[Tubby Isaacs]

I was dubious that Darren Jones was telling the truth about what the Cabinet Office said yesterday. He's been backed by Cat Little. This would be quite the blow to Robbins, wouldn't it?

And Karl Turner and Jonathan Bash's response to this is to go after the PM?

I know Alex Wickham used to work for Guido Fawkes, but he's done more than The Guardian to be fair.

[Tubby Isaacs]

What the flying fuck does this mean?! Lots of policies seem to be happening, despite the PM apparently doing everything wrong. Stephen Bush has been on this "Starmer doesn't know how to do anything" kick for yonks now. The big thing here is he said "no pressure existed whatsoever" and what? Bear in mind, Stephen Bush has as much idea what happened as anyone else who wasn't there.

What are these multiple mistakes? Appointing Mandelson, fine. What are the rest? How do they compare to being hauled over the coals for what seems to have been a misleading splash?

[mattomac]

I gave up listening to him a long time ago.

Anyhow seems to have completely fallen off the BBC main page.

[kreuzberger]

Now that the distinctly average sarah.smith@bbc.co.uk* has snaffed Trump's mobile number, the BBC are as proud as Punch and have moved on to "Keir, who?" for this evening's instructional bulletins regarding what should be of greatest concern to us all.

*See how that works?

[Tubby Isaacs]

So Karl Turner and Jonathan Bash haven't managed to keep the story going? Is Sir Keir allowed to spend more time on geopolitical crises till Monday? Or more likely Sunday, when the session with McSweeney will be described as "a bombshell happening tmrw"

[Tubby Isaacs]

Another bombshell we've all missed.

The appointment of Mandelson which the PM approved, very obviously, wasn't actually approved because someone can't find a piece of paper? Mini-scandal that there's no coming back from apparently. Perhaps these can all be added up and together and count as a scandal? And somehow we'll get to the equivalent of "Starmer knew all about the failed vetting, resign!"

[mattomac]

Do love these types….

At this point they have zero interest in seeing anything they don’t want to see. Considering Little totally contradicted Robbins who was held up as a smoking gun when it wasn’t.

[Tubby Isaacs]

There’s a particularly irritating group who know about as much about government as I do, but nonetheless tell us how to do it.

I wouldn’t really have cared if Boris Johnson had done what we know Starmer did in the process of appointing Mandelson.

And I can’t believe most of the media would.

[davidjay]

There’s a particularly irritating group who know about as much about government as I do, but nonetheless tell us how to do it.

I wouldn’t really have cared if Boris Johnson had done what we know Starmer did in the process of appointing Mandelson.

And I can’t believe most of the media would.

The media's double standards where Johnson is concerned are both extensive and effective. Ask people why he resigned and the majority will say cake or parties.

[Oboogie]

Ask people why he resigned and the majority will say cake or parties.

I find that strategically baffling. If I wanted Starmer out, I'd be pushing the point that Johnson had to resign because of a dodgy appointment. The details of the Johnson/Pincher case were not the same as Starmer/Mandelson, of course, but on the surface, they are similar and also benefit from being true.

[mattomac]

This of course was the last straw for Johnson after several other incidents.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yeah, getting the BBC Chair to help him find someone to loan him money because he couldn't live on the PM's salary (and free housing) was another. As was getting someone else to pay for the decoration of Downing Street, and lying that he was paying himself. And backing Cummings to spout shite in the Rose Garden. And losing two ethics advisors.

In response Sunak was chosen by Tory MPs with a mandate to improve standards, which he in fairness did. Starmer strengthened safeguards with the creation of the Ethics and Integrity Commission. This has been deliberately written up as "Starmer posed as whiter than white", and used as another excuse to kick him out. For lots of people, and media, you really are better to act like Bozo or Trump than try to establish any standards, because you'll just get accused of hypocrisy.

Talking of the EIC, we ought to pause for a minute to reassure ourselves that it does exist. Why do I say that? Yep, it's our "liberal media" pals again, from July last year.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... regulators

Keir Starmer’s flagship new ethics and integrity commission may be a rebrand of existing watchdogs brought together under a new “umbrella” rather than creating an entirely fresh regulator, government sources have said.

A year after Labour made its manifesto promise, ministers are mulling the idea of a new oversight structure above current regulators to avoid the need for starting from scratch.

It does indeed actually exist.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I see we're on to "allegations of bullying civil servants" against Morgan McSweeney now. I think he was not very good at his job. I think Labour Together have been far too ruthless. But I don't recall having previously heard these allegations, despite him not being at all popular with lots of people. This looks a bit like the latest attempt to Get Starmer.

My prediction- McSweeney will say he didn't put pressure on to approve Mandelson, just for them to make a decision as soon as possible, because Trump was already talking about flattening the UK with tariffs. Jessica Elgott will call this "absurd because we had an ambassador already". James Ball will say Starmer's defence is "dancing on the head of a pin about process". Stephen Bush will say "it's about judgement, it's simply bad government to chase up other offices". Karl Turner will say Starmer has to come into Parliament immediately to explain this apparent discrepancy (which has just been explained). And Andrew Sparrow will say "that was quite boring", which is what he said about Cat Little's evidence which backed Starmer.

Having said this, I'll probably be proved wrong on Monday, won't I? But I haven't so far.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Keir Starmer is fighting for his political life as the Mandelson vetting scandal threatens to end his premiership. With no end to the Mandelson saga in sight, and as Labour looks set to suffer major losses at the local elections, can the prime minister survive? Lucy Hough speaks to the Guardian’s head of national news, Archie Bland

What "vetting scandal"? What do they know that they haven't printed, I wonder?

"No end in sight" means that great Macbeth quote, doesn't it? Waded in so far that it's "tedious" to go back. Their original scoop wasn't what they thought it was and (as things stand) they can't find anything else.

[davidjay]

Ask people why he resigned and the majority will say cake or parties.

I find that strategically baffling. If I wanted Starmer out, I'd be pushing the point that Johnson had to resign because of a dodgy appointment. The details of the Johnson/Pincher case were not the same as Starmer/Mandelson, of course, but on the surface, they are similar and also benefit from being true.

They pushed parties and cake to emphasise their 'great man brought down by little people' line. Boris didn't do anything that everyone else wasn't doing, he was brought down by the jeaalous lefty media.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Private Eye set out about 6 or so occasions we know about where he seemed to have broken the law. I have a theory that he pleaded guilty to the "cake" one because it sounded fairly trivial and the cops didn't have to chase him through the courts over any others.

[Oboogie]

Ask people why he resigned and the majority will say cake or parties.

I find that strategically baffling. If I wanted Starmer out, I'd be pushing the point that Johnson had to resign because of a dodgy appointment. The details of the Johnson/Pincher case were not the same as Starmer/Mandelson, of course, but on the surface, they are similar and also benefit from being true.

They pushed parties and cake to emphasise their 'great man brought down by little people' line. Boris didn't do anything that everyone else wasn't doing, he was brought down by the jeaalous lefty media.

I'm aware of that, but that was then and to defend Johnson. I'm talking about people now failing to use the real reason for Johnson's resignation as precedent to get Starmer out.

[davidjay]

It may be because cake and parties is so engrained in the psyche of their readership that introducing the real reason would be an admission that they lied, and that their beloved Boris did something wrong after all.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I see we're on to it's just like Boris Johnson, nay worse, per ex Tory Chief Whip, Simon Hart.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... leadership

I witnessed the dying days of Boris Johnson’s premiership. Keir Starmer’s position is uncannily similar

For all his sins, Johnson didn’t sacrifice others to save himself. That’s not leadership – and Starmer may learn that all too soon

Alternatively, Olly Robbins dicked about playing civil service games not telling the Prime Minister what he needed to know, and which subsequently nearly got him thrown out of office. We'll see how the employment tribunal goes, but I can't believe for a second that Simon Hart or most of the media wouldn't be saying Robbins should be sacked.

[Youngian]

I witnessed the dying days of Boris Johnson’s premiership

.
So did I. Do you want a fucking medal?

Keir Starmer’s position is uncannily similar

Its nowhere similar but if Keir was a venal corrupt chancer then it wouldn't be uncanny to find himself in a similar position to Johnson.
Is this hack paid to write these 'observations?'