Mailwatch(ed) Forum

I've been reminded of Allegra Stratton being forced to resign. I don't recall Bozo stepping up and saying "Hey, Allegra, you only made a joke, you stay I'll front this out!"

And, you know, I didn't expect Bozo to do that. It's politics- the PM has responsibility across the board, Stratton didn't, and she took the bullet. That's politics, always has been, Lord Carrington took a bullet for Thatcher when the Falklands was invaded. Leon Brittan took a bullet for Thatcher over Westland. Norman Lamont took a bullet (not very contentedly) for John Major over devaluation. James Callaghan took a bullet for Harold Wilson over devaluation, if you want to go further back. Amber Rudd took a bullet for Theresa May over Windrush.

This narrative that it's a particular character failure of Starmer to sack Robbins is such bullshit.

Just in case Simon Hart looked too partisan, here's Kiran Stacey with analysis, to make the same "like Bozo" point.

Partygate v Mandelson: Keir Starmer faces attack from his own playbook
Kiran Stacey
Policy editor

Johnson was ousted in the wake of allegations that he had attended parties in Downing Street during a pandemic lockdown he presided over. Starmer is alleged to have allowed his officials to bypass normal security vetting procedures to install the Labour veteran Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, as revealed by a Guardian investigation last week.

Johnson wasn't ousted for that, and there was endemic law breaking- he did attend these events, nobody seriously argues he didn't. Nobody's accusing Starmer of lawbreaking. Note how "Mandelson failed vetting (and Starmer must have known)" has been cunningly shifted to "allegations that he allowed his officials to bypass normal procedures". What does that even mean? His officials didn't have control of the vetting process, as Olly Robbins made clear. That went ahead as normal.

This is dreadful stuff. Stacey, Elgot and Crerar and their editors have lost their minds. Hysteria for a week, leading to nothing much.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... n-playbook

Matthew Doyle was sacked ages ago. I can't even be bothered to read this. All that's happened since is Olly Robbins dropped in that he'd had a conversation once about appointing Doyle to a job and nothing had subsequently happened. This sort of article is crap at the best of times. "Prime Minister (who I don't like) is epitomized by this one thing I've picked out (which I don't like)".

"Zombie Government" means me and my mates have decided the PM has to resign. The Employment Rights Act has just come into effect, minimum wage has just gone up. Some good economic figures too. Not covered by the dictionary definition of epitome, by the look of it.

I'm increasingly struck by similarities between the treatment of Starmer and John Major. Major was incredibly grim in terms of funding public services and investment, but sensible I lots of ways. He copped a lot of shitty "John Major's Government Is Summed Up By The Cones Hotline" stuff. This is the same with Starmer.

Ken Clarke's economic stewardship was a turnaround from the Lamont period. Made little difference to Major's polling doldrums. Although Badenoch is no Tony Blair waiting in the wings.

Clarke (and Major) were competent and wages did well in latter years, but lots of the public realm was very grim. Major got taxes down lower than Thatcher had managed and it showed. Paradoxically, the tax rises in the 1993 Budget (after which Lamont was sacked) meant that they didn't really get any credit for the low taxes either. That's a bit Starmer like, with not many people giving Starmer credit for increasing spending to fund public services.

Wages didn’t ’do well’ for us teachers…

Or us civil servants.

All part of the public realm going to shit, and a major reason they got chucked out. When Clarke is praised as a good Chancellor, rather more should be made of this point.

Peter Walker of the Guardian (not the former Tory Cabinet Minister or former cricket commentator, sadly).

I might be proved wrong, but for now I still think the Conservatives’ insistence on pursuing the Mandelson case as, ‘Starmer misled parliament’ rather than, ‘Why on earth did Starmer appoint this man at all?’ feels like the mother of all political cul de sacs.

The fact some on the Right said it was a great appointment might be a problem, no? Apparently Jon Sopel sees no contradiction between having done that and getting stuck in on the News Agents, so perhaps it wouldn't be.

Talking of going down cul de sacs, is there anyone you know who's done this, Peter? Have a look round the office. Interesting that the story seems to be that Appointing Mandelson was bad in itself now, isn't it?

Drag this out over the election period?

Hmmm - Labour MPs are not going vote for it. I'm getting really tired of this now.

Peter Walker is better than some of the others, in fairness to him.

But yeah, it's not just Kemi who's been dragging this out into the local election period.

Give the MPs a free vote and if they vote for Farage’s Christmas present so be it. The major and main issue was Mandelson and no one has yet contradicted the position of the PM, nethier ministers of Civil Servants.

They've published another memo, from Chris Wormald, when he was asked to look into the appointment before.

https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPap ... ington.pdf

It's supportive of the Government. The procedure was "unusual but not irregular". He was vetted after he was appointed but not before he took up the position.

I'm surprised it took this long to publish it. Was this a deliberate "rope a dope" strategy?!

Hoyle isn’t daft. He knows that the right thing for him to do with respect to whether the standards and privileges committee should grill Starmer is to say “hands off - not my decision, lads.” He also knows that there is absolutely zero prospect of the HoC, with Starmer’s majority, ever voting for it, so he’s safe there (he is/was a Labour MP, remember).

It is mildly irritating to hear the putative standards and privileges hearing being reported on as a “sleaze enquiry”, though. It’s nothing of the fucking sort. It conceivably was when Johnson went there to tell lies about parties , but that’s not remotely comparable to Starmer’s situation.

Government asking own MPs to vote with it. More news as we get it.

That’s bollocks. MPs are under the whip for the vote.

A few Cabinet ministers ringing up wouldn't be inconsistent with that. I wonder if Starmer might at the last minute shut Ed Davey and co up by allowing a free vote.

Leaked as a nod to the Greens? Despite what they say, she's particularly "neoliberal", I'd be surprised if she thought this was a good idea. It's likely to constrain supply, I'd have thought. Maybe she could give free money to tenants or something? Would be better than the Greens giving free money to people who piss away tons of energy.