I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
So today we find out how fixed the Labour DL contest has become.
Would be ironic if DL means that some up and coming keen type misses out on the top job if Starmer loses it…
Starmer is desperately trying to stabilise the ship, burt if Philipson wins he will have an element of muttering on the backbenches of a fix, if he loses he probably has to live with a thorn in his side. But does he care ? Probably beyond that now.
I don't think so. It looks like Phillipson vs Powell, but Phillipson has a lot of backbench support too.
It's notable that Thornberry and Ribero-Addy got just a handful of nominations, and those from the usual suspects. It doesn't look like either a major fight or a stitch up.
The Mandleson affair was very foolish of Starmer. I posted here on the folly of appointing him at the time. It was a job for a career diplomat who has been trained for it. This isn't America where ambassadorships are handed out as payback for political favours.
Every few years the ratchet moves a further notch, and we adopt yet more American ways of doing things. Not a good direction of travel.
And now BBC pundits saying they can’t sack Mandelson because it might upset Trump. Incredible.
Given what’s come out in the last 24 hours, Mandy’s got no chance of holding on to that position.
Trump very clearly and publicly disassociated himself from Epstein before his first conviction, and is very unlikely to want to have anything to do with someone who’s just been exposed as a good friend and supporter well after he was imprisoned.
Starmer might want to see this, as his predecessor’s advisor once said, as a good day to bury bad news in the US.
Trump publicly disassociated himself from Epstein before his first conviction, but was still saying nice things about Ghislaine after she was charged, and has recently moved her, against standard practice, to a low security prison.
Good discussion on Today in the 6.30 ish business segment re the Merck pull-out from the UK. Highlights were that both guests (one a pharma analyst and the other was Sir Nigel Wilson, Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Implementation Board and is a member of the Science and Innovation Council.
Wilson said that he had spoken to Reeves last night at the FT drinks and is certain she understands the problem and has plans. He was remarkably comfortable with how easy it will be to encourage pension funds etc to invest in UK pharma/research by pulling a few levers.
Both were however also adamant that the UK needs to fix its pricing model with pharma companies as it’s going to drive them all away. Apparently we need to get the rebate the gov gets down to single figure % as it’s 23% currently and vastly higher than any other countries. This in itself I guess will cause other problems as it’s money I would assume goes back into the NHS which needs replacing.
The other problem with the high rebate was that a lot of drug companies were not releasing new drugs to the UK because the cost benefit wasn’t worth it for them and so UK patients are missing out.
This needs much more discussion by the likes of the opposition in order to make sure Reeves has to do something to fix it in the autumn budget. Maybe if Mandy quits, as he should, politicians could spend their time in this instead. Boring for us but ultimately better.
PAra 4 must be largely down to Brexit - before, approval would have been automatically done by the EU system, rather than the newish UK system. Nothing we can do about Brexit in the short or medium term, though, so that's therefore a problem without a solution, unless we join in the EU system. Any chance of that?
Edit: but it's all the more likely the Tories and Reform won't discuss it, for that very reason. So another bad sign.
Para 4 is nothing to do with Brexit. There is a different between EMA/MHRA (which approved drugs) and NICE (which recommends to the NHs whether to buy them or not)
NICE and its Scottish equivalent are secondary to EMA etc. Can't buy drugs if they're not approved.
Good discussion on Today in the 6.30 ish business segment re the Merck pull-out from the UK. Highlights were that both guests (one a pharma analyst and the other was Sir Nigel Wilson, Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Implementation Board and is a member of the Science and Innovation Council.
Wilson said that he had spoken to Reeves last night at the FT drinks and is certain she understands the problem and has plans. He was remarkably comfortable with how easy it will be to encourage pension funds etc to invest in UK pharma/research by pulling a few levers.
Both were however also adamant that the UK needs to fix its pricing model with pharma companies as it’s going to drive them all away. Apparently we need to get the rebate the gov gets down to single figure % as it’s 23% currently and vastly higher than any other countries. This in itself I guess will cause other problems as it’s money I would assume goes back into the NHS which needs replacing.
The other problem with the high rebate was that a lot of drug companies were not releasing new drugs to the UK because the cost benefit wasn’t worth it for them and so UK patients are missing out.
This needs much more discussion by the likes of the opposition in order to make sure Reeves has to do something to fix it in the autumn budget. Maybe if Mandy quits, as he should, politicians could spend their time in this instead. Boring for us but ultimately better.
NICE makes recommendations on a QALY basis.
If a new product doesn’t hit a suitable threshold for its proposed price then why should patients expect it. Fine to tweak the formula, but I am missing out on the government buying me a new gulfstream and that makes me very angry!
Pharma used to love the PPRS. It allows them to maintain prices on innovative new drugs at the cost of reducing prices on off patent products. They are just taking advantage of a perceived weak government
Absolutely fair enough but it is clearly a problem that needs to be solved if we want to grow the pharma/life sciences sector and it was one of the more interesting and deeper conversations they have had on Today for a while when it comes to business.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Good discussion on Today in the 6.30 ish business segment re the Merck pull-out from the UK. Highlights were that both guests (one a pharma analyst and the other was Sir Nigel Wilson, Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Implementation Board and is a member of the Science and Innovation Council.
Wilson said that he had spoken to Reeves last night at the FT drinks and is certain she understands the problem and has plans. He was remarkably comfortable with how easy it will be to encourage pension funds etc to invest in UK pharma/research by pulling a few levers.
Both were however also adamant that the UK needs to fix its pricing model with pharma companies as it’s going to drive them all away. Apparently we need to get the rebate the gov gets down to single figure % as it’s 23% currently and vastly higher than any other countries. This in itself I guess will cause other problems as it’s money I would assume goes back into the NHS which needs replacing.
The other problem with the high rebate was that a lot of drug companies were not releasing new drugs to the UK because the cost benefit wasn’t worth it for them and so UK patients are missing out.
This needs much more discussion by the likes of the opposition in order to make sure Reeves has to do something to fix it in the autumn budget. Maybe if Mandy quits, as he should, politicians could spend their time in this instead. Boring for us but ultimately better.
Struggling to follow this logic. Is the pricing model used by the NHS really what determines how pharma companies locate their research and manufacturing facilities? I'd have thought the two were almost entirely disconnected; we import and export plenty of drugs, and use drugs researched elsewhere in the world.
To my mind these are two seperate - and important - issues.
Other factors play apart, in particular regulation of research here and the need for visas for researchers, but undeniably the UK is not very friendly to big pharmacy, and they know it.
Former Labour frontbencher Andy McDonald says there is ‘widespread revulsion’ in the Labour Party about the Mandelson revelations and calls for him to go immediately: ‘There isn’t anybody in the Labour Party who is supporting Peter Mandelson today and the PM has to hear that’
That's not correct. Clearly Mandelson was unreasonably loyal to his friend beyond common sense. But it doesn't mean he's not the right ambassador to the current US. Probably best to get the Trump visit over with and then see.
What a surprise that you support the slimeball, Labour make Tories look like angels.
So today we find out how fixed the Labour DL contest has become.
Would be ironic if DL means that some up and coming keen type misses out on the top job if Starmer loses it…
Starmer is desperately trying to stabilise the ship, burt if Philipson wins he will have an element of muttering on the backbenches of a fix, if he loses he probably has to live with a thorn in his side. But does he care ? Probably beyond that now.
I don't think so. It looks like Phillipson vs Powell, but Phillipson has a lot of backbench support too.
It's notable that Thornberry and Ribero-Addy got just a handful of nominations, and those from the usual suspects. It doesn't look like either a major fight or a stitch up.
The Mandleson affair was very foolish of Starmer. I posted here on the folly of appointing him at the time. It was a job for a career diplomat who has been trained for it. This isn't America where ambassadorships are handed out as payback for political favours.
Every few years the ratchet moves a further notch, and we adopt yet more American ways of doing things. Not a good direction of travel.
And now BBC pundits saying they can’t sack Mandelson because it might upset Trump. Incredible.
Given what’s come out in the last 24 hours, Mandy’s got no chance of holding on to that position.
Trump very clearly and publicly disassociated himself from Epstein before his first conviction, and is very unlikely to want to have anything to do with someone who’s just been exposed as a good friend and supporter well after he was imprisoned.
Starmer might want to see this, as his predecessor’s advisor once said, as a good day to bury bad news in the US.
Let’s hope then Trump tells his lapdog Starmer to fire Mandelson . No 10 seems to be telling everyone that they can’t fire him until after the state visit . If he’s not gone before hand then he won’t be going at all as the media will get bored of the story and the pressure on Starmer to get rid of him will fall .
The unspoken and ironic thing about Mandelson and being Ambassador to Trumpistan is that Starmer, being a pragmatist, wanted a slimeball for the role who could schmooze other slimeballs. So he will be being sacked for the very same quality that got him the job in the first place.
You mean, it would be like sacking Starmer because he is boring?
So today we find out how fixed the Labour DL contest has become.
Would be ironic if DL means that some up and coming keen type misses out on the top job if Starmer loses it…
Starmer is desperately trying to stabilise the ship, burt if Philipson wins he will have an element of muttering on the backbenches of a fix, if he loses he probably has to live with a thorn in his side. But does he care ? Probably beyond that now.
I don't think so. It looks like Phillipson vs Powell, but Phillipson has a lot of backbench support too.
It's notable that Thornberry and Ribero-Addy got just a handful of nominations, and those from the usual suspects. It doesn't look like either a major fight or a stitch up.
The Mandleson affair was very foolish of Starmer. I posted here on the folly of appointing him at the time. It was a job for a career diplomat who has been trained for it. This isn't America where ambassadorships are handed out as payback for political favours.
Every few years the ratchet moves a further notch, and we adopt yet more American ways of doing things. Not a good direction of travel.
And now BBC pundits saying they can’t sack Mandelson because it might upset Trump. Incredible.
Given what’s come out in the last 24 hours, Mandy’s got no chance of holding on to that position.
Trump very clearly and publicly disassociated himself from Epstein before his first conviction, and is very unlikely to want to have anything to do with someone who’s just been exposed as a good friend and supporter well after he was imprisoned.
Starmer might want to see this, as his predecessor’s advisor once said, as a good day to bury bad news in the US.
With a diplomatic slant like that you should be the next Ambassador.
Trump only disassociated himself from Epstein because of a duplicitous real estate deal. Trump may or may not have settled the score by informing the FBI on Epstein's activities.
I don't believe as you are implying Trump unhitched himself from Epstein because he was outraged at the child sex trafficking which to that point he had been unaware of.
Err no, Trump disassociated himself from Epstein because he was being a creep towards staff at Mar-a-Lago.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
So today we find out how fixed the Labour DL contest has become.
guaranteed to be VERY Alan
One persons "fixed" is anothers "MPs actually taking some responsibility and not encouraging members to vote for another populist fantasist who will only make things worse".
I was hoping she might make this an interesting contest.
If I were Farage and the Tories I would be very happy.
The idea that Labour go into the next election with a leader and deputy leader who are both lawyers would have scared me and led to another Labour landslide.
No
Miss Piggy trying to wrap herself in a St Georges flag would simply emphasis how far Labour have lost touch with their roots. Bootle nailed on so to speak.
Many years ago they did an article about me in a newspaper and shortly after I got a phone call from a woman with a very Liverpudlian accent asking me to take some nude photos of her daughter. My assistant put the call on loudspeaker and passed me the phone. I told her I was very sorry but I didn't do private work.
'But she's really beautiful and has won a competition' she said.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
So today we find out how fixed the Labour DL contest has become.
Would be ironic if DL means that some up and coming keen type misses out on the top job if Starmer loses it…
Starmer is desperately trying to stabilise the ship, burt if Philipson wins he will have an element of muttering on the backbenches of a fix, if he loses he probably has to live with a thorn in his side. But does he care ? Probably beyond that now.
I don't think so. It looks like Phillipson vs Powell, but Phillipson has a lot of backbench support too.
It's notable that Thornberry and Ribero-Addy got just a handful of nominations, and those from the usual suspects. It doesn't look like either a major fight or a stitch up.
The Mandleson affair was very foolish of Starmer. I posted here on the folly of appointing him at the time. It was a job for a career diplomat who has been trained for it. This isn't America where ambassadorships are handed out as payback for political favours.
Every few years the ratchet moves a further notch, and we adopt yet more American ways of doing things. Not a good direction of travel.
And now BBC pundits saying they can’t sack Mandelson because it might upset Trump. Incredible.
Given what’s come out in the last 24 hours, Mandy’s got no chance of holding on to that position.
Trump very clearly and publicly disassociated himself from Epstein before his first conviction, and is very unlikely to want to have anything to do with someone who’s just been exposed as a good friend and supporter well after he was imprisoned.
Starmer might want to see this, as his predecessor’s advisor once said, as a good day to bury bad news in the US.
Let’s hope then Trump tells his lapdog Starmer to fire Mandelson . No 10 seems to be telling everyone that they can’t fire him until after the state visit . If he’s not gone before hand then he won’t be going at all as the media will get bored of the story and the pressure on Starmer to get rid of him will fall .
The unspoken and ironic thing about Mandelson and being Ambassador to Trumpistan is that Starmer, being a pragmatist, wanted a slimeball for the role who could schmooze other slimeballs. So he will be being sacked for the very same quality that got him the job in the first place.
You mean, it would be like sacking Starmer because he is boring?
Or Boris being both elected and sacked for not following rules. Perhaps this is a more common thing in politics than I assumed. Although with Mandelson, Starmer can't come out directly with the reasons he wants him in place.
So today we find out how fixed the Labour DL contest has become.
Would be ironic if DL means that some up and coming keen type misses out on the top job if Starmer loses it…
Starmer is desperately trying to stabilise the ship, burt if Philipson wins he will have an element of muttering on the backbenches of a fix, if he loses he probably has to live with a thorn in his side. But does he care ? Probably beyond that now.
I don't think so. It looks like Phillipson vs Powell, but Phillipson has a lot of backbench support too.
It's notable that Thornberry and Ribero-Addy got just a handful of nominations, and those from the usual suspects. It doesn't look like either a major fight or a stitch up.
The Mandleson affair was very foolish of Starmer. I posted here on the folly of appointing him at the time. It was a job for a career diplomat who has been trained for it. This isn't America where ambassadorships are handed out as payback for political favours.
Every few years the ratchet moves a further notch, and we adopt yet more American ways of doing things. Not a good direction of travel.
And now BBC pundits saying they can’t sack Mandelson because it might upset Trump. Incredible.
Given what’s come out in the last 24 hours, Mandy’s got no chance of holding on to that position.
Trump very clearly and publicly disassociated himself from Epstein before his first conviction, and is very unlikely to want to have anything to do with someone who’s just been exposed as a good friend and supporter well after he was imprisoned.
Starmer might want to see this, as his predecessor’s advisor once said, as a good day to bury bad news in the US.
With a diplomatic slant like that you should be the next Ambassador.
Trump only disassociated himself from Epstein because of a duplicitous real estate deal. Trump may or may not have settled the score by informing the FBI on Epstein's activities.
I don't believe as you are implying Trump unhitched himself from Epstein because he was outraged at the child sex trafficking which to that point he had been unaware of.
Err no, Trump disassociated himself from Epstein because he was being a creep towards staff at Mar-a-Lago.
So today we find out how fixed the Labour DL contest has become.
Would be ironic if DL means that some up and coming keen type misses out on the top job if Starmer loses it…
Starmer is desperately trying to stabilise the ship, burt if Philipson wins he will have an element of muttering on the backbenches of a fix, if he loses he probably has to live with a thorn in his side. But does he care ? Probably beyond that now.
I don't think so. It looks like Phillipson vs Powell, but Phillipson has a lot of backbench support too.
It's notable that Thornberry and Ribero-Addy got just a handful of nominations, and those from the usual suspects. It doesn't look like either a major fight or a stitch up.
The Mandleson affair was very foolish of Starmer. I posted here on the folly of appointing him at the time. It was a job for a career diplomat who has been trained for it. This isn't America where ambassadorships are handed out as payback for political favours.
Every few years the ratchet moves a further notch, and we adopt yet more American ways of doing things. Not a good direction of travel.
And now BBC pundits saying they can’t sack Mandelson because it might upset Trump. Incredible.
Given what’s come out in the last 24 hours, Mandy’s got no chance of holding on to that position.
Trump very clearly and publicly disassociated himself from Epstein before his first conviction, and is very unlikely to want to have anything to do with someone who’s just been exposed as a good friend and supporter well after he was imprisoned.
Starmer might want to see this, as his predecessor’s advisor once said, as a good day to bury bad news in the US.
With a diplomatic slant like that you should be the next Ambassador.
Trump only disassociated himself from Epstein because of a duplicitous real estate deal. Trump may or may not have settled the score by informing the FBI on Epstein's activities.
I don't believe as you are implying Trump unhitched himself from Epstein because he was outraged at the child sex trafficking which to that point he had been unaware of.
Err no, Trump disassociated himself from Epstein because he was being a creep towards staff at Mar-a-Lago.
No Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after Trump bought a property in Florida, allegedly (and according to Epstein) with money from Russia, which Trump shortly after sold to another Russian Oligarchs for twice it's acknowledged value. Epstein was pissed off and they cut their ties.
Trump did not kick Epstein out for seedy behaviour. On that metric he would have to ban himself.
After he has sold Ukraine down the river why are you still excusing this vile man with Team Trump subterfuge?
So today we find out how fixed the Labour DL contest has become.
Would be ironic if DL means that some up and coming keen type misses out on the top job if Starmer loses it…
Starmer is desperately trying to stabilise the ship, burt if Philipson wins he will have an element of muttering on the backbenches of a fix, if he loses he probably has to live with a thorn in his side. But does he care ? Probably beyond that now.
I don't think so. It looks like Phillipson vs Powell, but Phillipson has a lot of backbench support too.
It's notable that Thornberry and Ribero-Addy got just a handful of nominations, and those from the usual suspects. It doesn't look like either a major fight or a stitch up.
The Mandleson affair was very foolish of Starmer. I posted here on the folly of appointing him at the time. It was a job for a career diplomat who has been trained for it. This isn't America where ambassadorships are handed out as payback for political favours.
Every few years the ratchet moves a further notch, and we adopt yet more American ways of doing things. Not a good direction of travel.
And now BBC pundits saying they can’t sack Mandelson because it might upset Trump. Incredible.
Given what’s come out in the last 24 hours, Mandy’s got no chance of holding on to that position.
Trump very clearly and publicly disassociated himself from Epstein before his first conviction, and is very unlikely to want to have anything to do with someone who’s just been exposed as a good friend and supporter well after he was imprisoned.
Starmer might want to see this, as his predecessor’s advisor once said, as a good day to bury bad news in the US.
With a diplomatic slant like that you should be the next Ambassador.
Trump only disassociated himself from Epstein because of a duplicitous real estate deal. Trump may or may not have settled the score by informing the FBI on Epstein's activities.
I don't believe as you are implying Trump unhitched himself from Epstein because he was outraged at the child sex trafficking which to that point he had been unaware of.
Err no, Trump disassociated himself from Epstein because he was being a creep towards staff at Mar-a-Lago.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
He was so poor it was peculiar. Starmer is not a happy man
Sad to hear of the passing of Sir Bob Worcester and, as @TSE says, one of the great polling experts of his time.
On to other things, I only saw snippets of the Sky immigration debate - my "take" on it was there was actually quite broad cencensus among the politicians "something needed to be done" - the only trouble was, nobody knew what or had any coherent, legal or practical solutions. Nobody spoke in favour of large scale immigration.
We also had the usual "no one listens to the public" from the public themselves and while I have an element of sympathy, I actually don't. Immigration has been around the British political debate since Windrush and in truth before that. Politicians have listened though not embraced some of the more extreme solutions now being peddled on social media such as the wholesale deportation of the Islamic or non-white communities.
As always, it comes back to practicalities, the Devil, as always, is in the detail as Farage found out. Sweeping general promises often unravel quickly when confronted with specific issues - returning women to Afghanistan, returning children anywhere. We also have, as has been pointed out, to "sweeten" the deal for the returns , it seems, by providing money to unpleasant regimes such as in Afghanistan or Eritrea but realpolitik dictates you often have to sup with the Devil - it's the length of your spoon that then becomes the issue.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
He was so poor it was peculiar. Starmer is not a happy man
Support for Mandelson draining away. Home Office minister Mike Tapp not seeking to defend him and saying of his exchanges with Epstein: ‘I’m really disturbed by those emails’
Ministers privately think Starmer’s position on Lord Mandelson is unsustainable in the wake of the leaked emails to Jeffrey Epstein
They point to the fact that Yvette Cooper, the new foreign secretary who is technically Mandelson’s boss, has put protecting women and girls at the heart of her politics and priorities
Obama: We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. Michelle and I will be praying for Charlie’s family tonight, especially his wife Erika and their two young children.
I just find this weird.
The USA is an endemically violent country where they kill nearly 100k people per annum with their guns and their cars, including scores killed in school shootings.
Of course violence has a place in US democracy, because that is the society they chose to create. I don't want it to have a place, but Trump is deliberately seeking to create further a culture of violence and conflict - starting with his defence of hundreds of millions of guns loose in the society, never mind his animation of the violent attack on Congress, and the rest.
If I'm being straightforward, I'd say that Kirk reaped the whirlwind his own politics had helped seed.
To have public figures - even Obama - retreating into delusional schmaltz is not exactly going to help fix it.
In all seriousness, what do you expect a former President to say after the horrific, shocking and public murder of a fairly significant political figure?
Look, anyone who knows anything about Charlie Kirk knows the bloke was hardly Ghandi - he was a divisive character and there is irony in some of his past statements around gun control in the past (astonishingly callous stuff after a school shooting that a few deaths are a price worth paying for the freedom to bear arms). But now is hardly the time for senior figures to comment on those aspects; it would simply inflame tensions when that's the last thing that is needed.
That's a fair challenge.
I think the risk is that such a comment from Obama normalises acceptance of the style of politics Kirk embraced, and we cannot do that. I would hope for something linking the culture of violence he has helped create to Kirk's politics, and looking for something better. That's a different question from sympathy for his family.
I think now *is* the time for senior figures to comment on those aspects, because it is one of few times that cut-through is possibly. Carefully worded of course, but the points need to be made if we are to reassert democratic, lawful politics - especially in the USA.
I sense a kind of Victorian-style superficial performative piety in USA political culture. Trump has taken it beyond that.
I think Matthew O Dowd's comments were more appropriate:
During MSNBC’s coverage of Kirk’s shooting, anchor Katy Tur asked Dowd about “the environment in which a shooting like this happens.” Dowd responded with the following about Kirk: “He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in.” https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/matthew-dowd-fired-msnbc-charlie-kirk-death-1236514875/
Significant that now the minister sent out to defend the government this morning - Immigration Minister Mike Tapp - won’t defend UK Ambo to Washington Peter Mandelson staying in post in an interview with @Emmabarnett
Yes. He could not find a formula for giving Mandelson support, and gave zero comfort, and agreed that stuff Mandelson has said was 'disturbing' IIRC, and indicated he had no further anodyne words to offer, and can we move on to easy stuff like boats and migrant hotels. Assuming he was out there to tell us the government line, it's a matter of time before M goes.
The interesting question being: as Lord M will be sacked for doing stuff which must have been well known at the time of appointment, how does Starmer survive the onslaught when it turns to him?
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
On the other hand I bet you do know what Nyetimber is whereas lots of people dont
A good reminder that sometimes a large volume, slickly branded product can also be one of the best quality out there. Especially true in sparking wine.
Even Nyetimber’s top selling classic cuvée is better than a large proportion of more “artisanal” independent English sparklings. (Not that I would be putting that in my own marketing).
They’ve got a huge new planting over the hill from me on Chartham Downs.
Im tempted to try the 1086 but need to win the lottery first.
I had a really enjoyable Gusborne rose a few weeks back and not bank breaking either.
For non ESW aficionados 1086 is the prestige cuvée from Nyetimber that proved English wine could achieve Veblen goods status. I also have baulked at the price.
I’ve yet to try (or visit) Domaine Evremond which I really must do as it’s also just over the hill from me.
I had no idea it's been in production for over 900 years.
Real distress in Labour ranks about Peter Mandelson emails to Jeffrey Epstein. While No 10 knew about links, his remarks after conviction detail closeness of relationship.
Home office minister Mike Tapp said he was “really disturbed” by them. Former frontbencher Andy McDonald said there was “widespread revulsion” in party.
Privately, MPs go further. One told me: “It’s obvious from space that the PM must sack Peter Mandelson. The No10 position appears to be ‘we knew about this but appointed him anyway’.
“It is completely indefensible and untenable. This risks being Chris Pincher on steroids.”
Starmer will be balancing all of this, with the recognition that White House would be furious if Mandelson goes over Epstein - because Trump is in even deeper. The State visit could not come at worse time.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
He was so poor it was peculiar. Starmer is not a happy man
Surely he goes tomorrow. We have a nice little rhythm going now, anger and allegations grow Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Starmer defends on Monday and Wednesday, Thursday a little more shit comes out, Friday gone.
Last week Ange, this week Peter Yum Yum, next week who knows but it will take the same pattern as Starmer is useless.
Real distress in Labour ranks about Peter Mandelson emails to Jeffrey Epstein. While No 10 knew about links, his remarks after conviction detail closeness of relationship.
Home office minister Mike Tapp said he was “really disturbed” by them. Former frontbencher Andy McDonald said there was “widespread revulsion” in party.
Privately, MPs go further. One told me: “It’s obvious from space that the PM must sack Peter Mandelson. The No10 position appears to be ‘we knew about this but appointed him anyway’.
“It is completely indefensible and untenable. This risks being Chris Pincher on steroids.”
Starmer will be balancing all of this, with the recognition that White House would be furious if Mandelson goes over Epstein - because Trump is in even deeper. The State visit could not come at worse time.
Morning all. He cant sack him, hes backed him and rebacked him after the emails came out. What a pity. Heart of stone etc
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
I’m having a day of ignorance the last 24 hours. I didn’t know who Charlie Kirk was save a vague sense he was someone American, I’d no idea what the NTA was until this post, and I’ve never heard of Mollie Mae.
On the other hand I bet you do know what Nyetimber is whereas lots of people dont
A good reminder that sometimes a large volume, slickly branded product can also be one of the best quality out there. Especially true in sparking wine.
Even Nyetimber’s top selling classic cuvée is better than a large proportion of more “artisanal” independent English sparklings. (Not that I would be putting that in my own marketing).
They’ve got a huge new planting over the hill from me on Chartham Downs.
Im tempted to try the 1086 but need to win the lottery first.
I had a really enjoyable Gusborne rose a few weeks back and not bank breaking either.
For non ESW aficionados 1086 is the prestige cuvée from Nyetimber that proved English wine could achieve Veblen goods status. I also have baulked at the price.
I’ve yet to try (or visit) Domaine Evremond which I really must do as it’s also just over the hill from me.
I had no idea it's been in production for over 900 years.
It's pretty bad taste to name it after the Harrowing of the North
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
He was so poor it was peculiar. Starmer is not a happy man
Surely he goes tomorrow. We have a nice little rhythm going now, anger and allegations grow Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Starmer defends on Monday and Wednesday, Thursday a little more shit comes out, Friday gone.
Last week Ange, this week Peter Yum Yum, next week who knows but it will take the same pattern as Starmer is useless.
Yes. Not sure he lasts until the weekend, reading these latest remarks
There is just so much in the emails and letters. It is indeed “disturbing”
Eg what the fexk did Mandy mean, of Epstein’s conviction for pedophilia and trafficking, “this is so unfair IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN IN BRITAIN”
Er, what?? Is he saying we protect child rapists? If they are powerful? Or something else? Then what?
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
He was so poor it was peculiar. Starmer is not a happy man
Surely he goes tomorrow. We have a nice little rhythm going now, anger and allegations grow Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Starmer defends on Monday and Wednesday, Thursday a little more shit comes out, Friday gone.
Last week Ange, this week Peter Yum Yum, next week who knows but it will take the same pattern as Starmer is useless.
Wait a month or two and the new deputy can join and exit the carousel
Support for Mandelson draining away. Home Office minister Mike Tapp not seeking to defend him and saying of his exchanges with Epstein: ‘I’m really disturbed by those emails’
Ministers privately think Starmer’s position on Lord Mandelson is unsustainable in the wake of the leaked emails to Jeffrey Epstein
They point to the fact that Yvette Cooper, the new foreign secretary who is technically Mandelson’s boss, has put protecting women and girls at the heart of her politics and priorities
So much of the potency of the Epstein conspiracy is that it speaks to a core feeling for many that the alienation, stagnation, and fear they experience is all the result of a genuinely evil class of elites.
At what point does the penny drop that evil arrives on private jets, not small boats?
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
Shuffling piles of paper to obscure the inconvenient stuff. Could be a useful skill for a lawyer….
An award show that is voted for by ITV viewers giving a number of awards to ITV programs and presenters - it's not a surprise.
Also Molly Mae's show was a lighter touch with a large audience than the other programs.
Thanks, I was actually aware of it being an ITV show giving awards to ITV shows and presenters having seen it previously 🙄
My commentary was more about the voters. I never said it was a surprise.
I wasn’t surprised Lineker won either given he’s moved to ITV with a new gameshow.
Glad you enjoyed the Molly Mae show thing. Z list celebrity relationship break ups aren’t my thing so I passed on it.
Lineker's new ITV game show has not been shown yet so that cannot be why viewers voted for him. The more obvious reason is he is suddenly missed from Match of the Day.
Labour MPs are both publicly and privately calling for Mandelson to go. That an even a minister equivocated shows the direction of travel.
Hard to see how No 10 holds the line today.
I suspect Mandelson goes. Yesterday, before the emails I thought he rode it out.
I am somewhat amused however that (an unnamed) associate of Epstein who most likely had sexual relations with underage girls could be defended on here, yet the same voices are demanding Mandelson's nuts, when Mandelson clearly was unlikely to have had sexual relations with underage girls.
FWIW Mandelson's appointment, despite his skill at manipulating POTUS, was an error by Starmer.
I wouldn't say we are at Johnsonian levels of chaotic scandals, but John Major's administration springs to mind.
As I noted yesterday, fucking hell, imagine being accused of being too self-centred and self-promotion by Peter Mandelson, does Mandy not do self-awareness?
It'd be like me criticising others for being brash and not being modest and self-effacing
I was in the year below Mandelson at Hendon County Grammar School. He and his left wing friends were certainly lacking in self-awareness then. I don't have any contact with them, but I don't see any change in him. And I note that one of his school friends, Steve Howell, has put up a wonderfully deluded and wildly inaccurate post about how he helped bring about the downfall of the headmaster, E W Maynard Potts. The reason Potts left when he did had absolutely nothing to do with Howell, Mandelson or any of their circle.
Real distress in Labour ranks about Peter Mandelson emails to Jeffrey Epstein. While No 10 knew about links, his remarks after conviction detail closeness of relationship.
Home office minister Mike Tapp said he was “really disturbed” by them. Former frontbencher Andy McDonald said there was “widespread revulsion” in party.
Privately, MPs go further. One told me: “It’s obvious from space that the PM must sack Peter Mandelson. The No10 position appears to be ‘we knew about this but appointed him anyway’.
“It is completely indefensible and untenable. This risks being Chris Pincher on steroids.”
Starmer will be balancing all of this, with the recognition that White House would be furious if Mandelson goes over Epstein - because Trump is in even deeper. The State visit could not come at worse time.
Isn't it ironic that all the fawning Starmer displayed at his meeting with Trump, and producing the invitation for the state visit from his pocket with euch panache, should come back and bite him so hard when in truth the invitation should never have been given
Obama: We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. Michelle and I will be praying for Charlie’s family tonight, especially his wife Erika and their two young children.
I just find this weird.
The USA is an endemically violent country where they kill nearly 100k people per annum with their guns and their cars, including scores killed in school shootings.
Of course violence has a place in US democracy, because that is the society they chose to create. I don't want it to have a place, but Trump is deliberately seeking to create further a culture of violence and conflict - starting with his defence of hundreds of millions of guns loose in the society, never mind his animation of the violent attack on Congress, and the rest.
If I'm being straightforward, I'd say that Kirk reaped the whirlwind his own politics had helped seed.
To have public figures - even Obama - retreating into delusional schmaltz is not exactly going to help fix it.
In all seriousness, what do you expect a former President to say after the horrific, shocking and public murder of a fairly significant political figure?
Look, anyone who knows anything about Charlie Kirk knows the bloke was hardly Ghandi - he was a divisive character and there is irony in some of his past statements around gun control in the past (astonishingly callous stuff after a school shooting that a few deaths are a price worth paying for the freedom to bear arms). But now is hardly the time for senior figures to comment on those aspects; it would simply inflame tensions when that's the last thing that is needed.
That's a fair challenge.
I think the risk is that such a comment from Obama normalises acceptance of the style of politics Kirk embraced, and we cannot do that. I would hope for something linking the culture of violence he has helped create to Kirk's politics, and looking for something better. That's a different question from sympathy for his family.
I think now *is* the time for senior figures to comment on those aspects, because it is one of few times that cut-through is possibly. Carefully worded of course, but the points need to be made if we are to reassert democratic, lawful politics - especially in the USA.
I sense a kind of Victorian-style superficial performative piety in USA political culture. Trump has taken it beyond that.
I think Matthew O Dowd's comments were more appropriate:
During MSNBC’s coverage of Kirk’s shooting, anchor Katy Tur asked Dowd about “the environment in which a shooting like this happens.” Dowd responded with the following about Kirk: “He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in.” https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/matthew-dowd-fired-msnbc-charlie-kirk-death-1236514875/
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, now is not the right time, and it would definitely have been the wrong time for Obama to say this.
Emotions mean it simply won't be heard well even if as you say it gathers more attention than it would at another time.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good
Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now
So today we find out how fixed the Labour DL contest has become.
Would be ironic if DL means that some up and coming keen type misses out on the top job if Starmer loses it…
Starmer is desperately trying to stabilise the ship, burt if Philipson wins he will have an element of muttering on the backbenches of a fix, if he loses he probably has to live with a thorn in his side. But does he care ? Probably beyond that now.
I don't think so. It looks like Phillipson vs Powell, but Phillipson has a lot of backbench support too.
It's notable that Thornberry and Ribero-Addy got just a handful of nominations, and those from the usual suspects. It doesn't look like either a major fight or a stitch up.
The Mandleson affair was very foolish of Starmer. I posted here on the folly of appointing him at the time. It was a job for a career diplomat who has been trained for it. This isn't America where ambassadorships are handed out as payback for political favours.
Every few years the ratchet moves a further notch, and we adopt yet more American ways of doing things. Not a good direction of travel.
And now BBC pundits saying they can’t sack Mandelson because it might upset Trump. Incredible.
Given what’s come out in the last 24 hours, Mandy’s got no chance of holding on to that position.
Trump very clearly and publicly disassociated himself from Epstein before his first conviction, and is very unlikely to want to have anything to do with someone who’s just been exposed as a good friend and supporter well after he was imprisoned.
Starmer might want to see this, as his predecessor’s advisor once said, as a good day to bury bad news in the US.
Let’s hope then Trump tells his lapdog Starmer to fire Mandelson . No 10 seems to be telling everyone that they can’t fire him until after the state visit . If he’s not gone before hand then he won’t be going at all as the media will get bored of the story and the pressure on Starmer to get rid of him will fall .
The unspoken and ironic thing about Mandelson and being Ambassador to Trumpistan is that Starmer, being a pragmatist, wanted a slimeball for the role who could schmooze other slimeballs. So he will be being sacked for the very same quality that got him the job in the first place.
You mean, it would be like sacking Starmer because he is boring?
Or Boris being both elected and sacked for not following rules. Perhaps this is a more common thing in politics than I assumed. Although with Mandelson, Starmer can't come out directly with the reasons he wants him in place.
It's incredibly common. Arguably, people's characters rarely change all that much as adults, and it's not surprising that the same or closely related traits to those that brought someone to power also bring them down.
Major was seen as a calming, more collegiate figure than Thatcher (or indeed Kinnock), but in changing circumstances that looks like weakness and lack of control over his party - so he was gone. Blair was a smooth salesman, that worked in terms of getting over doubts about Labour after a long period in office, but there's an element of dishonesty in every smooth salesman, and that got him over Iraq in particular.
It's almost harder to think of PMs who don't fit that pattern. Perhaps Eden is one - he fell because he actually turned out to lack the one quality everyone was pretty certain he had, namely a mastery of foreign affairs.
The most interesting of the Mandleson/Epstein emails is the one where Mandleson says to Epstein that such a conviction wouldn't have happened in the UK.
Labour MPs are both publicly and privately calling for Mandelson to go. That an even a minister equivocated shows the direction of travel.
Hard to see how No 10 holds the line today.
I suspect Mandelson goes. Yesterday, before the emails I thought he rode it out.
I am somewhat amused however that (an unnamed) associate of Epstein who most likely had sexual relations with underage girls could be defended on here, yet the same voices are demanding Mandelson's nuts, when Mandelson clearly was unlikely to have had sexual relations with underage girls.
FWIW Mandelson's appointment, despite his skill at manipulating POTUS, was an error by Starmer.
I wouldn't say we are at Johnsonian levels of chaotic scandals, but John Major's administration springs to mind.
You are making an assumption about Epstein. Which is contradicted by the victim testimonies.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
He was so poor it was peculiar. Starmer is not a happy man
I can understand a poor showing at one PMQs. It's a bearpit.
But, far more worringly, for a man whose only real selling point is supposed technocratic competence to have appointed an obvious risk like Mandelson to a key post, over the heads of far more qualified professionals, in the face of numerous warnings and despite knowing about the many skeletons in his closet, shows quite incredibly poor judgement.
This shows him in a much worse light than Rayner, who was elected deputy leader and who Starmer probably had in office just to appease to the loony left.
The most interesting of the Mandleson/Epstein emails is the one where Mandleson says to Epstein that such a conviction wouldn't have happened in the UK.
I wonder what caused Mandleson to think that?
The Thing We Can’t Talk about was carefully, and deliberately covered up. By the police, social service and politicians to a high level.
To the point that people caught in the act by the police were let go without charge.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good
Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now
A really interesting insight into how Starmer has become the first PM actively abused regularly by England fans and how it’s not Epping flag type oiks, which would be an easy lazy explanation.
It's great - Badenoch says sack him which guarantees (usually) his survival but then Lab MPs say sack him which means the Cons can push and push and push and win whether he stays or goes.
For me it is a very human tragedy - someone so obviously flawed, with so much talent, truly a Shakespearean character.
Bob Worcester was certainly a great pollster the 1970 election his peak, though not always right, remember too his President Kerry projection on election night 2004.
I am not sure his focus on voteshare rather than lead is correct either. See 2017 where May got over 40% but majority due to her small lead over Labour whereas in 2024 Labour got under 35% but Starmer got a big majority due to his large lead over the Tories
It's great - Badenoch says sack him which guarantees (usually) his survival but then Lab MPs say sack him which means the Cons can push and push and push and win whether he stays or goes.
For me it is a very human tragedy - someone so obviously flawed, with so much talent, truly a Shakespearean character.
BREAKING: Tory Neil O'Brien secures an urgent question in the Commons on Mandelson.
"To ask the Foreign Secretary if she will make a statement on the process for the appointment of the United Kingdom’s Ambassador to the United States."
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
'Trial lawyer' is a creeping Americanisation. There must be better ways of describing the subtle differences between and among barristers and solicitors - something Trollope did wonderfully well for his own age, depicting on the one hand Camperdown (almost never in a court) and on the other hand Chaffenbrass (in the Old Bailey every day).
Living in far north small town life, I detect the gradual extinction of the solicitor type who would draft a will in the morning, do a criminal mitigation in the local magistrates in the afternoon and return to the office to deal with provision for children and money in divorce proceedings.
Speaking of creeping uses, when did 'The exact same' start to replace 'exactly the same' in UK English usage? I feel it is recent.
It's great - Badenoch says sack him which guarantees (usually) his survival but then Lab MPs say sack him which means the Cons can push and push and push and win whether he stays or goes.
For me it is a very human tragedy - someone so obviously flawed, with so much talent, truly a Shakespearean character.
His entire career has been resignation and regret
Correct but a genius political strategist with a real understanding of what "people" want.
So today we find out how fixed the Labour DL contest has become.
Would be ironic if DL means that some up and coming keen type misses out on the top job if Starmer loses it…
Starmer is desperately trying to stabilise the ship, burt if Philipson wins he will have an element of muttering on the backbenches of a fix, if he loses he probably has to live with a thorn in his side. But does he care ? Probably beyond that now.
I don't think so. It looks like Phillipson vs Powell, but Phillipson has a lot of backbench support too.
It's notable that Thornberry and Ribero-Addy got just a handful of nominations, and those from the usual suspects. It doesn't look like either a major fight or a stitch up.
The Mandleson affair was very foolish of Starmer. I posted here on the folly of appointing him at the time. It was a job for a career diplomat who has been trained for it. This isn't America where ambassadorships are handed out as payback for political favours.
The media want a fight and will highlight the so called stitch up . I like Phillipson but find her a bit wooden , Powell I’ve never really rated but even if she wins with the membership it would hardly be a calamity for No 10 who are busy trashing what’s left of the Labour brand all by themselves .
They both seem fine to me, I'm inclined to vote for whichever one has the fewest houses. Does anyone know how many houses they have?
Labour MPs are both publicly and privately calling for Mandelson to go. That an even a minister equivocated shows the direction of travel.
Hard to see how No 10 holds the line today.
I suspect Mandelson goes. Yesterday, before the emails I thought he rode it out.
I am somewhat amused however that (an unnamed) associate of Epstein who most likely had sexual relations with underage girls could be defended on here, yet the same voices are demanding Mandelson's nuts, when Mandelson clearly was unlikely to have had sexual relations with underage girls.
FWIW Mandelson's appointment, despite his skill at manipulating POTUS, was an error by Starmer.
I wouldn't say we are at Johnsonian levels of chaotic scandals, but John Major's administration springs to mind.
You are making an assumption about Epstein. Which is contradicted by the victim testimonies.
You'll have to explain that one to me. Don't forget to redact names.
It's great - Badenoch says sack him which guarantees (usually) his survival but then Lab MPs say sack him which means the Cons can push and push and push and win whether he stays or goes.
For me it is a very human tragedy - someone so obviously flawed, with so much talent, truly a Shakespearean character.
Mandelson made the fundamental error. Be nice to people on your way up, as you will meet them again on the way down.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
He was so poor it was peculiar. Starmer is not a happy man
Surely he goes tomorrow. We have a nice little rhythm going now, anger and allegations grow Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Starmer defends on Monday and Wednesday, Thursday a little more shit comes out, Friday gone.
Last week Ange, this week Peter Yum Yum, next week who knows but it will take the same pattern as Starmer is useless.
Yes. Not sure he lasts until the weekend, reading these latest remarks
There is just so much in the emails and letters. It is indeed “disturbing”
Eg what the fexk did Mandy mean, of Epstein’s conviction for pedophilia and trafficking, “this is so unfair IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN IN BRITAIN”
Er, what?? Is he saying we protect child rapists? If they are powerful? Or something else? Then what?
On the answer to your final question, isn't it obviously and undeniably a yes? Look at how the establishment protected Jimmy Savile, Janner, Rolf Harris and that's without getting into the dicey subject of Rotherham.
The UK has form on protecting rapists and child abusers, Mandy was absolutely correct in suggesting that Epstein would have had institutional protection from the establishment in this country.
Labour MPs are both publicly and privately calling for Mandelson to go. That an even a minister equivocated shows the direction of travel.
Hard to see how No 10 holds the line today.
I suspect Mandelson goes. Yesterday, before the emails I thought he rode it out.
I am somewhat amused however that (an unnamed) associate of Epstein who most likely had sexual relations with underage girls could be defended on here, yet the same voices are demanding Mandelson's nuts, when Mandelson clearly was unlikely to have had sexual relations with underage girls.
FWIW Mandelson's appointment, despite his skill at manipulating POTUS, was an error by Starmer.
I wouldn't say we are at Johnsonian levels of chaotic scandals, but John Major's administration springs to mind.
You are making an assumption about Epstein. Which is contradicted by the victim testimonies.
You'll have to explain that one to me. Don't forget to redact names.
Bob Worcester was certainly a great pollster the 1970 election his peak, though not always right, remember too his President Kerry projection on election night 2004.
I am not sure his focus on voteshare rather than lead is correct either. See 2017 where May got over 40% but majority due to her small lead over Labour whereas in 2024 Labour got under 35% but Starmer got a big majority due to his large lead over the Tories
How can the concept of 'lead' be detached from 'voteshare'; and how can 'voteshare' be separated from 'lead'?
Like right now, if Reform have 30% and the next in line has 20%, that is one thing. But if by good luck Reform had the same 30% but the Truth Prosperity and Justice party had 60%, Reform's 30 would look and would be very different.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
He was so poor it was peculiar. Starmer is not a happy man
Surely he goes tomorrow. We have a nice little rhythm going now, anger and allegations grow Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Starmer defends on Monday and Wednesday, Thursday a little more shit comes out, Friday gone.
Last week Ange, this week Peter Yum Yum, next week who knows but it will take the same pattern as Starmer is useless.
Yes. Not sure he lasts until the weekend, reading these latest remarks
There is just so much in the emails and letters. It is indeed “disturbing”
Eg what the fexk did Mandy mean, of Epstein’s conviction for pedophilia and trafficking, “this is so unfair IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN IN BRITAIN”
Er, what?? Is he saying we protect child rapists? If they are powerful? Or something else? Then what?
Yes, it does make you wonder if Mandy knew about some famous British paedophiles who swerved prosecution…
How did Mr Integrity think it was a good idea to choose him as our representative in the USA?
Real distress in Labour ranks about Peter Mandelson emails to Jeffrey Epstein. While No 10 knew about links, his remarks after conviction detail closeness of relationship.
Home office minister Mike Tapp said he was “really disturbed” by them. Former frontbencher Andy McDonald said there was “widespread revulsion” in party.
Privately, MPs go further. One told me: “It’s obvious from space that the PM must sack Peter Mandelson. The No10 position appears to be ‘we knew about this but appointed him anyway’.
“It is completely indefensible and untenable. This risks being Chris Pincher on steroids.”
Starmer will be balancing all of this, with the recognition that White House would be furious if Mandelson goes over Epstein - because Trump is in even deeper. The State visit could not come at worse time.
I think that is fair.
I wonder if Charles could cancel. He has form when it comes to cancelling a nonce.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
The most interesting of the Mandleson/Epstein emails is the one where Mandleson says to Epstein that such a conviction wouldn't have happened in the UK.
I wonder what caused Mandleson to think that?
The Thing We Can’t Talk about was carefully, and deliberately covered up. By the police, social service and politicians to a high level.
To the point that people caught in the act by the police were let go without charge.
Yes but the offenders were not very rich financier and politicians, they were taxi drivers etc, or lowly policemen, or radio 1 DJs.
Mandlesons reply suggests much more elite people. Perhaps he just meant Lord Janner, Keith Vaz etc, or maybe there is more to it than that.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Starmer's problem now is if Mandelson survives for the moment, Starmer may not.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
He was so poor it was peculiar. Starmer is not a happy man
Surely he goes tomorrow. We have a nice little rhythm going now, anger and allegations grow Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Starmer defends on Monday and Wednesday, Thursday a little more shit comes out, Friday gone.
Last week Ange, this week Peter Yum Yum, next week who knows but it will take the same pattern as Starmer is useless.
Yes. Not sure he lasts until the weekend, reading these latest remarks
There is just so much in the emails and letters. It is indeed “disturbing”
Eg what the fexk did Mandy mean, of Epstein’s conviction for pedophilia and trafficking, “this is so unfair IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN IN BRITAIN”
Er, what?? Is he saying we protect child rapists? If they are powerful? Or something else? Then what?
Yes, it does make you wonder if Mandy knew about some famous British paedophiles who swerved prosecution…
How did Mr Integrity think it was a good idea to choose him as our representative in the USA?
Precisely because he can deal with the likes of Trump and Epstein.
Which is interesting. Greens unsurprising, but Reform shows that simply counting their support as far Right is quite off the mark.
It will be interesting to see how Polanskis left wing eco-populism goes down with reform voters. I expect it to be a bit marmite. Hated by some, loved by others.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good
Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now
When acting as a barrister in court almost always the attacks and criticisms and the shrapnel that flies around are about the case, about someone or something else which is not you personally. It is fairly rare to be attacked on your probity or competence as such (and at Starmer's exalted level, never). For a rare exception of dramatic quality see perhaps:
Politics is different. And Starmer is being attacked for personal probity, judgment and competence in the Mandelson appointment. Everyone knows he is hiding stuff, and everyone knows it is wrong that Lord M is in his job. That is much harder to take. Defending an indefensible case or client in court is, by comparison, child's play.
The most interesting of the Mandleson/Epstein emails is the one where Mandleson says to Epstein that such a conviction wouldn't have happened in the UK.
I wonder what caused Mandleson to think that?
The Thing We Can’t Talk about was carefully, and deliberately covered up. By the police, social service and politicians to a high level.
To the point that people caught in the act by the police were let go without charge.
It isn't just The Thing We Can't Talk About.
A guilty pleasure of mine is police reality programmes of the Channel 5 sort. Police Interceptors, Motorway Cops, etc. At the end of the episode they will do a run through of what happened to the various ne'er-do-wells apprehended along the way. More often than not, no further action is taken - even in cases where the evidence is completely clear-cut. It's baffling. (The other aspect to these programmes is the number of instances where you are wondering how these people are in the country at all.)
Good discussion on Today in the 6.30 ish business segment re the Merck pull-out from the UK. Highlights were that both guests (one a pharma analyst and the other was Sir Nigel Wilson, Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Implementation Board and is a member of the Science and Innovation Council.
Wilson said that he had spoken to Reeves last night at the FT drinks and is certain she understands the problem and has plans. He was remarkably comfortable with how easy it will be to encourage pension funds etc to invest in UK pharma/research by pulling a few levers.
Both were however also adamant that the UK needs to fix its pricing model with pharma companies as it’s going to drive them all away. Apparently we need to get the rebate the gov gets down to single figure % as it’s 23% currently and vastly higher than any other countries. This in itself I guess will cause other problems as it’s money I would assume goes back into the NHS which needs replacing.
The other problem with the high rebate was that a lot of drug companies were not releasing new drugs to the UK because the cost benefit wasn’t worth it for them and so UK patients are missing out.
This needs much more discussion by the likes of the opposition in order to make sure Reeves has to do something to fix it in the autumn budget. Maybe if Mandy quits, as he should, politicians could spend their time in this instead. Boring for us but ultimately better.
NICE makes recommendations on a QALY basis.
If a new product doesn’t hit a suitable threshold for its proposed price then why should patients expect it. Fine to tweak the formula, but I am missing out on the government buying me a new gulfstream and that makes me very angry!
Pharma used to love the PPRS. It allows them to maintain prices on innovative new drugs at the cost of reducing prices on off patent products. They are just taking advantage of a perceived weak government
This. Some of the pharma companies like to portray it as unfair, but it's mostly free market in action. NICE compares cost and benefits of available treatments and decides whether to fund or not. If not funded, pharma companies can reduce price to reach the magic cost benefit point (or not, their choice).
While Merck may be trying to use relocation as a lever on drug prices, I don't see it. We could pay more and they'd still locate wherever looked best for business/if we were best for business then they'd locate here whatever we pay for drugs.
Did Keir Starmer know about the emails between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein when he was appointed?
Mike Tapp, a home office minister, suggests the government was aware at the time of his appointment. If that's right it seems extraordinary that they would have gone ahead with the appointment
'The Prime Minister said yesterday in the house that due process was followed in that appointment - my understanding is that means all the information was present.
'I’ve gone through vetting myself. That means that you don’t hide from your mistakes and you have to make them aware of that.
'If the PM’s saying they’ve been through the process, then that’s the situation we’re in now.
'The PM has been clear he has confidence in his ability, and that’s maintained'
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
He was so poor it was peculiar. Starmer is not a happy man
Surely he goes tomorrow. We have a nice little rhythm going now, anger and allegations grow Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Starmer defends on Monday and Wednesday, Thursday a little more shit comes out, Friday gone.
Last week Ange, this week Peter Yum Yum, next week who knows but it will take the same pattern as Starmer is useless.
Yes. Not sure he lasts until the weekend, reading these latest remarks
There is just so much in the emails and letters. It is indeed “disturbing”
Eg what the fexk did Mandy mean, of Epstein’s conviction for pedophilia and trafficking, “this is so unfair IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN IN BRITAIN”
Er, what?? Is he saying we protect child rapists? If they are powerful? Or something else? Then what?
Yes, it does make you wonder if Mandy knew about some famous British paedophiles who swerved prosecution…
How did Mr Integrity think it was a good idea to choose him as our representative in the USA?
Precisely because he can deal with the likes of Trump and Epstein.
I would accept that if the Trump team hadn't made it clear that they had a good relationship with the former ambassador Karen Pearce. A political appointment to the role of ambassador is relatively rare, I think this proves they are rare for good reason.
Good discussion on Today in the 6.30 ish business segment re the Merck pull-out from the UK. Highlights were that both guests (one a pharma analyst and the other was Sir Nigel Wilson, Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Implementation Board and is a member of the Science and Innovation Council.
Wilson said that he had spoken to Reeves last night at the FT drinks and is certain she understands the problem and has plans. He was remarkably comfortable with how easy it will be to encourage pension funds etc to invest in UK pharma/research by pulling a few levers.
Both were however also adamant that the UK needs to fix its pricing model with pharma companies as it’s going to drive them all away. Apparently we need to get the rebate the gov gets down to single figure % as it’s 23% currently and vastly higher than any other countries. This in itself I guess will cause other problems as it’s money I would assume goes back into the NHS which needs replacing.
The other problem with the high rebate was that a lot of drug companies were not releasing new drugs to the UK because the cost benefit wasn’t worth it for them and so UK patients are missing out.
This needs much more discussion by the likes of the opposition in order to make sure Reeves has to do something to fix it in the autumn budget. Maybe if Mandy quits, as he should, politicians could spend their time in this instead. Boring for us but ultimately better.
PAra 4 must be largely down to Brexit - before, approval would have been automatically done by the EU system, rather than the newish UK system. Nothing we can do about Brexit in the short or medium term, though, so that's therefore a problem without a solution, unless we join in the EU system. Any chance of that?
Edit: but it's all the more likely the Tories and Reform won't discuss it, for that very reason. So another bad sign.
Para 4 is nothing to do with Brexit. There is a different between EMA/MHRA (which approved drugs) and NICE (which recommends to the NHs whether to buy them or not)
Thats correct, but the original para 4 was ambiguous. It's quite possible that pharma cos are prioritising the bigger (and more lucrative with the insurance models and worse collective bargaining) EU market over the UK one when it comes to getting approvals. Most submit to both simultaneously though, I'd have thought?
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
He was so poor it was peculiar. Starmer is not a happy man
Surely he goes tomorrow. We have a nice little rhythm going now, anger and allegations grow Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Starmer defends on Monday and Wednesday, Thursday a little more shit comes out, Friday gone.
Last week Ange, this week Peter Yum Yum, next week who knows but it will take the same pattern as Starmer is useless.
Yes. Not sure he lasts until the weekend, reading these latest remarks
There is just so much in the emails and letters. It is indeed “disturbing”
Eg what the fexk did Mandy mean, of Epstein’s conviction for pedophilia and trafficking, “this is so unfair IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN IN BRITAIN”
Er, what?? Is he saying we protect child rapists? If they are powerful? Or something else? Then what?
On the answer to your final question, isn't it obviously and undeniably a yes? Look at how the establishment protected Jimmy Savile, Janner, Rolf Harris and that's without getting into the dicey subject of Rotherham.
The UK has form on protecting rapists and child abusers, Mandy was absolutely correct in suggesting that Epstein would have had institutional protection from the establishment in this country.
Add in Peter Morrison, Cyril Smith, Lord Devlin, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all.
Trying to work out who if anyone in the UK is the equivalent of Kirk, Walsh and Shapiro.
Tommy perhaps. Katie. Owen.
Okay not too tricky.
I don't think there is a British equivalent really. Kirk fancied himself as a debater and intellectual, rather than the street agitator style of Robinson. British Right Wing Populism doesn't have the intellectual foundations of MAGA, centered as it is in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.
Dan Hannan, Peter Hitchens, most GB news presenters, even Clarkson or Kelvin McKenzie
None of those are "centered in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.".
Nor did any build their following but setting up an organisation to proselytise on college campuses.
UK politics doesn't really have an equivalent of that US style conservatism, and we are better for it.
Possibly a nearer thing (and it's still not really comparable) might be Tommy Robinson.
What an interesting question.
Maga is not centered on "Evangelical Christianity"; that is just a skin, and they have put it through a filter to exclude the parts that don't fit with an "America first" worldview. Recall how frightened and vicious Trump and Vance were when Bishop Budde reminded them that "mercy" and 'caring for the refugee' are Christian (and Evangelical Christian) values.
Evangelical Christianity has gone through a filter in Maga in the same way as the Dutch Reformed Church ended up justifying apartheid - the tradition of say Hegseth is similar, embracing women as subservient and so on. There' an 'intellectual' justification too, which is easier to fall for in the American context - Manifest Destiny and the rest of the self-justifying garbage, which is met even amongst liberals ("the USA is the best country in the world" etc).
Remember that Martin Luther King was an Evangelical Christian (Baptist Minister); it's never as simple as we would like.
On UK equivalents, I'd go for someone more intellectual than a street thug like Tommy Robinson, since Turning Point targets universities and young adults. Perhaps a better equivalent is Matt Gooodwin or someone attached to Natcon or in the Free Speech Union or anti-abortion circles. There's a whole zoo of Right-fringe organisations trying to be intellectual, but I don't know any figures who have made it.
I don't know eg a younger populist version of Douglas Murray, who might qualify. Most of the Evangelicals on the political right in the UK do not seem to go down that route, and pull back towards more useful emphases (eg Steve Barclay); they sort of self-triangulate and avoid the rabbit hole. That's partly to do with UK evanglicals being far more integrated.
Does Paul Marshall have any programmes for developing thought leaders?
I am a Christian and also don't like American style Evangelicalism, but it is very much part of the MAGA appeal. The support is mutual, with Evangelicalism there boosting MAGA and vice versa.
I am sure that you remember my header in October '24 on how they are linked, but for others:
Yes - a good piece, but in my view describing only a segment of American-style Evangelicalism, ie that part which supplies much of Trump's support base - the televangelists who drove into politics supporting Reagan (eg charismatics like Pat Robertson, fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell, and their predecessors before them). Even Trump's spiritual advisor is an evangelical entrepreneur who had a private jet, bought with tax-exempt money by her ministry.
Theologically imo it's an Evangelicalism culturally captured by consumerism and love of money and power; the USA needs it because they need a theology which justifies their wealth, and keeping it.
But that misses out most of "American style Evangelicalism", and I dispute that definition.
The Martin Luther King tradition is far more important imo, which is bottom-up and about liberation, not top down and about money and power (and often sex), in a religious showbusiness setting. That's leaving aside King's personal failings, which somebody will mention if I do not.
Plus there are any number of other American-style evangelicalisms, starting with the Ron Sider / World Vision type. That's what 9000 Protestant denominations does for you. But I'll stop there.
Trying to work out who if anyone in the UK is the equivalent of Kirk, Walsh and Shapiro.
Tommy perhaps. Katie. Owen.
Okay not too tricky.
I don't think there is a British equivalent really. Kirk fancied himself as a debater and intellectual, rather than the street agitator style of Robinson. British Right Wing Populism doesn't have the intellectual foundations of MAGA, centered as it is in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.
Dan Hannan, Peter Hitchens, most GB news presenters, even Clarkson or Kelvin McKenzie
None of those are "centered in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.".
Nor did any build their following but setting up an organisation to proselytise on college campuses.
UK politics doesn't really have an equivalent of that US style conservatism, and we are better for it.
Possibly a nearer thing (and it's still not really comparable) might be Tommy Robinson.
What an interesting question.
Maga is not centered on "Evangelical Christianity"; that is just a skin, and they have put it through a filter to exclude the parts that don't fit with an "America first" worldview. Recall how frightened and vicious Trump and Vance were when Bishop Budde reminded them that "mercy" and 'caring for the refugee' are Christian (and Evangelical Christian) values.
Evangelical Christianity has gone through a filter in Maga in the same way as the Dutch Reformed Church ended up justifying apartheid - the tradition of say Hegseth is similar, embracing women as subservient and so on. There' an 'intellectual' justification too, which is easier to fall for in the American context - Manifest Destiny and the rest of the self-justifying garbage, which is met even amongst liberals ("the USA is the best country in the world" etc).
Remember that Martin Luther King was an Evangelical Christian (Baptist Minister); it's never as simple as we would like.
On UK equivalents, I'd go for someone more intellectual than a street thug like Tommy Robinson, since Turning Point targets universities and young adults. Perhaps a better equivalent is Matt Gooodwin or someone attached to Natcon or in the Free Speech Union or anti-abortion circles. There's a whole zoo of Right-fringe organisations trying to be intellectual, but I don't know any figures who have made it.
I don't know eg a younger populist version of Douglas Murray, who might qualify. Most of the Evangelicals on the political right in the UK do not seem to go down that route, and pull back towards more useful emphases (eg Steve Barclay); they sort of self-triangulate and avoid the rabbit hole. That's partly to do with UK evanglicals being far more integrated.
Does Paul Marshall have any programmes for developing thought leaders?
Bishop Budde is a liberal Catholic Episcopalian Anglican not an Evangelical
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
🙏
I want him gone because its very likely we then get rid of many of the imbeciles in cabinet - Reeves and Lammy wont feature on anyone's dream team radar, nor Cooper. The leadership election will be comedy gold. And of course we might get an early election as the new PM goes for a personal mandate
Did Keir Starmer know about the emails between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein when he was appointed?
Mike Tapp, a home office minister, suggests the government was aware at the time of his appointment. If that's right it seems extraordinary that they would have gone ahead with the appointment
'The Prime Minister said yesterday in the house that due process was followed in that appointment - my understanding is that means all the information was present.
'I’ve gone through vetting myself. That means that you don’t hide from your mistakes and you have to make them aware of that.
'If the PM’s saying they’ve been through the process, then that’s the situation we’re in now.
'The PM has been clear he has confidence in his ability, and that’s maintained'
I don't think that Tapp himself endorsed the PM's confidence, in fact I think he carefully didn't. Interesting government line to suggest that if Mandelson has to go the PM has got it wrong.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Gone by Monday
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer
Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good
Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now
When acting as a barrister in court almost always the attacks and criticisms and the shrapnel that flies around are about the case, about someone or something else which is not you personally. It is fairly rare to be attacked on your probity or competence as such (and at Starmer's exalted level, never). For a rare exception of dramatic quality see perhaps:
Politics is different. And Starmer is being attacked for personal probity, judgment and competence in the Mandelson appointment. Everyone knows he is hiding stuff, and everyone knows it is wrong that Lord M is in his job. That is much harder to take. Defending an indefensible case or client in court is, by comparison, child's play.
Interesting point, probably true. That infamous guardian profile - “I never dream” - made the same observation. Starmer cannot take personal criticism or contradiction, he gets angry and red faced and loses the plot. A terrible flaw in politics
Indeed that might explain how we ended up with Lord Yum Yum as Ambo. Starmer made the decision to appoint him - then simply refused to hear the objections and got tetchy and annoyed when people questioned the decision. This happened at the beginning of his administration so Skyr was still in total command and the objectors backed down
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
🙏
I want him gone because its very likely we then get rid of many of the imbeciles in cabinet - Reeves and Lammy wont feature on anyone's dream team radar, nor Cooper. The leadership election will be comedy gold. And of course we might get an early election as the new PM goes for a personal mandate
We might get rid of Starmer and Reeves and Lammy - but in all honesty, is there really anyone else bursting with talent and competence there behind them to take their places?
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
🙏
I want him gone because its very likely we then get rid of many of the imbeciles in cabinet - Reeves and Lammy wont feature on anyone's dream team radar, nor Cooper. The leadership election will be comedy gold. And of course we might get an early election as the new PM goes for a personal mandate
We might get rid of Starmer and Reeves and Lammy - but in all honesty, is there really anyone else bursting with talent and competence there behind them to take their places?
No, but they so very richly deserve to be defenestrated, so im prepared to risk what follows
The most interesting of the Mandleson/Epstein emails is the one where Mandleson says to Epstein that such a conviction wouldn't have happened in the UK.
I wonder what caused Mandleson to think that?
The Thing We Can’t Talk about was carefully, and deliberately covered up. By the police, social service and politicians to a high level.
To the point that people caught in the act by the police were let go without charge.
It isn't just The Thing We Can't Talk About.
A guilty pleasure of mine is police reality programmes of the Channel 5 sort. Police Interceptors, Motorway Cops, etc. At the end of the episode they will do a run through of what happened to the various ne'er-do-wells apprehended along the way. More often than not, no further action is taken - even in cases where the evidence is completely clear-cut. It's baffling. (The other aspect to these programmes is the number of instances where you are wondering how these people are in the country at all.)
Why is it baffling? We kept electing governments who cut funding for our courts and justice systems because we wanted lower taxes.
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
🙏
I'm not so sure, he's absolutely useless but who would replace him from Labour? Ed Miliband?! Rachel Reeves?!
I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia
Good morning
Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians
This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson
I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now
Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position
Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society
Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump
Since when have we lost our moral compass?
Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.
Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself
Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
🙏
I'm not so sure, he's absolutely useless but who would replace him from Labour? Ed Miliband?! Rachel Reeves?!
Trying to work out who if anyone in the UK is the equivalent of Kirk, Walsh and Shapiro.
Tommy perhaps. Katie. Owen.
Okay not too tricky.
I don't think there is a British equivalent really. Kirk fancied himself as a debater and intellectual, rather than the street agitator style of Robinson. British Right Wing Populism doesn't have the intellectual foundations of MAGA, centered as it is in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.
Dan Hannan, Peter Hitchens, most GB news presenters, even Clarkson or Kelvin McKenzie
None of those are "centered in Evangelical Christianity, Guns and White supremacy.".
Nor did any build their following but setting up an organisation to proselytise on college campuses.
UK politics doesn't really have an equivalent of that US style conservatism, and we are better for it.
Possibly a nearer thing (and it's still not really comparable) might be Tommy Robinson.
What an interesting question.
Maga is not centered on "Evangelical Christianity"; that is just a skin, and they have put it through a filter to exclude the parts that don't fit with an "America first" worldview. Recall how frightened and vicious Trump and Vance were when Bishop Budde reminded them that "mercy" and 'caring for the refugee' are Christian (and Evangelical Christian) values.
Evangelical Christianity has gone through a filter in Maga in the same way as the Dutch Reformed Church ended up justifying apartheid - the tradition of say Hegseth is similar, embracing women as subservient and so on. There' an 'intellectual' justification too, which is easier to fall for in the American context - Manifest Destiny and the rest of the self-justifying garbage, which is met even amongst liberals ("the USA is the best country in the world" etc).
Remember that Martin Luther King was an Evangelical Christian (Baptist Minister); it's never as simple as we would like.
On UK equivalents, I'd go for someone more intellectual than a street thug like Tommy Robinson, since Turning Point targets universities and young adults. Perhaps a better equivalent is Matt Gooodwin or someone attached to Natcon or in the Free Speech Union or anti-abortion circles. There's a whole zoo of Right-fringe organisations trying to be intellectual, but I don't know any figures who have made it.
I don't know eg a younger populist version of Douglas Murray, who might qualify. Most of the Evangelicals on the political right in the UK do not seem to go down that route, and pull back towards more useful emphases (eg Steve Barclay); they sort of self-triangulate and avoid the rabbit hole. That's partly to do with UK evanglicals being far more integrated.
Does Paul Marshall have any programmes for developing thought leaders?
I am a Christian and also don't like American style Evangelicalism, but it is very much part of the MAGA appeal. The support is mutual, with Evangelicalism there boosting MAGA and vice versa.
I am sure that you remember my header in October '24 on how they are linked, but for others:
Yes - a good piece, but in my view describing only a segment of American-style Evangelicalism, ie that part which supplies much of Trump's support base - the televangelists who drove into politics supporting Reagan (eg charismatics like Pat Robertson, fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell, and their predecessors before them). Even Trump's spiritual advisor is an evangelical entrepreneur who had a private jet, bought with tax-exempt money by her ministry.
Theologically imo it's an Evangelicalism culturally captured by consumerism and love of money and power; the USA needs it because they need a theology which justifies their wealth, and keeping it.
But that misses out most of "American style Evangelicalism", and I dispute that definition.
The Martin Luther King tradition is far more important imo, which is bottom-up and about liberation, not top down and about money and power (and often sex), in a religious showbusiness setting. That's leaving aside King's personal failings, which somebody will mention if I do not.
Plus there are any number of other American-style evangelicalisms, starting with the Ron Sider / World Vision type. That's what 9000 Protestant denominations does for you. But I'll stop there.
'Evangelical' in the USA is another term, like 'left' and 'right' in the UK which has no meaning outside its context.
In the UK, Evangelical (I am not one, though I am a Christian) usually labels someone who is nowhere close to Trumpism, indiscriminate gun ownership and gangster oligarchy. On the whole they are kind, decent, hard working, culturally conservative, tolerant, theologically not exciting and infinitely more liberal (try them on Jesus's views on remarriage after divorce, or the merits of excommunicating gays) than they like to think they are.
Their best theologians and biblical scholars both in UK and USA are outstanding but most of that seems to be a closely guarded secret.
The thing I don’t understand about Mandelson. He literally has no defence now. His argument was always he wasn’t aware of what Epstein was when he befriended him. But we know from the e-mails he was aware. Epstein had been convicted. So what does Starmer think he’s doing.
Comments
'But she's really beautiful and has won a competition' she said.
'What competition?' I asked
'Miss Bootle Rose'
This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office
I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue
Trump did not kick Epstein out for seedy behaviour. On that metric he would have to ban himself.
After he has sold Ukraine down the river why are you still excusing this vile man with Team Trump subterfuge?
In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job
What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared
He was so poor it was peculiar. Starmer is not a happy man
Sad to hear of the passing of Sir Bob Worcester and, as @TSE says, one of the great polling experts of his time.
On to other things, I only saw snippets of the Sky immigration debate - my "take" on it was there was actually quite broad cencensus among the politicians "something needed to be done" - the only trouble was, nobody knew what or had any coherent, legal or practical solutions. Nobody spoke in favour of large scale immigration.
We also had the usual "no one listens to the public" from the public themselves and while I have an element of sympathy, I actually don't. Immigration has been around the British political debate since Windrush and in truth before that. Politicians have listened though not embraced some of the more extreme solutions now being peddled on social media such as the wholesale deportation of the Islamic or non-white communities.
As always, it comes back to practicalities, the Devil, as always, is in the detail as Farage found out. Sweeping general promises often unravel quickly when confronted with specific issues - returning women to Afghanistan, returning children anywhere. We also have, as has been pointed out, to "sweeten" the deal for the returns , it seems, by providing money to unpleasant regimes such as in Afghanistan or Eritrea but realpolitik dictates you often have to sup with the Devil - it's the length of your spoon that then becomes the issue.
@JasonGroves1
Support for Mandelson draining away. Home Office minister Mike Tapp not seeking to defend him and saying of his exchanges with Epstein: ‘I’m really disturbed by those emails’
@Steven_Swinford
Ministers privately think Starmer’s position on Lord Mandelson is unsustainable in the wake of the leaked emails to Jeffrey Epstein
They point to the fact that Yvette Cooper, the new foreign secretary who is technically Mandelson’s boss, has put protecting women and girls at the heart of her politics and priorities
Growing frustration in Labour ranks - including among some Starmer loyalists.
There’s anger that in second week after summer, govt embroiled in second scandal.
Question is whether PM and No 10 hold firm ahead of Trump state visit next week.
Labour MPs are both publicly and privately calling for Mandelson to go. That an even a minister equivocated shows the direction of travel.
Hard to see how No 10 holds the line today.
I think the risk is that such a comment from Obama normalises acceptance of the style of politics Kirk embraced, and we cannot do that. I would hope for something linking the culture of violence he has helped create to Kirk's politics, and looking for something better. That's a different question from sympathy for his family.
I think now *is* the time for senior figures to comment on those aspects, because it is one of few times that cut-through is possibly. Carefully worded of course, but the points need to be made if we are to reassert democratic, lawful politics - especially in the USA.
I sense a kind of Victorian-style superficial performative piety in USA political culture. Trump has taken it beyond that.
I think Matthew O Dowd's comments were more appropriate:
During MSNBC’s coverage of Kirk’s shooting, anchor Katy Tur asked Dowd about “the environment in which a shooting like this happens.” Dowd responded with the following about Kirk: “He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions. And I think that is the environment we are in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in.”
https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/matthew-dowd-fired-msnbc-charlie-kirk-death-1236514875/
The interesting question being: as Lord M will be sacked for doing stuff which must have been well known at the time of appointment, how does Starmer survive the onslaught when it turns to him?
Real distress in Labour ranks about Peter Mandelson emails to Jeffrey Epstein. While No 10 knew about links, his remarks after conviction detail closeness of relationship.
Home office minister Mike Tapp said he was “really disturbed” by them. Former frontbencher Andy McDonald said there was “widespread revulsion” in party.
Privately, MPs go further. One told me: “It’s obvious from space that the PM must sack Peter Mandelson. The No10 position appears to be ‘we knew about this but appointed him anyway’.
“It is completely indefensible and untenable. This risks being Chris Pincher on steroids.”
Starmer will be balancing all of this, with the recognition that White House would be furious if Mandelson goes over Epstein - because Trump is in even deeper. The State visit could not come at worse time.
Last week Ange, this week Peter Yum Yum, next week who knows but it will take the same pattern as Starmer is useless.
He cant sack him, hes backed him and rebacked him after the emails came out.
What a pity. Heart of stone etc
There is just so much in the emails and letters. It is indeed “disturbing”
Eg what the fexk did Mandy mean, of Epstein’s conviction for pedophilia and trafficking, “this is so unfair IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN IN BRITAIN”
Er, what?? Is he saying we protect child rapists? If they are powerful? Or something else? Then what?
But the Trump line is he was never close to Epstein. Sacking somebody for being close to Epstein helps Donny Boy
At what point does the penny drop that evil arrives on private jets, not small boats?
I am somewhat amused however that (an unnamed) associate of Epstein who most likely had sexual relations with underage girls could be defended on here, yet the same voices are demanding Mandelson's nuts, when Mandelson clearly was unlikely to have had sexual relations with underage girls.
FWIW Mandelson's appointment, despite his skill at manipulating POTUS, was an error by Starmer.
I wouldn't say we are at Johnsonian levels of chaotic scandals, but John Major's administration springs to mind.
Emotions mean it simply won't be heard well even if as you say it gathers more attention than it would at another time.
Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now
Major was seen as a calming, more collegiate figure than Thatcher (or indeed Kinnock), but in changing circumstances that looks like weakness and lack of control over his party - so he was gone. Blair was a smooth salesman, that worked in terms of getting over doubts about Labour after a long period in office, but there's an element of dishonesty in every smooth salesman, and that got him over Iraq in particular.
It's almost harder to think of PMs who don't fit that pattern. Perhaps Eden is one - he fell because he actually turned out to lack the one quality everyone was pretty certain he had, namely a mastery of foreign affairs.
I wonder what caused Mandleson to think that?
But, far more worringly, for a man whose only real selling point is supposed technocratic competence to have appointed an obvious risk like Mandelson to a key post, over the heads of far more qualified professionals, in the face of numerous warnings and despite knowing about the many skeletons in his closet, shows quite incredibly poor judgement.
This shows him in a much worse light than Rayner, who was elected deputy leader and who Starmer probably had in office just to appease to the loony left.
To the point that people caught in the act by the police were let go without charge.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/sep/10/england-fans-chants-cast-keir-starmer-as-first-prime-minister-to-become-the-enemy
For me it is a very human tragedy - someone so obviously flawed, with so much talent, truly a Shakespearean character.
I am not sure his focus on voteshare rather than lead is correct either. See 2017 where May got over 40% but majority due to her small lead over Labour whereas in 2024 Labour got under 35% but Starmer got a big majority due to his large lead over the Tories
BREAKING: Tory Neil O'Brien secures an urgent question in the Commons on Mandelson.
"To ask the Foreign Secretary if she will make a statement on the process for the appointment of the United Kingdom’s Ambassador to the United States."
Tick tock ...
Living in far north small town life, I detect the gradual extinction of the solicitor type who would draft a will in the morning, do a criminal mitigation in the local magistrates in the afternoon and return to the office to deal with provision for children and money in divorce proceedings.
Speaking of creeping uses, when did 'The exact same' start to replace 'exactly the same' in UK English usage? I feel it is recent.
Reform and Greens for Grandpa
The UK has form on protecting rapists and child abusers, Mandy was absolutely correct in suggesting that Epstein would have had institutional protection from the establishment in this country.
Like right now, if Reform have 30% and the next in line has 20%, that is one thing. But if by good luck Reform had the same 30% but the Truth Prosperity and Justice party had 60%, Reform's 30 would look and would be very different.
I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive
How did Mr Integrity think it was a good idea to choose him as our representative in the USA?
I wonder if Charles could cancel. He has form when it comes to cancelling a nonce.
The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end
Mandlesons reply suggests much more elite people. Perhaps he just meant Lord Janner, Keith Vaz etc, or maybe there is more to it than that.
https://x.com/labourlewis/status/1965848770060652888?s=19
Clive not a fan
It will be interesting to see how Polanskis left wing eco-populism goes down with reform voters. I expect it to be a bit marmite. Hated by some, loved by others.
Epstein is radioactive. Every picture of Mandy and Trump will be captioned Epstein.
We are getting used to Starmer being useless, but this is next level stupid
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/nuremberg-russell-crowe-rami-malek-james-vanderbilt-qa-tiff-1236358436/
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-farooqi-others.pdf
Politics is different. And Starmer is being attacked for personal probity, judgment and competence in the Mandelson appointment. Everyone knows he is hiding stuff, and everyone knows it is wrong that Lord M is in his job. That is much harder to take. Defending an indefensible case or client in court is, by comparison, child's play.
A guilty pleasure of mine is police reality programmes of the Channel 5 sort. Police Interceptors, Motorway Cops, etc. At the end of the episode they will do a run through of what happened to the various ne'er-do-wells apprehended along the way. More often than not, no further action is taken - even in cases where the evidence is completely clear-cut. It's baffling. (The other aspect to these programmes is the number of instances where you are wondering how these people are in the country at all.)
While Merck may be trying to use relocation as a lever on drug prices, I don't see it. We could pay more and they'd still locate wherever looked best for business/if we were best for business then they'd locate here whatever we pay for drugs.
@Steven_Swinford
Did Keir Starmer know about the emails between Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein when he was appointed?
Mike Tapp, a home office minister, suggests the government was aware at the time of his appointment. If that's right it seems extraordinary that they would have gone ahead with the appointment
'The Prime Minister said yesterday in the house that due process was followed in that appointment - my understanding is that means all the information was present.
'I’ve gone through vetting myself. That means that you don’t hide from your mistakes and you have to make them aware of that.
'If the PM’s saying they’ve been through the process, then that’s the situation we’re in now.
'The PM has been clear he has confidence in his ability, and that’s maintained'
In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone
🙏
Theologically imo it's an Evangelicalism culturally captured by consumerism and love of money and power; the USA needs it because they need a theology which justifies their wealth, and keeping it.
But that misses out most of "American style Evangelicalism", and I dispute that definition.
The Martin Luther King tradition is far more important imo, which is bottom-up and about liberation, not top down and about money and power (and often sex), in a religious showbusiness setting. That's leaving aside King's personal failings, which somebody will mention if I do not.
Plus there are any number of other American-style evangelicalisms, starting with the Ron Sider / World Vision type. That's what 9000 Protestant denominations does for you. But I'll stop there.
And of course we might get an early election as the new PM goes for a personal mandate
Indeed that might explain how we ended up with Lord Yum Yum as Ambo. Starmer made the decision to appoint him - then simply refused to hear the objections and got tetchy and annoyed when people questioned the decision. This happened at the beginning of his administration so Skyr was still in total command and the objectors backed down
Better the devil you know.
Liz Truss….
NEW: Liverpool's @PaulaBarkerMP has confirmed she's dropping out of the race for deputy Labour leader.
Says whoever wins "must listen to the concerns of every secion of our Party and not be afraid to bring those challenges to the government"
She is now backing @LucyMPowell
In the UK, Evangelical (I am not one, though I am a Christian) usually labels someone who is nowhere close to Trumpism, indiscriminate gun ownership and gangster oligarchy. On the whole they are kind, decent, hard working, culturally conservative, tolerant, theologically not exciting and infinitely more liberal (try them on Jesus's views on remarriage after divorce, or the merits of excommunicating gays) than they like to think they are.
Their best theologians and biblical scholars both in UK and USA are outstanding but most of that seems to be a closely guarded secret.
The thing I don’t understand about Mandelson. He literally has no defence now. His argument was always he wasn’t aware of what Epstein was when he befriended him. But we know from the e-mails he was aware. Epstein had been convicted. So what does Starmer think he’s doing.