Best Of

Starmer’s new position is that he “knew about the emails from Mandelson to Epstein after Epstein’s conviction” but HE DIDN’T KNOW WHAT WAS IN THEM

So he didn’t think to ask?

Next it will be “yes I read the emails where Mandelson praises Epstein as the worlds greatest pedo but AS I READ THEM SOMEONE COVERED MY SCREEN WITH VASELINE SO THE ACTUAL WORDS WERE BLURRED”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/15/did-morgan-mcsweeney-hide-mandelson-evidence-from-starmer/

It’s a very lame defence. I knew this person was chummy with Epstein, he proved to be even more chummy with Epstein which was absolutely beyond the pale (not beforehand though, no) and I knew there were some emails doing the rounds but I hadn’t read them so I wasn’t quite sure how chummy they were so I didn’t bother finding that out until after I had to publicly defend him.

It’s a classic politician’s excuse, in the real world there’s not much of a fag paper between it all.

The reason he appointed Mandelson isn't sayable by him - he judged the need to suck up to Donald Trump to be more important than maintaining normal standards of propriety. State visit, the same. Lammy Vance, the same. Rutte "daddy", the same. Euro leaders dash to Washington after Alaska, the same. Pakistan and the nobel peace prize, the same. There's hundreds of examples from around the world. It's a big global theme right now. All a bit pathetic, if you ask me, and counterproductive, but they're all at it so I suppose I must be wrong and it's very worthwhile.

UK has done better than other countries at avoiding Trump's ire. Some big nuclear deals coming soon also.

Not necessarily to our benefit.

One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’.
If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties.
Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.

I suspect there were any number of people who thought they were besties with Epstein. I doubt it was reciprocated.

Look at the various scandals Mandelson has been involved him, such as being on the yacht when Osborne was tapping up foreigners, or the three that brought him down, the loan from Geoffrey Robinson, the Hindujas, and Epstein, even his involvement with billionaire Donald Trump. What's the common factor? What's in it for Mandelson? Not sex, possibly power, definitely money.

One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’.
If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties.
Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.

Everything seems to paint an odd picture of Mandelson. It'd be nice to know what Mandelson actually honestly wanted from this life...

Position and wealth

Certainly not reputation.

Some senior politicians - e.g. Major, Balls, or Portillo, are hated during their time in politics, but become more popular afterwards. In the case of the latter two, through TV. Mandelson was admired for his skills, but also disliked, and when he left power seems to have done little to improve his standing.

The dynamics of this are curious. Blair, for instance, seems to have shed popularity despite retiring undefeated. Hague, his oppo number during his first term, has ended up being elected Chancellor of Oxford (handily beating Mandy in the process), and is seen as an all round good egg.
What's at play here?

I don't see Hague as a particularly good egg, nor do I think being appointed the Chancellor of Oxford is necessarily a good indication of the common touch. Blair is less popular because he's gorged himself on more money from unsavoury people.

Blair had become deeply unpopular long before he took money from dodgy people.

All football fans will be cheering for Burnley in this fight.

Burnley sue Everton for £50m in relegation legal battle

Lawyers on both sides have spent a year preparing their arguments

Burnley’s £50m-plus compensation case against Everton is due to start this week, with potentially huge ramifications for the Premier League.

The Clarets claim they are owed compensation after Everton were found in breach of the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).

Everton were handed a 10-point deduction in November 2023, later reduced to six on appeal.

Had the points deduction been applied the previous season, Burnley would have avoided relegation with Everton dropping into the bottom three instead.

The case will commence in the middle of this week at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in St Paul’s, London.

It is understood that Burnley, who were relegated in 2022, will argue they are entitled to compensation because Everton gained sporting advantage by breaching those rules.

The i Paper understands Burnley’s claim, which centres on revenue lost by dropping into the Championship, is in excess of £50m.

Lawyers on both sides have spent around a year preparing their case, which will be heard in private.

There is no timescale for when a verdict will be delivered and the public may never learn of the outcome.

Burnley’s general counsel, Amy Wells, was Everton’s head of legal from July 2017 to December 2022. She joined Burnley in April 2024.

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/burnley-sue-everton-relegation-legal-battle-3919512

Nadine Dorries was a very good signing for Reform, Danny Kruger is an excellent one.

Not a Reform supporter in any way, but this is an interesting jump by an MP with knowledge of governing and the complexities it brings. As the Shadow Minister for the DWP he seems to have a mission to reform the benefits system in ways that the Labour government can't seem to achieve. Reform have been promising change but don't seem (up till now) have the depth of knowledge of the mechanics to be able to do it. DK is one to watch.

Meanwhile this article highlights that we have not been spending all of the benefits money that the country could. Some £24bn has been going begging. A quote from the article to highlight the gap between what is being done and what could have happened. An efficient DWP would have cost a lot more in terms of monies paid out.

“The scale of unclaimed support in Britain is still staggering,” Deven Ghelani director and founder of Policy in Practice said.

“Over £24 billion is left on the table at a time when many are struggling to stay afloat. But this isn’t a failure of the public. It’s a failure of a social security system that is still too complex, too fragmented and too passive.

“The good news is that we now have the tools to fix this."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/unclaimed-benefits-support-report-awareness-b2825873.html