetting had been complete. You told MPs in the House of Commons that due process was followed. Is there a possibility that you have misled the House when you said that? KEIR STARMER: No, and the independent adviser looked at that very question. I think on Thursday or Friday of last week, and answered it very robustly, that the process had been followed. The process wasn't strong enough. And amongst the changes that I intend to put into place is the fact that you can't announce someone until the vetting is finished. It wasn't an individual decision in the Mandelson case, that was the process. Well, you only have to look at that. in the light of the appointment, to realise that that needs to change. But on due process, the process that was there was followed, the problem was the process wasn't strong enough, but ultimately, it was my mistake and I have apologised for that and quite right to.

@timmyvoe @c4tx_cdner Um um um um, this is our prime ministers oration skills? Just resign mate it’s embarrassing.

There isn't a single person who can now claim Keir Starmer is an honest man

Why do left wing skid marks just post clown faces? Is it because they have no words or are they selfies? Or do they honestly think that a well structured argument can be defeated with a clown face. I get it all the time. They just look idiotic, but I’m sure in their heads they believe they’ve destroyed me. Please let me know your thoughts.