OT This rotten Govt.Yet more scandal.

[MillerBill]

The Foreign Office and Starmer were told of the Mandy negative vetting but chose to ignore it and have lied and lied all the time.This is monumental and heads must roll !!!!!!!!!!! There's more to come on this.The country is being led by muppets and gong downhill fast on everything they seem to do.

[Stansmate]

By far the most incompetent lying bstardz I?ve known in my lifetime.

The King is a nobody these days - there will be severe trouble on the streets !!

[Spuddy Speight]

Oh no! Who knew what and when?

[MillerBill]

Three opposition leaders have demanded Starmer's resignation.There should be more as well.

[Spuddy Speight]

As a qualified lawyer Sir K Starmer has been quite defensive and regularly batted away opposition questions at Prime Minister's Question Time where he enjoys Parliamentary Privilege and not answered any queries put to him. But he knows that "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

[Back of the net]

Nothing to see here just a prime minister who lies to cover lies to cover more lies. Do I think Tories, Green, etc are any different? Nope all morally bankrupt.

[MillerBill]

No response from the far left on here,about this shambles of a government's latest catastrophy.It's all about who can we blame and what can we cover up.The country meanwhile is being totally abandoned with all the domestic problems we have.What a mess !!!!!!

[Beaufighter]

No response from the far left on here,about this shambles of a government's latest catastrophy.It's all about who can we blame and what can we cover up.The country meanwhile is being totally abandoned with all the domestic problems we have.What a mess !!!!!!

Who is this ?far left??

Your post seems to suggest you are only happy with a lying corrupt government if it?s a right wing one. Or did the previous 14 years not happen?

[MillerBill]

The govt. had 14 years to plan what they were going to do but we are all suffering because they really don't have a clue.

[UlleyMiller]

So based on what the public know:
The PM wasn't aware he'd failed vetting.
The senior person who was has been sacked.
Opposing political parties want to disrupt the governing party.
Lies and agendas will be speculated about depending on individual leanings.

In terms of the reality, what have I missed?

What I've seen so far is a PM who's come to power, started to restore some semblance of normality in contrast to the chaos of 2019-24; has failed to become the transformative leader we were sold, but has presented a more technocratic holding pattern; has begun to restore economic credibility (which has come with a cost to many of us, but gets away from farcical schemes which aided the wealth divide); has resolved a lot of industrial disputes; has made it clear we're not a puppet for Trump; is struggling to sort 'cost of living'; has had to deal with typical Labour party divides and subsequent policy u-turns; has not been a poster boy in the world of personality politics. The man has not failed, is ticking more boxes than he's missing, and is a problem for the opposition (and those who claim to be 'the opposition'), so stories like this will be blown up by - we can play games, but let's be honest about it - media which is largely funded by those with right wing leanings.

Anything else?

[mellowmiller]

So based on what the public know:
The PM wasn't aware he'd failed vetting.
The senior person who was has been sacked.
Opposing political parties want to disrupt the governing party.
Lies and agendas will be speculated about depending on individual leanings.

In terms of the reality, what have I missed?

What I've seen so far is a PM who's come to power, started to restore some semblance of normality in contrast to the chaos of 2019-24; has failed to become the transformative leader we were sold, but has presented a more technocratic holding pattern; has begun to restore economic credibility (which has come with a cost to many of us, but gets away from farcical schemes which aided the wealth divide); has resolved a lot of industrial disputes; has made it clear we're not a puppet for Trump; is struggling to sort 'cost of living'; has had to deal with typical Labour party divides and subsequent policy u-turns; has not been a poster boy in the world of personality politics. The man has not failed, is ticking more boxes than he's missing, and is a problem for the opposition (and those who claim to be 'the opposition'), so stories like this will be blown up by - we can play games, but let's be honest about it - media which is largely funded by those with right wing leanings.

Anything else?

Yes. He knew about Mandelson's history yet still appointed him without waiting for the outcome of the formal vetting process.
The previous government was equally clueless and this is just the sort of shambles Starmer would have jumped on when he was leader of the opposition.
Hypocrisy writ large!

[MillerBill]

Ulley,I appreciate it is near impossible trying to defend the indefensible but that summary of his "achievements" you have listed is very questionable and I am sure the hardworking tax payer would need more convincing.

[UlleyMiller]

Ulley,I appreciate it is near impossible trying to defend the indefensible but that summary of his "achievements" you have listed is very questionable and I am sure the hardworking tax payer would need more convincing.

It isn't a list of achievements, it's a view on what he's done, hasn't done, and a general precis of the time he's had in office. Any neutral observer will be able to point to a balanced term of office so far where he's neither ripped up trees, nor is creating the sort of shambles we'd witnessed under prior PMs. But in terms of the Mandelson issue, it's a fu** up that is growing arms and legs because of the agendas, not the issue. Starmer hasn't presented a Kwasi/Truss meltdown, or a Boris free-for-all, and his opponents want to apply pressure on anything they can. He's neither an inspiring, transformative leader, nor a complete mess, he's the ultimate grey man.

I've never been wholly committed to the left or the right in terms of parties because I think it pulls people into arguing for a side rather than being pragmatic and seeing the whole picture. I don't think the Mandelson mess is helpful to Starmer, and I think he has managed it sub-optimally, but I don't believe his involvement is a sound reason to remove a PM and the turmoil that carries, and I think his record overall is okay-ish.

[Back of the net]

It isn't a list of achievements, it's a view on what he's done, hasn't done, and a general precis of the time he's had in office. Any neutral observer will be able to point to a balanced term of office so far where he's neither ripped up trees, nor is creating the sort of shambles we'd witnessed under prior PMs. But in terms of the Mandelson issue, it's a fu** up that is growing arms and legs because of the agendas, not the issue. Starmer hasn't presented a Kwasi/Truss meltdown, or a Boris free-for-all, and his opponents want to apply pressure on anything they can. He's neither an inspiring, transformative leader, nor a complete mess, he's the ultimate grey man.

I've never been wholly committed to the left or the right in terms of parties because I think it pulls people into arguing for a side rather than being pragmatic and seeing the whole picture. I don't think the Mandelson mess is helpful to Starmer, and I think he has managed it sub-optimally, but I don't believe his involvement is a sound reason to remove a PM and the turmoil that carries, and I think his record overall is okay-ish.

How many manifesto promises has he broken ?
Would he have been sacked for eating cake at a gathering he shouldn’t have been at?
Has he acted with integrity ?

I think we know the answers. I respect your answers Ulley on most things but in terms of Starmer he’s indefensible.
Unfortunately he’s no different to others.

[ragingpup]

No response from the far left on here,about this shambles of a government's latest catastrophy.It's all about who can we blame and what can we cover up.The country meanwhile is being totally abandoned with all the domestic problems we have.What a mess !!!!!!

In my experience the far left are equally highly critical of Starmer, just for quite different reasons. Extremists are as extremists will, on both sides.

From what I can see, Starmer and the foreign secretary weren't told of the failed vetting. Should they subsequently be proven to have known, they will no doubt have to walk considering their continued denials. And rightly so.

It does make you think that whether both, especially the FS should have at least asked(considering Honest Pete's past) to see evidence of a successful vetting before Mandeleson being let loose on Trump, I think that's a fair question/criticism.