• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

WillWeEverBeGoodAgain said:
We're in the UK, I couldn't give a fudge about the clown Donald, I'm interested in how this country is run or not
Click to expand...
So we HAD to deal with an Epstein associate in Trump. So why not send an Epstein associate of our own who would probably do a better job in that position than anyone else- it stinks but it might have been in the best interests of the U.K.

We need this guy in charge right now, the big decisions and international relations are highly principled and will benefit the country in the rapidly emerging middle power consensus led by Carney.

I’m not even a labour person although i admit i couldn’t vote for anyone else last time round and we had to get shot of an incompetent tory government.
 
LutonSpurs said:
I'm not denying your scenario is viable, I'm just saying I don't beleive a word of it. There's no way he didn't know he was involved in Epsteins world.

They snuck him in. And got caught.
Click to expand...
I said months ago (and yeah it's probably not the right route to go down, but hey) that I would appoint Mandelson in the American ambassador role because of his connections to Epstein, knowing Trump was neck deep in with Epstein as well.
If you appoint someone that you (Trump) knows knows stuff....it can be a restraint and controlling factor if you happen to be a narcissistic nasty piece of work..

If it blows up before Mandelson becomes a useful idiot...so be it. Sacrificial lamb, and all that.
 
monkeybarry said:
March was 2.5 weeks ago!
Pretty sure I've still got unread emails from March FFS!

These really are the kind of details the head of an organisation (IE the civil service) delegates and trusts is carried out properly and with good policy to underpin it.

The Cabinet office will have known about the FCDO action. They will have disagreed with it. But policy was followed.
The policy seems flawed.
The FCDO decision making seems flawed - although without seeing the evidence base for granting the developed vetting, we can't say for certain.
Click to expand...
Nonsense in this case. Mandelson was an advisor to Starmer, someone he leaned on for advice to overthrown Momentum and take Labour back towards the centre and comtinue the "new Labour" project. Starmer and McSweeney wanted Mandelson in role. They'll have been all over this. It isn't plausible that Starmer and his close circle knew nothing of the sh*t that surrounded Mandelson and all the "i've lost my phone" BS is telling in this regard.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Nonsense in this case. Mandelson was an advisor to Starmer, someone he leaned on for advice to overthrown Momentum and take Labour back towards the centre and comtinue the "new Labour" project. Starmer and McSweeney wanted Mandelson in role. They'll have been all over this. It isn't plausible that Starmer and his close circle knew nothing of the sh*t that surrounded Mandelson and all the "i've lost my phone" BS is telling in this regard.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt any of that - such is current relationship with the US, that the things you mention become qualifications for the role.

But it doesn't address the question - was Starmer informed and Mandelson not passing Dev Vetting.
What you describe about is politics.
What is being discussed is Appointment to Public Office. They are different things.
It's worth educating yourself on the difference for the purposes of this conversation.
 
LutonSpurs said:
I'm not denying your scenario is viable, I'm just saying I don't beleive a word of it. There's no way he didn't know he was involved in Epsteins world.

They snuck him in. And got caught.
Click to expand...

but pretty much every person that is known publicly in the US and UK was in that orbit too, thats what Epstein did, thats how he did what he did
 
monkeybarry said:
I don't doubt any of that - such is current relationship with the US, that the things you mention become qualifications for the role.

But it doesn't address the question - was Starmer informed and Mandelson not passing Dev Vetting.
What you describe about is politics.
What is being discussed is Appointment to Public Office. They are different things.
It's worth educating yourself on the difference for the purposes of this conversation.
Click to expand...

the response to the vetting given to the government would have been a simple pass or fail

these things dig deep and the details are surely kept confidential
 
Baleforce said:
the response to the vetting given to the government would have been a simple pass or fail

these things dig deep and the details are surely kept confidential
Click to expand...
I know that. I've been involved in DV, and I guess you have too. Trying to explain the principles to others to aid understanding.

I would imagine the first line response would be from the vetting team to HR "based upon the developed vetting exercise, we recommend against appointment".
FCDO HR then inform FCDO of this position.
It appears (and I look forward to both Starmers statement and the select committee next week) the FCDO then chose to appoint anyway.
In this process, the PM would understand the process to be that DV has been passed.
It is possible FCDO went to someone in no 10 (outside of the cabinet office - probably a SPAD like McSweeny) and said the decision is non appointment.
To which the response is "why?".
"DV wasn't passed".
"Ok, thanks. We should look to appoint anyway. The risks, whatever they are, can be mitigated"

Mandelson was always an appointment on the basis of what he could do, and avoid, would outweigh his bad sides.

Politically, if Starmer did know the DV recommendation was to not appoint, then he has to go. I highly doubt he knew; however I am sure the risk appetite described above would have been part of earlier conversations.
We live in horribly murky times - staying squeaky clean in this environment is almost impossible.
 
I don't question the policy and your experience @monkeybarry, I've not worked in that world.

My view is this is an extraordinary situation and Starmer is close to Mandelson. His various contradictory statements pretty much prove he has lied. You lie when you have effed up. He has. He knew in my view. And hoped they'd get away with it.
 
LutonSpurs said:
I don't question the policy and your experience @monkeybarry, I've not worked in that world.

My view is this is an extraordinary situation and Starmer is close to Mandelson. His various contradictory statements pretty much prove he has lied. You lie when you have effed up. He has. He knew in my view. And hoped they'd get away with it.
Click to expand...

According to Alistair Campbell on TRIP, Starmer and Mandelson barely know each other and are far from close.
 
LutonSpurs said:
I don't question the policy and your experience @monkeybarry, I've not worked in that world.

My view is this is an extraordinary situation and Starmer is close to Mandelson. His various contradictory statements pretty much prove he has lied. You lie when you have effed up. He has. He knew in my view. And hoped they'd get away with it.
Click to expand...
What do you think is extraordinary?
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
That's a wild stretch. The main thing that opened the door for Trump to become president twice was the ridiculously poor candidates put forward by the Democrats. Look at Obama and what a wise and articulate individual he comes across as. Then look at what Trump had to compete with.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.
Putin plays 3D chess.
First Orban, then unsettling British and American public via sustained and clever social media manipulation, then Brexit, then Trump...

Hillary Clinton's BIGGEST problem was that she and the democrats did not read the room when it came to messaging. By the 2016 Presidential Race, no-one actually gave a damn about the issues, they just wanted to hear what they wanted to hear. She also misjudged the working class, thinking they'd see him coming; she should've studied how to win that media campaign. Trump was relentless in hammering twitter length logic.

The other big issue was that the US was not ready for a female President. No, she would've been a decent President.

n.b. on Putin, losing Orban might be a great sign that his worldview is starting to break apart. Hope so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back