The Inteligence and Security Committee is considering producing a report about whether it was appropriate for Keir Starmer to make Mandelson his US ambassador.
This goes far beyond the looking over of documents linked to the appointment and approving their release - what today’s motion is ostensibly about.
Why? Because any criticism issued by the ISC about the decision would amount to a rebuke of the Prime Minister - given his judgement call in sending Mandelson to Washington is under intense scrutiny.
The ISC also has legal powers to force the Government to hand over more relevant information (enshrined in the 2013 Justice and Security Act), going to the courts if needed to do so.
It shows how MPs today commissioning the ISC to oversee the release of Mandelson documents (against Downing Street’s will) is fraught with political risk for the PM.
I am absolutely open to being proved wrong but I think that this is being substantially overplayed. I don't see this being fatal for Starmer. He showed poor judgment again. Well, there's a shocker. But I am not seeing anyone in Labour that is any better placed. I am comfortable with my answer in the competition that Starmer will be PM at the end of the year.
We're very much at the "huffing and puffing" stage where people somehow think if they shout loud enough and long enough and repeat all the "Starmer is crap" sentiments ad infinitum somehow he will go.
The truth is Starmer goes under two circumstances - either through being sick and tired of the whole PM job or by recognising the damage the story is doing to Labour as it becomes about HIS appointment of Mandelson rather than Mandelson's own behaviour from which he can distance himself quite easily.
The problem is the admission he (Starmer) was told there were security issues but went ahead with the appointment of Mandelson to be the British Ambassador to the USA and that has been shown to be a significant error of judgement. That in itself wouldn't be a problem IF Labour MPs were four square behind him but if he has lost the confidence of the Parliamentary Party, that could be serious.
What finished Johnson was senior Ministers leading an exodus from the Government starting, if memory serves, with Rishi Sunak and Sajid Javid (whatever happened to them?). This left the country ungoverned effectively and IF we see Ministers starting to walk away from Starmer's Cabinet, the same will happen to him.
MInisterial resignations from Starmer's Cabinet will mean real trouble - if everyone stays, he's probably safe for now - a disastrous set of May elections may change that of course.
The fall of Johnson was quite unusual, and followed from May's refusal to go when it was obvious she'd lost her authority. Previously Prime Ministers whose time was up would listen to Cabinet colleagues who told them it was time to go. It didn't require a mass exodus from Cabinet to prove the point.
I don't think much of Starmer, but I think he will prefer to leave in a dignified manner, rather than after losing half his ministers to resignation. So if the Cabinet decide that he's past the point of no return we might well see a Starmer departure sooner than you think.
I am absolutely open to being proved wrong but I think that this is being substantially overplayed. I don't see this being fatal for Starmer. He showed poor judgment again. Well, there's a shocker. But I am not seeing anyone in Labour that is any better placed. I am comfortable with my answer in the competition that Starmer will be PM at the end of the year.
We're very much at the "huffing and puffing" stage where people somehow think if they shout loud enough and long enough and repeat all the "Starmer is crap" sentiments ad infinitum somehow he will go.
The truth is Starmer goes under two circumstances - either through being sick and tired of the whole PM job or by recognising the damage the story is doing to Labour as it becomes about HIS appointment of Mandelson rather than Mandelson's own behaviour from which he can distance himself quite easily.
The problem is the admission he (Starmer) was told there were security issues but went ahead with the appointment of Mandelson to be the British Ambassador to the USA and that has been shown to be a significant error of judgement. That in itself wouldn't be a problem IF Labour MPs were four square behind him but if he has lost the confidence of the Parliamentary Party, that could be serious.
What finished Johnson was senior Ministers leading an exodus from the Government starting, if memory serves, with Rishi Sunak and Sajid Javid (whatever happened to them?). This left the country ungoverned effectively and IF we see Ministers starting to walk away from Starmer's Cabinet, the same will happen to him.
MInisterial resignations from Starmer's Cabinet will mean real trouble - if everyone stays, he's probably safe for now - a disastrous set of May elections may change that of course.
The fall of Johnson was quite unusual, and followed from May's refusal to go when it was obvious she'd lost her authority. Previously Prime Ministers whose time was up would listen to Cabinet colleagues who told them it was time to go. It didn't require a mass exodus from Cabinet to prove the point.
I don't think much of Starmer, but I think he will prefer to leave in a dignified manner, rather than after losing half his ministers to resignation. So if the Cabinet decide that he's past the point of no return we might well see a Starmer departure sooner than you think.
As i said earlier, he just needs a tearful John Selwyn Gummer to tell him its over
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
A lot of Prime Ministers didn't go to University: John Major and Jim Callaghan, for example.
Two of the PMs with the most integrity imo.
The adulterer John Major?
Okay.
These days the bar for integrity is much lower: it's not 'cheated on wife', it's 'had sex with trafficked underage girls'.
Quite. When it comes to integrity whilst the moral shittiness of being an adulterer might fairly indicate a lack of professional integrity, it isn't a given, and I'd be wary of dismissing as best choice for PM someone who had personal failings but was excellent, versus an upstanding and married but talentless leader.
Of course, that's the kind of reasoning that got us Boris, so neither approach is foolproof.
Beth Rigby - some government members and MPs messaging telling her they "feel compromised."
Always ignore off the record comments. Remember the years of anonymous MP moaning against Corbyn? Granted it showed the level of dissatisfaction never went away even after the challenge against him, and that presented challenges for him, but it just got boring when so few would be open about it yet still bleat and seek sympathy for their position anonymously.
Whilst I agree Starmer is in trouble, I am not sure the Pincher analogy holds water.
With Pincher, it wasn't simply a failure of vetting but a situation where Johnson lied about what he knew and had colleagues unwittingly sent onto the media to propogate that lie. This was also the latest in a series of incidents where Johnson had been utterly unreliable.
That may yet turn out to be the case for Starmer, but I don't think we are there - it was a foolish appointment given Mandelson's track record, but I don't think the anger towards Mandelson for having misled Starmer is synthetic.
For that reason, whilst there is definitely a competence issue there and it's increasingly hard to see a very long term future for Starmer, I don't really see it playing out as it did in the final days of Johnson.
I also find the Rayner surge a little odd. She has a lot going for her, but she isn't exactly Ms Clean, the candidate of unimpeachable personal integrity.
She's the furthest they've got from the old boy's club attitudes that led to where we are.
I don’t think Angela Rayner is a traitor. I DO believe that about Starmer and those around him - Hermer, Sands, Powell. They loathe Britain and seek to harm Britons
It’s that basic
Rayner might well be an economic disaster but fuck it, how does that change anything. I don’t think Rayner will deliberately enact policies that are solely designed to harm the country she governs because she despises it
It’s a pretty low bar but I reckon she’ll clear it
Oh God, not this from you again: "she couldn't we worse".
She absolutely could be fucking worse.
I'm terrified of Rayner becoming PM.
Eh, it'll probably be fine.
Then again, I said that about Truss, so I don't know shit.
People say it every time they hate someone and want a change. We heard it with Boris, Truss, Sunak and now Starmer.
Do we ever learn?
No, because we're too blinded by hatred for the incumbent.
I am absolutely open to being proved wrong but I think that this is being substantially overplayed. I don't see this being fatal for Starmer. He showed poor judgment again. Well, there's a shocker. But I am not seeing anyone in Labour that is any better placed. I am comfortable with my answer in the competition that Starmer will be PM at the end of the year.
The difference is in the reaction of Labour MPs. They are done with having to defend the continued poor decisions of Starmer. They've run out of patience.
If so, would you like to put a time frame on it, so we can measure if you are right?
Oh, I've no idea on a timeframe. That depends on how long it takes for Starmer or the Cabinet to get the message.
Whilst I agree Starmer is in trouble, I am not sure the Pincher analogy holds water.
With Pincher, it wasn't simply a failure of vetting but a situation where Johnson lied about what he knew and had colleagues unwittingly sent onto the media to propogate that lie. This was also the latest in a series of incidents where Johnson had been utterly unreliable.
That may yet turn out to be the case for Starmer, but I don't think we are there - it was a foolish appointment given Mandelson's track record, but I don't think the anger towards Mandelson for having misled Starmer is synthetic.
For that reason, whilst there is definitely a competence issue there and it's increasingly hard to see a very long term future for Starmer, I don't really see it playing out as it did in the final days of Johnson.
I also find the Rayner surge a little odd. She has a lot going for her, but she isn't exactly Ms Clean, the candidate of unimpeachable personal integrity.
She's the furthest they've got from the old boy's club attitudes that led to where we are.
I don’t think Angela Rayner is a traitor. I DO believe that about Starmer and those around him - Hermer, Sands, Powell. They loathe Britain and seek to harm Britons
It’s that basic
Rayner might well be an economic disaster but fuck it, how does that change anything. I don’t think Rayner will deliberately enact policies that are solely designed to harm the country she governs because she despises it
It’s a pretty low bar but I reckon she’ll clear it
Oh God, not this from you again: "she couldn't we worse".
She absolutely could be fucking worse.
I'm terrified of Rayner becoming PM.
Eh, it'll probably be fine.
Then again, I said that about Truss, so I don't know shit.
People say it every time they hate someone and want a change. We heard it with Boris, Truss, Sunak and now Starmer.
Do we ever learn?
No, because we're too blinded by hatred for the incumbent.
Michael Burry, the guy who bet against housing in 2008, says the fall of bitcoin could lead to cascading loss
Microstrategy is Michael Saylor.
They have over 72,000 Shitcoin. Oops.
The issue MicroStrategy has is that they borrowed money to buy Bitcoin.
Which was great when Bitcoin was going up, but is an absolute disaster on the downside.
It looks like their debt is a little more than $8bn, and they hold ~700,000 bitcoin, so as long as the bitcoin price doesn't threaten to fall below ~$12,000 they should be okay to ride it out.
Julie Le, a federal attorney detailed to Minnesota to help handle the Trump admin immigration crackdown has been removed from her post after telling a judge that the job “sucks” because of the crushing workload and the govt's apparent inability to comply with court orders, CNN reports
Starmer exit in 2026 now shortened to 1.54:1, which is the shortest I've seen it. That's easy money if you're convinced he's going this year. (I'm not. I think those odds are about right.)
I think they're too short personally and have added to my currently massively offside lay, and will take more if 1.35 trades (looking v possible). Still, squeaky bum.
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
Didn’t we hear news yesterday that it had severe cut through on focus groups?
The Epstein angle, which brought down Andrew, surely makes it quite high profile.
At a politically focussed focus group, sure.
But when Boris's various scandals were going on, it was a topic of conversation amongst normies in the office. Pub bores would make jokes about it. I'm just not feeling the same sense of the country at large carying atm.
Maybe I'm just talking my position, idk
It's being joked about by the not-very-politically-engaged where I work. I'd say people are even crosser about the arrogance and entitlement on display here than they were about Boris.
It’s the money that cuts through most. How can you get a free 75K gift and not remember anything about it? That’s what can cut through into actual votes. Provided we can connect Mandelson to the Labour government, not let them say he was rogue and it’s not their fault.
Remember the old rule, Tory scandals are about sex, Labour scandals are about money.
I am absolutely open to being proved wrong but I think that this is being substantially overplayed. I don't see this being fatal for Starmer. He showed poor judgment again. Well, there's a shocker. But I am not seeing anyone in Labour that is any better placed. I am comfortable with my answer in the competition that Starmer will be PM at the end of the year.
The difference is in the reaction of Labour MPs. They are done with having to defend the continued poor decisions of Starmer. They've run out of patience.
If so, would you like to put a time frame on it, so we can measure if you are right?
Oh, I've no idea on a timeframe. That depends on how long it takes for Starmer or the Cabinet to get the message.
Never then. That’s not the group who need to wake up and smell the coffee. They are the group grinding all this tone deafness out. 🙂
Whilst I agree Starmer is in trouble, I am not sure the Pincher analogy holds water.
With Pincher, it wasn't simply a failure of vetting but a situation where Johnson lied about what he knew and had colleagues unwittingly sent onto the media to propogate that lie. This was also the latest in a series of incidents where Johnson had been utterly unreliable.
That may yet turn out to be the case for Starmer, but I don't think we are there - it was a foolish appointment given Mandelson's track record, but I don't think the anger towards Mandelson for having misled Starmer is synthetic.
For that reason, whilst there is definitely a competence issue there and it's increasingly hard to see a very long term future for Starmer, I don't really see it playing out as it did in the final days of Johnson.
I also find the Rayner surge a little odd. She has a lot going for her, but she isn't exactly Ms Clean, the candidate of unimpeachable personal integrity.
She's the furthest they've got from the old boy's club attitudes that led to where we are.
I don’t think Angela Rayner is a traitor. I DO believe that about Starmer and those around him - Hermer, Sands, Powell. They loathe Britain and seek to harm Britons
It’s that basic
Rayner might well be an economic disaster but fuck it, how does that change anything. I don’t think Rayner will deliberately enact policies that are solely designed to harm the country she governs because she despises it
It’s a pretty low bar but I reckon she’ll clear it
Oh God, not this from you again: "she couldn't we worse".
She absolutely could be fucking worse.
I'm terrified of Rayner becoming PM.
Eh, it'll probably be fine.
Then again, I said that about Truss, so I don't know shit.
People say it every time they hate someone and want a change. We heard it with Boris, Truss, Sunak and now Starmer.
Do we ever learn?
No, because we're too blinded by hatred for the incumbent.
Things could certainly get worse, but that shouldn't lead us to tolerate a status quo that is inadequate. Starmer is not good enough. He has to go.
It's then up to Labour to see if they can find anyone better, and if they can't it then becomes the job of the electorate to choose MPs who can.
Beth Rigby - some government members and MPs messaging telling her they "feel compromised."
Always ignore off the record comments. Remember the years of anonymous MP moaning against Corbyn? Granted it showed the level of dissatisfaction never went away even after the challenge against him, and that presented challenges for him, but it just got boring when so few would be open about it yet still bleat and seek sympathy for their position anonymously.
Yes, if there’s one thing the Labour Party is good at, it’s completely flubbing coups.
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
She's got street smarts. That'll do for Labour
I think that's half right. It's not intelligence that is needed as a PM, or technical knowledge from education and experience, it's judgement.
I'm not certain that Rayner's judgement is great, and her short record as a minister is also not inspiring, but lack of education is certainly not her problem.
But would she be able to string together a government ? What if it falls in the House of Commons. If the King were savvy, which he isn't of course he would ask Kemi to form a government. I really can see a General Election now, probably June. The idea that out Ange could hold a goverment together for over a month is quite frankly absurd.
If the King is savvy he definitely won't ask Kemi to form a government. With only 116 MPs, she would be unable to do so. If you are suggesting the King should force a general election, that would cause a constitutional crisis.
After Trump was completely vindicated ( his analysis) on Saturday when the Epstein files dropped, Trump explains how he intends to Federalise the midterms. Trump and not the states to manage the count.
Whilst I agree Starmer is in trouble, I am not sure the Pincher analogy holds water.
With Pincher, it wasn't simply a failure of vetting but a situation where Johnson lied about what he knew and had colleagues unwittingly sent onto the media to propogate that lie. This was also the latest in a series of incidents where Johnson had been utterly unreliable.
That may yet turn out to be the case for Starmer, but I don't think we are there - it was a foolish appointment given Mandelson's track record, but I don't think the anger towards Mandelson for having misled Starmer is synthetic.
For that reason, whilst there is definitely a competence issue there and it's increasingly hard to see a very long term future for Starmer, I don't really see it playing out as it did in the final days of Johnson.
I also find the Rayner surge a little odd. She has a lot going for her, but she isn't exactly Ms Clean, the candidate of unimpeachable personal integrity.
She's the furthest they've got from the old boy's club attitudes that led to where we are.
I don’t think Angela Rayner is a traitor. I DO believe that about Starmer and those around him - Hermer, Sands, Powell. They loathe Britain and seek to harm Britons
It’s that basic
Rayner might well be an economic disaster but fuck it, how does that change anything. I don’t think Rayner will deliberately enact policies that are solely designed to harm the country she governs because she despises it
It’s a pretty low bar but I reckon she’ll clear it
Oh God, not this from you again: "she couldn't we worse".
She absolutely could be fucking worse.
I'm terrified of Rayner becoming PM.
Eh, it'll probably be fine.
Then again, I said that about Truss, so I don't know shit.
People say it every time they hate someone and want a change. We heard it with Boris, Truss, Sunak and now Starmer.
Do we ever learn?
No, because we're too blinded by hatred for the incumbent.
And part of Starmer's problem throughout has been that plenty have hated him from Day One. Including the fans of Boris and Jeremy who blame the Boring One for being in the room when they shot themselves through the head. In an era when we don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt, that's a huge problem for a PM, even if they have political skills, which SKS doesn't really.
I am absolutely open to being proved wrong but I think that this is being substantially overplayed. I don't see this being fatal for Starmer. He showed poor judgment again. Well, there's a shocker. But I am not seeing anyone in Labour that is any better placed. I am comfortable with my answer in the competition that Starmer will be PM at the end of the year.
I get where you are coming from David, but are Slab etc really going to put up with this? Its a complete horror show for Sarwar, he can't lay a glove on the SNP until Sir Keir vacates his post.
Had he not made a mess of it, the election in Scotland should at the very least be competitive.
Are the bulk of the 2024 Lab intake supine lobby fodder or are they going to grow a pair, and say enough is enough, I cant sit through the best part of another year to watch this mess get bigger, its affecting my chances of staying an MP and my constituents are furious?
Dont underestimate a stalking horse bid after the May elections, if he's still in post. was Corbyns worst ever Labour polling ever this bad
Starmer exit in 2026 now shortened to 1.54:1, which is the shortest I've seen it. That's easy money if you're convinced he's going this year. (I'm not. I think those odds are about right.)
I think they're too short personally and have added to my currently massively offside lay, and will take more if 1.35 trades (looking v possible). Still, squeaky bum.
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
Didn’t we hear news yesterday that it had severe cut through on focus groups?
The Epstein angle, which brought down Andrew, surely makes it quite high profile.
At a politically focussed focus group, sure.
But when Boris's various scandals were going on, it was a topic of conversation amongst normies in the office. Pub bores would make jokes about it. I'm just not feeling the same sense of the country at large carying atm.
Maybe I'm just talking my position, idk
It's being joked about by the not-very-politically-engaged where I work. I'd say people are even crosser about the arrogance and entitlement on display here than they were about Boris.
It’s the money that cuts through most. How can you get a free 75K gift and not remember anything about it? That’s what can cut through into actual votes. Provided we can connect Mandelson to the Labour government, not let them say he was rogue and it’s not their fault.
Remember the old rule, Tory scandals are about sex, Labour scandals are about money.
Hang on Mandelson, and now by default Starmer, are embroiled in the World's biggest paedophile scandal.
Tim Shipman: " if two cabinet ministers were to resign I think this thing would be done by the end of the week"
That would require: 2 cabinet ministers with a conscience or (more likely) 2 cabinet ministers who think they would benefit from Starmer’s resignation.
“If a newspaper’s publisher makes a bunch of decisions that lose money, and then the owner keeps the publisher while firing the staff who puts out the paper—none of this is really about the money, is it?”
After Trump was completely vindicated ( his analysis) on Saturday when the Epstein files dropped, Trump explains how he intends to Federalise the midterms. Trump and not the states to manage the count.
You'd think Republicans in the states would find such Federal expansion a step too far even for them, but i expect they'll love the idea.
Starmer exit in 2026 now shortened to 1.54:1, which is the shortest I've seen it. That's easy money if you're convinced he's going this year. (I'm not. I think those odds are about right.)
I think they're too short personally and have added to my currently massively offside lay, and will take more if 1.35 trades (looking v possible). Still, squeaky bum.
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
Didn’t we hear news yesterday that it had severe cut through on focus groups?
The Epstein angle, which brought down Andrew, surely makes it quite high profile.
At a politically focussed focus group, sure.
But when Boris's various scandals were going on, it was a topic of conversation amongst normies in the office. Pub bores would make jokes about it. I'm just not feeling the same sense of the country at large carying atm.
Maybe I'm just talking my position, idk
It's being joked about by the not-very-politically-engaged where I work. I'd say people are even crosser about the arrogance and entitlement on display here than they were about Boris.
It’s the money that cuts through most. How can you get a free 75K gift and not remember anything about it? That’s what can cut through into actual votes. Provided we can connect Mandelson to the Labour government, not let them say he was rogue and it’s not their fault.
Remember the old rule, Tory scandals are about sex, Labour scandals are about money.
Labour parking their tanks on Tory lawns - Epstein is about both.
The timeline of Labour's relationship with Palantir in government is fascinating...
Palantir is a client of Mandelson's lobbying firm Global Counsel
After entering government in July, not a single Labour minister met with Palantir in any capacity UNTIL 28 February 2025, with Starmer's first US visit, weeks after Mandelson took up US ambo role
Since then, Palantir has met with eight cabinet ministers and significantly increased its government contracts
Starmer exit in 2026 now shortened to 1.54:1, which is the shortest I've seen it. That's easy money if you're convinced he's going this year. (I'm not. I think those odds are about right.)
I think they're too short personally and have added to my currently massively offside lay, and will take more if 1.35 trades (looking v possible). Still, squeaky bum.
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
Didn’t we hear news yesterday that it had severe cut through on focus groups?
The Epstein angle, which brought down Andrew, surely makes it quite high profile.
At a politically focussed focus group, sure.
But when Boris's various scandals were going on, it was a topic of conversation amongst normies in the office. Pub bores would make jokes about it. I'm just not feeling the same sense of the country at large carying atm.
Maybe I'm just talking my position, idk
It's being joked about by the not-very-politically-engaged where I work. I'd say people are even crosser about the arrogance and entitlement on display here than they were about Boris.
It’s the money that cuts through most. How can you get a free 75K gift and not remember anything about it? That’s what can cut through into actual votes. Provided we can connect Mandelson to the Labour government, not let them say he was rogue and it’s not their fault.
Remember the old rule, Tory scandals are about sex, Labour scandals are about money.
And who can forget how half the cabinet rushed in after the election for free suits, football tickets and birthday parties. Pretty cheap stuff of course but Labour don't really do classy.
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
She's got street smarts. That'll do for Labour
I think that's half right. It's not intelligence that is needed as a PM, or technical knowledge from education and experience, it's judgement.
I'm not certain that Rayner's judgement is great, and her short record as a minister is also not inspiring, but lack of education is certainly not her problem.
But would she be able to string together a government ? What if it falls in the House of Commons. If the King were savvy, which he isn't of course he would ask Kemi to form a government. I really can see a General Election now, probably June. The idea that out Ange could hold a goverment together for over a month is quite frankly absurd.
If the King is savvy he definitely won't ask Kemi to form a government. With only 116 MPs, she would be unable to do so. If you are suggesting the King should force a general election, that would cause a constitutional crisis.
It's an insane suggestion - the King appoints a party with 116 MPs, currently on 18% in the polls?
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
She's got street smarts. That'll do for Labour
I think that's half right. It's not intelligence that is needed as a PM, or technical knowledge from education and experience, it's judgement.
I'm not certain that Rayner's judgement is great, and her short record as a minister is also not inspiring, but lack of education is certainly not her problem.
But would she be able to string together a government ? What if it falls in the House of Commons. If the King were savvy, which he isn't of course he would ask Kemi to form a government. I really can see a General Election now, probably June. The idea that out Ange could hold a goverment together for over a month is quite frankly absurd.
If the King is savvy he definitely won't ask Kemi to form a government. With only 116 MPs, she would be unable to do so. If you are suggesting the King should force a general election, that would cause a constitutional crisis.
Well a constitutional crisis is kind of traditional for kings named Charles to be fair.
Starmer exit in 2026 now shortened to 1.54:1, which is the shortest I've seen it. That's easy money if you're convinced he's going this year. (I'm not. I think those odds are about right.)
I think they're too short personally and have added to my currently massively offside lay, and will take more if 1.35 trades (looking v possible). Still, squeaky bum.
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
Didn’t we hear news yesterday that it had severe cut through on focus groups?
The Epstein angle, which brought down Andrew, surely makes it quite high profile.
At a politically focussed focus group, sure.
But when Boris's various scandals were going on, it was a topic of conversation amongst normies in the office. Pub bores would make jokes about it. I'm just not feeling the same sense of the country at large carying atm.
Maybe I'm just talking my position, idk
It's being joked about by the not-very-politically-engaged where I work. I'd say people are even crosser about the arrogance and entitlement on display here than they were about Boris.
It’s the money that cuts through most. How can you get a free 75K gift and not remember anything about it? That’s what can cut through into actual votes. Provided we can connect Mandelson to the Labour government, not let them say he was rogue and it’s not their fault.
Remember the old rule, Tory scandals are about sex, Labour scandals are about money.
And who can forget how half the cabinet rushed in after the election for free suits, football tickets and birthday parties. Pretty cheap stuff of course but Labour don't really do classy.
Labour MPs would be well advised to be wary of acting in haste as it may lead to repenting at leisure. Starmer obviously made a colossal mistake in appointing Mandelson to the USA, but it seems to be forgotten that he did sack him last September. With respect to this week's revelations, he's dealt with them about as well as he could, given the initial error, and has given Mandelson a good bollocking.
Over the last 10 years we've got used to dispensing with PMs rather quickly, but that isn't the historical norm. And it may not be wise to get rid of a PM who won a large majority and has only served 19 months. There are some signs of improvements in the economy and the NHS, and with the other stuff in the pipeline it's quite plausible that there'll be a Labour recovery before the next GE. I guess what I'm arguing is that they (Labour MPs) should be careful what they wish for: there's no obvious replacement, and the electorate may not take kindly to having an unelected PM thrust upon them this soon in the electoral cycle. My advice: take your time, and, if you need to dump Starmer, leave it until 2027.
Starmer exit in 2026 now shortened to 1.54:1, which is the shortest I've seen it. That's easy money if you're convinced he's going this year. (I'm not. I think those odds are about right.)
I think they're too short personally and have added to my currently massively offside lay, and will take more if 1.35 trades (looking v possible). Still, squeaky bum.
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
Didn’t we hear news yesterday that it had severe cut through on focus groups?
The Epstein angle, which brought down Andrew, surely makes it quite high profile.
At a politically focussed focus group, sure.
But when Boris's various scandals were going on, it was a topic of conversation amongst normies in the office. Pub bores would make jokes about it. I'm just not feeling the same sense of the country at large carying atm.
Maybe I'm just talking my position, idk
It's being joked about by the not-very-politically-engaged where I work. I'd say people are even crosser about the arrogance and entitlement on display here than they were about Boris.
It’s the money that cuts through most. How can you get a free 75K gift and not remember anything about it? That’s what can cut through into actual votes. Provided we can connect Mandelson to the Labour government, not let them say he was rogue and it’s not their fault.
Remember the old rule, Tory scandals are about sex, Labour scandals are about money.
And who can forget how half the cabinet rushed in after the election for free suits, football tickets and birthday parties. Pretty cheap stuff of course but Labour don't really do classy.
The definitive pictures of scandals just aren't up to the old days either.
_That_ picture of Christine Keeler (and the chair itself) are in the V&A.
I am absolutely open to being proved wrong but I think that this is being substantially overplayed. I don't see this being fatal for Starmer. He showed poor judgment again. Well, there's a shocker. But I am not seeing anyone in Labour that is any better placed. I am comfortable with my answer in the competition that Starmer will be PM at the end of the year.
I get where you are coming from David, but are Slab etc really going to put up with this? Its a complete horror show for Sarwar, he can't lay a glove on the SNP until Sir Keir vacates his post.
Had he not made a mess of it, the election in Scotland should at the very least be competitive.
Are the bulk of the 2024 Lab intake supine lobby fodder or are they going to grow a pair, and say enough is enough, I cant sit through the best part of another year to watch this mess get bigger, its affecting my chances of staying an MP and my constituents are furious?
Dont underestimate a stalking horse bid after the May elections, if he's still in post. was Corbyns worst ever Labour polling ever this bad
SLAB are shockingly poor, totally lacking in talent apart from Jackie Baillie. They have many of their own problems, most of them self inflicted. But the winds from south of the border are not helping them, that is for sure.
Whilst I agree Starmer is in trouble, I am not sure the Pincher analogy holds water.
With Pincher, it wasn't simply a failure of vetting but a situation where Johnson lied about what he knew and had colleagues unwittingly sent onto the media to propogate that lie. This was also the latest in a series of incidents where Johnson had been utterly unreliable.
That may yet turn out to be the case for Starmer, but I don't think we are there - it was a foolish appointment given Mandelson's track record, but I don't think the anger towards Mandelson for having misled Starmer is synthetic.
For that reason, whilst there is definitely a competence issue there and it's increasingly hard to see a very long term future for Starmer, I don't really see it playing out as it did in the final days of Johnson.
I also find the Rayner surge a little odd. She has a lot going for her, but she isn't exactly Ms Clean, the candidate of unimpeachable personal integrity.
She's the furthest they've got from the old boy's club attitudes that led to where we are.
I don’t think Angela Rayner is a traitor. I DO believe that about Starmer and those around him - Hermer, Sands, Powell. They loathe Britain and seek to harm Britons
It’s that basic
Rayner might well be an economic disaster but fuck it, how does that change anything. I don’t think Rayner will deliberately enact policies that are solely designed to harm the country she governs because she despises it
It’s a pretty low bar but I reckon she’ll clear it
Oh God, not this from you again: "she couldn't we worse".
She absolutely could be fucking worse.
I'm terrified of Rayner becoming PM.
Eh, it'll probably be fine.
Then again, I said that about Truss, so I don't know shit.
People say it every time they hate someone and want a change. We heard it with Boris, Truss, Sunak and now Starmer.
Do we ever learn?
No, because we're too blinded by hatred for the incumbent.
Things could certainly get worse, but that shouldn't lead us to tolerate a status quo that is inadequate. Starmer is not good enough. He has to go.
It's then up to Labour to see if they can find anyone better, and if they can't it then becomes the job of the electorate to choose MPs who can.
That assumes that there is someone both capable and willing to be a better PM than the last few. I'm unsure that there is.
One of my mental models of the state of the nation is the sort of 1980s football club described as a "sleeping giant". (Hint: it's not sleeping, it's dead.)
Decades of underinvestment, shabby facilities, a team that's exactly as good as it deserves to be. The fans aren't happy with that, so they chant "sack the manager". Then repeat the chant six months later when another Messiah has failed them. That's easier than addressing the real problems.
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
She's got street smarts. That'll do for Labour
I think that's half right. It's not intelligence that is needed as a PM, or technical knowledge from education and experience, it's judgement.
I'm not certain that Rayner's judgement is great, and her short record as a minister is also not inspiring, but lack of education is certainly not her problem.
But would she be able to string together a government ? What if it falls in the House of Commons. If the King were savvy, which he isn't of course he would ask Kemi to form a government. I really can see a General Election now, probably June. The idea that out Ange could hold a goverment together for over a month is quite frankly absurd.
If the King is savvy he definitely won't ask Kemi to form a government. With only 116 MPs, she would be unable to do so. If you are suggesting the King should force a general election, that would cause a constitutional crisis.
Well a constitutional crisis is kind of traditional for kings named Charles to be fair.
I assume he kept it as his regnal name because no matter what he won't end up with the most infamous ending to a reign.
After Trump was completely vindicated ( his analysis) on Saturday when the Epstein files dropped, Trump explains how he intends to Federalise the midterms. Trump and not the states to manage the count.
You'd think Republicans in the states would find such Federal expansion a step too far even for them, but i expect they'll love the idea.
Well Trump is planning to Federalise all current red states. So current red states can't go blue.
Tim Shipman: " if two cabinet ministers were to resign I think this thing would be done by the end of the week"
That would require: 2 cabinet ministers with a conscience or (more likely) 2 cabinet ministers who think they would benefit from Starmer’s resignation.
Labour MPs would be well advised to be wary of acting in haste as it may lead to repenting at leisure. Starmer obviously made a colossal mistake in appointing Mandelson to the USA, but it seems to be forgotten that he did sack him last September. With respect to this week's revelations, he's dealt with them about as well as he could, given the initial error, and has given Mandelson a good bollocking.
Over the last 10 years we've got used to dispensing with PMs rather quickly, but that isn't the historical norm. And it may not be wise to get rid of a PM who won a large majority and has only served 19 months. There are some signs of improvements in the economy and the NHS, and with the other stuff in the pipeline it's quite plausible that there'll be a Labour recovery before the next GE. I guess what I'm arguing is that they (Labour MPs) should be careful what they wish for: there's no obvious replacement, and the electorate may not take kindly to having an unelected PM thrust upon them this soon in the electoral cycle. My advice: take your time, and, if you need to dump Starmer, leave it until 2027.
You can stick with a duffer too long, but being unable to weather a storm without throwing the captain overboard is not a great sign for the future either.
Channel 4 Not great for Starmerites. He made some big mistakes. He's always been too right wing for his Party and his treatment of stalwarts like Diane Abbott was inexcusable. Treating those Gaza supporters as the enemy within and banning Palestine Action will not be forgiven or forgotten.
The kicking he's getting now is the least he could expect. The only thing that might save him is the looming figure of Farage
Tim Shipman: " if two cabinet ministers were to resign I think this thing would be done by the end of the week"
That would require: 2 cabinet ministers with a conscience or (more likely) 2 cabinet ministers who think they would benefit from Starmer’s resignation.
I'd settle for one of each
Hilary with conscience Ed with fake conscience and a burning ambition
“If a newspaper’s publisher makes a bunch of decisions that lose money, and then the owner keeps the publisher while firing the staff who puts out the paper—none of this is really about the money, is it?”
Whilst I agree Starmer is in trouble, I am not sure the Pincher analogy holds water.
With Pincher, it wasn't simply a failure of vetting but a situation where Johnson lied about what he knew and had colleagues unwittingly sent onto the media to propogate that lie. This was also the latest in a series of incidents where Johnson had been utterly unreliable.
That may yet turn out to be the case for Starmer, but I don't think we are there - it was a foolish appointment given Mandelson's track record, but I don't think the anger towards Mandelson for having misled Starmer is synthetic.
For that reason, whilst there is definitely a competence issue there and it's increasingly hard to see a very long term future for Starmer, I don't really see it playing out as it did in the final days of Johnson.
I also find the Rayner surge a little odd. She has a lot going for her, but she isn't exactly Ms Clean, the candidate of unimpeachable personal integrity.
She's the furthest they've got from the old boy's club attitudes that led to where we are.
I don’t think Angela Rayner is a traitor. I DO believe that about Starmer and those around him - Hermer, Sands, Powell. They loathe Britain and seek to harm Britons
It’s that basic
Rayner might well be an economic disaster but fuck it, how does that change anything. I don’t think Rayner will deliberately enact policies that are solely designed to harm the country she governs because she despises it
It’s a pretty low bar but I reckon she’ll clear it
Oh God, not this from you again: "she couldn't we worse".
She absolutely could be fucking worse.
I'm terrified of Rayner becoming PM.
Eh, it'll probably be fine.
Then again, I said that about Truss, so I don't know shit.
People say it every time they hate someone and want a change. We heard it with Boris, Truss, Sunak and now Starmer.
Do we ever learn?
No, because we're too blinded by hatred for the incumbent.
Things could certainly get worse, but that shouldn't lead us to tolerate a status quo that is inadequate. Starmer is not good enough. He has to go.
It's then up to Labour to see if they can find anyone better, and if they can't it then becomes the job of the electorate to choose MPs who can.
That assumes that there is someone both capable and willing to be a better PM than the last few. I'm unsure that there is.
One of my mental models of the state of the nation is the sort of 1980s football club described as a "sleeping giant". (Hint: it's not sleeping, it's dead.)
Decades of underinvestment, shabby facilities, a team that's exactly as good as it deserves to be. The fans aren't happy with that, so they chant "sack the manager". Then repeat the chant six months later when another Messiah has failed them. That's easier than addressing the real problems.
We're addicted to easy answers. Reform are pulling the bog standard 'the others are bad, we can easily fix our problems' play of the 'legacy' parties, but it is treated as if a brand new idea from new people.
Labour MPs would be well advised to be wary of acting in haste as it may lead to repenting at leisure. Starmer obviously made a colossal mistake in appointing Mandelson to the USA, but it seems to be forgotten that he did sack him last September. With respect to this week's revelations, he's dealt with them about as well as he could, given the initial error, and has given Mandelson a good bollocking.
Over the last 10 years we've got used to dispensing with PMs rather quickly, but that isn't the historical norm. And it may not be wise to get rid of a PM who won a large majority and has only served 19 months. There are some signs of improvements in the economy and the NHS, and with the other stuff in the pipeline it's quite plausible that there'll be a Labour recovery before the next GE. I guess what I'm arguing is that they (Labour MPs) should be careful what they wish for: there's no obvious replacement, and the electorate may not take kindly to having an unelected PM thrust upon them this soon in the electoral cycle. My advice: take your time, and, if you need to dump Starmer, leave it until 2027.
Wise words. I think this scandal is a big blow to the right of the party in short term.
A leadership contest now would have all contenders being asked what they knew about Mandelson. Doubtless there are smiling photos with most of them.
Starmer exit in 2026 now shortened to 1.54:1, which is the shortest I've seen it. That's easy money if you're convinced he's going this year. (I'm not. I think those odds are about right.)
I think they're too short personally and have added to my currently massively offside lay, and will take more if 1.35 trades (looking v possible). Still, squeaky bum.
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
Didn’t we hear news yesterday that it had severe cut through on focus groups?
The Epstein angle, which brought down Andrew, surely makes it quite high profile.
At a politically focussed focus group, sure.
But when Boris's various scandals were going on, it was a topic of conversation amongst normies in the office. Pub bores would make jokes about it. I'm just not feeling the same sense of the country at large carying atm.
Maybe I'm just talking my position, idk
It's being joked about by the not-very-politically-engaged where I work. I'd say people are even crosser about the arrogance and entitlement on display here than they were about Boris.
It’s the money that cuts through most. How can you get a free 75K gift and not remember anything about it? That’s what can cut through into actual votes. Provided we can connect Mandelson to the Labour government, not let them say he was rogue and it’s not their fault.
Remember the old rule, Tory scandals are about sex, Labour scandals are about money.
And who can forget how half the cabinet rushed in after the election for free suits, football tickets and birthday parties. Pretty cheap stuff of course but Labour don't really do classy.
Starmer exit in 2026 now shortened to 1.54:1, which is the shortest I've seen it. That's easy money if you're convinced he's going this year. (I'm not. I think those odds are about right.)
I think they're too short personally and have added to my currently massively offside lay, and will take more if 1.35 trades (looking v possible). Still, squeaky bum.
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
Didn’t we hear news yesterday that it had severe cut through on focus groups?
The Epstein angle, which brought down Andrew, surely makes it quite high profile.
At a politically focussed focus group, sure.
But when Boris's various scandals were going on, it was a topic of conversation amongst normies in the office. Pub bores would make jokes about it. I'm just not feeling the same sense of the country at large carying atm.
Maybe I'm just talking my position, idk
It's being joked about by the not-very-politically-engaged where I work. I'd say people are even crosser about the arrogance and entitlement on display here than they were about Boris.
It’s the money that cuts through most. How can you get a free 75K gift and not remember anything about it? That’s what can cut through into actual votes. Provided we can connect Mandelson to the Labour government, not let them say he was rogue and it’s not their fault.
Remember the old rule, Tory scandals are about sex, Labour scandals are about money.
And who can forget how half the cabinet rushed in after the election for free suits, football tickets and birthday parties. Pretty cheap stuff of course but Labour don't really do classy.
The definitive pictures of scandals just aren't up to the old days either.
_That_ picture of Christine Keeler (and the chair itself) are in the V&A.
I don't think Underpants Pete will be.
He should put his keks up for sale on Ebay. Should make him a couple of quid.
Whilst I agree Starmer is in trouble, I am not sure the Pincher analogy holds water.
With Pincher, it wasn't simply a failure of vetting but a situation where Johnson lied about what he knew and had colleagues unwittingly sent onto the media to propogate that lie. This was also the latest in a series of incidents where Johnson had been utterly unreliable.
That may yet turn out to be the case for Starmer, but I don't think we are there - it was a foolish appointment given Mandelson's track record, but I don't think the anger towards Mandelson for having misled Starmer is synthetic.
For that reason, whilst there is definitely a competence issue there and it's increasingly hard to see a very long term future for Starmer, I don't really see it playing out as it did in the final days of Johnson.
I also find the Rayner surge a little odd. She has a lot going for her, but she isn't exactly Ms Clean, the candidate of unimpeachable personal integrity.
She's the furthest they've got from the old boy's club attitudes that led to where we are.
I don’t think Angela Rayner is a traitor. I DO believe that about Starmer and those around him - Hermer, Sands, Powell. They loathe Britain and seek to harm Britons
It’s that basic
Rayner might well be an economic disaster but fuck it, how does that change anything. I don’t think Rayner will deliberately enact policies that are solely designed to harm the country she governs because she despises it
It’s a pretty low bar but I reckon she’ll clear it
Oh God, not this from you again: "she couldn't we worse".
She absolutely could be fucking worse.
I'm terrified of Rayner becoming PM.
Eh, it'll probably be fine.
Then again, I said that about Truss, so I don't know shit.
People say it every time they hate someone and want a change. We heard it with Boris, Truss, Sunak and now Starmer.
Do we ever learn?
No, because we're too blinded by hatred for the incumbent.
Things could certainly get worse, but that shouldn't lead us to tolerate a status quo that is inadequate. Starmer is not good enough. He has to go.
It's then up to Labour to see if they can find anyone better, and if they can't it then becomes the job of the electorate to choose MPs who can.
That assumes that there is someone both capable and willing to be a better PM than the last few. I'm unsure that there is.
One of my mental models of the state of the nation is the sort of 1980s football club described as a "sleeping giant". (Hint: it's not sleeping, it's dead.)
Decades of underinvestment, shabby facilities, a team that's exactly as good as it deserves to be. The fans aren't happy with that, so they chant "sack the manager". Then repeat the chant six months later when another Messiah has failed them. That's easier than addressing the real problems.
Sure. I'm up for addressing more fundamental problems. To restructure politics so better people succeed in politics. To involve ordinary people in political debate so that they understand every decision comes with tradeoffs, and there are no easy answers.
I don't see how you start to do that by simply acquiescing to mediocrity and resigning oneself to three more years of PM Starmer. He's not exactly addressing the real problems.
United wouldn't be doing any better if Moyes were still in charge.
Can't believe the lack of chat about the curling on here.
Happy to oblige ... Norway will be one of the better teams in the mixed comp. Does feel a bit weird the opening ceremony hasn't happened yet
Eve Muirhead is back for her 5th Olympics, think she is a GB coach this time
I thought the whole thing starts on Friday!
Opening Ceremony Friday I think?
Its like football at the summer Olympics, it starts before the ceremony as they cant fit it all in... the winter Olympics only last around a fortnight, and it'll be to give the players time for rest etc to fit in the mens/women's comps as well
Whilst I agree Starmer is in trouble, I am not sure the Pincher analogy holds water.
With Pincher, it wasn't simply a failure of vetting but a situation where Johnson lied about what he knew and had colleagues unwittingly sent onto the media to propogate that lie. This was also the latest in a series of incidents where Johnson had been utterly unreliable.
That may yet turn out to be the case for Starmer, but I don't think we are there - it was a foolish appointment given Mandelson's track record, but I don't think the anger towards Mandelson for having misled Starmer is synthetic.
For that reason, whilst there is definitely a competence issue there and it's increasingly hard to see a very long term future for Starmer, I don't really see it playing out as it did in the final days of Johnson.
I also find the Rayner surge a little odd. She has a lot going for her, but she isn't exactly Ms Clean, the candidate of unimpeachable personal integrity.
She's the furthest they've got from the old boy's club attitudes that led to where we are.
I don’t think Angela Rayner is a traitor. I DO believe that about Starmer and those around him - Hermer, Sands, Powell. They loathe Britain and seek to harm Britons
It’s that basic
Rayner might well be an economic disaster but fuck it, how does that change anything. I don’t think Rayner will deliberately enact policies that are solely designed to harm the country she governs because she despises it
It’s a pretty low bar but I reckon she’ll clear it
Oh God, not this from you again: "she couldn't we worse".
She absolutely could be fucking worse.
I'm terrified of Rayner becoming PM.
Eh, it'll probably be fine.
Then again, I said that about Truss, so I don't know shit.
People say it every time they hate someone and want a change. We heard it with Boris, Truss, Sunak and now Starmer.
Do we ever learn?
No, because we're too blinded by hatred for the incumbent.
Things could certainly get worse, but that shouldn't lead us to tolerate a status quo that is inadequate. Starmer is not good enough. He has to go.
It's then up to Labour to see if they can find anyone better, and if they can't it then becomes the job of the electorate to choose MPs who can.
That assumes that there is someone both capable and willing to be a better PM than the last few. I'm unsure that there is.
One of my mental models of the state of the nation is the sort of 1980s football club described as a "sleeping giant". (Hint: it's not sleeping, it's dead.)
Decades of underinvestment, shabby facilities, a team that's exactly as good as it deserves to be. The fans aren't happy with that, so they chant "sack the manager". Then repeat the chant six months later when another Messiah has failed them. That's easier than addressing the real problems.
The other (probably more half-baked) analogy is that being PM is a bit like that irritating git who puts himself forward to be Project Manager on The Apprentice - the whole team are incompetent twunts who all equally miserably failed the task but being the leader means its almost certainly your own head on the chopping block.
Channel 4 Not great for Starmerites. He made some big mistakes. He's always been too right wing for his Party and his treatment of stalwarts like Diane Abbott was inexcusable. Treating those Gaza supporters as the enemy within and banning Palestine Action will not be forgiven or forgotten.
The kicking he's getting now is the least he could expect. The only thing that might save him is the looming figure of Farage
Lest we forget - it's all about Gaza - unspoofable!
Whilst I agree Starmer is in trouble, I am not sure the Pincher analogy holds water.
With Pincher, it wasn't simply a failure of vetting but a situation where Johnson lied about what he knew and had colleagues unwittingly sent onto the media to propogate that lie. This was also the latest in a series of incidents where Johnson had been utterly unreliable.
That may yet turn out to be the case for Starmer, but I don't think we are there - it was a foolish appointment given Mandelson's track record, but I don't think the anger towards Mandelson for having misled Starmer is synthetic.
For that reason, whilst there is definitely a competence issue there and it's increasingly hard to see a very long term future for Starmer, I don't really see it playing out as it did in the final days of Johnson.
I also find the Rayner surge a little odd. She has a lot going for her, but she isn't exactly Ms Clean, the candidate of unimpeachable personal integrity.
She's the furthest they've got from the old boy's club attitudes that led to where we are.
I don’t think Angela Rayner is a traitor. I DO believe that about Starmer and those around him - Hermer, Sands, Powell. They loathe Britain and seek to harm Britons
It’s that basic
Rayner might well be an economic disaster but fuck it, how does that change anything. I don’t think Rayner will deliberately enact policies that are solely designed to harm the country she governs because she despises it
It’s a pretty low bar but I reckon she’ll clear it
Oh God, not this from you again: "she couldn't we worse".
She absolutely could be fucking worse.
I'm terrified of Rayner becoming PM.
Eh, it'll probably be fine.
Then again, I said that about Truss, so I don't know shit.
People say it every time they hate someone and want a change. We heard it with Boris, Truss, Sunak and now Starmer.
Do we ever learn?
No, because we're too blinded by hatred for the incumbent.
Things could certainly get worse, but that shouldn't lead us to tolerate a status quo that is inadequate. Starmer is not good enough. He has to go.
It's then up to Labour to see if they can find anyone better, and if they can't it then becomes the job of the electorate to choose MPs who can.
Have you seen the alternatives?
I don't want an ultra left-wing PM in office who will spend the next few years fucking me and my family.
Whilst I agree Starmer is in trouble, I am not sure the Pincher analogy holds water.
With Pincher, it wasn't simply a failure of vetting but a situation where Johnson lied about what he knew and had colleagues unwittingly sent onto the media to propogate that lie. This was also the latest in a series of incidents where Johnson had been utterly unreliable.
That may yet turn out to be the case for Starmer, but I don't think we are there - it was a foolish appointment given Mandelson's track record, but I don't think the anger towards Mandelson for having misled Starmer is synthetic.
For that reason, whilst there is definitely a competence issue there and it's increasingly hard to see a very long term future for Starmer, I don't really see it playing out as it did in the final days of Johnson.
I also find the Rayner surge a little odd. She has a lot going for her, but she isn't exactly Ms Clean, the candidate of unimpeachable personal integrity.
She's the furthest they've got from the old boy's club attitudes that led to where we are.
I don’t think Angela Rayner is a traitor. I DO believe that about Starmer and those around him - Hermer, Sands, Powell. They loathe Britain and seek to harm Britons
It’s that basic
Rayner might well be an economic disaster but fuck it, how does that change anything. I don’t think Rayner will deliberately enact policies that are solely designed to harm the country she governs because she despises it
It’s a pretty low bar but I reckon she’ll clear it
Oh God, not this from you again: "she couldn't we worse".
She absolutely could be fucking worse.
I'm terrified of Rayner becoming PM.
Eh, it'll probably be fine.
Then again, I said that about Truss, so I don't know shit.
People say it every time they hate someone and want a change. We heard it with Boris, Truss, Sunak and now Starmer.
Do we ever learn?
No, because we're too blinded by hatred for the incumbent.
And part of Starmer's problem throughout has been that plenty have hated him from Day One. Including the fans of Boris and Jeremy who blame the Boring One for being in the room when they shot themselves through the head. In an era when we don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt, that's a huge problem for a PM, even if they have political skills, which SKS doesn't really.
I think people forget what a stubborn bastard SKS can be and how hard it is to depose a sitting Labour PM.
If anyone wants a laugh at this serious time head over to FB and check out Richard Donaldson's page. The comments under his National Strike posting are so seriously surreal it's impossible to tell which are real and which satire. Quite obviously a huge number of people don't understand the basics of how a strike or indeed the economy works.
Channel 4 Not great for Starmerites. He made some big mistakes. He's always been too right wing for his Party and his treatment of stalwarts like Diane Abbott was inexcusable. Treating those Gaza supporters as the enemy within and banning Palestine Action will not be forgiven or forgotten.
The kicking he's getting now is the least he could expect. The only thing that might save him is the looming figure of Farage
@ShippersUnbound Most ministers, were they to resign, would be accused of self interest or promoting an ally. One name I hear from officials, is Hilary Benn. He is “disgusted”. l have no evidence he will quit, but it would be an earthquake. He’s the moral heart of Labour, no one’s outrider
I am absolutely open to being proved wrong but I think that this is being substantially overplayed. I don't see this being fatal for Starmer. He showed poor judgment again. Well, there's a shocker. But I am not seeing anyone in Labour that is any better placed. I am comfortable with my answer in the competition that Starmer will be PM at the end of the year.
If the alternative is Rayner we should all start praying for Starmer.
Whilst I agree Starmer is in trouble, I am not sure the Pincher analogy holds water.
With Pincher, it wasn't simply a failure of vetting but a situation where Johnson lied about what he knew and had colleagues unwittingly sent onto the media to propogate that lie. This was also the latest in a series of incidents where Johnson had been utterly unreliable.
That may yet turn out to be the case for Starmer, but I don't think we are there - it was a foolish appointment given Mandelson's track record, but I don't think the anger towards Mandelson for having misled Starmer is synthetic.
For that reason, whilst there is definitely a competence issue there and it's increasingly hard to see a very long term future for Starmer, I don't really see it playing out as it did in the final days of Johnson.
I also find the Rayner surge a little odd. She has a lot going for her, but she isn't exactly Ms Clean, the candidate of unimpeachable personal integrity.
She's the furthest they've got from the old boy's club attitudes that led to where we are.
I don’t think Angela Rayner is a traitor. I DO believe that about Starmer and those around him - Hermer, Sands, Powell. They loathe Britain and seek to harm Britons
It’s that basic
Rayner might well be an economic disaster but fuck it, how does that change anything. I don’t think Rayner will deliberately enact policies that are solely designed to harm the country she governs because she despises it
It’s a pretty low bar but I reckon she’ll clear it
Oh God, not this from you again: "she couldn't we worse".
She absolutely could be fucking worse.
I'm terrified of Rayner becoming PM.
Eh, it'll probably be fine.
Then again, I said that about Truss, so I don't know shit.
People say it every time they hate someone and want a change. We heard it with Boris, Truss, Sunak and now Starmer.
Do we ever learn?
No, because we're too blinded by hatred for the incumbent.
Things could certainly get worse, but that shouldn't lead us to tolerate a status quo that is inadequate. Starmer is not good enough. He has to go.
It's then up to Labour to see if they can find anyone better, and if they can't it then becomes the job of the electorate to choose MPs who can.
Have you seen the alternatives?
I don't want an ultra left-wing PM in office who will spend the next few years fucking me and my family.
Burnham is the only leadership contender who I've heard say anything that would be reckless in terms of the stability of Britain's finances, and he is safely not in the Commons.
I know Labour politicians are always going to look more extreme to you than to me, but people like Miliband, or Cooper, or Rayner, are far from being ultra left-wing.
They're to the left of Blairites like Starmer or Streeting, but they're far to the right of Corbyn and the Socialist Campaign Group.
If anyone wants a laugh at this serious time head over to FB and check out Richard Donaldson's page. The comments under his National Strike posting are so seriously surreal it's impossible to tell which are real and which satire. Quite obviously a huge number of people don't understand the basics of how a strike or indeed the economy works.
Starmer exit in 2026 now shortened to 1.54:1, which is the shortest I've seen it. That's easy money if you're convinced he's going this year. (I'm not. I think those odds are about right.)
I think they're too short personally and have added to my currently massively offside lay, and will take more if 1.35 trades (looking v possible). Still, squeaky bum.
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
Didn’t we hear news yesterday that it had severe cut through on focus groups?
The Epstein angle, which brought down Andrew, surely makes it quite high profile.
At a politically focussed focus group, sure.
But when Boris's various scandals were going on, it was a topic of conversation amongst normies in the office. Pub bores would make jokes about it. I'm just not feeling the same sense of the country at large carying atm.
Maybe I'm just talking my position, idk
It's being joked about by the not-very-politically-engaged where I work. I'd say people are even crosser about the arrogance and entitlement on display here than they were about Boris.
It’s the money that cuts through most. How can you get a free 75K gift and not remember anything about it? That’s what can cut through into actual votes. Provided we can connect Mandelson to the Labour government, not let them say he was rogue and it’s not their fault.
Remember the old rule, Tory scandals are about sex, Labour scandals are about money.
And who can forget how half the cabinet rushed in after the election for free suits, football tickets and birthday parties. Pretty cheap stuff of course but Labour don't really do classy.
I have two words for you. "Lulu" and "Lytle".
Not a Scooby doo what you mean.
Best if you look that up for yourself then. The reference should be easy to follow to the point I was making.
@NatashaC Labour peer, Lord John Hutton, tells @LBC ’s @AndrewMarr9 that he believes Sir Keir Starmer’s handling of the Peter Mandelson scandal "could well mark the end of the Prime Minister's time in office” adding he thinks, "this government is in serious trouble, and someone needs to rescue it from the malaise it's in."
"the issue is the leadership from the Prime Minister, and I think unless that changes dramatically, I think the government is in serious trouble."
Is it just me or is the argument, "we shouldn't get rid of x, because they'll only be replace by y, who is worse," being rolled out every more often these days?
It seems to be used for everyone. Today it is Starmer. But recently it's been used for Trump, for the Ayotollahs in Iran, for Putin.
Are people reacting to the apparent decline in global fortunes by becoming more conservative and fearful of making any change - unless they're in favour of burning everything down instead?
Surely there's a non-Populist prospectus for change, for being optimistic about our ability to improve the future, for not tolerating failure, while being understanding that change is difficult, and might take a while to show results?
Is it just me or is the argument, "we shouldn't get rid of x, because they'll only be replace by y, who is worse," being rolled out every more often these days?
It seems to be used for everyone. Today it is Starmer. But recently it's been used for Trump, for the Ayotollahs in Iran, for Putin.
Are people reacting to the apparent decline in global fortunes by becoming more conservative and fearful of making any change - unless they're in favour of burning everything down instead?
Surely there's a non-Populist prospectus for change, for being optimistic about our ability to improve the future, for not tolerating failure, while being understanding that change is difficult, and might take a while to show results?
I think it is fair to acknowledge the risk of X being replaced by something worse, which is always there, but the specific risk is different in each situation, so shouldn't be treated as a given or even necessarily the most likely option.
The Inteligence and Security Committee is considering producing a report about whether it was appropriate for Keir Starmer to make Mandelson his US ambassador.
This goes far beyond the looking over of documents linked to the appointment and approving their release - what today’s motion is ostensibly about.
Why? Because any criticism issued by the ISC about the decision would amount to a rebuke of the Prime Minister - given his judgement call in sending Mandelson to Washington is under intense scrutiny.
The ISC also has legal powers to force the Government to hand over more relevant information (enshrined in the 2013 Justice and Security Act), going to the courts if needed to do so.
It shows how MPs today commissioning the ISC to oversee the release of Mandelson documents (against Downing Street’s will) is fraught with political risk for the PM.
“What goes around, goes around, goes around, comes all the way back around”
Labour leader Keir Starmer reads allegations against Chris Pincher in "reminder to all those propping up this PM how serious this situation is" and asks why PM promoted him
Boris Johnson says Pincher has now lost his status as Conservative MP
Channel 4 Not great for Starmerites. He made some big mistakes. He's always been too right wing for his Party and his treatment of stalwarts like Diane Abbott was inexcusable. Treating those Gaza supporters as the enemy within and banning Palestine Action will not be forgiven or forgotten.
The kicking he's getting now is the least he could expect. The only thing that might save him is the looming figure of Farage
It's surely too late.
I can't see an alternative. There's no GB in the wings like Blair had. Maybe bring Milliband the elder back?
The big question is whether Labour MPs and cabinet ministers feel they can confidently hold the line in saying that yes, the PM was fully aware of Mandelson’s links with Epstein, but no, that’s not an error of judgement because although he knew he was fraternising with a wrong ‘un, he didnt know the full degree of it.
I think that’s an incredibly tenuous distinction to make and one that I suspect MPs and ministers are going to get very concerned about trying to defend.
That said, if I were a Labour MP or minister right now, I wonder if I might think the vote tonight buys me a bit of time because I can wait to see quite how bad the actual documents look once they’re released.
I think the key for Starmer will be whether or not he was told about potential misconduct by Mandelson when appointing him as Boris was allegedly about Pincher when he appointed him to government.
If he did and has to resign Rayner would likely win a Labour leadership vote amongst Labour members but whether she can get the required 80 Labour MPs to nominate he is more questionable
Angela Rayner will never win a General Election as Labour leader
Kemi is literally praying for Rayner to become Labour leader, she is exactly the type of Labour leader who would turn off New Labour to Cameron and Tory until 2019 then Starmer in 2024 swing voters
Starmer exit in 2026 now shortened to 1.54:1, which is the shortest I've seen it. That's easy money if you're convinced he's going this year. (I'm not. I think those odds are about right.)
I think they're too short personally and have added to my currently massively offside lay, and will take more if 1.35 trades (looking v possible). Still, squeaky bum.
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
Didn’t we hear news yesterday that it had severe cut through on focus groups?
The Epstein angle, which brought down Andrew, surely makes it quite high profile.
At a politically focussed focus group, sure.
But when Boris's various scandals were going on, it was a topic of conversation amongst normies in the office. Pub bores would make jokes about it. I'm just not feeling the same sense of the country at large carying atm.
Maybe I'm just talking my position, idk
It's being joked about by the not-very-politically-engaged where I work. I'd say people are even crosser about the arrogance and entitlement on display here than they were about Boris.
It’s the money that cuts through most. How can you get a free 75K gift and not remember anything about it? That’s what can cut through into actual votes. Provided we can connect Mandelson to the Labour government, not let them say he was rogue and it’s not their fault.
Remember the old rule, Tory scandals are about sex, Labour scandals are about money.
And who can forget how half the cabinet rushed in after the election for free suits, football tickets and birthday parties. Pretty cheap stuff of course but Labour don't really do classy.
I have two words for you. "Lulu" and "Lytle".
Not a Scooby doo what you mean.
Best if you look that up for yourself then. The reference should be easy to follow to the point I was making.
After Trump was completely vindicated ( his analysis) on Saturday when the Epstein files dropped, Trump explains how he intends to Federalise the midterms. Trump and not the states to manage the count.
Cannot be done without state governor and legislature consent and if he tried would lead to conflict, probable violence with the State National Guard and Federal National Guard etc
If one digs down, Cooper, Powell and Milliband are a joke and Burnham isn't even an MP. A bit early for Shabama and Streeting is too Starmer adjacent.
Can someone confirm if Ange is subject to a yellow card from HMRC?
In trying to work out who the next PM will be after SKS, the first thing is to work out what is likely to turn up given the process, rather than who would be a most credible and acceptable candidate to anyone who wants the best person for this rotten job.
So the question is about who are the choices of 20% of panicky MPs wanting the best for their personal seat prospects; which reduces the field to 4 max, more likely 3. And then using AV (IIRC) which can get to 50% of the vote of large group of axe grinding members and other voters, many of whom show signs of having little interest in power and are narrow ideologues and time servers.
It would be great to think that Jones, Healey or Streeting could jump those hoops, but I doubt it. Raynor's recent brush with the HMRC ought to disqualify her for now, but perhaps won't. Miliband (E) is obviously a non-starter to everyone apart from Labour members, lots of MPs and some punters.
Comments
Exclusive:
The Inteligence and Security Committee is considering producing a report about whether it was appropriate for Keir Starmer to make Mandelson his US ambassador.
This goes far beyond the looking over of documents linked to the appointment and approving their release - what today’s motion is ostensibly about.
Why? Because any criticism issued by the ISC about the decision would amount to a rebuke of the Prime Minister - given his judgement call in sending Mandelson to Washington is under intense scrutiny.
The ISC also has legal powers to force the Government to hand over more relevant information (enshrined in the 2013 Justice and Security Act), going to the courts if needed to do so.
It shows how MPs today commissioning the ISC to oversee the release of Mandelson documents (against Downing Street’s will) is fraught with political risk for the PM.
I don't think much of Starmer, but I think he will prefer to leave in a dignified manner, rather than after losing half his ministers to resignation. So if the Cabinet decide that he's past the point of no return we might well see a Starmer departure sooner than you think.
Bad, but hilarious
Which was great when Bitcoin was going up, but is an absolute disaster on the downside.
Of course, that's the kind of reasoning that got us Boris, so neither approach is foolproof.
Do we ever learn?
No, because we're too blinded by hatred for the incumbent.
Although not sure that works under Lab rules????
1) Things can always get worse
2) They will take longer than you think
3) It will get worse if you at pick at it
Eve Muirhead is back for her 5th Olympics, think she is a GB coach this time
You prefer Air Head Bluster of Lamy to Starmer? You prefer Wet Lettuceness of Cooper to Starmer?
I don’t want to do “What have the Romans ever done for us” but that’s exactly what is playing out in Westminster tea rooms right now. 😂
Julie Le, a federal attorney detailed to Minnesota to help handle the Trump admin immigration crackdown has been removed from her post after telling a judge that the job “sucks” because of the crushing workload and the govt's apparent inability to comply with court orders, CNN reports
https://x.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/2019128494991552610?s=20
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/feb/04/team-gb-helmets-ban-winter-olympics-skeleton
It's then up to Labour to see if they can find anyone better, and if they can't it then becomes the job of the electorate to choose MPs who can.
1) He’d be a shite PM
and more importantly
2) I’d be even more unbearable having tipped him at 100/1.
Had he not made a mess of it, the election in Scotland should at the very least be competitive.
Are the bulk of the 2024 Lab intake supine lobby fodder or are they going to grow a pair, and say enough is enough, I cant sit through the best part of another year to watch this mess get bigger, its affecting my chances of staying an MP and my constituents are furious?
Dont underestimate a stalking horse bid after the May elections, if he's still in post. was Corbyns worst ever Labour polling ever this bad
2 cabinet ministers with a conscience
or (more likely)
2 cabinet ministers who think they would benefit from Starmer’s resignation.
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
“If a newspaper’s publisher makes a bunch of decisions that lose money, and then the owner keeps the publisher while firing the staff who puts out the paper—none of this is really about the money, is it?”
https://x.com/BillKristol/status/2019116605284950133
The timeline of Labour's relationship with Palantir in government is fascinating...
Palantir is a client of Mandelson's lobbying firm Global Counsel
After entering government in July, not a single Labour minister met with Palantir in any capacity UNTIL 28 February 2025, with Starmer's first US visit, weeks after Mandelson took up US ambo role
Since then, Palantir has met with eight cabinet ministers and significantly increased its government contracts
https://x.com/EJShone93/status/2019106249812361674?s=20
https://x.com/peterbakernyt/status/2019069689582723333
Or..
Over the last 10 years we've got used to dispensing with PMs rather quickly, but that isn't the historical norm. And it may not be wise to get rid of a PM who won a large majority and has only served 19 months. There are some signs of improvements in the economy and the NHS, and with the other stuff in the pipeline it's quite plausible that there'll be a Labour recovery before the next GE. I guess what I'm arguing is that they (Labour MPs) should be careful what they wish for: there's no obvious replacement, and the electorate may not take kindly to having an unelected PM thrust upon them this soon in the electoral cycle. My advice: take your time, and, if you need to dump Starmer, leave it until 2027.
_That_ picture of Christine Keeler (and the chair itself) are in the V&A.
I don't think Underpants Pete will be.
One of my mental models of the state of the nation is the sort of 1980s football club described as a "sleeping giant". (Hint: it's not sleeping, it's dead.)
Decades of underinvestment, shabby facilities, a team that's exactly as good as it deserves to be. The fans aren't happy with that, so they chant "sack the manager". Then repeat the chant six months later when another Messiah has failed them. That's easier than addressing the real problems.
The kicking he's getting now is the least he could expect. The only thing that might save him is the looming figure of Farage
Ed with fake conscience and a burning ambition
A leadership contest now would have all contenders being asked what they knew about Mandelson. Doubtless there are smiling photos with most of them.
I don't see how you start to do that by simply acquiescing to mediocrity and resigning oneself to three more years of PM Starmer. He's not exactly addressing the real problems.
United wouldn't be doing any better if Moyes were still in charge.
Its like football at the summer Olympics, it starts before the ceremony as they cant fit it all in... the winter Olympics only last around a fortnight, and it'll be to give the players time for rest etc to fit in the mens/women's comps as well
I don't want an ultra left-wing PM in office who will spend the next few years fucking me and my family.
I have laid him going this year tonight at 1.5
The comments under his National Strike posting are so seriously surreal it's impossible to tell which are real and which satire.
Quite obviously a huge number of people don't understand the basics of how a strike or indeed the economy works.
Most ministers, were they to resign, would be accused of self interest or promoting an ally. One name I hear from officials, is Hilary Benn. He is “disgusted”. l have no evidence he will quit, but it would be an earthquake. He’s the moral heart of Labour, no one’s outrider
I know Labour politicians are always going to look more extreme to you than to me, but people like Miliband, or Cooper, or Rayner, are far from being ultra left-wing.
They're to the left of Blairites like Starmer or Streeting, but they're far to the right of Corbyn and the Socialist Campaign Group.
Labour peer, Lord John Hutton, tells
@LBC
’s
@AndrewMarr9
that he believes Sir Keir Starmer’s handling of the Peter Mandelson scandal "could well mark the end of the Prime Minister's time in office” adding he thinks, "this government is in serious trouble, and someone needs to rescue it from the malaise it's in."
"the issue is the leadership from the Prime Minister, and I think unless that changes dramatically, I think the government is in serious trouble."
Serious stuff from a serious guy
It seems to be used for everyone. Today it is Starmer. But recently it's been used for Trump, for the Ayotollahs in Iran, for Putin.
Are people reacting to the apparent decline in global fortunes by becoming more conservative and fearful of making any change - unless they're in favour of burning everything down instead?
Surely there's a non-Populist prospectus for change, for being optimistic about our ability to improve the future, for not tolerating failure, while being understanding that change is difficult, and might take a while to show results?
Labour leader Keir Starmer reads allegations against Chris Pincher in "reminder to all those propping up this PM how serious this situation is" and asks why PM promoted him
Boris Johnson says Pincher has now lost his status as Conservative MP
#PMQs bbc.in/3Pp8Uo3
https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/1544644426148069380?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://x.com/gbpolitcs/status/2019126704694772137
NEW: Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has broken ranks with Keir Starmer, who claims Brexit is the biggest cause of illegal immigration
She says the UK’s ‘pull factor’ and organised crime are to blame, not withdrawal from the EU
I think that’s an incredibly tenuous distinction to make and one that I suspect MPs and ministers are going to get very concerned about trying to defend.
That said, if I were a Labour MP or minister right now, I wonder if I might think the vote tonight buys me a bit of time because I can wait to see quite how bad the actual documents look once they’re released.
If he did and has to resign Rayner would likely win a Labour leadership vote amongst Labour members but whether she can get the required 80 Labour MPs to nominate he is more questionable
So the question is about who are the choices of 20% of panicky MPs wanting the best for their personal seat prospects; which reduces the field to 4 max, more likely 3. And then using AV (IIRC) which can get to 50% of the vote of large group of axe grinding members and other voters, many of whom show signs of having little interest in power and are narrow ideologues and time servers.
It would be great to think that Jones, Healey or Streeting could jump those hoops, but I doubt it. Raynor's recent brush with the HMRC ought to disqualify her for now, but perhaps won't. Miliband (E) is obviously a non-starter to everyone apart from Labour members, lots of MPs and some punters.
Tentative result: Rayner. Long shot: Carns.