The civil servant who gave evidence to a committee about the Mandelson appointment looked to me to be a model of a professional office that withers before our eyes even in England now.  We certainly have nothing like it here.  I watched and listened to Sir Olly Robbins for two and a half hours and I thought he was flawless.  By contrast, the woman in the Chair, who is of the same party as the P M, looked to have been committed from the very start to shafting him. 

I thought Sir Olly was entirely professional and objective, and fiercely loyal to those around and beneath him.  He is precisely the kind of person I would like to see in that position.  God knows we could use a touch of it all here.

There is no doubt that serious mistakes were made in the relevant process, and that these were driven by elected politicians.  I could see nothing to criticize in the conduct of this civil servant, but a lot to criticize in his elected superiors. 

Starmer made obvious mistakes.  I doubt whether they are sufficiently clear to warrant his removal by the House.  What his party does is a matter for it.  But I see nothing in the conduct of Sir Olly to warrant his dismissal – and I will be surprised and disappointed if the English courts do not so hold.

Yet the PM dismissed him – and the inference is clear that he did so to protect himself.  I regard this as his most serious misconduct, and my apprehension about the Chair was justified when she later said, after hearing from Sir Olly, that she agreed with her leader. 

This is precisely the cause of the failure of the Westminster System.  It says Ministers are answerable to parliament.  Instead, they blame the civil service – for which they are said to be responsible – and stroll away whistling.  The process is called throwing the target under a bus. It is on that ground that I believe Starmer should be relieved of his office by his party