What are the odds on Starmer going this year? Anything kinder than evens is a BUY
It's odds on. 1.85. In from 1.95 due to this. Not much of a change really.
1.85 looks decent enough odds to me. It depends a bit on what Starmer's defence is. If he can say his vetting agencies didn't bring the risk to his attention, he may hang on for a bit, but even them he's in deep doo doo because he really ought to have known what a risk he was taking even without being told explicitly. It's not as if Mandy didn't have form.
If Starmer was properly informed and cautioned he will be out in no time at all. I doubt he can lie about it. His top security advisers will not allow themselves to be thrown under a bus to save his career.
I expect he's covered in the sense that he was unaware of the subsequent revelations, but yes he's in trouble (and was before this) and I wouldn't now argue with him being a shade of odds-on to exit this year.
Much of the ordure that has been dumped on him so far has been contrived or trivial but this is for real. For a man struggling in the polls it's about the last thing he wanted.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has removed thousands of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein from its website after victims said their identities had been compromised.
Lawyers for Epstein's victims said a lack of redactions in the files released on Friday had "turned upside down" the lives of nearly 100 survivors.
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
There seems to be something about being in your underpants that excites Labour Lords.
Sir Chris Bryant set the tone.
What impresses me is that the pants look so smart and clean. If caught in a similar pose I am sure mine would have been baggy, old fashioned and with a hole in the arse.
And you have to wonder how the picture came to be taken, and how Mandy and this gorgeous, lightly dressed young woman came to be photographed in such an intriguing pose.
Who is behind the camera?
It seems Maxwell is in a very limited number of photos, so I always presumed she is the one who is making sure to gain the kompermat.
Kind of makes sense, but would you really feel comfortable being snapped in your undies by Ghislaine Maxwell, however friendly and informal you may be with her?
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
There seems to be something about being in your underpants that excites Labour Lords.
Sir Chris Bryant set the tone.
What impresses me is that the pants look so smart and clean. If caught in a similar pose I am sure mine would have been baggy, old fashioned and with a hole in the arse.
And you have to wonder how the picture came to be taken, and how Mandy and this gorgeous, lightly dressed young woman came to be photographed in such an intriguing pose.
Who is behind the camera?
It seems Maxwell is in a very limited number of photos, so I always presumed she is the one who is making sure to gain the kompermat.
Kind of makes sense, but would you really feel comfortable being snapped in your undies by Ghislaine Maxwell, however friendly and informal you may be with her?
But a lot of them, I don't think they were necessarily aware. They aren't like the really infamous Andy one where yes it was say cheeeeseeee. A lot of these are could easily just been quickly snapped. A lot of this was when camera phones were coming the norm where they could take ok pictures, people were a lot more naive about what was happening then. Also, at least when I was uni, a lot of people carried around disposable cameras were more than once people got snapped without their knowledge snogging somebody they shouldn't have been. .
What are the odds on Starmer going this year? Anything kinder than evens is a BUY
It's odds on. 1.85. In from 1.95 due to this. Not much of a change really.
1.85 looks decent enough odds to me. It depends a bit on what Starmer's defence is. If he can say his vetting agencies didn't bring the risk to his attention, he may hang on for a bit, but even them he's in deep doo doo because he really ought to have known what a risk he was taking even without being told explicitly. It's not as if Mandy didn't have form.
If Starmer was properly informed and cautioned he will be out in no time at all. I doubt he can lie about it. His top security advisers will not allow themselves to be thrown under a bus to save his career.
I expect he's covered in the sense that he was unaware of the subsequent revelations, but yes he's in trouble (and was before this) and I wouldn't now argue with him being a shade of odds-on to exit this year.
Much of the ordure that has been dumped on him so far has been contrived or trivial but this is for real. For a man struggling in the polls it's about the last thing he wanted.
Feels terminal to me.
Perhaps, but there is the same question as always. If Starmer goes now, who replaces him? Once that question has a convincing answer, SKS's time is up. Until then...
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
There seems to be something about being in your underpants that excites Labour Lords.
Sir Chris Bryant set the tone.
What impresses me is that the pants look so smart and clean. If caught in a similar pose I am sure mine would have been baggy, old fashioned and with a hole in the arse.
And you have to wonder how the picture came to be taken, and how Mandy and this gorgeous, lightly dressed young woman came to be photographed in such an intriguing pose.
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
There seems to be something about being in your underpants that excites Labour Lords.
Sir Chris Bryant set the tone.
What impresses me is that the pants look so smart and clean. If caught in a similar pose I am sure mine would have been baggy, old fashioned and with a hole in the arse.
And you have to wonder how the picture came to be taken, and how Mandy and this gorgeous, lightly dressed young woman came to be photographed in such an intriguing pose.
Who is behind the camera?
Is there anyone behind the camera?
Honeytrap?
It also worth remembering, Epstein did definitely have cameras setup to spy on people. There are photographs of big piles of video tapes that they found on a raid but since went missing.
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
There seems to be something about being in your underpants that excites Labour Lords.
Sir Chris Bryant set the tone.
What impresses me is that the pants look so smart and clean. If caught in a similar pose I am sure mine would have been baggy, old fashioned and with a hole in the arse.
And you have to wonder how the picture came to be taken, and how Mandy and this gorgeous, lightly dressed young woman came to be photographed in such an intriguing pose.
Who is behind the camera?
Is there anyone behind the camera?
Honeytrap?
Well, it does rather look like that. Though you'd expect a hidden camera to be wide angle, unless what we are seeing is cropped.
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
There seems to be something about being in your underpants that excites Labour Lords.
Sir Chris Bryant set the tone.
What impresses me is that the pants look so smart and clean. If caught in a similar pose I am sure mine would have been baggy, old fashioned and with a hole in the arse.
And you have to wonder how the picture came to be taken, and how Mandy and this gorgeous, lightly dressed young woman came to be photographed in such an intriguing pose.
Who is behind the camera?
Is there anyone behind the camera?
Honeytrap?
Well, it does rather look like that. Though you'd expect a hidden camera to be wide angle, unless what we are seeing is cropped.
It does look rather like somebody has taken care to create the desired effect.
It's actually quite a nice photo if you ignore the context.
If anyone wants a political news feed that doesn’t mention Mandelson at all today, may I recommend Southam Observer’s BlueSky account
Gosh - Southam Observer! Haven't heard from him for years - what;s his particular angle these days?
His angle is “being completely ignored by everyone, because he’s on Bluesky, which is a desolate bleakscape for a few stupid midwit lefties, who flounced off X and then realised no one was going to follow them, because they are boring wankers. But some of them are too proud to shamefully return, even tho they left behind 20,000 followers on X and now have 48 annoying followers on Bluesky”
People who have Bluesky accounts (albeit sparsely) include the following:
PBers will recall my repeated reminder that there is a political betting starter-pack on BlueSky. It is in MattWardman's account and you can find it here: go here https://bsky.app/profile/mattwardman.bsky.social and click on the "Starter Pack" tabs. I read it often and it contains many PB alumni such as the following:
How many times have we heard labour demand the heads of organisations where scandals have been uncovered
Starmer is head of a government that is emboiled in the most despicable and inexcusable acts of malfeasance and to compound it he made Mandelson, whose reputation was well known before, his US Ambassador
How many times have we heard labour demand the heads of organisations where scandals have been uncovered
Starmer is head of a government that is emboiled in the most despicable and inexcusable acts of malfeasance and to compound it he made Mandelson, whose reputation was well known before, his US Ambassador
I have no idea how he survives this
Its ok. At least one PB poster thinks Partygate was worse. Much as I like @bondegezou I cannot agree on this one.
It puzzles me how little speculation there has been about what is actually going on in that photo.
The posture and the demeanour of the couple suggests nothing more thrilling than a discussion over wallpaper patterns, but she is super attractive and both are scantily dressed. Since he's not a ladies man you have to ask what the hell is going on?
Has anybody asked him?
And who is this lady? Despite the redaction, it must be obvious to a lot of people who she is. Where's our correspondent from The Flintknappers Gazette when you need him?
There seems to be something about being in your underpants that excites Labour Lords.
Sir Chris Bryant set the tone.
What impresses me is that the pants look so smart and clean. If caught in a similar pose I am sure mine would have been baggy, old fashioned and with a hole in the arse.
And you have to wonder how the picture came to be taken, and how Mandy and this gorgeous, lightly dressed young woman came to be photographed in such an intriguing pose.
Who is behind the camera?
It seems Maxwell is in a very limited number of photos, so I always presumed she is the one who is making sure to gain the kompermat.
What are the odds on Starmer going this year? Anything kinder than evens is a BUY
It's odds on. 1.85. In from 1.95 due to this. Not much of a change really.
1.85 looks decent enough odds to me. It depends a bit on what Starmer's defence is. If he can say his vetting agencies didn't bring the risk to his attention, he may hang on for a bit, but even them he's in deep doo doo because he really ought to have known what a risk he was taking even without being told explicitly. It's not as if Mandy didn't have form.
If Starmer was properly informed and cautioned he will be out in no time at all. I doubt he can lie about it. His top security advisers will not allow themselves to be thrown under a bus to save his career.
I expect he's covered in the sense that he was unaware of the subsequent revelations, but yes he's in trouble (and was before this) and I wouldn't now argue with him being a shade of odds-on to exit this year.
Much of the ordure that has been dumped on him so far has been contrived or trivial but this is for real. For a man struggling in the polls it's about the last thing he wanted.
Feels terminal to me.
Perhaps, but there is the same question as always. If Starmer goes now, who replaces him? Once that question has a convincing answer, SKS's time is up. Until then...
Starmer survives at least until the summer.
No one will want job before locals.
If McSweeney goes this week Starmer safe until after Locals.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
What are the odds on Starmer going this year? Anything kinder than evens is a BUY
It's odds on. 1.85. In from 1.95 due to this. Not much of a change really.
1.85 looks decent enough odds to me. It depends a bit on what Starmer's defence is. If he can say his vetting agencies didn't bring the risk to his attention, he may hang on for a bit, but even them he's in deep doo doo because he really ought to have known what a risk he was taking even without being told explicitly. It's not as if Mandy didn't have form.
If Starmer was properly informed and cautioned he will be out in no time at all. I doubt he can lie about it. His top security advisers will not allow themselves to be thrown under a bus to save his career.
I expect he's covered in the sense that he was unaware of the subsequent revelations, but yes he's in trouble (and was before this) and I wouldn't now argue with him being a shade of odds-on to exit this year.
Ed M clearly avoided it having been in govt with Mandelson, perhaps Starmer was disadvantaged by only becoming an MP in 2015 and not having seen Mandelson in action close up.
Peter Mandelson is utterly disgraced, could end up in prison and breathtaking revelations are damaging Labour and a PM who made him our man in Washington. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and ex-wife Sarah Ferguson could bring down the monarchy.
Now remind me again Kev about McBride and attending those meetings planning to set up a fake news website to smear Osborne and alike. The brass neck of these people.
I don’t think it will bring down the monarchy but I do think the monarchy more now than at any time relies very heavily on the next generation of William, Kate and their family and for their accession to be seen as a significant renewal and page turn.
If they’re not already thinking about Crown revenues, how the Duchies operate, who is/isn’t a working royal, how the titles get dished out and who is on the payroll, they need to be.
Charles has been doing that for over three years.
The Queen's idea was you had lots of royals, most of them fairly part-time, making them highly visible and in all parts of national life, and spread the money thinly to make it work.
Charles' idea is to have just a few senior working royals, and use the money to raise their profile and really show an impact. That's one reason he had a big falling out with Harry (and quite possibly another reason why he fell out with Andy, although it doesn't seem they ever got on well). He's pruned the family to essentially himself, Camilla, William and Katherine, Anne and Edward (who seems to have a special role with the DofE award).
His approach is logical and has given a convenient pretext to chop out some very dead wood, but comes with drawbacks. When he and Catherine both had cancer an awful lot of the burden of keeping things going fell on Camilla and Anne, neither of whom are spring chickens. And when in the next few years they either snuff it or retire a huge amount will fall on William and his family.
They are extremely lucky to have Catherine
William chose well. Catherine is like the late Queen. Impeccably polite and well behaved, with some instinctive sense of decorum while managing to be personable
If William had married a Sarah Ferguson type, or a Meghan, then the monarchy would have been in very serious trouble
My niece was at St Andrews at the same time. Her view was that it was Catherine who chose William.
In which case the Royal Family are even more lucky to have her. She clearly knows what the job is, and does it well.
If the less savoury rumours about William are right then he hasn't exactly been suitably grateful for what she has done for him.
Oh FFS not this again. The rumour about William and Rose Hanbury was started by Giles Coren (as he has admitted and apologised for) as a joke at the opening of Soho House Amsterdam whilst partying with Meghan Markle and others.
And definitely no need to get Harry back, he, like Andrew, is a brainless entitled prick who slagged of his family and the country for his own benefit because he was too stupid to realise that the only reason anyone gave the tiniest shit about what he says or does is by virtue of him being born to the King and not because he has anything useful, inciteful or original to say.
I hadn't heard that Giles Coren had fessed up to starting that rumour going, which will outlive him, and everyone [not] involved.
Thanks for correcting me, but I fear most people who have heard the rumours won't have heard the confession, so expect it to keep coming up indefinitely.
Comments
Feels terminal to me.
I get chastised for not usung full stops at the end of sentences
Lawyers for Epstein's victims said a lack of redactions in the files released on Friday had "turned upside down" the lives of nearly 100 survivors.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0k65pnxjxo
I am not sure I would have gone with the photo the BBC have used at the top of the article.
https://x.com/i/status/2018713691340804391
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 11/EFTA02573903.pdf
https://x.com/StevePowers_/status/1966095026062012853?s=20
It's actually quite a nice photo if you ignore the context.
- OGH: https://bsky.app/profile/mikesmithson.bsky.social
- TSE: https://bsky.app/profile/tseofpb.bsky.social
- RCS1000: https://bsky.app/profile/rcs1000.bsky.social
PBers will recall my repeated reminder that there is a political betting starter-pack on BlueSky. It is in MattWardman's account and you can find it here: go here https://bsky.app/profile/mattwardman.bsky.social and click on the "Starter Pack" tabs. I read it often and it contains many PB alumni such as the following:- https://bsky.app/profile/davidherdson.bsky.social
- https://bsky.app/profile/jwsidders.bsky.social
- https://bsky.app/profile/quincel.bsky.social
- https://bsky.app/profile/alastairmeeks.bsky.social
Have fun.NEW THREAD
Starmer is head of a government that is emboiled in the most despicable and inexcusable acts of malfeasance and to compound it he made Mandelson, whose reputation was well known before, his US Ambassador
I have no idea how he survives this
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-mandelson-quits-labour-over-epstein-links-as-starmer-calls-for-him-to-lose-peerage-12593360?postid=10979353#liveblog-body
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/clynp40ekrdt?post=asset:2b328861-ad49-47d7-9fa8-1120ddf32a45#post
No one will want job before locals.
If McSweeney goes this week Starmer safe until after Locals.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper
Mahmood
Healy
McFadden
Both Alexanders
Nandy
Phillipson
Ed M
Emma Reynolds
Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left.
Tories edge centre.
It’s the hope that kills you.
Thanks for correcting me, but I fear most people who have heard the rumours won't have heard the confession, so expect it to keep coming up indefinitely.