Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Sounds like he needs someone wearing a giant Farage mask to shake him around violently.

I think he genuinely believes he's the best person to stop Farage (and Polanski).

[garbon]

Sounds like he needs someone wearing a giant Farage mask to shake him around violently.

I think he genuinely believes he's the best person to stop Farage (and Polanski).

Maybe the local elections can metaphorically shake him around violently. Despite what Labour might say, it will be a referendum on the PM.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, I agree. With the added complication that people still hate the Tories (again I think the failure of the Lib Dems to capitalise is very striking and I feel like there should be questions about Ed Davey's leadership too).

But I think my view is that there's not really much Starmer can do because the problems just reflect who he is. Hopefully it'll wake up Labour but I slightly worry they've already priced in a catastrophe and don't like the alternatives (at least until Burnham returns) - and doing nothing is the easier option. So I think we might just watch them spiral round the drain a few more times.

Although it might be even worse than expected - for example everyone knew May was done but it wasn't clear when. Then the Tories came fifth in the European elections with 9% of the vote and things escalated rapidly.

[garbon]

I think the Lib Dems need to stop appearing as the middle class party who does gimmicks. I do think to rebrand, they would need to ditch Davey as he is to embedded in that image to pivot away from that.

[mongers]

Man, nothing good to say about any of the main political leaders; you two are slowly turning into grumpy old men.

[garbon]

Man, nothing good to say about any of the main political leaders; you two are slowly turning into grumpy old men.

While I don't think either of us like her/want to vote in support of her, I think we both have had some positive things to say about Kemi.

Though I guess that just proves the accuracy of your statement.

[Sheilbh]

While I don't think either of us like her/want to vote in support of her, I think we both have had some positive things to say about Kemi.

Though I guess that just proves the accuracy of your statement.

Jesus Christ.

But yeah I think she's doing about the best job possible - and shows that the party membership made the right choice v Jenrick.

On party leaders I think obviously Zack Polanski has been transformative for the Greens. I'm not fully sure where I land on him. I think you could make a case that the Greens' strategy has historicaly always been to build their party, slowly, deep local roots and to avoid the Farage style "air war"/media focus, so he has just unlocked their latent potential. Flipside is that he is a very good communicator and the Greens haven't really changed much of their fundamentals, they've just got a guy who's really good at communicating at the top (arguably this is also the case for replacing Starmer with Streeting). But it doesn't matter he's been really effective.

I've mentioned many times my issues with Starmer. Given that both main partise have collapsed I think the Lib Dems should be doing better and I think that does raise questions about Davey.

But also Farage. His position is not under threat (yet - as Badenoch said, Robert Jenrick's his problem now). Historically - to the air war v ground game point - Farage has tended to cut down tall poppies in his parties and has not built enduring party infrastructures that survive him stepping down. I think there are still open questions about that. But currently they've plateaued and are trending down - and I think (could be wrong on the timing but not far off) that coincides with Jenrick and Braverman defecting. I could be wrong but I suspect the willingness to open the door to the least popular members of the last government may be a strategic mistake - I think it's possibly spending too much time online as Jenrick and Braverman have big followings among the right-wing internet. But I always remember the focus groups watching Jenrick speak during his leadership bid - the longer he spoke, the less people liked him

I think the Lib Dems need to stop appearing as the middle class party who does gimmicks. I do think to rebrand, they would need to ditch Davey as he is to embedded in that image to pivot away from that.

I agree on boh point. Problem is I'm not really sure what that leaves them And in fairness if I was Ed Davey I'd be delighted that the public now associates him with stupid gimmicks in wet suits and not sitting around the cabinet table like a noddding dog with George Osbone and presiding over the cabinet department responsible for the Post Office scandal, but that's just me.

Apart from Davey wanting Starmer to be rude about Donald Trump, I'm not really sure what the Lib Dems want - or how it would be different from this government. There was a poll recently and Starmer's highest approval rating was with Lib Dem voters

But I look back to when I was young and they had really clear stands that they could tie into a tradition of radical liberalism: strongly opposing the Iraq war, really strong civil liberties stance on issues like ID cards or mass surveillance, radical localist agenda. I don't think they really have a clear identity any more beyond what you say.

I genuinely don't understand why they haven't pivoted to being the full-throated pro-EU party. Post-Brexit there is a market for that, I think it aligns with the types of voters the Lib Dems appeal to but they've not done it (possibly burned by Jo Swinson's "bollocks to Brexit" campaign in 2019 which led to them losing seats, including hers - but I think there were other reasons for that).

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally Fiona Hill (who you may remember from her role in the first Trump administration when she was a Deputy National Security Advisor who was removed and later testified in Trump's impeachment) co-authored the Strategic Defence Review and has echoed Lord Robertson's comments:

'Bizarre' lack of urgency in putting UK on war footing, says defence review co-author
Exclusive: Fiona Hill, a former White House chief adviser, joins ex-Nato chief in criticising Starmer's leadership on defence
Daniel Boffey Chief reporter
Tue 14 Apr 2026 22.03 BST

A co-author of Britain's strategic defence review has joined criticism of Keir Starmer's leadership on military policy, warning of a "bizarre" lack of urgency in defence planning.

Fiona Hill, a former chief adviser to the White House on Russia, echoed the concerns of George Robertson, her co-author with Gen Richard Barrons on the strategic defence review (SDR), over what he had called the prime minister's "corrosive complacency".

Robertson, a peer and former head of Nato, has publicly aired his frustration at the government's failure to come forward with its 10-year spending plans for defence following publication of the SDR last June.

Elaborating further on Tuesday night in a speech in Salisbury, Wiltshire, he accused "non-military experts in the Treasury" of "vandalism" and warned that "we cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget".

Robertson also disclosed he had a discussion with the defence secretary, John Healey, on Monday about his intervention. He said Healey was "extremely angry with me".

"They don't want these headlines but sometimes you have to say it," Robertson said. "That's what I said last night to John. I believe my country is in danger."

Of the government's delay in providing details of its defence spending plans, he added: "I don't understand it any more than you ... No doubt it will come out, in, as they constantly say, due course."

Earlier on Tuesday, the suggestion public spending cuts may be necessary to fund defence prompted Diane Abbott, the Labour MP, to accuse Robertson of putting "guns before butter", adding that Labour would lose votes to the Greens if Starmer followed the peer's advice.

"We have already slashed foreign aid, and to cut welfare to spend on armaments is appalling," she said. "People are going to start to wonder why they are voting Labour in the first place. It is not going to help us electorally."

But speaking to the Guardian, Hill, who worked for Donald Trump in his first term, said she believed No 10's lack of urgency in putting Britain on a war footing was "bizarre".

Hill said that Robertson was "basically just trying to say, we need to have more movement now. If you get that sense of urgency then action will follow but we don't have the sense of urgency, which is kind of bizarre really given everything that's happening ...

"What George is saying, very bluntly, is there is basically a lack of resolute leadership on this. Because everybody's worried about votes and, you know, reactions, and all of this on the left and on the right.

"The political situation, you know, for the [Labour] party, is not good, but as George has been saying, this is a UK strategic defence review and, frankly, if anybody wants to make political points, I would suggest that it's shame on them. Big time."

She added: "I think we can see [the risk], just look at what is happening in the Gulf. You think we couldn't get a nice drone on the Shard [building in London]?"

Barrons told the BBC's Today programme: "There's an enormous gap between where we have to be to keep the country safe in the world we now live in, and where we actually are."

"The US cavalry is not coming to bail us out now," he said, adding that the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force were "undernourished".

Hill said the government's failure to come forward with its spending plans for defence was leading to a loss of confidence within the British defence sector and among interested financial investors.

She said: "Companies that are British, that have really important armaments and other equipment, are not getting the orders and so they are looking elsewhere and some are folding.

"The City has been standing by – George and Richard have been constantly talking to them – getting ready to put together investment funds and things but if there is no signal from the Ministry of Defence then they will go and do deals with the US, which is always what happens."

Hill said there was a wider problem that the government had yet to tell the country it needed to build civil defence and resilience in case of war.

John Hutton, a former defence secretary, said he believed the UK had 18 months to show it was properly financing its defence if it were to deter Vladimir Putin from making a military move against British interests.

He called on the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, to use the flexibility in her fiscal rules to borrow more for defence, as Germany had done.

Hutton said: "I think there's a significant gap in our credibility in Nato to provide a conventional deterrence to any possible Russian aggression, which I think is now more likely to happen than not."

Tan Dhesi, the Labour MP for Slough, who chairs the cross-party Commons defence select committee, said he was concerned that Robertson had pinpointed the Treasury as being to blame for the delay on announcing the spending plans, and accused its ministers of avoiding appearing before his members.

He said: "Lord Robertson's public intervention is sobering. It is damning that a man of his stature and experience has to speak out publicly to get his message heard. When it comes to defence, the government's rhetoric promising action does not yet align with reality.

"Lord Robertson has pointed at the Treasury as a blocker. Treasury ministers have repeatedly refused to appear before the defence committee, giving every impression that they are trying to avoid accountability."

A government spokesperson said the SDR was "backed by the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, with a total of over £270bn being invested across this parliament".

[Sheilbh]

Starmer's response on this is yet again to blame the rest of his team and deny any responsibility. But I think this a resigning issue - his line, repeatedly, was that Mandelson was vetted and process was followed but it didn't work which wasn't his responsibility and just need more/better process. It seems that is untrue and he lied to the House. I do think - something David Runciman and Helen Thomson mentioned on a podcast reunion recently - that Starmer has presided over a spectacularly dishonest political project and government.

The arguments they've got, as far as I can see, are that Starmer's Number 10 is cripplingly incompetent or that they lie. It might not be immediate (same way as it took six months from Partygate for Johnson to fall) but I think this scandal will sink him - not least because it just goes to the core of his political persona/brand: integrity, honest, due process, Mr Propriety, forensic, "adult in the room" etc.

Starmer 'must resign' over revelation that Mandelson failed vetting
The prime minister has been accused of misleading parliament over his claim that due process was followed in the peer's appointment as ambassador to the US
Oliver Wright, Policy Editor
Thursday April 16 2026, 6.30pm, The Times

Sir Keir Starmer is facing calls to resign after it was revealed that Lord Mandelson was appointed ambassador to the US despite failing security vetting.

The prime minister was accused of misleading parliament after repeatedly insisting that due process was followed in the appointment of the disgraced peer and that he had been vetted in the normal way.

But today Downing Street admitted that Mandelson was denied clearance in late January last year after a confidential background check by security officials.

By that stage Mandelson's appointment had been publicly announced, and it was decided to overrule the vetting decision.

The prime minister's spokesman said Starmer had been made aware only this week that Foreign Office officials had "taken the decision to grant developed vetting to Peter Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting".

"Once the prime minister was informed he immediately instructed officials to establish the facts about why the developed vetting was granted, in order to enact plans to update the House of Commons," he said.

Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said misleading parliament was a "resigning offence".

"If he has misled parliament, as it looks like he has, he should resign," she said. "If he has broken the ministerial code, as it looks like he has, he should resign. If he withheld documents by a cover-up from parliament, he should resign. I'm only holding him to the same standards to which he's held previous prime ministers — that if they mislead parliament, they should resign."

The Guardian, which first reported the claims, also said senior government officials had been considering whether there was a basis to withhold from parliament sensitive documents showing that Mandelson had failed vetting.

Any such decision could amount to defiance of a parliamentary vote that ordered the release of "all papers" relevant to Mandelson's appointment.

In a statement Downing Street said: "The security vetting process for Peter Mandelson was sponsored by the FCDO [Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office]. The decision to grant developed vetting to Peter Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting was taken by officials in the FCDO.

"Neither the prime minister, nor any government minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week.

"Once the prime minister was informed he immediately instructed officials to establish the facts about why the developed vetting was granted, in order to enact plans to update the House of Commons.

"The government is committed to complying with the humble address [the release of the documents] in full as soon as possible. Any documentation within the scope of the humble address that requires redaction on the basis of national security or international relations will be provided to the ISC [intelligence and security committee of parliament]. This will include documents provided to the FCDO by UK Security Vetting."

Mandelson was forced to resign as ambassador last year after new evidence emerged about his links with Jeffrey Epstein, the late paedophile financier, after he was jailed for child sex offences. Earlier this year, Mandelson was arrested on suspicion of sharing confidential government information with Epstein and is under investigation. He has denied any criminality.

Amid controversy about Mandelson's appointment, which was announced in December 2024, Starmer said there had been "security vetting, carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him [Mandelson] clearance for the role. You have to go through that before you take up the post."

Starmer added: "Clearly both the due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again."

[bIn September last year, the prime minister assured the Commons that "full due process was followed during this appointment". In February he said: "As the House would expect, we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services."[/b]

The revelation that Mandelson was not granted clearance by UK Security Vetting, a division of the Cabinet Office that scrutinises the background of prospective civil servants, will raise further questions about the prime minister's judgment in appointing him.

Starmer will also be pressed over whether he misled the public in remarks about the security vetting process. The Guardian said it was not known whether the prime minister was made aware that Mandelson had not been granted approval. Neither is it known who in the Foreign Office made the decision to overrule the vetting failure.

Sir Olly Robbins, permanent secretary in the Foreign Office, was the department's top civil servant in when the decision was made, having taken up the role earlier that January. The foreign secretary was David Lammy, who is now the deputy prime minister. Sources close to Lammy said they were unaware of the claims.

Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: "Keir Starmer had already made a catastrophic error of judgment. Now it looks as though he has also misled parliament and lied to the British public. If that is the case, he must go.

"Labour came into government on a promise to clean up politics. Instead we're seeing the same old sleaze, scandal and cover-ups as we did under the Conservatives."

The Green Party also called on Starmer to resign.

The best defence Starmer has as I can see it is that he is just utterly oblivious to literally everything going on around him - which is in fairness a defence he's run a few times while blaming more junior people on his team. I've said before but I think it's one of his least attractive traits and just regularly reminds me (and I suspect other people) of some really bad bosses who wilfully don't engage and then refuse to take responsibility for anything.

[garbon]

I see he has gone the sack someone for this route like he does every single time.

[Sheilbh]

On his third Cabinet Secretary, third Chief of Staff, I think fifth Comms Director and now cycling through Permanent Secretaries too. Amazingly the FCDO Permanent Secretary who has been fired is the only person (in the documents released so far) who challenged the decision of appointing Mandelson.

The case for it is presumably that the only civil servant who raised a red flag about Mandelson and whose department oversaw vetting then decided to override the vetting report without informing any ministers...

We're now at the stage of anonymous ministers and SpAds briefing that Starmer needs to go (if only they were in some sort of position to influence the course of events ).

Private Eye putting together clips from an interview with Starmer in 2020 about how he never turns on his staff and being a leader is about carrying the can

Edit: The real irony of all this is that Mandelson's predecessor, Dame Karen Pierce was actually really well regarded. She'd been credited with really reviving the British Embassy in DC after a couple of decades of complacency (and the French stealing a march) - particularly on building ties with Congress - but she'd also worked very well with both Trump and Biden administrations, because by all accounts she's a fantastic diplomat. She was one of several competent respected non-political people fired by Starmer when he came in because Labour didn't really want that type of continuity (see also John Bew) - and it created space for New Labour grandees to return. On the Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy ending of this we end up with Starmer stepping down and Karen Pierce sailing into Whitehall as the new Cabinet Secretary

Edit: Sorry he'll also be moving onto his third Permanent Secretary at the FCDO as well - Starmer specifically recruited Robins from the private sector in January 2025 (Robins held various civil service posts before moving to the private sector - he was May's Brexit negotiator and Europe advisor for her and Cameron, DG of the Civil Service before that  etc).

[mongers]

Over the next week or two it's certainly within the interests of Reform to encourage fuel protests, a bit of panic buying and so more price hikes in the run up to the local elections.

[Duque de Bragança]

Reform party fueling the fuel protests? But no blockades I guess. 

[Sheilbh]

The scandal over Mandy's appointment and vetting continues to grow - I think all parties in parliament hav now called for Starmer to resign.

The first point in this article about Olly Robbins' evidence will, I suspect, be quite significant. Numerous people who I think you'd consider allies of him - including former heads of MI6 and GCHQ - have come out defending. It reminds me a it of Simon McDonald, now Lord McDonald, who was a previous Permanent Secretary at the FCDO who came forward to say that Boris Johnson had lied over his knowledge of the Chris Pincher case (Lord McDonald subsequently wrote a frankly terrifying book if it represents the civil service view of the world ).

I'm a little uncomfortable with it. I really, really don't like the trend of former senior civil servants coming out with books about their time in office and judgemnts of the politicians the worked with, or intervening in scandals like this (or Pincher), or even becoming such common talking heads doing the media round. I think it's pretty corrosive of a relationship of trust that needs to exist between the civil service and the elected politicians. On the other hand I think politicians have also not held up their end of their bargain - and Starmer's a particularly strong example of this. The way the system is supposed to work is politicians basically provide cover for the civil service and take responsibility for their department. The number of times we've seen people get fired and Starmer popping up on TV to say how "furious" he is is also part of that problem and I don't know that politicians can expect the loyalty and discretion of the civil service if they'll throw them under the bus at the first sign of trouble.

I'd add you see this trend in Darren Jones, Starmer's outrider/Chief of Staff in all but name, saying it was a "failure of the state". I have issues with the British state - see the inevitable inquiry into what went wrong I'm not sure this was a failure of "the state" and as in the recent Southport inquiry, a recurring failure is around responsibility and accountability. I think that "the state" is possibly becoming to these politicians what the EU was for those in the 90s especially - a fig-leaf to justify failure to take responsibility or make choices:

Keir Starmer faces 'judgment day' as Mandelson vetting debacle grows
As revelations mount and accusations fly, prime minister prepares for MPs' anger and Olly Robbins' testimony early next week
Pippa Crerar Political editor
Fri 17 Apr 2026 21.00 BST

Keir Starmer's claim he was "staggered" not to have been told of Peter Mandelson's vetting failure has provoked incredulity across Westminster and accusations that he sacked a senior civil servant to save his premiership.

Senior government figures said the prime minister faced "judgment day" next week when Olly Robbins, who is understood to be furious at being forced to quit the Foreign Office, is expected to appear before a powerful committee of MPs.

With Starmer's position remaining precarious ahead of a statement he intends to make to MPs on Monday, the Guardian revealed on Friday that Starmer was left in the dark about information relating to Mandelson's security vetting failure by two other top civil servants.

The cabinet secretary, Antonia Romeo, and Catherine Little, the Cabinet Office's permanent secretary, became aware of the situation last month.

Government sources denied the two officials had been "sitting on" the knowledge that UK Security Vetting (UKSV) had advised that Mandelson should be denied clearance to become the UK's ambassador to the US.

They said the civil servants were involved in a complex process of checks to establish the risks in sharing highly sensitive data, including with the prime minister, who was only told about it on Tuesday.

With leaders of all the other major political parties calling for him to quit, Starmer insisted he did not know that Mandelson had failed a security vetting process, or that the Foreign Office had overruled the decision.

He said it was "unforgivable" he was not told about the vetting recommendation, which was revealed by the Guardian on Thursday.

The prime minister said he was "furious" about what had happened, while Downing Street squarely blamed the Foreign Office, with Starmer's official spokesperson saying No 10 had "repeatedly" sought the facts of the case but was not told.

Asked if this amounted to a "cover-up", they did not reject this, saying: "Well, the prime minister was not informed and he's made clear that it is staggering that he was not informed."

Within hours of the disclosure, Robbins was forced out of his job as permanent secretary of the Foreign Office.

The former top official is understood to be extremely angry at what he believes to be his unfair treatment by the prime minister, and is said to believe that he was following due process.

Robbins could give his side of the story early next week, with the Commons foreign affairs select committee inviting him to give evidence on Tuesday. Some ministers are concerned he will use his public appearance before MPs to hit back at No 10's version of events, which could be damaging for Starmer.

"I would be amazed if Olly didn't keep receipts," said one senior MP.

Ciaran Martin, a former senior civil servant with past involvement in vetting work, who is a close friend of Robbins, told the BBC that the sacked official appeared to have been made a scapegoat.

He said vetting had been wrongly presented as a simple pass or fail, when it was instead a "risk assessment", and that it was entirely standard for officials to decide whether the balance of risk was acceptable.

"There is no abuse of process, there is no failure of process. Not only is there no duty to disclose the details of a vetting case, there is a duty not to disclose them. The one thing you never do is tell ministers of any kind, because otherwise the vetting system would collapse," he said.

However, a second senior government official with knowledge of the vetting process suggested it was highly unusual for the Foreign Office to reject UKSV advice like this, arguing that Robbins could have informed a senior minister of that fact at least, even if he did not share the details.

The foreign affairs committee chair, Emily Thornberry, said: "In his [previous] answers to us, Olly Robbins, through omission, failed to tell us the truth by leaving out his decision to overrule the deep vetting advice.

"We knew there was pressure on Robbins to confirm Mandelson's appointment since that had been announced in public already and he would not want to be the person that, weeks into his new job at the Foreign Office, said there is a problem with it.

"What we do not know is if there was an extra continued pressure applied to him from Downing Street or elsewhere, and that is what we would like to ask him."

The prime minister, who was in Paris on Friday for a meeting of nations working to keep the strait of Hormuz open, will appear before MPs on Monday to give a statement about what happened in relation to Mandelson and what he knew.

Many Labour MPs were dismayed the Mandelson affair was once again inflicting damage on the government, especially just weeks before crucial local elections. "It does seem incredible that he didn't know, but the problem is that it's quite possible as well," one backbencher said.

Some believe the Mandelson vetting farrago could be terminally damaging for a prime minister who had come to government promising to clean up politics. "I can't see how he survives this," one said. "I just don't think it's feasible for him to say he didn't know anything. I'm angry and really sad."

A majority, however, appeared to be backing him. "Now is not the time to start agitating over the leadership, when the global situation is so volatile and the domestic economic fallout is potentially so serious".

The Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch, said: "There can be no more cover-up, no more excuses, no more delays."

The public, she said, had a "right to know" why Mandelson had failed his vetting.

The Lib Dems have asked the prime minister's ethics adviser to investigate Starmer for failing to tell parliament Mandelson had failed security vetting as soon as he became aware on Tuesday night.

The Guardian has learned that Adrian Fulford, a retired court of appeal judge who led the Southport inquiry, is expected to review Mandelson's vetting process and the wider system.

FWIW I think he will survive in the short-term - unless he has a sudden outbreak of conscience. I think a leadership challenge is unlikely in the short-term because Labour MPs still don't like their choices, unless Burnham can get into a seat which I think would change the picture. And this cabinet appear strikingly spineless - on the one hand stability is good as people know their briefs. But it's unusual - Annelise Dodds resigned over a policy issue (correctly, in my view) and Lou Haigh was forced to resign over a, in retrospect, rather minor scandal (it emerged she had a conviction for fraud by false representation following falsely reporting her workphone was stolen with her handbag and later discovering it wasn't).

[Tonitrus]

He said it was "unforgivable" he was not told about the vetting recommendation, which was revealed by the Guardian on Thursday.

Perhaps it is just that someone used the "Rhodesia Solution" on the PM?