The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Oxfordblues]

The proof that it really is Sir Humphrey who rules?

Exactly! I'm reminded of the episode in which Sir Humphrey insists he needs to know everything, rather than on a "need-to-know" basis. How else could he judge whether or not he needed to know it?!

 

[brad465]

Always the way with religious types.

Their imaginary sky fairy says that they are not allowed to do something, so they decide this means that I'm not allowed to do that thing either.

I would like to point out that, while rare I suspect, there are people who are both religious AND support assisted dying. I am one such person. I still believe in the right to a natural life and will not support the termination of healthy lives, but I believe this definition works two ways, in that someone who is alive only because they receive 24/7 care or life support equipment is not living a natural life, thus should have the option to end it.

 

[dgl]

My Gran was certainly someone who would have supported assisted dying and she was a Methodist local preacher, so hardly non-religious/an atheist!

 

[Brightonboy]

A couple of thoughts come to my mind; we do not (and never will) know the grounds on which he failed the vetting process - everybody seems to be assuming that it was his involvement with Epstein but maybe his past (and, for all we know) current/recent involvement with certain Russian oligarchs was considered to make him unsuitable to handle sensitive transatlantic material. We also don't know why Ollie Robbins (I don't believe the decision would have been taken below PUS level) chose not to block the appointment; maybe he was just too anxious to please his new political masters to push back or maybe he was 'unofficially' briefed that either Mandy got the job or Ollie wouldn't have a job. There is much murkiness in the whole sorry saga and no-one involved comes out of it well.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I would like to point out that, while rare I suspect, there are people who are both religious AND support assisted dying. I am one such person.

I think lots of religious people do support it, especially those of a more Methodist or Quaker persuasion.

My anger is with the ones who say that because they think their God disapproves that means that I’m not allowed to make that choice. We see the same nonsense with things like abortion too. Lammy and Streeting are both very firmly within this category.

Weirdly, both are otherwise the exact antithesis of what the Bible says Christians should be.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Apr 2026 ==

We also don't know why Ollie Robbins (I don't believe the decision would have been taken below PUS level) chose not to block the appointment; maybe he was just too anxious to please his new political masters to push back or maybe he was 'unofficially' briefed that either Mandy got the job or Ollie wouldn't have a job.

Robbins is an experienced civil servant, there’s no way he’d make a decision like this without it being dictated by the politicians.

If Starmer is telling the truth about not knowing it can only be because he didn’t want to know. This has Morgan McSweeney’s mitts all over it.

It’s typical Starmer to chuck an underling under the bus though. Starmer’s got all the spine of a bowl of cold custard. The only reason why he still has a job is because the only alternatives are either embroiled in their own mess (Rayner) or manage to make Mandelson look like an honest and ethical politician (Streeting).

 

[The Ham]

Assuming the PM isn't 1) just telling a bare-faced lie (unlikely I'd say, despite not being a fan) then it implies something is wrong in the plumbing of government. Either 2) the Civil Servants have decided to do their own thing or (more likely) 3) the politicians have decided to be hands off.

None of 1-3 is remotely good.

Also, even if Ministers were genuinely not told about the failed vetting, surely someone would have said, "so, did Lord M actually pass vetting?"

However, I still come back to the question that for the ability of the civil servants to over rule the decision to have been common knowledge for 1 or 3 to be a reasonable option, then anyone who has served at a highlevel in government could have asked about it.

The fact that the Tories are only asking as it has become public knowledge, implies that they didn't know about this ability.

If they did know why didn't they (for instance) ask at the end of February (when he was arrested) if the department had used their powers to overrule the vetting process.

I would like to point out that, while rare I suspect, there are people who are both religious AND support assisted dying. I am one such person. I still believe in the right to a natural life and will not support the termination of healthy lives, but I believe this definition works two ways, in that someone who is alive only because they receive 24/7 care or life support equipment is not living a natural life, thus should have the option to end it.

I suspect that your view possibly isn't as rare as you think.

The big concern many are likely to have is around the assurances around people not being made to feel that they should do something which they otherwise not do (along the lines of "I'm a burden to my family, so maybe I should choose to die").

Generally, as this is something few are going to argue doesn't need protection and so it isn't likely to be something which is overlooked.

As assisted dying should be fairly rare, potentially much lower than the 1 in 200 of road deaths, it may well be that not many people would even know someone who chose to have that option.

It's not like we insist on preforming resuscitation on everyone (and to get a DNR has far fewer protections than assisted dying will - and for good reason) and if people gong to insist that we should always keep people alive then always should mean that everyone should have resuscitation performed on them - and I doubt anyone is even be calling for tighter restrictions around the rules around not doing resuscitation.

 

[david1212]

Last year, after a long democratic process, the Isle of Man Tynwald voted to bring in legislation allowing assisted dying in the Isle of Man. This legislation requires Royal Assent, which is usually a rubber-stamping exercise. The UK are responsible for arranging that Royal Assent.

David Lammy, a fundamentalist Christian and a vocal critic of assisted dying, has now refused to grant that Royal Assent, supposedly because of concerns the legislation is incompatible with human rights legislation. This had been discussed at great length in the Isle of Man and it had been democratically agreed here that it was compatible with human rights legislation.

To say that I am raging is something of an understatement. All our democracy can be undermined by one Christian whackjob who disagrees with what was democratically agreed.

A pox on all of the Labour Party.

How does denying assisted dying to a person who wants it resulting in them having to live with at best no worthwhile quality of life and in reality more likely with pain and discomfort which may or may not be suppressed with strong medication before considering the mental aspect fit with linking yourself to a group who claim to be caring and compassionate ?

.....
Can't say I'm particularly surprised, the same is happening in the UK with the Lords being allowed to deliberately frustrate the Bill agreed by the Commons. Much to the delight of Lammy and Streeting, both of whom have been very vocal in their opposition on religious grounds. Needless to say, if it was something they agreed with the the Lords wouldn't be being allowed to play silly buggers.

One of the biggest opponents of the legislation in the Lords is Tanni Grey-Thompson, who is agnostic.
You're entirely free to kill yourself, the problem is this legislation is putting the onus on other people to help you.
The legislation is deeply flawed, there may be some in the Lords messing about, but there are others putting the bill under the scrutiny it deserves and the proposers don't like it.

Just recently the lack of progress in the UK came up in conversation, this explains why.
It is all so wrong. If a person wants to die but is incapable of killing themself unaided or for whatever reason taking the route of Adrian Shooter and going to Switzerland why should they be denied? All that is needed is a record of the persons wishes with multiple witnesses to protect whoever provides the assistance.

Be clear this is where the person is mentally sound and capable of very clearly conveying their wishes.
Where the person is deemed mentally unsound e.g. dementia is a totally different scenario.

 

[Harpo]

The only reason why he still has a job is because the only alternatives are either embroiled in their own mess (Rayner) or manage to make Mandelson look like an honest and ethical politician (Streeting).

The firebrand or the Robot mk2? Streeting is just Starmer without the flair and charisma.

 

[Falcon1200]

. We also don't know why Ollie Robbins (I don't believe the decision would have been taken below PUS level) chose not to block the appointment;

Is it possible Mandelson's appointment was announced before the vetting process was complete, and therefore the civil servants were reluctant to to rock the boat and embarrass the Government (or were told not to)?

Answering my own question;

Mandelson saga is a messy palaver - and the questions continue to swirl

Sir Keir and the top official at the Foreign Office at the time are expected to face questions from MPs next week.

www.bbc.co.uk

It was publicly announced, external that Lord Mandelson would be British Ambassador to the United States five days before Christmas, in December 2024.
Just under three weeks later, it was announced , externalSir Olly Robbins had been appointed the new Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, its most senior civil servant.
And a few weeks after that, Lord Mandelson failed his developed vetting.
Sir Olly, just weeks into the job, learnt this knowing that Lord Mandelson had already been appointed.
The prime minister wanted to send this Labour grandee to Washington. Imagine the brouhaha if the appointment had been unannounced, if he had had the job taken from him before he even started.

Which sequence of events is, to me, utterly astonishing, and raises even more questions (as if any were needed) about Starmer's judgement.

 

[MP33]

Part of the vetting process. Is to ascertain, if there is anything that could leave the person being vetted open to blackmail. When I was in the Civil Service, we employed a temp, whose father held a very senior scientific post. When his father was vetted, he was questioned as to his son travelling to College on a bicycle. Would lack of funds lead him to leak any information about his father's work that he had overheard.

 

[Mag_seven]

Not singling out anyone in particular but please bear in mind when discussing religious beliefs we must be respectful as per the following forum rule:

We aim to create a friendly environment for all members, where individuals respect each other. Please ensure your contributions comply with this.

thanks all

 

[Oxfordblues]

he was questioned as to his son travelling to College on a bicycle.

Extraordinary! Here in Oxford 90% of students travel to college on bicycles.

 

[zero]

I've been pointed to this Independent article dated last September which mentions Mandelson failing his vetting.

Concerns Mandelson failed M16 vetting for US ambassador – but was appointed anyway

The prime minister is facing serious questions after claims he ignored warnings from the security services to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador

www.independent.co.uk

I'm too tired right now to compare it word for word with the Guardian articles from yesterday and today, so can anyone else work out what information is new, and why this matter didn't cause as big of a fuss 7 months ago?

 

[contrex]

Extraordinary! Here in Oxford 90% of students travel to college in bicycles.

Same here in Bristol, and I think Bath is similar.

 

[The Ham]

I've been pointed to this Independent article dated last September which mentions Mandelson failing his vetting.

Concerns Mandelson failed M16 vetting for US ambassador – but was appointed anyway

The prime minister is facing serious questions after claims he ignored warnings from the security services to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador

www.independent.co.uk

I'm too tired right now to compare it word for word with the Guardian articles from yesterday and today, so can anyone else work out what information is new, and why this matter didn't cause as big of a fuss 7 months ago?

Having skimmed the article many of the points appear to be similar.

The bit of the linked article which I found interesting given what's come to light about it being the department apparently making the decision:

Labour foreign affairs select committee chair Dame Emily Thornberry revealed that MPs had been blocked from questioning Lord Mandelson.

She said: “Since the first rumours of his appointment, my committee has repeatedly asked – publicly and privately – to question Peter Mandelson. It is right that he has now been sacked.

“The FCDO should not have stopped us from asking questions. The government should welcome such scrutiny.”

 

[AlterEgo]

Part of the vetting process. Is to ascertain, if there is anything that could leave the person being vetted open to blackmail. When I was in the Civil Service, we employed a temp, whose father held a very senior scientific post. When his father was vetted, he was questioned as to his son travelling to College on a bicycle. Would lack of funds lead him to leak any information about his father's work that he had overheard.

Much more concerning is the idea that someone very senior with SC or DV clearance would simply chat about their disclosure. It is a strict no-no, and I would be surprised if this was true.

 

[JamieL]

I've been pointed to this Independent article dated last September which mentions Mandelson failing his vetting.

Concerns Mandelson failed M16 vetting for US ambassador – but was appointed anyway

The prime minister is facing serious questions after claims he ignored warnings from the security services to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador

www.independent.co.uk

I'm too tired right now to compare it word for word with the Guardian articles from yesterday and today, so can anyone else work out what information is new, and why this matter didn't cause as big of a fuss 7 months ago?

The author of that article was interviewed on the Radio 4 Today programme yesterday morning. The key takeaway was it makes Starmer's denial even more incredulous given the risk it would have posed of a media circus erupting. This was surely being monitored and defensive lines to take crafted.

More broadly, it is interesting that the Foreign Secretary isn't also front and centre here - surely she has some responsibility for the FCDO?

 

[whoosh]

I've been pointed to this Independent article dated last September which mentions Mandelson failing his vetting.

Concerns Mandelson failed M16 vetting for US ambassador – but was appointed anyway

The prime minister is facing serious questions after claims he ignored warnings from the security services to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador

www.independent.co.uk

I'm too tired right now to compare it word for word with the Guardian articles from yesterday and today, so can anyone else work out what information is new, and why this matter didn't cause as big of a fuss 7 months ago?

Indeed, front page of The Independant today is the headline, "We told Number 10 about Mandelson 7 months ago, Prime Minister".

 

[MP33]

There was an episode of Yes Minister. When a former Director General of MI5, who was suspected of being a Russian Agent. Died, and in his posthumous memoirs admitted it.

He had been cleared by an official enquiry. It was an open secret that the Chairman, a member of the House of Lords, was senile. Sir Humphrey who was the Secretary, did all the work. In the memoirs. The author wrote, another session with that idiot Sir Humphrey. He has so much wool between his ears, so it was easy to pull it over his eyes.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Starmer's denial as it stands does not make sense. The Independent article dates from 12th September 2025 and clearly alleges that Mandelson failed his vetting, so why did he not go and verify if the allegations were true? This then raises the question that if he did ask the question, what answer was received. Dame Emily Thornberry, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee noted the reply they received from the current Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper which stated “The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO.” Dame Emily said: “It says he was vetted, and it says he was appointed, but it doesn’t say it was overridden… I’m saying is that, you know, people have basically been telling us half the story.”

The date of the Independent article is also interesting, because David Lammy served as Foreign Secretary from 05 Jul 2024 to 05 Sep2025, with Yvette Cooper holding the post. This would suggest the current Foreign Secretary was not responsible for the initial decision or the leak to the Independent, but may have been complicit in the subsequent reply to Dame Emily. She told Sky News after it is was revealed that Olly Robbins had been requested to appear in front of her committee on 20 April. "Perhaps he can tell us… was it his own idea, or was he being leant on elsewhere?"

This has a long way to go yet.

 

[MP33]

I have had a poor opinion of David Lammy. Ever since, I heard of him sticking his nose into an incident in his Constituency, and obstructing the Metropolitan Police. Who were trying to resolve it.

 

[brad465]

Starmer's denial as it stands does not make sense. The Independent article dates from 12th September 2025 and clearly alleges that Mandelson failed his vetting, so why did he not go and verify if the allegations were true? This then raises the question that if he did ask the question, what answer was received. Dame Emily Thornberry, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee noted the reply they received from the current Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper which stated “The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO.” Dame Emily said: “It says he was vetted, and it says he was appointed, but it doesn’t say it was overridden… I’m saying is that, you know, people have basically been telling us half the story.”

The date of the Independent article is also interesting, because David Lammy served as Foreign Secretary from 05 Jul 2024 to 05 Sep2025, with Yvette Cooper holding the post. This would suggest the current Foreign Secretary was not responsible for the initial decision or the leak to the Independent, but may have been complicit in the subsequent reply to Dame Emily. She told Sky News after it is was revealed that Olly Robbins had been requested to appear in front of her committee on 20 April. "Perhaps he can tell us… was it his own idea, or was he being leant on elsewhere?"

This has a long way to go yet.

If this does bring down Starmer, there is a rather uncanny resemblance to Johnson's downfall: mired in scandal going into the new year, then a war starts in February that the PM appears to handle well and is bought more time for stability reasons, before ultimately being brought down a few months later by bad local election results and covering up association with a sex pest.

 

[JamieL]

If this does bring down Starmer, there is a rather uncanny resemblance to Johnson's downfall: mired in scandal going into the new year, then a war starts in February that the PM appears to handle well and is bought more time for stability reasons, before ultimately being brought down a few months later by bad local election results and covering up association with a sex pest.

History doesn't repeat but it does rhyme! It is an interesting phase of UK politics - wind back a few years and the majorities secured by Johnson and Starmer would have been enough to assume they would be in power for multiple Parliaments. But now the leaders seem to get themselves embroiled in all sorts of totally avoidable nonsense. Are things just more transparent now? Or is the political class just not the calibre it once was? Given the u-turns and shambolic Government seen in recent years, I can't help but think it is the latter!

 

[Brightonboy]

I think part of the issue is the number of 'advisors' that surround governments these days and have influence and power. With Cabinets that are so much bigger than those in the days of, say, Wilson, Heath, Thatcher etc, and the number of politically partisan advisors per cabinet member there is just so much more scope for factional 'infighting' and conflicting briefings (both public and internal) that any PM will struggle to stay in control of events unless they are an exceptionally strong leader. Sadly, I don't think the current political class (of any colour) has that strength of leadership to deflect and withstand the myriad of competing pressure groups that can find supporters within the ever-expanding government circle. The consequence is that leaders fail to stay on top of what's happening and constantly try to make themselves popular with too many factions and inevitably make mistakes and look incompetent.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

If this does bring down Starmer, there is a rather uncanny resemblance to Johnson's downfall: mired in scandal going into the new year, then a war starts in February that the PM appears to handle well and is bought more time for stability reasons, before ultimately being brought down a few months later by bad local election results and covering up association with a sex pest.

Thats a highly unlikely outcome unless Starmer chooses to walk of his own violation. Any attempt to force a vote of no confidence will be stopped in its tracks Labour MPs arent going to vote him out. No one wants the job this side of the local/regional elections so wont see anything happen until after then.

Personally I don't believe Stramer has lied this is more likely Morgan McSweeney wanting him and Starmer just leaving it to the process as we've heard previously about how he over relies upon his coterie to do right by him. What he needs to is vet the people who he puts around him.

 

[Uncle Buck]

History doesn't repeat but it does rhyme! It is an interesting phase of UK politics - wind back a few years and the majorities secured by Johnson and Starmer would have been enough to assume they would be in power for multiple Parliaments. But now the leaders seem to get themselves embroiled in all sorts of totally avoidable nonsense. Are things just more transparent now? Or is the political class just not the calibre it once was? Given the u-turns and shambolic Government seen in recent years, I can't help but think it is the latter!

I was going to write that “I can’t see former prime ministers being brought down by trivial issues like this” but then I remembered the Profumo scandal which terminally damaged MacMillan despite having very little to do with him!

I think that our political class are absolutely addicted to placating the media and this results in extreme short-termism. It’s why even prime ministers like Johnson and Starmer with huge majorities struggle to do anything- they see their job as placating news stories, and they see every action in terms of how it will play. This results in chaotic, rudderless government. I do sometimes feel like the government is run by every bad boss I have ever had.

I would also add that there is something rather poetic in the similarities of the two men’s predicaments as while the Tories were in power, Starmer was acting like the church elder, demanding resignations for every minor mishap, yet when he is caught doing something not dissimilar, he throws people under the bus. I think the sanctimony and hypocrisy explain why he seems to be uniquely unpopular.

 

[Purple Train]

I think that our political class are absolutely addicted to placating the media and this results in extreme short-termism. It’s why even prime ministers like Johnson and Starmer with huge majorities struggle to do anything- they see their job as placating news stories, and they see every action in terms of how it will play. This results in chaotic, rudderless government. I do sometimes feel like the government is run by every bad boss I have ever had.

Absolutely.

 

[Meole]

Mandelson's replacement as ambassador has been very successful in keeping the UK at the top of the agenda in POTUS briefings.

 

[MP33]

When he was given the job. I thought, what experience has he got. It was a repeat of James Callaghan, giving the job to his son-in-law, Peter Jay.

 

[Meole]

When he was given the job. I thought, what experience has he got. It was a repeat of James Callaghan, giving the job to his son-in-law, Peter Jay.

Experience of POTUS inner circle ? This is not a normal administration. the usual representations, presentations and briefings are absent, decision making is taken in a much different way.