The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Falcon1200]

If you look at our recent referendums, none have served this country well.

That surely depends on whether the result went the way you wanted or not! I have voted in two referenda in recent years. One, on Scottish Independence, went the way I wanted, whereas that on EU membership did not. I expected the result of the first to be respected (which proved very much a false hope, I know) and therefore in turn respect the result of the second.

I also do not believe that I am too stupid, gullible or in thrall to the Daily Mail to be unable to make my own considered decision in any future referendum.

 

[JamieL]

That surely depends on whether the result went the way you wanted or not!

I don't think that is the case at all. I too voted No in the Scottish Referendum but look has what has happened since - support for independence is now trending 50% and higher. Very few young people support the Union, it is now a ticking time-bomb to independence. Another SNP majority seems likely next month. The SNP (and indy supporters) were able to leverage the frustration from the referendum to gain real traction for their cause.

 

[AlterEgo]

That surely depends on whether the result went the way you wanted or not! I have voted in two referenda in recent years. One, on Scottish Independence, went the way I wanted, whereas that on EU membership did not. I expected the result of the first to be respected

It was, wasnt it? Is Scotland an independent country now?

 

[Falcon1200]

Another SNP majority seems likely next month.

Well, we will see what happens. I am always wary of opinion poll predictions because people may say one thing but when it comes to the actual vote, do something else!

It was, wasnt it?

I must be imagining the constant demands for Indyref 2 then.

 

[AlterEgo]

I must be imagining the constant demands for Indyref 2 then.

Why aren't people allowed to campaign for that? Did you expect the referendum to be an instruction for these people to go indoors and never mention independence again?

 

[JamieL]

Why aren't people allowed to campaign for that? Did you expect the referendum to be an instruction for these people to go indoors and never mention independence again?

The issue has been the referendums have compounded each other. A key plank of the 2014 Scottish Indy vote was a vote for No was a vote to keep Scotland in the EU. And then the Brexit vote happened. That and other things fuelled a huge grievance movement that has gained traction. When I first moved to Scotland some 25 years ago, perhaps 1 person in 20 in my local area supported independence. Now it is hard to find someone who supports the Union. Referendum on these issues are counter-productive and cause immense harm whichever way the vote goes. Hence why I don't think it a good idea as we re-enter the EU. Debate and discussion is fantastic - but let's influence it through our MPs as per everything else. At least Starmer's government seems to be getting that right.

 

[oldman]

Now it is hard to find someone who supports the Union.

Opinion polls suggest otherwise. It's around 50-50.

 

[JamieL]

Opinion polls suggest otherwise. It's around 50-50.

I was referring to my local area.

 

[oldman]

I was referring to my local area.

Depends who you talk to, I suppose.

 

[Falcon1200]

Why aren't people allowed to campaign for that?

A fair question, and after all independence is the primary aim of the SNP, however as before I expected the result of the referendum to be, while not welcomed by the Nationalists, at the very least (grudgingly) accepted because, after all, the people were given what the SNP wanted, the chance to choose, and the people made their choice - Just not the right choice.

 

[Vinnym]

Where is Ed Miliband? Supposedly Minister of State for Energy Security, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and he has been conspicuous by his absence.

 

[ainsworth74]

Whilst my grandfather wasn't massively political as time goes on I do think he was very wise when he told me that his attitude was that referendums were failure of politicians. He voted very five(ish) years for politicians to make these sorts of difficult decisions. He had no truck with the idea that it was right for them to kick the hard stuff back to ordinary people. What was the point of paying for them if they won't do their job when it gets hard. A view I do increasingly come around to!

Where is Ed Miliband? Supposedly Minister of State for Energy Security, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and he has been conspicuous by his absence.

No 10. worried that enough people might look at Ed and think "Huh, can't we have that guy instead?"?

 

[sor]

Where is Ed Miliband? Supposedly Minister of State for Energy Security, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and he has been conspicuous by his absence.

His department has announced moves to approve plug-in solar panels and the signing of a contract with Rolls Royce to move further forward on SMR.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2026/13-04-2026-rr-welcomes-contract-with-uk-government-for-delivery-of-small-modular-reactors.aspx

Today’s two-stage contract with GBE-N will enable site-specific design activity and preparations for the site build at Wylfa, as well as allowing Rolls-Royce SMR to order long lead-time equipment from the supply chain. The contract brings certainty to the UK SMR programme and differentiates Rolls-Royce SMR as the only company with multiple commitments in Europe.

Some will be asking about fuel tax relief but that's arguably a Treasury matter.

 

[Electrostar387]

Where is Ed Miliband? Supposedly Minister of State for Energy Security, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and he has been conspicuous by his absence.

Has he? Only a few days ago he approved a massive solar farm.

In a post on X, Miliband said:

“We need as much clean power as possible to get us off the fossil fuel rollercoaster, to give us energy sovereignty and abundance. Decisions like these are vital for our energy security.”

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/n...een-light-britains-biggest-solar-farm-404872/

Since coming to office he's also approved more wind generation and the government is trying to get new pylons and grid upgrades underway to actually get electricity from places where it's generated (such as wind farms in the North) to places where it's needed (such as South East) rather than having to pay wind farms to turn off turbines.

Could he/the government be doing more in the immediate term? Sure! But actually addressing medium to long term concerns of energy independence (or rather becoming less energy dependant on others, as we'll always have interconnectors with other countries) seems pretty pragmatic to me.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Where is Ed Miliband? Supposedly Minister of State for Energy Security, we are in the middle of an energy crisis and he has been conspicuous by his absence.

His department has announced moves to approve plug-in solar panels and the signing of a contract with Rolls Royce to move further forward on SMR.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2026/13-04-2026-rr-welcomes-contract-with-uk-government-for-delivery-of-small-modular-reactors.aspx

Has he? Only a few days ago he approved a massive solar farm.

In a post on X, Miliband said: “We need as much clean power as possible to get us off the fossil fuel rollercoaster, to give us energy sovereignty and abundance. Decisions like these are vital for our energy security.”

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/n...een-light-britains-biggest-solar-farm-404872/

I feel like the point has been made at this time, but to add to the above:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c87w5ld0p80o

Work begins on nuclear power station that promises 8,000 jobs
​

Oscar Edwards

Updated 7 minutes ago

Work has begun on a new nuclear power station that will bring 8,000 new jobs, the UK government has announced.
Ministers have chosen Wylfa on Anglesey as the site after signing a £2.5bn partnership with Rolls-Royce to build it last year.

...

Ed Miliband, UK government Energy Secretary, called it a "major milestone" for Britain's energy security.

He added: "Our clean energy mission is the only route to getting off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels and take back control of our energy independence."

He is clearly very, very focussed on long-term energy security and independence, which a lot of people would agree is absolutely the right thing to do. Our politics suffers terribly from short-term'ism and here we have a prominent politician planting trees despite knowing he may never sit under their shade. Exactly what's needed.

 

[JamieL]

Might have a new Prime Minister soon! Surely Starmer will have to resign?

Peter Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but the decision was overruled by the Foreign Office to ensure he could take up his post as ambassador to the US, an investigation by the Guardian can reveal.

According to multiple sources, Mandelson was initially denied clearance in late January 2025 after a developed vetting process, a highly confidential background check by security officials.

Keir Starmer had by then announced he would be making Mandelson the UK’s chief diplomat in Washington, posing a dilemma for officials at the Foreign Office, who decided to use a rarely used authority to override the recommendation from security officials.

Revealed: Mandelson failed vetting but Foreign Office overruled decision

Guardian investigation uncovers decision by UK security officials to deny clearance before Mandelson took up role as US ambassador

www.theguardian.com

 

[Meole]

Depends on whether Starmer was aware, opposition say he knew, Cabinet Office say otherwise, presumably Tories and Reform have the evidence - - -

 

[sor]

A statement from No10 (via the Guardian):

The security vetting process for Peter Mandelson was sponsored by the FCDO. 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 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. This will include documents provided to the FCDO by UK Security Vetting.

I find it literally unbelievable that the PM is not notified of the vetting outcome for his own appointments or that the decision can be overruled without either himself or the foreign sec being involved. "UK Security Vetting" is apparently an arm of the Cabinet Office, which in turn answers to the PM.

Either way it's a terrible look for the government. Either he knew or he should have known.

 

[Meole]

A statement from No10 (via the Guardian):

I find it literally unbelievable that the PM is not notified of the vetting outcome for his own appointments or that the decision can be overruled without either himself or the foreign sec being involved. "UK Security Vetting" is apparently an arm of the Cabinet Office, which in turn answers to the PM.

Either way it's a terrible look for the government. Either he knew or he should have known.

As Badenoch says a Tory PM would resign immediately.

 

[Broucek]

Oh dear. One or more of Starmer, Cooper and Lamy will need to go based on what I've read.

I'm not Starmer's biggest fan but some of the alternatives are not obvious upgrades...

 

[Gloster]

I have said before that I think that Starmer’s problem is that he has too much of a legal mind: he gets bogged down in the detail and fails to see the broader picture. I suspect that he failed to check that all was in order with the vetting because he was too busy with other matters and just accepted what he was told without checking what had been done. This he should not have done: there was no dishonesty, but a lack of diligence by him.

I am afraid that Starmer should go, but not immediately. He seems to be handling the major issue of the moment, which is likely to be one of the major issues of the decade, reasonably well. To just resign would leave a horrendous job for his successor at any time, but with Trump likely to use the change to cause even more trouble for the country he really has to stick it out. Once things have settled, if ever they do, he can hand over to a successor who can start rebuilding.

 

[martin butler]

Problem is though, Should Starmer fall on his sword, I would imagine the "Usual suspects" would be screaming that there should be an immediate general election, and that a new Labour PM, might find the pressure to great to not call an election,

 

[AlterEgo]

As Badenoch says a Tory PM would resign immediately.

Satire, surely.

 

[kristiang85]

As Badenoch says a Tory PM would resign immediately.

Whilst I doubt that, you know Starmer himself would be calling for it at every opportunity, much like he did with Johnson and Sunak.

 

[Falcon1200]

I find it literally unbelievable that the PM is not notified of the vetting outcome for his own appointments

Or that Starmer did not apparently think to ask! Especially given Mandelson's history, not even Starmer can claim he didn't know about that.

 

[martin butler]

Or that Starmer did not apparently think to ask! Especially given Mandelson's history, not even Starmer can claim he didn't know about that.

Or was it the case that certain people thought that that bit of history was indeed buried so deep that it would never see the light of day again, Establishment figures protecting their own? thinking that he might be useful

 

[Broucek]

Olly Robbins pushed out

"Deputy Heads must roll"....

 

[sor]

Or that Starmer did not apparently think to ask! Especially given Mandelson's history, not even Starmer can claim he didn't know about that.

It's quite an oversight for a man who, as a barrister, his reputation and career was built on the concept of asking the right questions at the right time...

 

[Cdd89]

I suspect the whole thing is as simple as that Mandelson was appointed because we needed someone sleazy to get on with Trump.

While this can't exactly be shouted from the rooftops, it was a pretty obvious calculus (at the time the decision was taken - laughable now!) that courting Trump would benefit the country.

If my (unproven) theory is correct, Starmer & co must be feeling pretty annoyed at this blowing up into the "mother of all scandals" when they felt they were acting in the national interest. And even worse they can't even have the credit for doing so, since no politician can admit that they turned a blind eye to the victims of a pedophile (if, hypothetically, that is what Starmer did) for what they saw as greater material gain for the country. And worst of all, his best defence is to try to look like an incompetent, lazy idiot that make Boris Johnson look like a stickler for detail.

So I oddly come out of this feeling a bit mixed. The outcome of this will be politicians who act with more integrity, even when that may be against the country's interests. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is something I am not sure about!

 

[Cheshire Rover]

Yet another example of Keir Starmers modus operandi. Deny all knowledge and throw someone else under the bus.
Mandleson.
Saville.
Grooming gangs.
All the same approach. "I wasn't aware".
He's either incompetent or an outright liar.

I truly hoped we'd have some semblance of competence and honesty after the Conservatives. Seems I am still waiting.