Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
With every day that passes the Chagos Surrender becomes murkier yet more grimly explicable
I thought it was Russia everyone was worried about. Now Epstein was working with the Chinese?
It just gets worse and worse for Starmer.
No, there's very little on that score. In contrast, Russia, Russia money, Russian intelligence individuals, Russian trafficked women and Russian influence efforts are all over the Epstein files.
It seems pretty likely that Epstein worked for Russian intelligence, one way or another.
It's a point made very openly and succinctly by Frank Gardner:
This may not be popular but Kemi is very much improved and seems confident
She has the benefit of being leader of the opposition and gets more exposure
I will watch with interest how the party performs in May and how her colleagues act, but I expect she will continue and lead into the next GE
Kemi's awesome! Her party... not so much
Kemis awesome is she
She couldn't answer a question from BBC as to why she's barely mentioned Mandelson for 14 months, wittering on instead naming junior ministers who have.
Ms aftertimer caught out... No script for that answer kemi?
Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
With every day that passes the Chagos Surrender becomes murkier yet more grimly explicable
I thought it was Russia everyone was worried about. Now Epstein was working with the Chinese?
It just gets worse and worse for Starmer.
No, there's very little on that score. In contrast, Russia, Russia money, Russian intelligence individuals, Russian trafficked women and Russian influence efforts are all over the Epstein files.
It seems pretty likely that Epstein worked for Russian intelligence, one way or another.
It's a point made very openly and succinctly by Frank Gardner:
Maxwell Snr was double / triple agent, definitely Mossad, highly likely Russian asset. Chances his daughter got into the same game?
I never quite understood her "position" with Epstein. A fixer for arranging girls, but were they also a couple or was it purely business of madaming / collecting info?
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
You seem disproportionately furious at Kemi. Are you a spurned ex-boyfriend?
A bit unkind - there seems a general view she's improved but she's hardly setting the world on fire either.
Well no. But nor does she seem the major focus of all this. Of Brixian's 59 posts, a good half seem to have been furious denunciations of Kemi. I take back my barb about being a spurned ex-boyfriend: on reflection that was a bit nasty. But I'm baffled by the way Kemi seems to be the target of our new poster's ire.
Her personal ratings rise has inspired much oddness. Jenricks race to irrelevance with Reform for example She was going to be 'gone before Angela' a few months ago
What has happened to Jenrick? His was supposed to be the defection of the century, but recent news only tells of him getting accidently trapped in the aye lobby by closing doors and therefore wrongly voting for the removal of two-child benefit limit. Odd.
He got outmanouevered and history has already forgotten him. I think him and Kruger lose their seats. Rosindell will be tight but probably wins, Suella safest
Never write that bastard off. I'm not saying this will happen but I can see him leading Reform by the General Election.
The civil war of Reform/Yusuf purists versus fifth column Tories would end their poll lead very swiftly. Reform after Farage < UKIP after Farage
I'd love to think so but who knows. One of the weird things about the future is that the medium term is the hardest to predict.
It is yes, but the very nature of most of the non-Nigel Reformers makes it a pretty easy prediction. An uneasy coalition of the irredeemably cantankarous
I thought it was interesting to find out the George Osborne was supposedly the favourite for the US gig, but Morgan McSacked made a big thing that Mandy had to get it. Don't know how much of that is people arse covering by talking to New Statesman journos. The fact that Osborne was even pre-vetted and in the mix was an interesting what if.
He was in the frame, I think an issue was that he has a very young family, uprooting to Washington DC might not have been appealing to the latest Mrs Osborne.
Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
With every day that passes the Chagos Surrender becomes murkier yet more grimly explicable
I thought it was Russia everyone was worried about. Now Epstein was working with the Chinese?
It just gets worse and worse for Starmer.
No, there's very little on that score. In contrast, Russia, Russia money, Russian intelligence individuals, Russian trafficked women and Russian influence efforts are all over the Epstein files.
It seems pretty likely that Epstein worked for Russian intelligence, one way or another.
It's a point made very openly and succinctly by Frank Gardner:
Maxwell Snr was double / triple agent, definitely Mossad, highly likely Russian asset. Chances his daughter got into the same game?
I'd guess once you get involved in that world at that level you probably do some favours for all the agencies, whether Mossad, Russia, Chinese or indeed US and UK.
Labour backbenchers are now publicly warning Sir Keir Starmer that his own future will be in doubt unless he sacks his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney
It's effectively an ultimatum that's being echoed across the backbenches
Karl Turner, a Labour MP, says the mood on the backbenches is 'dire'. He says that unless Starmer sacks his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney he will be 'up against it' and have to make a decision about his own future
He tells @TimesRadio the atmosphere in the Commons was the 'angriest' he has ever seen it, but that the anger was directed at his advisers
He says he forwarded messages from people expressing their anger directly to the prime minister last night. 'He thanked me, and I suspect he thanked those who were then messaging him'
'My advice to the prime minister is get rid of those advisers who have frankly given terrible advice to him over weeks and months. The PM needs to deal with that and make a decision. If the PM decides he has to be surrounded by advisers who give him shoddy advice the reality of that is the prime minister is going to have to make a decision about his future some point soon
'If McSweeney is still in 10 Downing Street the PM is up against it'
That's a tricky one, because aiui the top team are essentially McSweeney Todd appointees.
So SKS is in no position to remove one without potentially losing a lot more.
Reportedly it is about an expectation that MPs be rubber stamps, and that No 10 is a bit of an ivory tower at present with little engagement.
Just one other thing. If anybody seriously thinks we have reached the bottom of the allegations about Mandelson, Epstein, Russia, and what Starmer knew (or should have known) they're living in cloud-cuckoo land.
If it turns out that Mandelson was feeding national security and finance stuff to the Russians via his bestie then the entire government could be brought down never mind changing PMs.
Is Dan on the money or has he lost his mind?
Anyway my understanding from ex CIA agents is Epstein was an active Mossad agent. I don't believe either the Russian or the CIA link has been explored let alone verified.
yes, the russian stuff seems to be coming from the type of internet users who easily get southport and stockport confused
Blocking Burnham turned out to be another move of political genius.
Do you mean because Burnham would have lost because of all of this? Is it not possible that this might have galvanised support for Burnham? It would have been a strange dynamic.
Question for Leon - which well known contributor to the Spectator published an article titled "Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump" ?
but it was a reasonable appointment at the time.
But it wasn't. It was questioned at the time. The incumbent was doing a good job. Why take a risk?
That's the question that is so far not being answered, or even investigated. Why was he appointed?
Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
With every day that passes the Chagos Surrender becomes murkier yet more grimly explicable
I thought it was Russia everyone was worried about. Now Epstein was working with the Chinese?
It just gets worse and worse for Starmer.
No, there's very little on that score. In contrast, Russia, Russia money, Russian intelligence individuals, Russian trafficked women and Russian influence efforts are all over the Epstein files.
It seems pretty likely that Epstein worked for Russian intelligence, one way or another.
It's a point made very openly and succinctly by Frank Gardner:
Maxwell Snr was double / triple agent, definitely Mossad, highly likely Russian asset. Chances his daughter got into the same game?
I'd guess once you get involved in that world at that level you probably do some favours for all the agencies, whether Mossad, Russia, Chinese or indeed US and UK.
There are still loads of questions. You don't have to go full tin foil to think he might have been up to more than noncing.
Labour backbenchers are now publicly warning Sir Keir Starmer that his own future will be in doubt unless he sacks his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney
It's effectively an ultimatum that's being echoed across the backbenches
Karl Turner, a Labour MP, says the mood on the backbenches is 'dire'. He says that unless Starmer sacks his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney he will be 'up against it' and have to make a decision about his own future
He tells @TimesRadio the atmosphere in the Commons was the 'angriest' he has ever seen it, but that the anger was directed at his advisers
He says he forwarded messages from people expressing their anger directly to the prime minister last night. 'He thanked me, and I suspect he thanked those who were then messaging him'
'My advice to the prime minister is get rid of those advisers who have frankly given terrible advice to him over weeks and months. The PM needs to deal with that and make a decision. If the PM decides he has to be surrounded by advisers who give him shoddy advice the reality of that is the prime minister is going to have to make a decision about his future some point soon
'If McSweeney is still in 10 Downing Street the PM is up against it'
That's a tricky one, because aiui the top team are essentially McSweeney Todd appointees.
So SKS is in no position to remove one without potentially losing a lot more.
Reportedly it is about an expectation that MPs be rubber stamps, and that No 10 is a bit of an ivory tower at present with little engagement.
Just one other thing. If anybody seriously thinks we have reached the bottom of the allegations about Mandelson, Epstein, Russia, and what Starmer knew (or should have known) they're living in cloud-cuckoo land.
If it turns out that Mandelson was feeding national security and finance stuff to the Russians via his bestie then the entire government could be brought down never mind changing PMs.
Is Dan on the money or has he lost his mind?
Anyway my understanding from ex CIA agents is Epstein was an active Mossad agent. I don't believe either the Russian or the CIA link has been explored let alone verified.
yes, the russian stuff seems to be coming from the type of internet users who easily get southport and stockport confused
Russian intelligence appears to be primarily focussed on discrediting Kemi, it appears.
Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
With every day that passes the Chagos Surrender becomes murkier yet more grimly explicable
I thought it was Russia everyone was worried about. Now Epstein was working with the Chinese?
It just gets worse and worse for Starmer.
No, there's very little on that score. In contrast, Russia, Russia money, Russian intelligence individuals, Russian trafficked women and Russian influence efforts are all over the Epstein files.
It seems pretty likely that Epstein worked for Russian intelligence, one way or another.
It's a point made very openly and succinctly by Frank Gardner:
Maxwell Snr was double / triple agent, definitely Mossad, highly likely Russian asset. Chances his daughter got into the same game?
I never quite understood her "position" with Epstein. A fixer for arranging girls, but were they also a couple or was it purely business of madaming / collecting info?
I find it always helps a relationship when you share similar interests.
Question for Leon - which well known contributor to the Spectator published an article titled "Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump" ?
but it was a reasonable appointment at the time.
But it wasn't. It was questioned at the time. The incumbent was doing a good job. Why take a risk?
That's the question that is so far not being answered, or even investigated. Why was he appointed?
Because Trump and his cronies view reasonableness and following the law as weakness to be exploited, and respect the corrupt and manipulative. So we sent our corrupt, manipulative bastard to deal with them.
Blocking Burnham turned out to be another move of political genius.
Do you mean because Burnham would have lost because of all of this? Is it not possible that this might have galvanised support for Burnham? It would have been a strange dynamic.
Would Burnham have been able to run as the official Labour candidate and the anti-Starmer candidate?
That press conference has made things incalculably worse for Starmer. He could - just - try and defend the line he believed Mandelson when he said he cut off the relationship. But not that he “barely knew him”. I’d now be surprised if Starmer is still PM this time next week."
Dan's always very excitable. I suspect Starmer will cling on for a bit longer.
We're nearly 24 hours on and nothing much has happened, so I think you're probably right. But by "a bit longer", I think we are talking only weeks.
One of the challengers - and it takes only one - will IMO move either in the aftermath of a disasterous by-election defeat this month or in the aftermath of a disasterous set of May elections. I very much doubt that it will go beyond that.
Most in Labour will agree with Starmer's words this morning that ".... we must unite this country, understand that to be British is to be tolerant, reasonable, compassionate and diverse, and fight for it, against the toxic division of Reform. Every minute we spend not talking and focusing on that is an absolute minute wasted." However, nearly all have by now concluded that such a focus is now impossible while Starmer is in charge.
Yes, I think it'll either be after the by election or the locals in May. He''ll be gone as Labour leader and PM by the Lab conference in September.
Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
With every day that passes the Chagos Surrender becomes murkier yet more grimly explicable
I thought it was Russia everyone was worried about. Now Epstein was working with the Chinese?
It just gets worse and worse for Starmer.
No, there's very little on that score. In contrast, Russia, Russia money, Russian intelligence individuals, Russian trafficked women and Russian influence efforts are all over the Epstein files.
It seems pretty likely that Epstein worked for Russian intelligence, one way or another.
It's a point made very openly and succinctly by Frank Gardner:
Maxwell Snr was double / triple agent, definitely Mossad, highly likely Russian asset. Chances his daughter got into the same game?
I'd guess once you get involved in that world at that level you probably do some favours for all the agencies, whether Mossad, Russia, Chinese or indeed US and UK.
There are still loads of questions. You don't have to go full tin foil to think he might have been up to more than noncing.
It shows how the rich and powerful network aided by a lower level all desperate to take their cut. I doubt they care one iota which flag they are representing or are supposed to represent.
Question for Leon - which well known contributor to the Spectator published an article titled "Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump" ?
Probably the same one who thinks LLM are conscious.
There will be little to learn about national politics from the 2 local by-elections today. There is a PC defence in Ynys Mon and a Lab defence in North Somerset.
What is missing from this is an actual resignation. I think if people start to quit the cabinet, it could snowball and he could be gone by the weekend.
The fact there hasn’t been suggests that the execution will be deferred for a while yet. Probably after Gorton or after May, but with the release of the files being another risk point.
I do agree with the general position though that Starmer is now a goner and it’s just a matter of timing (I have felt for ages though that its been very unlikely he’d be fighting 2029 - I just think a 2026 exit is now much more plausible).
Blocking Burnham turned out to be another move of political genius.
Do you mean because Burnham would have lost because of all of this? Is it not possible that this might have galvanised support for Burnham? It would have been a strange dynamic.
I mean. If he'd have won. And to be honest I think it would have strangled the Green campaign at birth, then holding could have removed an obvious pinch point for the leadership. If he'd lost it wouldn't have been by much. As it is a quite dismal third place looks inevitable. And could completely finish Starmer off.
It's worth remembering that if the Epstein affair hadn't involved young girls, but women over the age of consent, we still wouldn't know very much about Mandelson's return to power and influence.
That press conference has made things incalculably worse for Starmer. He could - just - try and defend the line he believed Mandelson when he said he cut off the relationship. But not that he “barely knew him”. I’d now be surprised if Starmer is still PM this time next week."
Dan's always very excitable. I suspect Starmer will cling on for a bit longer.
We're nearly 24 hours on and nothing much has happened, so I think you're probably right. But by "a bit longer", I think we are talking only weeks.
One of the challengers - and it takes only one - will IMO move either in the aftermath of a disasterous by-election defeat this month or in the aftermath of a disasterous set of May elections. I very much doubt that it will go beyond that.
Most in Labour will agree with Starmer's words this morning that ".... we must unite this country, understand that to be British is to be tolerant, reasonable, compassionate and diverse, and fight for it, against the toxic division of Reform. Every minute we spend not talking and focusing on that is an absolute minute wasted." However, nearly all have by now concluded that such a focus is now impossible while Starmer is in charge.
Yes, I think it'll either be after the by election or the locals in May. He''ll be gone as Labour leader and PM by the Lab conference in September.
40% return if you think he'll make 1st April
Wales for wooden spoon is maybe more attractive, depending on your inclination.
Question for Leon - which well known contributor to the Spectator published an article titled "Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump" ?
but it was a reasonable appointment at the time.
But it wasn't. It was questioned at the time. The incumbent was doing a good job. Why take a risk?
That's the question that is so far not being answered, or even investigated. Why was he appointed?
There also seems to have been a lot of this sort of commentary back then.
Starmer was probably advised by someone "ruthless, cynical and cunning", or who believed they were that*, that Mandelson would be the perfect Trump whisperer (a stupid phrase, but also popular at the time).
Question for Leon - which well known contributor to the Spectator published an article titled "Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump" ?
Probably the same one who thinks LLM are conscious.
Be fair, if your comparators are Gavin Williamson and Liz Truss it is an easy mistake to make.
Question for Leon - which well known contributor to the Spectator published an article titled "Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump" ?
Probably the same one who thinks LLM are conscious.
Nah ... it will be the same one who got an LLM to write it for him.
It's worth remembering that if the Epstein affair hadn't involved young girls, but women over the age of consent, we still wouldn't know very much about Mandelson's return to power and influence.
But the Epstein affair involved him being imprisoned for trafficking young girls more than fifteen years ago. That was known long before Starmer brought Mandy back in the fold
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
Collapse the govt in VoNC with clear indication of a successor with support to evade Lascelles issues Badenoch has offered to support them in this in her speech today
Do we think Starmer's speech has made his survival less likely?
I think he’s done more or less what he needs to for now. The “sorry” was essentially enough to avoid an immediate revolt.
The issue is he has (a) PMQs next week where if Badenoch actually manages to be forensic I think he will dig a deeper hole (b) the release of the vetting info which its hard to see taking the pressure off and (c) Gorton and Denton at the end of the month.
Starmer is on a meathook with this imo.
Although he did not know (and couldn't be expected to) about Mandelson's spying for Epstein from the heart of government back in New Labour days, he did know about the friendship and that it had persisted after Epstein's criminal conviction. The closeness of it, no, but the fact of it, yes.
Now here's the kicker, the thing that has got him trapped. In appointing PM to Washington, because of the nature of the current US president the iffy side to his character was judged to be potentially a plus and certainly no bar.
This he cannot admit in public. He cannot come out and say, "Look, there's a guy in the White House as sleazy and corrupt as they come, so we felt we'd get better results with an Ambassador over there who is unfazed by that and knows how to roll with it."
He can't say that. It's the truth but he can't say it. So he's left with "I got fooled" - which for someone already extremely unpopular translates as "I am a fool".
It's a bad place to be.
Do you know what though? He may be better just saying that. And that he was only fooled by both of them proving to be even worse than anyone could have imagined. It couldn't play any worse.
A dodgy Mandelson has gone.
An even worse US President - petty, veangeful, grifting, spiteful - is still in place.
You think Starmer saying any of that about Trump will go unanswered? Say hello to 1,000% tariffs...
It's worth remembering that if the Epstein affair hadn't involved young girls, but women over the age of consent, we still wouldn't know very much about Mandelson's return to power and influence.
But the Epstein affair involved him being imprisoned for trafficking young girls more than fifteen years ago. That was known long before Starmer brought Mandy back in the fold
Yes indeed - but if Epstein et al had been trafficking women over the age of consent, we wouldn't know about it. We jolly well should know about it, but it's only the understandable public anger and disgust about paedophilia that has brought this to light.
Do we think Starmer's speech has made his survival less likely?
I think he’s done more or less what he needs to for now. The “sorry” was essentially enough to avoid an immediate revolt.
The issue is he has (a) PMQs next week where if Badenoch actually manages to be forensic I think he will dig a deeper hole (b) the release of the vetting info which its hard to see taking the pressure off and (c) Gorton and Denton at the end of the month.
Starmer is on a meathook with this imo.
Although he did not know (and couldn't be expected to) about Mandelson's spying for Epstein from the heart of government back in New Labour days, he did know about the friendship and that it had persisted after Epstein's criminal conviction. The closeness of it, no, but the fact of it, yes.
Now here's the kicker, the thing that has got him trapped. In appointing PM to Washington, because of the nature of the current US president the iffy side to his character was judged to be potentially a plus and certainly no bar.
This he cannot admit in public. He cannot come out and say, "Look, there's a guy in the White House as sleazy and corrupt as they come, so we felt we'd get better results with an Ambassador over there who is unfazed by that and knows how to roll with it."
He can't say that. It's the truth but he can't say it. So he's left with "I got fooled" - which for someone already extremely unpopular translates as "I am a fool".
It's a bad place to be.
Do you know what though? He may be better just saying that. And that he was only fooled by both of them proving to be even worse than anyone could have imagined. It couldn't play any worse.
A dodgy Mandelson has gone.
An even worse US President - petty, veangeful, grifting, spiteful - is still in place.
You think Starmer saying any of that about Trump will go unanswered? Say hello to 1,000% tariffs...
Not to mention the $100 tn lawsuit against HMG filed in Madhouse, Florida.
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
Collapse the govt in VoNC with clear indication of a successor with support to evade Lascelles issues Badenoch has offered to support them in this in her speech today
The chance of Labour MPs voting on the floor of the Commons against their own government seems very low to me.
It ends in one of two ways - a challenger and a leadership contest (are stalking horses permitted under Labour Party rules?) or litany of resignations making it impossible for the government to function, as was the way Boris’ government collapsed.
Keir Starmer says he had 'no reason' to believe that Lord Mandelson was 'telling anything other than the truth' about his relationship with Epstein
But he did have good reason. The FT article from the brilliant @PickardJE in June 2023 - which we're told is in the Cabinet Office report - had extensive details about their relationship. The picture alone should have raised concerns
Bank of England vote more dovish (Trending toward a rate cut) than expected. 5-4 with Breeden joining Dingra, Taylor and Ramsden who are seen to be trending toward lower rates compared to the 4 hawks.
Means the next decision is basically Bailey's choice.
Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
With every day that passes the Chagos Surrender becomes murkier yet more grimly explicable
I thought it was Russia everyone was worried about. Now Epstein was working with the Chinese?
It just gets worse and worse for Starmer.
No, there's very little on that score. In contrast, Russia, Russia money, Russian intelligence individuals, Russian trafficked women and Russian influence efforts are all over the Epstein files.
It seems pretty likely that Epstein worked for Russian intelligence, one way or another.
It's a point made very openly and succinctly by Frank Gardner:
Maxwell Snr was double / triple agent, definitely Mossad, highly likely Russian asset. Chances his daughter got into the same game?
I never quite understood her "position" with Epstein. A fixer for arranging girls, but were they also a couple or was it purely business of madaming / collecting info?
She and Epstein were lovers, on and off, over the course of about thirty years. And, they both enjoyed having sex with the girls and young women that she procured for him.
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
Collapse the govt in VoNC with clear indication of a successor with support to evade Lascelles issues Badenoch has offered to support them in this in her speech today
The chance of Labour MPs voting on the floor of the Commons against their own government seems very low to me.
It ends in one of two ways - a challenger and a leadership contest (are stalking horses permitted under Labour Party rules?) or litany of resignations making it impossible for the government to function, as was the way Boris’ government collapsed.
Oh it won't happen but thats how they can 'force' it
Keir Starmer says he had 'no reason' to believe that Lord Mandelson was 'telling anything other than the truth' about his relationship with Epstein
But he did have good reason. The FT article from the brilliant @PickardJE in June 2023 - which we're told is in the Cabinet Office report - had extensive details about their relationship. The picture alone should have raised concerns
Do we think Starmer's speech has made his survival less likely?
I think he’s done more or less what he needs to for now. The “sorry” was essentially enough to avoid an immediate revolt.
The issue is he has (a) PMQs next week where if Badenoch actually manages to be forensic I think he will dig a deeper hole (b) the release of the vetting info which its hard to see taking the pressure off and (c) Gorton and Denton at the end of the month.
Starmer is on a meathook with this imo.
Although he did not know (and couldn't be expected to) about Mandelson's spying for Epstein from the heart of government back in New Labour days, he did know about the friendship and that it had persisted after Epstein's criminal conviction. The closeness of it, no, but the fact of it, yes.
Now here's the kicker, the thing that has got him trapped. In appointing PM to Washington, because of the nature of the current US president the iffy side to his character was judged to be potentially a plus and certainly no bar.
This he cannot admit in public. He cannot come out and say, "Look, there's a guy in the White House as sleazy and corrupt as they come, so we felt we'd get better results with an Ambassador over there who is unfazed by that and knows how to roll with it."
He can't say that. It's the truth but he can't say it. So he's left with "I got fooled" - which for someone already extremely unpopular translates as "I am a fool".
It's a bad place to be.
Do you know what though? He may be better just saying that. And that he was only fooled by both of them proving to be even worse than anyone could have imagined. It couldn't play any worse.
A dodgy Mandelson has gone.
An even worse US President - petty, veangeful, grifting, spiteful - is still in place.
You think Starmer saying any of that about Trump will go unanswered? Say hello to 1,000% tariffs...
I get that. However. Playing nicely with Donald has been sub optimal. Standing up to him can shore up governments. See Canada.
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
Collapse the govt in VoNC with clear indication of a successor with support to evade Lascelles issues Badenoch has offered to support them in this in her speech today
The chance of Labour MPs voting on the floor of the Commons against their own government seems very low to me.
It ends in one of two ways - a challenger and a leadership contest (are stalking horses permitted under Labour Party rules?) or litany of resignations making it impossible for the government to function, as was the way Boris’ government collapsed.
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
There's a formal mechanism which involves 80 of them signing up to not having confidence in him, and then a vote of the membership, maybe, I don't know, but I think it's the informal mechanism, of an overwhelming majority telling him he has to go, directly or via Cabinet ministers, that is most likely to happen.
Do we think Starmer's speech has made his survival less likely?
I think he’s done more or less what he needs to for now. The “sorry” was essentially enough to avoid an immediate revolt.
The issue is he has (a) PMQs next week where if Badenoch actually manages to be forensic I think he will dig a deeper hole (b) the release of the vetting info which its hard to see taking the pressure off and (c) Gorton and Denton at the end of the month.
Starmer is on a meathook with this imo.
Although he did not know (and couldn't be expected to) about Mandelson's spying for Epstein from the heart of government back in New Labour days, he did know about the friendship and that it had persisted after Epstein's criminal conviction. The closeness of it, no, but the fact of it, yes.
Now here's the kicker, the thing that has got him trapped. In appointing PM to Washington, because of the nature of the current US president the iffy side to his character was judged to be potentially a plus and certainly no bar.
This he cannot admit in public. He cannot come out and say, "Look, there's a guy in the White House as sleazy and corrupt as they come, so we felt we'd get better results with an Ambassador over there who is unfazed by that and knows how to roll with it."
He can't say that. It's the truth but he can't say it. So he's left with "I got fooled" - which for someone already extremely unpopular translates as "I am a fool".
It's a bad place to be.
Do you know what though? He may be better just saying that. And that he was only fooled by both of them proving to be even worse than anyone could have imagined. It couldn't play any worse.
A dodgy Mandelson has gone.
An even worse US President - petty, veangeful, grifting, spiteful - is still in place.
You think Starmer saying any of that about Trump will go unanswered? Say hello to 1,000% tariffs...
Mandelson hasn’t gone; he remains as an albatross, his commonest incarnation
Starmer the legal genius...when these scandals hit he always seems to come up with terrible defence tactics.
I hardly knew him, how could I have known, he told porkies, as if he was somebody you hired off the street after they sent in their CV and you did ring a referee and they said he is alright bloke.
Not lifetime labour party insider, former labour party spin doctor, business minister, and constant connected to scandal and dodgy rich people, and been caught out numerous times over his passing connection to the truth....
And a load of evidence for Mandy / Epstein love in were on the record at time of appointment.
"How was I to know that the Prince of Darkness might tell a fib from time to time?"
The only time you should hire someone nicknamed 'The Prince of Darkness' is when they come with their own heavy metal group...
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
Collapse the govt in VoNC with clear indication of a successor with support to evade Lascelles issues Badenoch has offered to support them in this in her speech today
The chance of Labour MPs voting on the floor of the Commons against their own government seems very low to me.
It ends in one of two ways - a challenger and a leadership contest (are stalking horses permitted under Labour Party rules?) or litany of resignations making it impossible for the government to function, as was the way Boris’ government collapsed.
The government is all but paralyzed now
You are being Currygate hyperbolic again.
Nonetheless he has to go, and the sooner the better.
Do we think Starmer's speech has made his survival less likely?
I think he’s done more or less what he needs to for now. The “sorry” was essentially enough to avoid an immediate revolt.
The issue is he has (a) PMQs next week where if Badenoch actually manages to be forensic I think he will dig a deeper hole (b) the release of the vetting info which its hard to see taking the pressure off and (c) Gorton and Denton at the end of the month.
Starmer is on a meathook with this imo.
Although he did not know (and couldn't be expected to) about Mandelson's spying for Epstein from the heart of government back in New Labour days, he did know about the friendship and that it had persisted after Epstein's criminal conviction. The closeness of it, no, but the fact of it, yes.
Now here's the kicker, the thing that has got him trapped. In appointing PM to Washington, because of the nature of the current US president the iffy side to his character was judged to be potentially a plus and certainly no bar.
This he cannot admit in public. He cannot come out and say, "Look, there's a guy in the White House as sleazy and corrupt as they come, so we felt we'd get better results with an Ambassador over there who is unfazed by that and knows how to roll with it."
He can't say that. It's the truth but he can't say it. So he's left with "I got fooled" - which for someone already extremely unpopular translates as "I am a fool".
It's a bad place to be.
He implied he knew all about the bad stuff in his speech welcoming Mandelson to Washington
“To us, he’s just Peter” after listing a load of nefarious takes, ostensibly about Donald Trump
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
Collapse the govt in VoNC with clear indication of a successor with support to evade Lascelles issues Badenoch has offered to support them in this in her speech today
The chance of Labour MPs voting on the floor of the Commons against their own government seems very low to me.
It ends in one of two ways - a challenger and a leadership contest (are stalking horses permitted under Labour Party rules?) or litany of resignations making it impossible for the government to function, as was the way Boris’ government collapsed.
The government is all but paralyzed now
Last week you were predicting a Labour civil war over Burnham, that didn’t happen, perhaps tone down on the hyperbole.
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
Collapse the govt in VoNC with clear indication of a successor with support to evade Lascelles issues Badenoch has offered to support them in this in her speech today
The chance of Labour MPs voting on the floor of the Commons against their own government seems very low to me.
It ends in one of two ways - a challenger and a leadership contest (are stalking horses permitted under Labour Party rules?) or litany of resignations making it impossible for the government to function, as was the way Boris’ government collapsed.
The government is all but paralyzed now
You are being Currygate hyperbolic again.
Nonetheless he has to go, and the sooner the better.
Currygate told us a lot about the Starmer we now know
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
Collapse the govt in VoNC with clear indication of a successor with support to evade Lascelles issues Badenoch has offered to support them in this in her speech today
The chance of Labour MPs voting on the floor of the Commons against their own government seems very low to me.
It ends in one of two ways - a challenger and a leadership contest (are stalking horses permitted under Labour Party rules?) or litany of resignations making it impossible for the government to function, as was the way Boris’ government collapsed.
The government is all but paralyzed now
You are being Currygate hyperbolic again.
Nonetheless he has to go, and the sooner the better.
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
There's a formal mechanism which involves 80 of them signing up to not having confidence in him, and then a vote of the membership, maybe, I don't know, but I think it's the informal mechanism, of an overwhelming majority telling him he has to go, directly or via Cabinet ministers, that is most likely to happen.
That's not quite right. It's not a vote of confidence like the Tories have. Around 80 (IIRC the number is 81, it is 20% of Labour MPs) have to endorse a specific challenger. There are some other requirements for support from CLPs and affiliated organisations. Then there is a vote of party members and I think union members who are registered supporters with the challenger plus anyone else who gets 20% plus the incumbent by default unless they opt out as candidates. Votes by listed preference with lovers eliminated until someone is over 50%. I agree the more obvious path is he loses cabinet support and he resigns, triggering a contest.
Journalist shouts what about Epstein directly to King Charles on a visit
This is not going away for the Royals either
Journalists being disrespectful, uncouth twats is never going to go away.
Seeing journos shout questions at people leaving 10 Downing Street is particularly dispiriting - as if anyone would be likely to respond. I simly don't know what they are trying to achieve..
This is a much bigger issue than anything Sunak had to contend with. This is a crisis of Starmer's own making, albeit quite probably with good intentions, re: Trump. Sunak inherited his crises.
Journalist shouts what about Epstein directly to King Charles on a visit
This is not going away for the Royals either
Journalists being disrespectful, uncouth twats is never going to go away.
Seeing journos shout questions at people leaving 10 Downing Street is particularly dispiriting - as if anyone would be likely to respond. I simly don't know what they are trying to achieve..
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
There's a formal mechanism which involves 80 of them signing up to not having confidence in him, and then a vote of the membership, maybe, I don't know, but I think it's the informal mechanism, of an overwhelming majority telling him he has to go, directly or via Cabinet ministers, that is most likely to happen.
That's not quite right. It's not a vote of confidence like the Tories have. Around 80 (IIRC the number is 81, it is 20% of Labour MPs) have to endorse a specific challenger. There are some other requirements for support from CLPs and affiliated organisations. Then there is a vote of party members and I think union members who are registered supporters with the challenger plus anyone else who gets 20% plus the incumbent by default unless they opt out as candidates. Votes by listed preference with lovers eliminated until someone is over 50%. I agree the more obvious path is he loses cabinet support and he resigns, triggering a contest.
Journalist shouts what about Epstein directly to King Charles on a visit
This is not going away for the Royals either
Journalists being disrespectful, uncouth twats is never going to go away.
Seeing journos shout questions at people leaving 10 Downing Street is particularly dispiriting - as if anyone would be likely to respond. I simly don't know what they are trying to achieve..
Its a horrid import from US politics.
You could say the same about chiefs of staff, spin doctors, politicians earning millions on the qt from the billionaires, 24 hour news, extremism, echo chambers et al.
Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
With every day that passes the Chagos Surrender becomes murkier yet more grimly explicable
I thought it was Russia everyone was worried about. Now Epstein was working with the Chinese?
It just gets worse and worse for Starmer.
No, there's very little on that score. In contrast, Russia, Russia money, Russian intelligence individuals, Russian trafficked women and Russian influence efforts are all over the Epstein files.
It seems pretty likely that Epstein worked for Russian intelligence, one way or another.
It's a point made very openly and succinctly by Frank Gardner:
Maxwell Snr was double / triple agent, definitely Mossad, highly likely Russian asset. Chances his daughter got into the same game?
I'd guess once you get involved in that world at that level you probably do some favours for all the agencies, whether Mossad, Russia, Chinese or indeed US and UK.
Nobody gets what amounted to a state funeral in Israel without having done _something_.
I find it hard to believe his daughter didn't know / wasn't involved.
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
There's a formal mechanism which involves 80 of them signing up to not having confidence in him, and then a vote of the membership, maybe, I don't know, but I think it's the informal mechanism, of an overwhelming majority telling him he has to go, directly or via Cabinet ministers, that is most likely to happen.
That's not quite right. It's not a vote of confidence like the Tories have. Around 80 (IIRC the number is 81, it is 20% of Labour MPs) have to endorse a specific challenger. There are some other requirements for support from CLPs and affiliated organisations. Then there is a vote of party members and I think union members who are registered supporters with the challenger plus anyone else who gets 20% plus the incumbent by default unless they opt out as candidates. Votes by listed preference with lovers eliminated until someone is over 50%. I agree the more obvious path is he loses cabinet support and he resigns, triggering a contest.
"... with *lovers* eliminated..."
I like it!
So an incentive for him not to withdraw the whip from MPs with a conscience. Can't see the PLP managing to organise themselves sufficiently to get 20% +1 in agreement over 1 candidate.
"The Labour Government has undermined free speech and democracy in Britain, a report has found.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said the Government’s use of surveillance, its “repressive anti-protest laws” and anti-terrorism legislation had eroded freedom of expression, assembly and association.
In its 529-page annual world report, the organisation said the police and courts had continued to “restrict and criminalise peaceful protest”."
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
Collapse the govt in VoNC with clear indication of a successor with support to evade Lascelles issues Badenoch has offered to support them in this in her speech today
The chance of Labour MPs voting on the floor of the Commons against their own government seems very low to me.
It ends in one of two ways - a challenger and a leadership contest (are stalking horses permitted under Labour Party rules?) or litany of resignations making it impossible for the government to function, as was the way Boris’ government collapsed.
The government is all but paralyzed now
Last week you were predicting a Labour civil war over Burnham, that didn’t happen, perhaps tone down on the hyperbole.
The government is paralyzed when the press pack are in this mood and labour mps need to act
Starmer the legal genius...when these scandals hit he always seems to come up with terrible defence tactics.
I hardly knew him, how could I have known, he told porkies, as if he was somebody you hired off the street after they sent in their CV and you did ring a referee and they said he is alright bloke.
Not lifetime labour party insider, former labour party spin doctor, business minister, and constant connected to scandal and dodgy rich people, and been caught out numerous times over his passing connection to the truth....
And a load of evidence for Mandy / Epstein love in were on the record at time of appointment.
"How was I to know that the Prince of Darkness might tell a fib from time to time?"
The only time you should hire someone nicknamed 'The Prince of Darkness' is when they come with their own heavy metal group...
Here we are Born to be Queens We're the Princes of the Da-arkness
Shouldn't McSweeney simply do the decent thing and resign? No one thinks he's particularly good at what he does, and his continuing presence is killing his boss, his party and the government he serves. What's the point in sticking around? The media will give him a good job as a commentator and political seer; they always do.
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
Collapse the govt in VoNC with clear indication of a successor with support to evade Lascelles issues Badenoch has offered to support them in this in her speech today
The chance of Labour MPs voting on the floor of the Commons against their own government seems very low to me.
It ends in one of two ways - a challenger and a leadership contest (are stalking horses permitted under Labour Party rules?) or litany of resignations making it impossible for the government to function, as was the way Boris’ government collapsed.
The government is all but paralyzed now
You are being Currygate hyperbolic again.
Nonetheless he has to go, and the sooner the better.
Currygate told us a lot about the Starmer we now know
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
Collapse the govt in VoNC with clear indication of a successor with support to evade Lascelles issues Badenoch has offered to support them in this in her speech today
The chance of Labour MPs voting on the floor of the Commons against their own government seems very low to me.
It ends in one of two ways - a challenger and a leadership contest (are stalking horses permitted under Labour Party rules?) or litany of resignations making it impossible for the government to function, as was the way Boris’ government collapsed.
The government is all but paralyzed now
You are being Currygate hyperbolic again.
Nonetheless he has to go, and the sooner the better.
Currygate told us a lot about the Starmer we now know
Shouldn't Starmer simply do the decent thing and resign? No one thinks he's particularly good at what his does, and his continuing presence is killing his boss, his party and the government he serves. What's the point in sticking around? The media will give him a good job as a commentator and political seer; they always do.
What's the mechanism for Labour MPs to force a leader to resign?
Collapse the govt in VoNC with clear indication of a successor with support to evade Lascelles issues Badenoch has offered to support them in this in her speech today
The chance of Labour MPs voting on the floor of the Commons against their own government seems very low to me.
It ends in one of two ways - a challenger and a leadership contest (are stalking horses permitted under Labour Party rules?) or litany of resignations making it impossible for the government to function, as was the way Boris’ government collapsed.
The government is all but paralyzed now
Last week you were predicting a Labour civil war over Burnham, that didn’t happen, perhaps tone down on the hyperbole.
This has only one ending and that is Starmer's premiership
How and when is the question but every day he remains in office his government is paralyzed
The press are not going to let up and whenever he speaks he will face a torrent of hostile questions
Labour mps need to find a way to end this and quickly
I sense it’s already blowing over. We’ve seen before, to be continuously newsworthy things need “new legs”. I can’t see how new legs can be invented for this, other than another tranche of emails with some new or more shocking angle in it. It’s pretty obvious the Snoopy Services didn’t tell him any more than already publicly known. Which is interesting, I don’t see it as failure of Snoopy Services. It might be CIA knew but didn’t tell the British. Or Vice Versa. Or MI6 not telling MI5. They are a funny lot, Secret Services, give me impression they keep secrets, which I think they should share more.
Bang an audience over and over with same thing and they get bored and cheesed off with it. We know exactly this from Currygate for example - huge news for a day or so, forcing Labour and Deputy into quit threats, real jeopardy for them. Today it’s like “what?” We can’t actually mention Currygate now without being ridiculed for pushing it too far.
This is very different of course. Starmer has definitely taken a huge hit - how can he say “for me it’s about the victims first” when he knowingly hired someone who went back being friends AFTER a conviction.
Politically, in a strange sort of way politics works, in his moment of honesty at PMQs, Starmer actually helped himself a bit. Imagine if he actually tried taking the opposite route, and lying for short term game - then he really would be in deeper trouble today, and tomorrow.
Some other news stories don’t deserve to get buried too. This “should play” in the by election imo
I’ve had some bloke on the phone offering me the job of the PM’s Chief of Staff.
You'd be great with all that free advice from the PB glitterati. What could possibly go wrong?
I was told about a decade ago there were two jobs that were perfect for me (well three).
1) Government Chief Whip, my mixture of humour and threats would be brilliant for the role, plus I am very good at drowning kittens as a former boss observed
2) PM’s Chief of Staff for the same reasons as 1)
3) Press Secretary, every press conference would be box office with erm my memorable phrasing.
I’ve had some bloke on the phone offering me the job of the PM’s Chief of Staff.
You'd be great with all that free advice from the PB glitterati. What could possibly go wrong?
I was told about a decade ago there were two jobs that were perfect for me (well three).
1) Government Chief Whip, my mixture of humour and threats would be brilliant for the role, plus I am very good at drowning kittens as a former boss observed
2) PM’s Chief of Staff for the same reasons as 1)
3) Press Secretary, every press conference would be box office with erm my memorable phrasing.
Did you laugh when you finished talking to the mirror?
Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
With every day that passes the Chagos Surrender becomes murkier yet more grimly explicable
I thought it was Russia everyone was worried about. Now Epstein was working with the Chinese?
It just gets worse and worse for Starmer.
No, there's very little on that score. In contrast, Russia, Russia money, Russian intelligence individuals, Russian trafficked women and Russian influence efforts are all over the Epstein files.
It seems pretty likely that Epstein worked for Russian intelligence, one way or another.
It's a point made very openly and succinctly by Frank Gardner:
Maxwell Snr was double / triple agent, definitely Mossad, highly likely Russian asset. Chances his daughter got into the same game?
I'd guess once you get involved in that world at that level you probably do some favours for all the agencies, whether Mossad, Russia, Chinese or indeed US and UK.
Nobody gets what amounted to a state funeral in Israel without having done _something_.
I find it hard to believe his daughter didn't know / wasn't involved.
How often did Epstein visit Israel ?
Based on passport photos and paperwork, Jeffrey Epstein appears to have been issued Russian visas in (at minimum) 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2014, 2015, and 2018 (this one valid till 2021)... https://x.com/eyepatch_man/status/2019224780931752306
NBC: "You talked about the weapon, the 'discombobulator'..."
@POTUS: "Well, I'm not allowed to talk about it... Let me just tell you, you know what it does? None of their equipment works... Everything was discombobulated... We lost no men, and we lost no equipment."
I’ve had some bloke on the phone offering me the job of the PM’s Chief of Staff.
You'd be great with all that free advice from the PB glitterati. What could possibly go wrong?
I was told about a decade ago there were two jobs that were perfect for me (well three).
1) Government Chief Whip, my mixture of humour and threats would be brilliant for the role, plus I am very good at drowning kittens as a former boss observed
2) PM’s Chief of Staff for the same reasons as 1)
3) Press Secretary, every press conference would be box office with erm my memorable phrasing.
Unfortunately you got blackballed by Larry the cat.
I’ve had some bloke on the phone offering me the job of the PM’s Chief of Staff.
You'd be great with all that free advice from the PB glitterati. What could possibly go wrong?
I was told about a decade ago there were two jobs that were perfect for me (well three).
1) Government Chief Whip, my mixture of humour and threats would be brilliant for the role, plus I am very good at drowning kittens as a former boss observed
2) PM’s Chief of Staff for the same reasons as 1)
3) Press Secretary, every press conference would be box office with erm my memorable phrasing.
Even as an operative hostile to this Government you would probably still run an operation more positive to this Government than SweeneyMcSweeneyface.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/czx3lq460n6t?page=4
She couldn't answer a question from BBC as to why she's barely mentioned Mandelson for 14 months, wittering on instead naming junior ministers who have.
Ms aftertimer caught out... No script for that answer kemi?
I never quite understood her "position" with Epstein. A fixer for arranging girls, but were they also a couple or was it purely business of madaming / collecting info?
That's the question that is so far not being answered, or even investigated. Why was he appointed?
Its not a mystery.
"Vote Burnham to kick out Starmer!"
It would have been fun to see him try.
The fact there hasn’t been suggests that the execution will be deferred for a while yet. Probably after Gorton or after May, but with the release of the files being another risk point.
I do agree with the general position though that Starmer is now a goner and it’s just a matter of timing (I have felt for ages though that its been very unlikely he’d be fighting 2029 - I just think a 2026 exit is now much more plausible).
If he'd have won. And to be honest I think it would have strangled the Green campaign at birth, then holding could have removed an obvious pinch point for the leadership. If he'd lost it wouldn't have been by much.
As it is a quite dismal third place looks inevitable. And could completely finish Starmer off.
DAN HODGES: Ruthless, cynical and cunning - why Mandy is the perfect choice as US ambassador
https://x.com/DailyMail/status/1870296811325247570
Starmer was probably advised by someone "ruthless, cynical and cunning", or who believed they were that*, that Mandelson would be the perfect Trump whisperer (a stupid phrase, but also popular at the time).
*Remind us who is Starmer's chief of staff
How and when is the question but every day he remains in office his government is paralyzed
The press are not going to let up and whenever he speaks he will face a torrent of hostile questions
Labour mps need to find a way to end this and quickly
"I put everything on black, the wheel was spun, and it landed red. Them's the breaks."
Badenoch has offered to support them in this in her speech today
An even worse US President - petty, veangeful, grifting, spiteful - is still in place.
You think Starmer saying any of that about Trump will go unanswered? Say hello to 1,000% tariffs...
This is not going away for the Royals either
It ends in one of two ways - a challenger and a leadership contest (are stalking horses permitted under Labour Party rules?) or litany of resignations making it impossible for the government to function, as was the way Boris’ government collapsed.
But he did have good reason. The FT article from the brilliant @PickardJE in June 2023 - which we're told is in the Cabinet Office report - had extensive details about their relationship. The picture alone should have raised concerns
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2019378372594327748?s=20
Means the next decision is basically Bailey's choice.
https://x.com/CrewkerneGaz/status/2019116242326679800
Leon was right about AI.
However. Playing nicely with Donald has been sub optimal.
Standing up to him can shore up governments.
See Canada.
Nonetheless he has to go, and the sooner the better.
“To us, he’s just Peter” after listing a load of nefarious takes, ostensibly about Donald Trump
https://x.com/i/status/2019395306014548411
I like it!
I find it hard to believe his daughter didn't know / wasn't involved.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said the Government’s use of surveillance, its “repressive anti-protest laws” and anti-terrorism legislation had eroded freedom of expression, assembly and association.
In its 529-page annual world report, the organisation said the police and courts had continued to “restrict and criminalise peaceful protest”."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/02/04/labour-undermining-free-speech-human-rights-report-finds
Born to be Queens
We're the Princes of the Da-arkness
Here's Global Counsel's CEO and co-founder, preparing to tell the press that Mandelson barely knew Jeffrey Epstein.
Who did he check that line with?
Jeffrey Epstein.
Big G has got the bit between his teeth, and his relentless posts saying "Go Now!" will wear Starmer down sooner rather than later.
Bang an audience over and over with same thing and they get bored and cheesed off with it. We know exactly this from Currygate for example - huge news for a day or so, forcing Labour and Deputy into quit threats, real jeopardy for them. Today it’s like “what?” We can’t actually mention Currygate now without being ridiculed for pushing it too far.
This is very different of course. Starmer has definitely taken a huge hit - how can he say “for me it’s about the victims first” when he knowingly hired someone who went back being friends AFTER a conviction.
Politically, in a strange sort of way politics works, in his moment of honesty at PMQs, Starmer actually helped himself a bit. Imagine if he actually tried taking the opposite route, and lying for short term game - then he really would be in deeper trouble today, and tomorrow.
Some other news stories don’t deserve to get buried too. This “should play” in the by election imo
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15530651/Fury-Green-leader-celebrating-Palestine-Action-sledgehammer-attack.html
I can’t believe anyone votes green.
1) Government Chief Whip, my mixture of humour and threats would be brilliant for the role, plus I am very good at drowning kittens as a former boss observed
2) PM’s Chief of Staff for the same reasons as 1)
3) Press Secretary, every press conference would be box office with erm my memorable phrasing.
Based on passport photos and paperwork, Jeffrey Epstein appears to have been issued Russian visas in (at minimum) 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2014, 2015, and 2018 (this one valid till 2021)...
https://x.com/eyepatch_man/status/2019224780931752306
NBC: "You talked about the weapon, the 'discombobulator'..."
@POTUS: "Well, I'm not allowed to talk about it... Let me just tell you, you know what it does? None of their equipment works... Everything was discombobulated... We lost no men, and we lost no equipment."
Boris Johnson tried the Jimmy Savile / Starmer conspiracy theory and couldn't even get any traction from his own MP's
I don't imagine it will stop the lunatic fringe having another go though.