Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
Just another person who wants to ride his favourite hobbyhorse. In his case, the destruction of Old Labour is the original sin. For others it is Thatcher or Brexit or immigration.
Tory HQ is rejoicing. They think Labour will not recover from Starmer’s downfall, that whoever comes next will bring chaos and that the public won’t forgive them. They now see a route back to government in one term, a thought that would have been ridiculous only a few weeks ago.
Absolutely deluded. They are fifteen points behind Reform and rats are jumping ship right, right, and right.
I don't believe many Tories in Tory HQ have come to terms with the fact they lost GE24.
Or they recognise that they have lost (not being ministers and the small number of colleagues ought to be a giveaway), but are still at the 'the people will realise that they made a hideous mistake and will come running back to us at the first oppotunity' stage. Starmer might technically be Prime Minister, but he doesn't really deserve it.
Most defeated governments tend to think this for a while.
If this is political chess, would SKS move now to block off Burnham? Or wait until Angie is clear but risk Burnham finding a berth and mounting a challenge. And what do the other competing tribes do?
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
Just another person who wants to ride his favourite hobbyhorse. In his case, the destruction of Old Labour is the original sin. For others it is Thatcher or Brexit or immigration.
Unfair, in Lewis’s case, I feel. Right or wrong, he’s looking to the future and certainly doesn’t hanker for the world of machine politicians cooking up deals with the trade unions in smoke-filled rooms.
If this is political chess, would SKS move now to block off Burnham? Or wait until Angie is clear but risk Burnham finding a berth and mounting a challenge. And what do the other competing tribes do?
I was thinking the same thing. Opening the path for Burnham now would change the narrative which is essential. All hands battle stations. Burnham is a 6 month problem (and he might not win the bye election). Starmer's problem is the next 6 days.
Betfair has a market on the quarter when Starmer will be replaced (so be careful to factor in time for a leadership election and/or coronation). Currently:-
When will Keir Starmer be replaced as Labour Party leader? We will settle this market on the date the Labour Party officially announce their new Permanent Party Leader after Keir Starmer. Temporary/interim leaders do not count. If a temporary/interim leader is appointed we will wait until the date of the announcement of the Permanent Leader before settling. This market will be void if the Party Leader dies while in office. If the Party Leader is unable to fulfil his/her role due to health reasons and is therefore permanently replaced this market will be void https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.253645106
Jan-Mar 8.6 Apr-Jun 3.75 Jul-Sep 2.62 Oct-Dec 7.4 2027 or later 3.25
That 7.4 for Q4 looks a little tempting. These things tend to happen around conference season, and the process takes a while (3m or so last time?).
The actual machinations of changing leader from government, rather than opposition, complicate things considerably. Starmer would potentially be a lame duck PM all summer.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
Tory HQ is rejoicing. They think Labour will not recover from Starmer’s downfall, that whoever comes next will bring chaos and that the public won’t forgive them. They now see a route back to government in one term, a thought that would have been ridiculous only a few weeks ago.
The Metropolitan Police have closed off Matthew Parker Street and Tufton Street on Central London
Drug Enforcement, Terrorist and Border Control Police are searching for a potentially deadly highly dangerous halluconigenic drug that can cause delusion and cause brain cells to implode
If this is political chess, would SKS move now to block off Burnham? Or wait until Angie is clear but risk Burnham finding a berth and mounting a challenge. And what do the other competing tribes do?
I was thinking the same thing. Opening the path for Burnham now would change the narrative which is essential. All hands battle stations. Burnham is a 6 month problem (and he might not win the bye election). Starmer's problem is the next 6 days.
Ange is fundamentally more loyal to Keir than Burnham or Streeting.
She's proved that countless times in the past few months.
If she does move it will be to stop them, not attack Keir.
Tory HQ is rejoicing. They think Labour will not recover from Starmer’s downfall, that whoever comes next will bring chaos and that the public won’t forgive them. They now see a route back to government in one term, a thought that would have been ridiculous only a few weeks ago.
The Metropolitan Police have closed off Matthew Parker Street and Tufton Street on Central London
Drug Enforcement, Terrorist and Border Control Police are searching for a potentially deadly highly dangerous halluconigenic drug that can cause delusion and cause brain cells to implode
Tory HQ is rejoicing. They think Labour will not recover from Starmer’s downfall, that whoever comes next will bring chaos and that the public won’t forgive them. They now see a route back to government in one term, a thought that would have been ridiculous only a few weeks ago.
The Metropolitan Police have closed off Matthew Parker Street and Tufton Street on Central London
Drug Enforcement, Terrorist and Border Control Police are searching for a potentially deadly highly dangerous halluconigenic drug that can cause delusion and cause brain cells to implode
Streeting has a strong chance assuming he makes it to the final two.
Who could make the final two and yet not have a strong chance?
Anyone with a vagina.
This is the Labour Party, we're talking about.
In seriousness, Mahmood. She gives the membership the vapours.
I like her. This is probably not a great sign from a Labour party perspective.
She wants to turn Britain into a panopticon (not the Dr Who one, Taz). When all this is over and we look back at the burnt-out remains of the Starmer administration, we will wonder how in the name of goodness did authoritarianism and Blue Labour have such a hold over the party. Why, in the midst of a split opposition and a generational majority, did they think "Reform-lite...yes, that sounds good". All they had to do was shut up and let Ref kill Con and Con kill Ref. But nooo, it was all "Dear lefties: fuck off" (which they promptly did) and "we hate immigrants too" and "ID cards: well, it worked for the Gestapo, what could possibly go wrong?"
We probably won’t get to know much of the detail, but congratulations to everyone involved.
That's not very clear about "Ukranian owned" or products specifically for Ukraine. There are things around termed as "shadow factories" after the WW2 model.
There are certainly drone production lines operating - for example back in Oct 2025 the Govt reported the UK supplying 85k drones sent to Ukraine in the previous 6 months, including UK produced items. Plus there are fairly prominent current projects, such as the Octopus drone which is not in production yet, and several missiles.
There was a Rest Is History podcast about the origins of football which explained why American Football is called football and it actually made sense although I can’t remember the reasons.
As I predicted, this is a bigger result for Liverpool, Arsenal have the title in the bag 6 points up with an easy run in now, but Liverpool need to pick themselves up and muscle past either Manchester Utd or Chelsea. Or no Champions League football. Tough season for Liverpool from here on now.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I've never until felt comments that there are some blessings to being poor were true, but given how many fail moral tests once they get taste of extreme wealth and influence, perhaps there is something in it.
Where are the top politicians and billionaires who still just enjoy playing boardgames with the family or watching TV, like regular boring people?
Tory HQ is rejoicing. They think Labour will not recover from Starmer’s downfall, that whoever comes next will bring chaos and that the public won’t forgive them. They now see a route back to government in one term, a thought that would have been ridiculous only a few weeks ago.
Absolutely deluded. They are fifteen points behind Reform and rats are jumping ship right, right, and right.
I don't believe many Tories in Tory HQ have come to terms with the fact they lost GE24.
Or they recognise that they have lost (not being ministers and the small number of colleagues ought to be a giveaway), but are still at the 'the people will realise that they made a hideous mistake and will come running back to us at the first oppotunity' stage. Starmer might technically be Prime Minister, but he doesn't really deserve it.
Most defeated governments tend to think this for a while.
If must be the only party in history that claims half a dozen former ministers defecting to a rival party is a big win for the party they are leaving.
Streeting has a strong chance assuming he makes it to the final two.
Who could make the final two and yet not have a strong chance?
Anyone with a vagina.
This is the Labour Party, we're talking about.
In seriousness, Mahmood. She gives the membership the vapours.
I like her. This is probably not a great sign from a Labour party perspective.
She wants to turn Britain into a panopticon (not the Dr Who one, Taz). When all this is over and we look back at the burnt-out remains of the Starmer administration, we will wonder how in the name of goodness did authoritarianism and Blue Labour have such a hold over the party. Why, in the midst of a split opposition and a generational majority, did they think "Reform-lite...yes, that sounds good". All they had to do was shut up and let Ref kill Con and Con kill Ref. But nooo, it was all "Dear lefties: fuck off" (which they promptly did) and "we hate immigrants too" and "ID cards: well, it worked for the Gestapo, what could possibly go wrong?"
I'm a bit ranty about this, apologies.
Not at all. I love it. Both of the main parties that have dominated our politics for 100 years are tearing themselves apart. The traditional Tories (like me) want us to lose the right wing like Jenrick because they are racist and obnoxious. Labour wants to lose its left wing because they are nuts and have almost no understanding of how fragile our economic situation is. So they bleed votes to the Greens who are every bit as insane as Reform.
Tory HQ is rejoicing. They think Labour will not recover from Starmer’s downfall, that whoever comes next will bring chaos and that the public won’t forgive them. They now see a route back to government in one term, a thought that would have been ridiculous only a few weeks ago.
Absolutely deluded. They are fifteen points behind Reform and rats are jumping ship right, right, and right.
I don't believe many Tories in Tory HQ have come to terms with the fact they lost GE24.
Or they recognise that they have lost (not being ministers and the small number of colleagues ought to be a giveaway), but are still at the 'the people will realise that they made a hideous mistake and will come running back to us at the first oppotunity' stage. Starmer might technically be Prime Minister, but he doesn't really deserve it.
Most defeated governments tend to think this for a while.
If must be the only party in history that claims half a dozen former ministers defecting to a rival party is a big win for the party they are leaving.
The volume is a significant point really, the occasional such defection the argument might be more persuasive.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
Tory HQ is rejoicing. They think Labour will not recover from Starmer’s downfall, that whoever comes next will bring chaos and that the public won’t forgive them. They now see a route back to government in one term, a thought that would have been ridiculous only a few weeks ago.
Absolutely deluded. They are fifteen points behind Reform and rats are jumping ship right, right, and right.
I don't believe many Tories in Tory HQ have come to terms with the fact they lost GE24.
Or they recognise that they have lost (not being ministers and the small number of colleagues ought to be a giveaway), but are still at the 'the people will realise that they made a hideous mistake and will come running back to us at the first oppotunity' stage. Starmer might technically be Prime Minister, but he doesn't really deserve it.
Most defeated governments tend to think this for a while.
If must be the only party in history that claims half a dozen former ministers defecting to a rival party is a big win for the party they are leaving.
The volume is a significant point really, the occasional such defection the argument might be more persuasive.
No.
It's bad news even if the defectors are Jenrick, Braverman, Rosindell and Zahawi.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I've never until felt comments that there are some blessings to being poor were true, but given how many fail moral tests once they get taste of extreme wealth and influence, perhaps there is something in it.
Where are the top politicians and billionaires who still just enjoy playing boardgames with the family or watching TV, like regular boring people?
I was discussing this with a friend yesterday. I have grown up with and am surrounded by a lot of very wealthy people. Some inherited and some self-made.
There isn’t a pattern confirming which become more grasping for more money and those happy with their lot it’s just individual character. We see our circle as a concentric circle where some of us in my centre are happy and don’t feel the need to be flash and making more to have more things. Another ten million isn’t going to change what we do socially or day to day or even long term. We still want to meet up and have beers where we like to go and don’t want to be putting on socials pictures of us drinking vastly expensive drinks, in the most exclusive restaurants or in the most exclusive resorts. It might be a treat but generally it’s not something where we feel the need for MORE because we want a bigger boat or a villa in another place.
Then we have friends/acquaintances who are obsessed with the pursuit of MORE. Enough is never enough and frankly it’s more about what it projects to others than whether they truly enjoy it - they do enjoy the extras but I can’t see that they are happier because the efforts to get more add stress and take up time.
This is only anecdotal and might seem sexist but in a large number of the second grouping, especially the hedge fund guys, it’s very much competition amongst the wives. I say this as this is the world I know and I’m sure there will be people who can point to others where the man is avaricious and the women not but this is what I know and see. There is a competition of trinkets such as hugely expensive handbags where the chap doesn’t have an issue with his wife spending tens of k on a bag and you go to a party and they will be showing off the trinket and then next time another will suddenly modestly point out their toy.
So going back to the beginning I don’t find it’s about people with “wealth” but purely down to their individual characters. Some of the wealthiest people I know don’t need to bend the rules or risk other people’s happiness for more, some don’t even think about it.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I gues you don't like truth when you see it.. you just send out chaff
From a Conservative Party of view, couldn’t number 10 be stronger now with a divisive figure no longer heading up the operation. Also could a change to a new PM prove to Labours advantage, there is danger the public start listening to Labour again with a new voice and personality at the top. I’m currently convinced an improving economy and cost of living in coming years won’t help Labour in the polls if it’s Starmer and Rachel to take credit for it, but voters might think the new people at top improved cost of living and the economy and give them the credit for it.
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
Howard Lutnick looked straight into the camera and lied with the kind of confidence that only comes from years of getting away with it. He sold the public a fairy tale about “limited interactions” with Jeffrey Epstein while emails, contracts, and signatures quietly told a very different story.
Not only did he stay in touch—he went to the island, planned family visits, had lunch at Epstein’s home, shared drinks, and signed a business deal days after Epstein wrote “It was nice to see you.” This wasn’t some accidental brush with a social pariah. It was an ongoing, comfortable relationship that stretched years beyond the moment Lutnick claimed moral clarity.
The most grotesque part? Look how disgusting he laughs it off whenever Epstein’s name comes up, as if mockery might erase emails, contracts, or the fact that proximity to a predator was never a dealbreaker for him—until it became a PR liability.
In Europe, these Epstein connections are vanishing like dirty infected flies, scrubbed from websites, erased from guest lists, buried under legal threats and coordinated silence. But Lutnick’s receipts remain, a damning paper trail of a man who chose access over ethics, then lied about it with a straight face. Why is the U.S. helpless? https://x.com/Microinteracti1/status/2020483326390268161
As I predicted, this is a bigger result for Liverpool, Arsenal have the title in the bag 6 points up with an easy run in now, but Liverpool need to pick themselves up and muscle past either Manchester Utd or Chelsea. Or no Champions League football. Tough season for Liverpool from here on now.
Arsenal still have to play City away. Lose that and Arsenal are totally capable of bottling it again.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I've never until felt comments that there are some blessings to being poor were true, but given how many fail moral tests once they get taste of extreme wealth and influence, perhaps there is something in it.
Where are the top politicians and billionaires who still just enjoy playing boardgames with the family or watching TV, like regular boring people?
Jimmy Carter. Jeremy Corbyn. Jesus christ. Maybe there's a pattern!
I knew the Epstein files would bring down World leaders. More insignificant ones first then finally the big dog.
It seems that the most high profile man to be ruined by the scandal of Jeffrey Epstein's links to high profile men will be a man who had no links to Jeffrey Epstein. You couldn't make it up.
@EdKrassen · 2h BREAKING: Democrat Chasity Martinez just defeated her Republican opponent in the Louisiana State House 60 Special Election by about 23 points. It’s s district that Trump won in 2024 by 13 points. That’s a huge 36 point swing in favor of the Democrats.
Seems clear now that Starmer hopes to draw a line. The problem is, he cant. We’ve got all of the vetting documents to be released yet, and I think he’s swerved the “buck stops with me” rule one too many times. This will continue to run. If he’s bought himself time, it’s weeks at most.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I gues you don't like truth when you see it.. you just send out chaff
From a Conservative Party of view, couldn’t number 10 be stronger now with a divisive figure no longer heading up the operation. Also could a change to a new PM prove to Labours advantage, there is danger the public start listening to Labour again with a new voice and personality at the top. I’m currently convinced an improving economy and cost of living in coming years won’t help Labour in the polls if it’s Starmer and Rachel to take credit for it, but voters might think the new people at top improved cost of living and the economy and give them the credit for it.
Tentative theory: Those whose politics is driven by Starmer Derangement Syndrome will see this as a big win. (I've got vague recollections of similar whoops of joy with some of the early New Labour resignations, possibly including Mandy 1.0).
Calmer heads, and those who want to see a return to some sort of sane right-of-centre government... less so. A fox has been shot, sure, and a wily one at that. But if you get rid of the object of all the hatred before the election, that doesn't entirely help.
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
She's right (for once). There are hundreds of fairly poor , vulnerable girls who were sexually abused by this monster and his "friends". That is the scandal of Epstein, so much more serious than his corruption, his use of private information given to him by the likes of Mandelson. These girls were destroyed. Those that played a part in that really need to be held to account. Mandelson should be too, don't get me wrong, but the real victims remain invisible here.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I've never until felt comments that there are some blessings to being poor were true, but given how many fail moral tests once they get taste of extreme wealth and influence, perhaps there is something in it.
Where are the top politicians and billionaires who still just enjoy playing boardgames with the family or watching TV, like regular boring people?
I was discussing this with a friend yesterday. I have grown up with and am surrounded by a lot of very wealthy people. Some inherited and some self-made.
There isn’t a pattern confirming which become more grasping for more money and those happy with their lot it’s just individual character. We see our circle as a concentric circle where some of us in my centre are happy and don’t feel the need to be flash and making more to have more things. Another ten million isn’t going to change what we do socially or day to day or even long term. We still want to meet up and have beers where we like to go and don’t want to be putting on socials pictures of us drinking vastly expensive drinks, in the most exclusive restaurants or in the most exclusive resorts. It might be a treat but generally it’s not something where we feel the need for MORE because we want a bigger boat or a villa in another place.
Then we have friends/acquaintances who are obsessed with the pursuit of MORE. Enough is never enough and frankly it’s more about what it projects to others than whether they truly enjoy it - they do enjoy the extras but I can’t see that they are happier because the efforts to get more add stress and take up time.
This is only anecdotal and might seem sexist but in a large number of the second grouping, especially the hedge fund guys, it’s very much competition amongst the wives. I say this as this is the world I know and I’m sure there will be people who can point to others where the man is avaricious and the women not but this is what I know and see. There is a competition of trinkets such as hugely expensive handbags where the chap doesn’t have an issue with his wife spending tens of k on a bag and you go to a party and they will be showing off the trinket and then next time another will suddenly modestly point out their toy.
So going back to the beginning I don’t find it’s about people with “wealth” but purely down to their individual characters. Some of the wealthiest people I know don’t need to bend the rules or risk other people’s happiness for more, some don’t even think about it.
Oh, it's definitely about the individual character, it's just that the wealth provides additional temptations to those with lesser character that those who are poor will not be tested by (though they will be other things).
Seems clear now that Starmer hopes to draw a line. The problem is, he cant. We’ve got all of the vetting documents to be released yet, and I think he’s swerved the “buck stops with me” rule one too many times. This will continue to run. If he’s bought himself time, it’s weeks at most.
Yep, this just makes his position even weaker as there's no left to resign but the PM himself...
Seems to me he's hanging on by his fingertips at this point.
@EdKrassen · 2h BREAKING: Democrat Chasity Martinez just defeated her Republican opponent in the Louisiana State House 60 Special Election by about 23 points. It’s s district that Trump won in 2024 by 13 points. That’s a huge 36 point swing in favor of the Democrats.
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
Keir needs an emergency Deputy PM who actually does the PM job while Keir just waves and stuff.
They don’t actually need to be in the Commons. Could be made Lord if needs be.
Thoughts anyone?
Be a bit obvious wouldn't it? How much additional time would it really buy him if he had to essentially state things were so bad he had to loop in, say, Tony Blair?
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I've never until felt comments that there are some blessings to being poor were true, but given how many fail moral tests once they get taste of extreme wealth and influence, perhaps there is something in it.
Where are the top politicians and billionaires who still just enjoy playing boardgames with the family or watching TV, like regular boring people?
I was discussing this with a friend yesterday. I have grown up with and am surrounded by a lot of very wealthy people. Some inherited and some self-made.
There isn’t a pattern confirming which become more grasping for more money and those happy with their lot it’s just individual character. We see our circle as a concentric circle where some of us in my centre are happy and don’t feel the need to be flash and making more to have more things. Another ten million isn’t going to change what we do socially or day to day or even long term. We still want to meet up and have beers where we like to go and don’t want to be putting on socials pictures of us drinking vastly expensive drinks, in the most exclusive restaurants or in the most exclusive resorts. It might be a treat but generally it’s not something where we feel the need for MORE because we want a bigger boat or a villa in another place.
Then we have friends/acquaintances who are obsessed with the pursuit of MORE. Enough is never enough and frankly it’s more about what it projects to others than whether they truly enjoy it - they do enjoy the extras but I can’t see that they are happier because the efforts to get more add stress and take up time.
This is only anecdotal and might seem sexist but in a large number of the second grouping, especially the hedge fund guys, it’s very much competition amongst the wives. I say this as this is the world I know and I’m sure there will be people who can point to others where the man is avaricious and the women not but this is what I know and see. There is a competition of trinkets such as hugely expensive handbags where the chap doesn’t have an issue with his wife spending tens of k on a bag and you go to a party and they will be showing off the trinket and then next time another will suddenly modestly point out their toy.
So going back to the beginning I don’t find it’s about people with “wealth” but purely down to their individual characters. Some of the wealthiest people I know don’t need to bend the rules or risk other people’s happiness for more, some don’t even think about it.
Oh, it's definitely about the individual character, it's just that the wealth provides additional temptations to those with lesser character that those who are poor will not be tested by (though they will be other things).
Is that true about the “poor” though? There are plenty of things they can do that are morally dubious, illegal, damage other people such as drug dealing, theft, even minor things such as taking cash in hand.
I would say the big difference is that the “pool’s” options to do things that enable them to get more are dirtier and involve a different sort of risk whereas the rich are doing it in nice restaurants and boardrooms and committing a crime in a nice suit and tie probably enables them to think they aren’t criminals but tooling up with a knife in a tracksuit down alleyways of estates, you know you are outside of acceptability.
The rewards available are greater for rich baddies but proportionately maybe not, the money from street dealing might buy you a flash bmw which is infinitely nicer than you might otherwise own and that’s not really much different from the white collar guy buying a pad in Barbados rather than Cornwall.
@EdKrassen · 2h BREAKING: Democrat Chasity Martinez just defeated her Republican opponent in the Louisiana State House 60 Special Election by about 23 points. It’s s district that Trump won in 2024 by 13 points. That’s a huge 36 point swing in favor of the Democrats.
Comments
Required Qualifications : not being a Mandlebrot set
Perhaps very soon…
https://x.com/labourlewis/status/2020528059527442452#m
Most defeated governments tend to think this for a while.
(I guessed Rayner.)
Gordon Brown
He could also do what he's desperate to do a full independent review of vetting, the civil service, internal Labour politics.
He would comfort the markets, he'd be acceptable to all but the very rabid left and he'd do what Starmer should have done and binned them off.
This is the Labour Party, we're talking about.
In seriousness, Mahmood. She gives the membership the vapours.
The actual machinations of changing leader from government, rather than opposition, complicate things considerably. Starmer would potentially be a lame duck PM all summer.
The Metropolitan Police have closed off Matthew Parker Street and Tufton Street on Central London
Drug Enforcement, Terrorist and Border Control Police are searching for a potentially deadly highly dangerous halluconigenic drug that can cause delusion and cause brain cells to implode
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Cuthbertson
(Sometimes it is said that I should be in the Greens, at other times Reform.)
She's proved that countless times in the past few months.
If she does move it will be to stop them, not attack Keir.
Liverpool 1 City 2
5 mins left
Not Trump though as he won’t want to see that woke singer Bad Bunny at half time.
I'm a bit ranty about this, apologies.
There are certainly drone production lines operating - for example back in Oct 2025 the Govt reported the UK supplying 85k drones sent to Ukraine in the previous 6 months, including UK produced items. Plus there are fairly prominent current projects, such as the Octopus drone which is not in production yet, and several missiles.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-nato-nations-ramp-up-response-to-putins-aggression-in-ukraine-and-incursions-into-europe
eg One by the German Stark business opened in Swindon 2-3 months ago:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/uwehorstmann_starks-swindon-factory-is-now-open-our-activity-7399086136666718208-147p/
What a game
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2019367436240257172
https://kmflett.wordpress.com/2026/02/05/the-mandelson-connections-more-dead-end-politics-than-conspiracy/
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/peter-mandelson-influence-labour-starmer-szrsrhmlg
Much happened today?
Where are the top politicians and billionaires who still just enjoy playing boardgames with the family or watching TV, like regular boring people?
Oh my days.
PM adrift...
It's bad news even if the defectors are Jenrick, Braverman, Rosindell and Zahawi.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
"Where is Steiner...".
Oh, Mr Punctuation Pedant: you need a comma next to your “a hole”. Shame you didn’t need a colon there
There isn’t a pattern confirming which become more grasping for more money and those happy with their lot it’s just individual character. We see our circle as a concentric circle where some of us in my centre are happy and don’t feel the need to be flash and making more to have more things. Another ten million isn’t going to change what we do socially or day to day or even long term. We still want to meet up and have beers where we like to go and don’t want to be putting on socials pictures of us drinking vastly expensive drinks, in the most exclusive restaurants or in the most exclusive resorts. It might be a treat but generally it’s not something where we feel the need for MORE because we want a bigger boat or a villa in another place.
Then we have friends/acquaintances who are obsessed with the pursuit of MORE. Enough is never enough and frankly it’s more about what it projects to others than whether they truly enjoy it - they do enjoy the extras but I can’t see that they are happier because the efforts to get more add stress and take up time.
This is only anecdotal and might seem sexist but in a large number of the second grouping, especially the hedge fund guys, it’s very much competition amongst the wives. I say this as this is the world I know and I’m sure there will be people who can point to others where the man is avaricious and the women not but this is what I know and see. There is a competition of trinkets such as hugely expensive handbags where the chap doesn’t have an issue with his wife spending tens of k on a bag and you go to a party and they will be showing off the trinket and then next time another will suddenly modestly point out their toy.
So going back to the beginning I don’t find it’s about people with “wealth” but purely down to their individual characters. Some of the wealthiest people I know don’t need to bend the rules or risk other people’s happiness for more, some don’t even think about it.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/morgan-mcsweeney-peter-mandelson-rxpsrcbfz
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/06/jeffrey-epstein-scandal-politics-mass-abuse-women-girls
Not only did he stay in touch—he went to the island, planned family visits, had lunch at Epstein’s home, shared drinks, and signed a business deal days after Epstein wrote “It was nice to see you.” This wasn’t some accidental brush with a social pariah. It was an ongoing, comfortable relationship that stretched years beyond the moment Lutnick claimed moral clarity.
The most grotesque part? Look how disgusting he laughs it off whenever Epstein’s name comes up, as if mockery might erase emails, contracts, or the fact that proximity to a predator was never a dealbreaker for him—until it became a PR liability.
In Europe, these Epstein connections are vanishing like dirty infected flies, scrubbed from websites, erased from guest lists, buried under legal threats and coordinated silence. But Lutnick’s receipts remain, a damning paper trail of a man who chose access over ethics, then lied about it with a straight face. Why is the U.S. helpless?
https://x.com/Microinteracti1/status/2020483326390268161
@EdKrassen
·
2h
BREAKING: Democrat Chasity Martinez just defeated her Republican opponent in the Louisiana State House 60 Special Election by about 23 points. It’s s district that Trump won in 2024 by 13 points. That’s a huge 36 point swing in favor of the Democrats.
Those whose politics is driven by Starmer Derangement Syndrome will see this as a big win. (I've got vague recollections of similar whoops of joy with some of the early New Labour resignations, possibly including Mandy 1.0).
Calmer heads, and those who want to see a return to some sort of sane right-of-centre government... less so. A fox has been shot, sure, and a wily one at that. But if you get rid of the object of all the hatred before the election, that doesn't entirely help.
You misheard me..erkats
blamethemeerkats.com
Seems to me he's hanging on by his fingertips at this point.
https://x.com/mikeysmith/status/2020527381262238179
I would say the big difference is that the “pool’s” options to do things that enable them to get more are dirtier and involve a different sort of risk whereas the rich are doing it in nice restaurants and boardrooms and committing a crime in a nice suit and tie probably enables them to think they aren’t criminals but tooling up with a knife in a tracksuit down alleyways of estates, you know you are outside of acceptability.
The rewards available are greater for rich baddies but proportionately maybe not, the money from street dealing might buy you a flash bmw which is infinitely nicer than you might otherwise own and that’s not really much different from the white collar guy buying a pad in Barbados rather than Cornwall.
Why can't Americans do Maths?