Sounds like Kruger will chicken run. 'Leaving East Wiltshire' its 'not a target for Reform'
Be interesting to see if any Tories want to chicken run into it...
Kruger calls it 'one if the safest Tory seats' so plenty id imagine. They carried it in the May locals rather easily
Just done some quick calcs. Labour didn't bother standing but in the wards making up East Wiltshire in May the Cons finished about 2100 votes ahead of Reform with the LDs a further 1300 behind
My model, based on latest average "switching matrix" from six pollsters shows for East Wiltshire:
2024 -> next GE Con 16,849 -> 12,015 Ref 7,885 -> 14,161 Lab 12,133 -> 8,042 LD 8,204 -> 8.920 Grn 1,844 -> 2,218
Reform HOLD Unless Cons get tactical votes from Lab, LD and/or Grn Or Lab/LD come to an arrangement. Can't see any of those happening.
I agree that Reform would win it, although I think they'd probably get just over 50%, so tactical voting wouldn't make any difference.
On current figures, I reckon Reform wins with 30-35% of the vote. Defection of Kruger probably helps Reform as he will take some personal supporters with him.
Starmer’s new position is that he “knew about the emails from Mandelson to Epstein after Epstein’s conviction” but HE DIDN’T KNOW WHAT WAS IN THEM
So he didn’t think to ask?
Next it will be “yes I read the emails where Mandelson praises Epstein as the worlds greatest pedo but AS I READ THEM SOMEONE COVERED MY SCREEN WITH VASELINE SO THE ACTUAL WORDS WERE BLURRED”
The skill of knowing what to *provably not to know* is key management skill. Re-read the Post Office enquiry evidence.
Equally, there is often nothing more offensive to senior management than provably making them aware of something they needed not to know.
I think this is the distinction between Starmer and a more skilful politician, though. Starmer has come from that culture of “don’t bother me with this” or “wait for this process to finish.”
A PM absolutely needs to be bothered with stuff, and get a grip on crises urgently, because otherwise the scrutiny starts around exactly who knew what, when.
I am not quite sure of the timings in my head, but I am pretty convinced that a more skilled and adept politician would have made damn sure if they became aware that those emails existed that they would not be standing up in the Commons at midday and trying to deflect by giving public backing. Too much of a hostage to fortune.
In the legal world, being able to say "I was unaware" has power.
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
Everything seems to paint an odd picture of Mandelson. It'd be nice to know what Mandelson actually honestly wanted from this life...
Personally, I think the only problem with London's cyclists is the ones on overpowered and illegal ebikes.
Otherwise, the introduction of cyclelanes, the proliferation of Boris bikes, and the like are all overwhelmingly positive. Simply: because bikes take up so much less space than cars, you can have more people on the road at any point. And - of course - bikes seem pretty resistant to ending up in jams.
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
I can believe that Starmer was genuinely infatuated with/by Epstein. Look at that infamous photo of Yum Yum in his bathrobe. He is looking at Epstein with giggly adoration. “This charming handsome sexy billionaire wants to be best friends with ME!”
Epstein clearly satisfied some deep insecurity in Mandelson. Something from his childhood where Mandy never felt good enough or rich enough
Hence the constant succumbing to corruption by rich men. And I can also believe that Epstein was VERY charming. That was his whole shtick
*** How did Keir Starmer win over Trump? And what’s he given up in return? ***
I spent the summer talking to 20+ people trying to work this out for a long read
David Lammy, Peter Mandelson, Simon Case, Chris Ruddy, No10 folks all talked
Among what emerged…
:: Starmer’s decision to reach out to Trump after the assassination attempt was key. Led to their first conversation
:: Their first meeting in Trump Tower saw then candidate Trump constantly ask the PM about his victory and the Red Wall - a sign he respects winners
:: When Starmer and Trump talk on the phone it is the President doing 90% of the talking, per those who have listened
:: Starmer prepares a lot for his meetings with Trump. Before the first White House trip he was sent video footage of the 3 leaders who’d faced Trump already
:: Starmer practiced handing over the state visit letter with aides. Seats arranged like the Oval Office. They war-gamed qus (inc Vance free speech jibe)
:: Starmer’s TV state visit moment almost never came off. White House tried to take the letter off him for security reasons. A standoff ensued. Eventually defused.
:: The PM has learned to schmooze Trump. On phone calls he praised Doge when Musk was still in White House
:: He travelled to both of Trump’s Scottish golf courses in July - a PM putting focus on a counterpart’s commercial interests
:: Starmer privately briefed Trump on Palestine Action spray painting his golf course with info from Police Scotland, per a source. 4 months later group banned.
:: Starmer’s No10 aides past and present believe his lack of ego - contrasts drawn with Emmanual Macron - eases relations
:: For some Labour MPs the deference is too much. One says the ‘sucking up’ to Trump ‘makes a mockery’ of UK values
:: Royalty is key. Prince William’s meeting with Trump in Paris in December lasted so long it delayed a French state banquet - to the fury of Macron.
:: Each meeting a senior Royal has with Trump is captured in a formal note by a private secretary and passed to the PM
:: There is a depth of family friendship there too. Trump unexpectedly called Starmer on mobile after his bother died
:: They are in touch on Signal too
:: Key other figures in the relationship: Lammy (now moved), Mandelson (now sacked), and Jonathan Powell
:: Plus, the secret Trump whisperer… Senay Bulbul, the UK embassy political counsellor who covers Repubs. She was almost moved to No10 to help advise
So yes, PM had got on Trump’s good side. The bigger qu: has it helped that much??
The implication there that hundreds of British citizens have been arrested for peaceful protest at the behest of Trump. If that's the secret reason for the draconian response to PA protestors that Ministers keep alluding to then the government is in serious trouble with the left - which was always a bigger risk to Starmer than the histrionics from the right.
I think that's unlikely. I think we have a nexus of a stupid act by the government, some stupid (but well meaning) protesters and a stupid police force. Add it together and you end up with with some very unusual 'terrorists' being arrested for holding up placards.
But I don't think its to satisfy Trump.
Labour as form with bizarre threat estimation. Fathers For Justice and tree climbing greens were treated as terroristic threats - complete with illegal inflation operations against them. While actual terrorists were treated as community leaders.
What is an illegal inflation operation ?
Bloody auto incorrect - infiltration operations. Strangely, run by ACPO, which had no legal authority to run anything.
The court cases about women who were taken advantage of by police officers during the operations involving the tree climbing greens are ongoing, I believe.
The cynical suggest that the police were much happier hanging out with hippies than the mad head chopper types.
Certainly the ones actually shagging the women - I'd imagine a fair bit of business with pleasure?
Wow. Nigel is saying that a by-election is not needed as there's no logical difference between Tory Kruger and Reform Kruger. That might be right, but is that the sort of thing Nigel should be broadcasting? Labour will have a field day with that in the Red Wall.
I doubt it - Farage is a law to himself and getting away with it
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
Everything seems to paint an odd picture of Mandelson. It'd be nice to know what Mandelson actually honestly wanted from this life...
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
I can believe that Starmer was genuinely infatuated with/by Epstein. Look at that infamous photo of Yum Yum in his bathrobe. He is looking at Epstein with giggly adoration. “This charming handsome sexy billionaire wants to be best friends with ME!”
Epstein clearly satisfied some deep insecurity in Mandelson. Something from his childhood where Mandy never felt good enough or rich enough
Hence the constant succumbing to corruption by rich men. And I can also believe that Epstein was VERY charming. That was his whole shtick
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
I can believe that Starmer was genuinely infatuated with/by Epstein. Look at that infamous photo of Yum Yum in his bathrobe. He is looking at Epstein with giggly adoration. “This charming handsome sexy billionaire wants to be best friends with ME!”
Epstein clearly satisfied some deep insecurity in Mandelson. Something from his childhood where Mandy never felt good enough or rich enough
Hence the constant succumbing to corruption by rich men. And I can also believe that Epstein was VERY charming. That was his whole shtick
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
Everything seems to paint an odd picture of Mandelson. It'd be nice to know what Mandelson actually honestly wanted from this life...
Position and wealth
Certainly not reputation.
Some senior politicians - e.g. Major, Balls, or Portillo, are hated during their time in politics, but become more popular afterwards. In the case of the latter two, through TV. Mandelson was admired for his skills, but also disliked, and when he left power seems to have done little to improve his standing.
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
Everything seems to paint an odd picture of Mandelson. It'd be nice to know what Mandelson actually honestly wanted from this life...
I think he would have liked to been born the Earl of Whatever with unlimited funds and be able to be sponsor politics, the arts, and the social mores of the age. And ideally have been born 200 years ago.
You can say what you like. But, I am not required to give you a platform on which to say it.
Bit chilling though - venues revoking invitations because an artist has offended the sensibilities of a foreign power.
'Free speech' is often confused with the idea of 'free speech without consequences' which is different.
Any commercial outfit of any sort is bound to consider the reputational damage of being associated with particular and egregious bits of speechifying.
The artist in question may also find that lots of venues will be able to enhance their particular reputation by inviting him.
Imagine, say, if Leon was suddenly ditched by all the illustrious periodicals he writes for because someone found something unpleasant he'd written on PB about Peter Mandelson. Exactly the same arguments could be made - editors are free to choose who they publish etc. - but there would still be something chilling about it.
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
Everything seems to paint an odd picture of Mandelson. It'd be nice to know what Mandelson actually honestly wanted from this life...
I think he would have liked to been born the Earl of Whatever with unlimited funds and be able to be sponsor politics, the arts, and the social mores of the age. And ideally have been born 200 years ago.
Where do you get the impression he has any interest in the arts? It seems to be just politics and personal grift with him.
You can say what you like. But, I am not required to give you a platform on which to say it.
Bit chilling though - venues revoking invitations because an artist has offended the sensibilities of a foreign power.
'Free speech' is often confused with the idea of 'free speech without consequences' which is different.
Any commercial outfit of any sort is bound to consider the reputational damage of being associated with particular and egregious bits of speechifying.
The artist in question may also find that lots of venues will be able to enhance their particular reputation by inviting him.
Imagine, say, if Leon was suddenly ditched by all the illustrious periodicals he writes for because someone found something unpleasant he'd written on PB about Peter Mandelson. Exactly the same arguments could be made - editors are free to choose who they publish etc. - but there would still be something chilling about it.
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
Everything seems to paint an odd picture of Mandelson. It'd be nice to know what Mandelson actually honestly wanted from this life...
I think he would have liked to been born the Earl of Whatever with unlimited funds and be able to be sponsor politics, the arts, and the social mores of the age. And ideally have been born 200 years ago.
A character in one of the Palliser cycle by Trollope.
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
Everything seems to paint an odd picture of Mandelson. It'd be nice to know what Mandelson actually honestly wanted from this life...
I think he would have liked to been born the Earl of Whatever with unlimited funds and be able to be sponsor politics, the arts, and the social mores of the age. And ideally have been born 200 years ago.
A character in one of the Palliser cycle by Trollope.
I think that ideally, he would like to have been George Gaunt, Marquess of Steyne.
IMV Mandelson seems himself as a wheeler-dealer. Someone who can schmooze and get things done. A man who lubricates the wheels of his business - in this case, politics. And if he makes a little money on the side, all the better.
I think many of us have seen, know, or are, similar people.
It is just that politics is a very visible business.
Here is Danny Kruger MP in Parliament, as a Tory MP before defecting today, berating Reform UK for "simply replacing the words Conservative Party with the words Reform Party... in a desperate search for relevance", then warning they would "spend money like drunken sailors". ~AA
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
I can believe that Starmer was genuinely infatuated with/by Epstein. Look at that infamous photo of Yum Yum in his bathrobe. He is looking at Epstein with giggly adoration. “This charming handsome sexy billionaire wants to be best friends with ME!”
Epstein clearly satisfied some deep insecurity in Mandelson. Something from his childhood where Mandy never felt good enough or rich enough
Hence the constant succumbing to corruption by rich men. And I can also believe that Epstein was VERY charming. That was his whole shtick
You can say what you like. But, I am not required to give you a platform on which to say it.
Bit chilling though - venues revoking invitations because an artist has offended the sensibilities of a foreign power.
'Free speech' is often confused with the idea of 'free speech without consequences' which is different.
Any commercial outfit of any sort is bound to consider the reputational damage of being associated with particular and egregious bits of speechifying.
The artist in question may also find that lots of venues will be able to enhance their particular reputation by inviting him.
Imagine, say, if Leon was suddenly ditched by all the illustrious periodicals he writes for because someone found something unpleasant he'd written on PB about Peter Mandelson. Exactly the same arguments could be made - editors are free to choose who they publish etc. - but there would still be something chilling about it.
Why?
Because it would mean that either we'd be denied hearing Leon's views on Peter Mandelson or Leon would have to forfeit his journalistic career if we weren't.
You can say what you like. But, I am not required to give you a platform on which to say it.
Bit chilling though - venues revoking invitations because an artist has offended the sensibilities of a foreign power.
'Free speech' is often confused with the idea of 'free speech without consequences' which is different.
Any commercial outfit of any sort is bound to consider the reputational damage of being associated with particular and egregious bits of speechifying.
The artist in question may also find that lots of venues will be able to enhance their particular reputation by inviting him.
Imagine, say, if Leon was suddenly ditched by all the illustrious periodicals he writes for because someone found something unpleasant he'd written on PB about Peter Mandelson. Exactly the same arguments could be made - editors are free to choose who they publish etc. - but there would still be something chilling about it.
Why?
Well, to start with, getting journalists fired for exposing misdeeds is exactly how some people have got away with crimes for years. Weinstein for example.
Journalists were threatened over the Post Office, Hillsborough and the thing we can't talk about
Personally, I think the only problem with London's cyclists is the ones on overpowered and illegal ebikes.
Otherwise, the introduction of cyclelanes, the proliferation of Boris bikes, and the like are all overwhelmingly positive. Simply: because bikes take up so much less space than cars, you can have more people on the road at any point. And - of course - bikes seem pretty resistant to ending up in jams.
Talking of urbanism, Newbury Council need to approve this radical redesign of their shredded town centre. Taking it back to what it was pre war
*** How did Keir Starmer win over Trump? And what’s he given up in return? ***
I spent the summer talking to 20+ people trying to work this out for a long read
David Lammy, Peter Mandelson, Simon Case, Chris Ruddy, No10 folks all talked
Among what emerged…
:: Starmer’s decision to reach out to Trump after the assassination attempt was key. Led to their first conversation
:: Their first meeting in Trump Tower saw then candidate Trump constantly ask the PM about his victory and the Red Wall - a sign he respects winners
:: When Starmer and Trump talk on the phone it is the President doing 90% of the talking, per those who have listened
:: Starmer prepares a lot for his meetings with Trump. Before the first White House trip he was sent video footage of the 3 leaders who’d faced Trump already
:: Starmer practiced handing over the state visit letter with aides. Seats arranged like the Oval Office. They war-gamed qus (inc Vance free speech jibe)
:: Starmer’s TV state visit moment almost never came off. White House tried to take the letter off him for security reasons. A standoff ensued. Eventually defused.
:: The PM has learned to schmooze Trump. On phone calls he praised Doge when Musk was still in White House
:: He travelled to both of Trump’s Scottish golf courses in July - a PM putting focus on a counterpart’s commercial interests
:: Starmer privately briefed Trump on Palestine Action spray painting his golf course with info from Police Scotland, per a source. 4 months later group banned.
:: Starmer’s No10 aides past and present believe his lack of ego - contrasts drawn with Emmanual Macron - eases relations
:: For some Labour MPs the deference is too much. One says the ‘sucking up’ to Trump ‘makes a mockery’ of UK values
:: Royalty is key. Prince William’s meeting with Trump in Paris in December lasted so long it delayed a French state banquet - to the fury of Macron.
:: Each meeting a senior Royal has with Trump is captured in a formal note by a private secretary and passed to the PM
:: There is a depth of family friendship there too. Trump unexpectedly called Starmer on mobile after his bother died
:: They are in touch on Signal too
:: Key other figures in the relationship: Lammy (now moved), Mandelson (now sacked), and Jonathan Powell
:: Plus, the secret Trump whisperer… Senay Bulbul, the UK embassy political counsellor who covers Repubs. She was almost moved to No10 to help advise
So yes, PM had got on Trump’s good side. The bigger qu: has it helped that much??
The implication there that hundreds of British citizens have been arrested for peaceful protest at the behest of Trump. If that's the secret reason for the draconian response to PA protestors that Ministers keep alluding to then the government is in serious trouble with the left - which was always a bigger risk to Starmer than the histrionics from the right.
I think that's unlikely. I think we have a nexus of a stupid act by the government, some stupid (but well meaning) protesters and a stupid police force. Add it together and you end up with with some very unusual 'terrorists' being arrested for holding up placards.
But I don't think its to satisfy Trump.
Labour as form with bizarre threat estimation. Fathers For Justice and tree climbing greens were treated as terroristic threats - complete with illegal inflation operations against them. While actual terrorists were treated as community leaders.
What is an illegal inflation operation ?
Bloody auto incorrect - infiltration operations. Strangely, run by ACPO, which had no legal authority to run anything.
The court cases about women who were taken advantage of by police officers during the operations involving the tree climbing greens are ongoing, I believe.
The cynical suggest that the police were much happier hanging out with hippies than the mad head chopper types.
Certainly the ones actually shagging the women - I'd imagine a fair bit of business with pleasure?
Covered in the R4 "McLibel" docu that's been on, I may be wrong but I understood that the undercover plod had had more than 1 relationship while undercover. Also includes the revelation that the leaflet was partly written by one of the undercover plod.
That was the SDS, there's no mention of them infiltrating any "head chopper type" groups, just environmental, social justice and the Lawrence family.
Here is Danny Kruger MP in Parliament, as a Tory MP before defecting today, berating Reform UK for "simply replacing the words Conservative Party with the words Reform Party... in a desperate search for relevance", then warning they would "spend money like drunken sailors". ~AA
Here is Danny Kruger MP in Parliament, as a Tory MP before defecting today, berating Reform UK for "simply replacing the words Conservative Party with the words Reform Party... in a desperate search for relevance", then warning they would "spend money like drunken sailors". ~AA
Here is Danny Kruger MP in Parliament, as a Tory MP before defecting today, berating Reform UK for "simply replacing the words Conservative Party with the words Reform Party... in a desperate search for relevance", then warning they would "spend money like drunken sailors". ~AA
Is there any evidence that reform MPs have any scruples?
What is interesting about the Saturday rally is the strong religious component it contained. Is Reform now the Church of England at prayer?
The rally had nothing really to do with Reform was organised by people and had speakers who detest them or are proposing other solutions (Robinson, Habib, Hopkins, Fox, Musk etc)
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
I can believe that Starmer was genuinely infatuated with/by Epstein. Look at that infamous photo of Yum Yum in his bathrobe. He is looking at Epstein with giggly adoration. “This charming handsome sexy billionaire wants to be best friends with ME!”
Epstein clearly satisfied some deep insecurity in Mandelson. Something from his childhood where Mandy never felt good enough or rich enough
Hence the constant succumbing to corruption by rich men. And I can also believe that Epstein was VERY charming. That was his whole shtick
*Starmer* infatuated?!
lol. Quite a humongous typo there
Apologies to Skyr
Starmer has so little presence, I didn't even notice it when Big_G flagged it up.
*** How did Keir Starmer win over Trump? And what’s he given up in return? ***
I spent the summer talking to 20+ people trying to work this out for a long read
David Lammy, Peter Mandelson, Simon Case, Chris Ruddy, No10 folks all talked
Among what emerged…
:: Starmer’s decision to reach out to Trump after the assassination attempt was key. Led to their first conversation
:: Their first meeting in Trump Tower saw then candidate Trump constantly ask the PM about his victory and the Red Wall - a sign he respects winners
:: When Starmer and Trump talk on the phone it is the President doing 90% of the talking, per those who have listened
:: Starmer prepares a lot for his meetings with Trump. Before the first White House trip he was sent video footage of the 3 leaders who’d faced Trump already
:: Starmer practiced handing over the state visit letter with aides. Seats arranged like the Oval Office. They war-gamed qus (inc Vance free speech jibe)
:: Starmer’s TV state visit moment almost never came off. White House tried to take the letter off him for security reasons. A standoff ensued. Eventually defused.
:: The PM has learned to schmooze Trump. On phone calls he praised Doge when Musk was still in White House
:: He travelled to both of Trump’s Scottish golf courses in July - a PM putting focus on a counterpart’s commercial interests
:: Starmer privately briefed Trump on Palestine Action spray painting his golf course with info from Police Scotland, per a source. 4 months later group banned.
:: Starmer’s No10 aides past and present believe his lack of ego - contrasts drawn with Emmanual Macron - eases relations
:: For some Labour MPs the deference is too much. One says the ‘sucking up’ to Trump ‘makes a mockery’ of UK values
:: Royalty is key. Prince William’s meeting with Trump in Paris in December lasted so long it delayed a French state banquet - to the fury of Macron.
:: Each meeting a senior Royal has with Trump is captured in a formal note by a private secretary and passed to the PM
:: There is a depth of family friendship there too. Trump unexpectedly called Starmer on mobile after his bother died
:: They are in touch on Signal too
:: Key other figures in the relationship: Lammy (now moved), Mandelson (now sacked), and Jonathan Powell
:: Plus, the secret Trump whisperer… Senay Bulbul, the UK embassy political counsellor who covers Repubs. She was almost moved to No10 to help advise
So yes, PM had got on Trump’s good side. The bigger qu: has it helped that much??
The implication there that hundreds of British citizens have been arrested for peaceful protest at the behest of Trump. If that's the secret reason for the draconian response to PA protestors that Ministers keep alluding to then the government is in serious trouble with the left - which was always a bigger risk to Starmer than the histrionics from the right.
I think that's unlikely. I think we have a nexus of a stupid act by the government, some stupid (but well meaning) protesters and a stupid police force. Add it together and you end up with with some very unusual 'terrorists' being arrested for holding up placards.
But I don't think its to satisfy Trump.
Labour as form with bizarre threat estimation. Fathers For Justice and tree climbing greens were treated as terroristic threats - complete with illegal inflation operations against them. While actual terrorists were treated as community leaders.
What is an illegal inflation operation ?
Bloody auto incorrect - infiltration operations. Strangely, run by ACPO, which had no legal authority to run anything.
The court cases about women who were taken advantage of by police officers during the operations involving the tree climbing greens are ongoing, I believe.
The cynical suggest that the police were much happier hanging out with hippies than the mad head chopper types.
Certainly the ones actually shagging the women - I'd imagine a fair bit of business with pleasure?
Covered in the R4 "McLibel" docu that's been on, I may be wrong but I understood that the undercover plod had had more than 1 relationship while undercover. Also includes the revelation that the leaflet was partly written by one of the undercover plod.
That was the SDS, there's no mention of them infiltrating any "head chopper type" groups, just environmental, social justice and the Lawrence family.
Well exactly - infiltrating the head choppers would have been difficult, dangerous and probably involved less shagging and smoking weed (to maintain the cover, you understand).
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
Everything seems to paint an odd picture of Mandelson. It'd be nice to know what Mandelson actually honestly wanted from this life...
I think he would have liked to been born the Earl of Whatever with unlimited funds and be able to be sponsor politics, the arts, and the social mores of the age. And ideally have been born 200 years ago.
Where do you get the impression he has any interest in the arts? It seems to be just politics and personal grift with him.
I think he would like to see himself as a general distributor of power and influence (having huge power and influence himself. And status) across all of society.
Is my impression but I don't know the man and his autobiography remains unread on my bookshelf.
You can say what you like. But, I am not required to give you a platform on which to say it.
Bit chilling though - venues revoking invitations because an artist has offended the sensibilities of a foreign power.
'Free speech' is often confused with the idea of 'free speech without consequences' which is different.
Any commercial outfit of any sort is bound to consider the reputational damage of being associated with particular and egregious bits of speechifying.
The artist in question may also find that lots of venues will be able to enhance their particular reputation by inviting him.
Imagine, say, if Leon was suddenly ditched by all the illustrious periodicals he writes for because someone found something unpleasant he'd written on PB about Peter Mandelson. Exactly the same arguments could be made - editors are free to choose who they publish etc. - but there would still be something chilling about it.
Why?
Well, to start with, getting journalists fired for exposing misdeeds is exactly how some people have got away with crimes for years. Weinstein for example.
Journalists were threatened over the Post Office, Hillsborough and the thing we can't talk about
And journalists have also written things that have got their publishers/editors sued bigly.
Here is Danny Kruger MP in Parliament, as a Tory MP before defecting today, berating Reform UK for "simply replacing the words Conservative Party with the words Reform Party... in a desperate search for relevance", then warning they would "spend money like drunken sailors". ~AA
Here is Danny Kruger MP in Parliament, as a Tory MP before defecting today, berating Reform UK for "simply replacing the words Conservative Party with the words Reform Party... in a desperate search for relevance", then warning they would "spend money like drunken sailors". ~AA
Is there any evidence that reform MPs have any scruples?
What is interesting about the Saturday rally is the strong religious component it contained. Is Reform now the Church of England at prayer?
The rally had nothing really to do with Reform was organised by people and had speakers who detest them or are proposing other solutions (Robinson, Habib, Hopkins, Fox, Musk etc)
Radio 5 had the classic interview with a member of the public who had attended. 'I was protesting about freedom of speech". "What about it?" "You can't say anything these days" etc etc. A classic rather low IQ, well meaning, probably is bit of a racist, a bit of an islamophobe and is upset that he can't come on the radio and talk about 'wogs and pakis'.
There are serious issues around free speech and the intersection with the law/policing. The miss-use of police time by certain trans-activists is one example, but there are many more.
You can say what you like. But, I am not required to give you a platform on which to say it.
Bit chilling though - venues revoking invitations because an artist has offended the sensibilities of a foreign power.
'Free speech' is often confused with the idea of 'free speech without consequences' which is different.
Any commercial outfit of any sort is bound to consider the reputational damage of being associated with particular and egregious bits of speechifying.
The artist in question may also find that lots of venues will be able to enhance their particular reputation by inviting him.
Imagine, say, if Leon was suddenly ditched by all the illustrious periodicals he writes for because someone found something unpleasant he'd written on PB about Peter Mandelson. Exactly the same arguments could be made - editors are free to choose who they publish etc. - but there would still be something chilling about it.
Why?
Well, to start with, getting journalists fired for exposing misdeeds is exactly how some people have got away with crimes for years. Weinstein for example.
Journalists were threatened over the Post Office, Hillsborough and the thing we can't talk about
And journalists have also written things that have got their publishers/editors sued bigly.
And generally, in the British libel system, the truth of the publication has mattered little. See the history of Private Eye and the attempts at libel tourism using the UK courts. Libel tourism was about suppressing publication of inconvenient facts.
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
Everything seems to paint an odd picture of Mandelson. It'd be nice to know what Mandelson actually honestly wanted from this life...
I think he would have liked to been born the Earl of Whatever with unlimited funds and be able to be sponsor politics, the arts, and the social mores of the age. And ideally have been born 200 years ago.
Where do you get the impression he has any interest in the arts? It seems to be just politics and personal grift with him.
I always assumed that he would enjoy musical theatre
Personally, I think the only problem with London's cyclists is the ones on overpowered and illegal ebikes.
Otherwise, the introduction of cyclelanes, the proliferation of Boris bikes, and the like are all overwhelmingly positive. Simply: because bikes take up so much less space than cars, you can have more people on the road at any point. And - of course - bikes seem pretty resistant to ending up in jams.
There are undoubtedly some twattish London cyclists and I'd still put the number who go through red lights at around 40-60%.
One doesn't (as a London cyclist) come into contact with e-bikes so much as they are mainly deliveroo riders who simply don't stop at anything, whether red lights or little old ladies in their paths. Oh and phone snatchers, obvs. They (e-bikes) only make up a tiny percentage of bikes on the road.
There remains, however, nothing more twattish than someone on an e-scooter. Not their fault, just looks absurd. Plus the odd dolt on a powered unicycle or whatever they call it with an F1 helmet on. Twats also.
But yes, generally there is a great cycling network in London and it is well used by cyclists.
You can say what you like. But, I am not required to give you a platform on which to say it.
Bit chilling though - venues revoking invitations because an artist has offended the sensibilities of a foreign power.
'Free speech' is often confused with the idea of 'free speech without consequences' which is different.
Any commercial outfit of any sort is bound to consider the reputational damage of being associated with particular and egregious bits of speechifying.
The artist in question may also find that lots of venues will be able to enhance their particular reputation by inviting him.
Imagine, say, if Leon was suddenly ditched by all the illustrious periodicals he writes for because someone found something unpleasant he'd written on PB about Peter Mandelson. Exactly the same arguments could be made - editors are free to choose who they publish etc. - but there would still be something chilling about it.
Why?
Well, to start with, getting journalists fired for exposing misdeeds is exactly how some people have got away with crimes for years. Weinstein for example.
Journalists were threatened over the Post Office, Hillsborough and the thing we can't talk about
And journalists have also written things that have got their publishers/editors sued bigly.
And generally, in the British libel system, the truth of the publication has mattered little. See the history of Private Eye and the attempts at libel tourism using the UK courts. Libel tourism was about suppressing publication of inconvenient facts.
This may be heresy, but Private Eye were not always in the right. See MMR for an example.
So your position is that editors should publish anything their journalists want, regardless of truth, sourcing, or public interest?
Here is Danny Kruger MP in Parliament, as a Tory MP before defecting today, berating Reform UK for "simply replacing the words Conservative Party with the words Reform Party... in a desperate search for relevance", then warning they would "spend money like drunken sailors". ~AA
Is there any evidence that reform MPs have any scruples?
What is interesting about the Saturday rally is the strong religious component it contained. Is Reform now the Church of England at prayer?
The rally had nothing really to do with Reform was organised by people and had speakers who detest them or are proposing other solutions (Robinson, Habib, Hopkins, Fox, Musk etc)
Radio 5 had the classic interview with a member of the public who had attended. 'I was protesting about freedom of speech". "What about it?" "You can't say anything these days" etc etc. A classic rather low IQ, well meaning, probably is bit of a racist, a bit of an islamophobe and is upset that he can't come on the radio and talk about 'wogs and pakis'.
There are serious issues around free speech and the intersection with the law/policing. The miss-use of police time by certain trans-activists is one example, but there are many more.
Judgemental, much?
It must pain you to have seen so many ghastly people all in one place of a Saturday in London instead of those peace-loving, diversity-loving pro-Palestinians.
You can say what you like. But, I am not required to give you a platform on which to say it.
Bit chilling though - venues revoking invitations because an artist has offended the sensibilities of a foreign power.
'Free speech' is often confused with the idea of 'free speech without consequences' which is different.
Any commercial outfit of any sort is bound to consider the reputational damage of being associated with particular and egregious bits of speechifying.
The artist in question may also find that lots of venues will be able to enhance their particular reputation by inviting him.
Imagine, say, if Leon was suddenly ditched by all the illustrious periodicals he writes for because someone found something unpleasant he'd written on PB about Peter Mandelson. Exactly the same arguments could be made - editors are free to choose who they publish etc. - but there would still be something chilling about it.
Why?
Well, to start with, getting journalists fired for exposing misdeeds is exactly how some people have got away with crimes for years. Weinstein for example.
Journalists were threatened over the Post Office, Hillsborough and the thing we can't talk about
And journalists have also written things that have got their publishers/editors sued bigly.
And generally, in the British libel system, the truth of the publication has mattered little. See the history of Private Eye and the attempts at libel tourism using the UK courts. Libel tourism was about suppressing publication of inconvenient facts.
This may be heresy, but Private Eye were not always in the right. See MMR for an example.
So your position is that editors should publish anything their journalists want, regardless of truth, sourcing, or public interest?
No - but they should a damn sight better protection. As in truth being a 100% defence. Which is how it is in a fair number of European countries.
Here is Danny Kruger MP in Parliament, as a Tory MP before defecting today, berating Reform UK for "simply replacing the words Conservative Party with the words Reform Party... in a desperate search for relevance", then warning they would "spend money like drunken sailors". ~AA
Is there any evidence that reform MPs have any scruples?
What is interesting about the Saturday rally is the strong religious component it contained. Is Reform now the Church of England at prayer?
The rally had nothing really to do with Reform was organised by people and had speakers who detest them or are proposing other solutions (Robinson, Habib, Hopkins, Fox, Musk etc)
Radio 5 had the classic interview with a member of the public who had attended. 'I was protesting about freedom of speech". "What about it?" "You can't say anything these days" etc etc. A classic rather low IQ, well meaning, probably is bit of a racist, a bit of an islamophobe and is upset that he can't come on the radio and talk about 'wogs and pakis'.
There are serious issues around free speech and the intersection with the law/policing. The miss-use of police time by certain trans-activists is one example, but there are many more.
Judgemental, much?
It must pain you to have seen so many ghastly people all in one place of a Saturday in London instead of those peace-loving, diversity-loving pro-Palestinians.
Think you've got me wrong there, old boy. I have a lot of sympathy for many of the grievances of those who were there. But you could here in the interview the chap skirting round what he really wanted to say. I understand, an enormous number of my fellow countrymen and women think the same. My 86 year old dad for one.
Emergency debate about Mandelson tomorrow in Parliament
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
Not really. As I see it, the question is did the PM lie about the sequencing of Mandy's appointment. Did he engage in (typical?) spin so as to give the impression, or indeed flatly state that he didn't know something that he did actually know because as we have seen with this PM, he is not averse to changing his mind or trying to change the facts to accord with what would have been politically preferable to have happened.
So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.
Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).
You can say what you like. But, I am not required to give you a platform on which to say it.
Bit chilling though - venues revoking invitations because an artist has offended the sensibilities of a foreign power.
'Free speech' is often confused with the idea of 'free speech without consequences' which is different.
Any commercial outfit of any sort is bound to consider the reputational damage of being associated with particular and egregious bits of speechifying.
The artist in question may also find that lots of venues will be able to enhance their particular reputation by inviting him.
Imagine, say, if Leon was suddenly ditched by all the illustrious periodicals he writes for because someone found something unpleasant he'd written on PB about Peter Mandelson. Exactly the same arguments could be made - editors are free to choose who they publish etc. - but there would still be something chilling about it.
Why?
Well, to start with, getting journalists fired for exposing misdeeds is exactly how some people have got away with crimes for years. Weinstein for example.
Journalists were threatened over the Post Office, Hillsborough and the thing we can't talk about
And journalists have also written things that have got their publishers/editors sued bigly.
And generally, in the British libel system, the truth of the publication has mattered little. See the history of Private Eye and the attempts at libel tourism using the UK courts. Libel tourism was about suppressing publication of inconvenient facts.
This may be heresy, but Private Eye were not always in the right. See MMR for an example.
So your position is that editors should publish anything their journalists want, regardless of truth, sourcing, or public interest?
No - but they should a damn sight better protection. As in truth being a 100% defence. Which is how it is in a fair number of European countries.
Say someone has cancer. They wish to keep it private, and there's no legitimate public interest. They should publish that? Or if a woman has miscarried?
Remember how the Red Rag shits tried to use Ivan Cameron's illness against his father. The way the truth is represented can matter a great deal.
Here is Danny Kruger MP in Parliament, as a Tory MP before defecting today, berating Reform UK for "simply replacing the words Conservative Party with the words Reform Party... in a desperate search for relevance", then warning they would "spend money like drunken sailors". ~AA
Is there any evidence that reform MPs have any scruples?
What is interesting about the Saturday rally is the strong religious component it contained. Is Reform now the Church of England at prayer?
The rally had nothing really to do with Reform was organised by people and had speakers who detest them or are proposing other solutions (Robinson, Habib, Hopkins, Fox, Musk etc)
Radio 5 had the classic interview with a member of the public who had attended. 'I was protesting about freedom of speech". "What about it?" "You can't say anything these days" etc etc. A classic rather low IQ, well meaning, probably is bit of a racist, a bit of an islamophobe and is upset that he can't come on the radio and talk about 'wogs and pakis'.
There are serious issues around free speech and the intersection with the law/policing. The miss-use of police time by certain trans-activists is one example, but there are many more.
Judgemental, much?
It must pain you to have seen so many ghastly people all in one place of a Saturday in London instead of those peace-loving, diversity-loving pro-Palestinians.
Think you've got me wrong there, old boy. I have a lot of sympathy for many of the grievances of those who were there. But you could here in the interview the chap skirting round what he really wanted to say. I understand, an enormous number of my fellow countrymen and women think the same. My 86 year old dad for one.
"you could here [sic] in the interview the chap skirting around what he really wanted to say"
Listen to yourself. What a truly great gift you evidently have.
Emergency debate about Mandelson tomorrow in Parliament
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
Not really. As I see it, the question is did the PM lie about the sequencing of Mandy's appointment. Did he engage in (typical?) spin so as to give the impression, or indeed flatly state that he didn't know something that he did actually know because as we have seen with this PM, he is not averse to changing his mind or trying to change the facts to accord with what would have been politically preferable to have happened.
So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.
Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).
I can see all of that. But when it comes to the problems facing the country.... jesus.
I'm no fan of Starmer; and I'm certainly no fan of Mandelson. But the blows have landed, and the damage done.
Emergency debate about Mandelson tomorrow in Parliament
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
Not really. As I see it, the question is did the PM lie about the sequencing of Mandy's appointment. Did he engage in (typical?) spin so as to give the impression, or indeed flatly state that he didn't know something that he did actually know because as we have seen with this PM, he is not averse to changing his mind or trying to change the facts to accord with what would have been politically preferable to have happened.
So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.
Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).
I'm just grateful we live in a country where these things are properly and openly discussed, and not waved away as a "witch hunt" and a "hoax".
Footballer Felix Nmecha has been called in for a "talk with a professional" by Borussia Dortmund for posting that he was sad to hear Kirk had been assassinated
He's got in trouble before for posting Christian stuff that was considered "homophobic and queerphobic" (quite interestingly - to me! - "homophob und queerfeindlich" in German)
Sounds like Kruger will chicken run. 'Leaving East Wiltshire' its 'not a target for Reform'
Be interesting to see if any Tories want to chicken run into it...
Kruger calls it 'one if the safest Tory seats' so plenty id imagine. They carried it in the May locals rather easily
Just done some quick calcs. Labour didn't bother standing but in the wards making up East Wiltshire in May the Cons finished about 2100 votes ahead of Reform with the LDs a further 1300 behind
My model, based on latest average "switching matrix" from six pollsters shows for East Wiltshire:
2024 -> next GE Con 16,849 -> 12,015 Ref 7,885 -> 14,161 Lab 12,133 -> 8,042 LD 8,204 -> 8.920 Grn 1,844 -> 2,218
Reform HOLD Unless Cons get tactical votes from Lab, LD and/or Grn Or Lab/LD come to an arrangement. Can't see any of those happening.
I agree that Reform would win it, although I think they'd probably get just over 50%, so tactical voting wouldn't make any difference.
Just over 50%?! Lol! They might if they poll 45% nationally
East Wiltshire is a lot better than average for Reform than +5%.
I think if Reform are on 35% in the polls, which is possible pretty soon, they'd get around 50% in this seat.
Reform clearly aren't organised very well in Wiltshire at the moment, but that would probably be compensated for by Kruger being the sitting MP.
Emergency debate about Mandelson tomorrow in Parliament
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
Not really. As I see it, the question is did the PM lie about the sequencing of Mandy's appointment. Did he engage in (typical?) spin so as to give the impression, or indeed flatly state that he didn't know something that he did actually know because as we have seen with this PM, he is not averse to changing his mind or trying to change the facts to accord with what would have been politically preferable to have happened.
So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.
Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).
Responding to your edit:
Mandelson has already had to 'resign' from government twice over dodgy dealings. Starmer, not once.
Why would you back Mandelson, given that?
(As an aside, what has Mandelson said about his departure? Is he actually personally at odds with Starmer?)
Personally, I think the only problem with London's cyclists is the ones on overpowered and illegal ebikes.
Otherwise, the introduction of cyclelanes, the proliferation of Boris bikes, and the like are all overwhelmingly positive. Simply: because bikes take up so much less space than cars, you can have more people on the road at any point. And - of course - bikes seem pretty resistant to ending up in jams.
If they are overpowered then they are motorcyclists on motorbikes not cyclists, and the police have ample powers to deal with them already, and have had for many years.
They require type approval, insurance, a driving license and appropriate safety gear.
They can confiscate on the spot for no insurance, as they can with any other motor vehicle which requires it.
You can say what you like. But, I am not required to give you a platform on which to say it.
Bit chilling though - venues revoking invitations because an artist has offended the sensibilities of a foreign power.
'Free speech' is often confused with the idea of 'free speech without consequences' which is different.
Any commercial outfit of any sort is bound to consider the reputational damage of being associated with particular and egregious bits of speechifying.
The artist in question may also find that lots of venues will be able to enhance their particular reputation by inviting him.
Imagine, say, if Leon was suddenly ditched by all the illustrious periodicals he writes for because someone found something unpleasant he'd written on PB about Peter Mandelson. Exactly the same arguments could be made - editors are free to choose who they publish etc. - but there would still be something chilling about it.
Why?
Well, to start with, getting journalists fired for exposing misdeeds is exactly how some people have got away with crimes for years. Weinstein for example.
Journalists were threatened over the Post Office, Hillsborough and the thing we can't talk about
And journalists have also written things that have got their publishers/editors sued bigly.
And generally, in the British libel system, the truth of the publication has mattered little. See the history of Private Eye and the attempts at libel tourism using the UK courts. Libel tourism was about suppressing publication of inconvenient facts.
This may be heresy, but Private Eye were not always in the right. See MMR for an example.
So your position is that editors should publish anything their journalists want, regardless of truth, sourcing, or public interest?
No - but they should a damn sight better protection. As in truth being a 100% defence. Which is how it is in a fair number of European countries.
Say someone has cancer. They wish to keep it private, and there's no legitimate public interest. They should publish that? Or if a woman has miscarried?
Remember how the Red Rag shits tried to use Ivan Cameron's illness against his father. The way the truth is represented can matter a great deal.
Emergency debate about Mandelson tomorrow in Parliament
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
Not really. As I see it, the question is did the PM lie about the sequencing of Mandy's appointment. Did he engage in (typical?) spin so as to give the impression, or indeed flatly state that he didn't know something that he did actually know because as we have seen with this PM, he is not averse to changing his mind or trying to change the facts to accord with what would have been politically preferable to have happened.
So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.
Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).
Responding to your edit:
Mandelson has already had to 'resign' from government twice over dodgy dealings. Starmer, not once.
Why would you back Mandelson, given that?
(As an aside, what has Mandelson said about his departure? Is he actually personally at odds with Starmer?)
Apparently Yum Yum gets a six figure sum if his dismissal was unfair. That's the prism through which to view any response from him
Emergency debate about Mandelson tomorrow in Parliament
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
Not really. As I see it, the question is did the PM lie about the sequencing of Mandy's appointment. Did he engage in (typical?) spin so as to give the impression, or indeed flatly state that he didn't know something that he did actually know because as we have seen with this PM, he is not averse to changing his mind or trying to change the facts to accord with what would have been politically preferable to have happened.
So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.
Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).
Responding to your edit:
Mandelson has already had to 'resign' from government twice over dodgy dealings. Starmer, not once.
Why would you back Mandelson, given that?
(As an aside, what has Mandelson said about his departure? Is he actually personally at odds with Starmer?)
Some of us are old enough to remember when Dom Cummings became the sword of truth, when he turned on Boris Johnson.
It is quite probable that *both* Mandelbrot and No.10's stories are not entirely accurate.
Emergency debate about Mandelson tomorrow in Parliament
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
Not really. As I see it, the question is did the PM lie about the sequencing of Mandy's appointment. Did he engage in (typical?) spin so as to give the impression, or indeed flatly state that he didn't know something that he did actually know because as we have seen with this PM, he is not averse to changing his mind or trying to change the facts to accord with what would have been politically preferable to have happened.
So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.
Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).
I'm just grateful we live in a country where these things are properly and openly discussed, and not waved away as a "witch hunt" and a "hoax".
Emergency debate about Mandelson tomorrow in Parliament
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
Not really. As I see it, the question is did the PM lie about the sequencing of Mandy's appointment. Did he engage in (typical?) spin so as to give the impression, or indeed flatly state that he didn't know something that he did actually know because as we have seen with this PM, he is not averse to changing his mind or trying to change the facts to accord with what would have been politically preferable to have happened.
So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.
Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).
Responding to your edit:
Mandelson has already had to 'resign' from government twice over dodgy dealings. Starmer, not once.
Why would you back Mandelson, given that?
(As an aside, what has Mandelson said about his departure? Is he actually personally at odds with Starmer?)
Apparently Yum Yum gets a six figure sum if his dismissal was unfair. That's the prism through which to view any response from him
Surely he hasn't been in post long enough. Unless he can claim discrimination.
You can say what you like. But, I am not required to give you a platform on which to say it.
Bit chilling though - venues revoking invitations because an artist has offended the sensibilities of a foreign power.
'Free speech' is often confused with the idea of 'free speech without consequences' which is different.
Any commercial outfit of any sort is bound to consider the reputational damage of being associated with particular and egregious bits of speechifying.
The artist in question may also find that lots of venues will be able to enhance their particular reputation by inviting him.
Imagine, say, if Leon was suddenly ditched by all the illustrious periodicals he writes for because someone found something unpleasant he'd written on PB about Peter Mandelson. Exactly the same arguments could be made - editors are free to choose who they publish etc. - but there would still be something chilling about it.
That's because there is something chilling about how the free world works. It allows people sometimes (not always) to make decisions because that's what they want to do. The combined effects of this can indeed be chilling, and sometimes unfairly so.
I very much doubt whether all the editorial decisions about who is in and who is out in our political weeklies is based on principles of fairness, probity and justice.
The chilling nature of the free(ish) world is a good deal less cool than the chilling nature of worlds in which no value is placed on either free speech or moral accountability.
"What shall we do with a drunken sailor" is a song by the sailor in question's somewhat-sympathetic girlfriend on the subject of brewer's droop. I had no idea about this until it was pointed out to me. It seems now so obvious.
You know the girlfriend was of the rent by the hour variety
Surely it's a work song for weighing the anchor etc by hand windlass or capstan, to coordinate the rhythm - and the drunk is lying blotto after his last run ashore and NOT DOING HIS SHARE OF THE WORK.
Ransome would never have put it into Swallows and Amazons books (IIRC - and it is in the eponymous film) if Cookie's informant was right.
The captain's daughter element is apparently a modern concoction by a bunch of landlubbers.
Drunks could be actively dangerous on ships, especially in those days when they could not radio for assistance.
Sounds like Kruger will chicken run. 'Leaving East Wiltshire' its 'not a target for Reform'
Be interesting to see if any Tories want to chicken run into it...
Kruger calls it 'one if the safest Tory seats' so plenty id imagine. They carried it in the May locals rather easily
Just done some quick calcs. Labour didn't bother standing but in the wards making up East Wiltshire in May the Cons finished about 2100 votes ahead of Reform with the LDs a further 1300 behind
My model, based on latest average "switching matrix" from six pollsters shows for East Wiltshire:
2024 -> next GE Con 16,849 -> 12,015 Ref 7,885 -> 14,161 Lab 12,133 -> 8,042 LD 8,204 -> 8.920 Grn 1,844 -> 2,218
Reform HOLD Unless Cons get tactical votes from Lab, LD and/or Grn Or Lab/LD come to an arrangement. Can't see any of those happening.
I agree that Reform would win it, although I think they'd probably get just over 50%, so tactical voting wouldn't make any difference.
Just over 50%?! Lol! They might if they poll 45% nationally
East Wiltshire is a lot better than average for Reform than +5%.
I think if Reform are on 35% in the polls, which is possible pretty soon, they'd get around 50% in this seat.
Reform clearly aren't organised very well in Wiltshire at the moment, but that would probably be compensated for by Kruger being the sitting MP.
Proportionate swing would give them about 40% in East Wiltshire on 35% nationally (which I don't think they will get, i dont see them over 30 at a GE and probably towards 25) but they start in fourth and arent targetting it (confirmed by Kruger 'its not a Reform target') Wiltshire they got 22% in third and 10 out of 98 wards with Lab and Greens sitting it out mainly in May. Their best area by far is SW Wilts. I don't think Kruger has a personal vote of note, he performed worse than John Glen in Salisbury and Donelan in a losing cause in the Devizes part of his former seat and was one of the worse performing Tories in Wiltshire in vote share loss
There are some areas they ain't surging to the same degree. This (imho) is one of them
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
I suspect there were any number of people who thought they were besties with Epstein. I doubt it was reciprocated.
Look at the various scandals Mandelson has been involved him, such as being on the yacht when Osborne was tapping up foreigners, or the three that brought him down, the loan from Geoffrey Robinson, the Hindujas, and Epstein, even his involvement with billionaire Donald Trump. What's the common factor? What's in it for Mandelson? Not sex, possibly power, definitely money.
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
Everything seems to paint an odd picture of Mandelson. It'd be nice to know what Mandelson actually honestly wanted from this life...
Position and wealth
There was a comment from Bad 'Al about Mandelson having moved on to grander circles than Campbell himself now occupied.
So, yes - social climbing and feeding his own importance.
Personally, I think the only problem with London's cyclists is the ones on overpowered and illegal ebikes.
Otherwise, the introduction of cyclelanes, the proliferation of Boris bikes, and the like are all overwhelmingly positive. Simply: because bikes take up so much less space than cars, you can have more people on the road at any point. And - of course - bikes seem pretty resistant to ending up in jams.
Speaking as a pedestrian, I'd rather face an ebike with the driver looking where he is going than cyclists who might be looking at the ground if pedalling hard, who might stop at the crossing, or not, and who veer on and off the pavement.
Unless I am anxious about getting my phone snatched – that is an ebike crime.
Starmer’s new position is that he “knew about the emails from Mandelson to Epstein after Epstein’s conviction” but HE DIDN’T KNOW WHAT WAS IN THEM
So he didn’t think to ask?
Next it will be “yes I read the emails where Mandelson praises Epstein as the worlds greatest pedo but AS I READ THEM SOMEONE COVERED MY SCREEN WITH VASELINE SO THE ACTUAL WORDS WERE BLURRED”
It’s a very lame defence. I knew this person was chummy with Epstein, he proved to be even more chummy with Epstein which was absolutely beyond the pale (not beforehand though, no) and I knew there were some emails doing the rounds but I hadn’t read them so I wasn’t quite sure how chummy they were so I didn’t bother finding that out until after I had to publicly defend him.
It’s a classic politician’s excuse, in the real world there’s not much of a fag paper between it all.
The reason he appointed Mandelson isn't sayable by him - he judged the need to suck up to Donald Trump to be more important than maintaining normal standards of propriety. State visit, the same. Lammy Vance, the same. Rutte "daddy", the same. Euro leaders dash to Washington after Alaska, the same. Pakistan and the nobel peace prize, the same. There's hundreds of examples from around the world. It's a big global theme right now. All a bit pathetic, if you ask me, and counterproductive, but they're all at it so I suppose I must be wrong and it's very worthwhile.
Emergency debate about Mandelson tomorrow in Parliament
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
Not really. As I see it, the question is did the PM lie about the sequencing of Mandy's appointment. Did he engage in (typical?) spin so as to give the impression, or indeed flatly state that he didn't know something that he did actually know because as we have seen with this PM, he is not averse to changing his mind or trying to change the facts to accord with what would have been politically preferable to have happened.
So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.
Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).
Responding to your edit:
Mandelson has already had to 'resign' from government twice over dodgy dealings. Starmer, not once.
Why would you back Mandelson, given that?
(As an aside, what has Mandelson said about his departure? Is he actually personally at odds with Starmer?)
Apparently Yum Yum gets a six figure sum if his dismissal was unfair. That's the prism through which to view any response from him
Surely he hasn't been in post long enough. Unless he can claim discrimination.
Two years' service is the usual Civil Service minimum requirement to get redundo at all if sacked for legally reasonable cause such as the job disappearing, and that further assumes that the job is (nominally) permanent rather than a short term contract. But the above assumes (a) he hasn't got any prior CS service and (b) that there aren't special rules for diplos, such as the contract being terminable at will.
Emergency debate about Mandelson tomorrow in Parliament
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
Not really. As I see it, the question is did the PM lie about the sequencing of Mandy's appointment. Did he engage in (typical?) spin so as to give the impression, or indeed flatly state that he didn't know something that he did actually know because as we have seen with this PM, he is not averse to changing his mind or trying to change the facts to accord with what would have been politically preferable to have happened.
So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.
Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).
Responding to your edit:
Mandelson has already had to 'resign' from government twice over dodgy dealings. Starmer, not once.
Why would you back Mandelson, given that?
(As an aside, what has Mandelson said about his departure? Is he actually personally at odds with Starmer?)
Apparently Yum Yum gets a six figure sum if his dismissal was unfair. That's the prism through which to view any response from him
Surely he hasn't been in post long enough. Unless he can claim discrimination.
Starmer’s new position is that he “knew about the emails from Mandelson to Epstein after Epstein’s conviction” but HE DIDN’T KNOW WHAT WAS IN THEM
So he didn’t think to ask?
Next it will be “yes I read the emails where Mandelson praises Epstein as the worlds greatest pedo but AS I READ THEM SOMEONE COVERED MY SCREEN WITH VASELINE SO THE ACTUAL WORDS WERE BLURRED”
It’s a very lame defence. I knew this person was chummy with Epstein, he proved to be even more chummy with Epstein which was absolutely beyond the pale (not beforehand though, no) and I knew there were some emails doing the rounds but I hadn’t read them so I wasn’t quite sure how chummy they were so I didn’t bother finding that out until after I had to publicly defend him.
It’s a classic politician’s excuse, in the real world there’s not much of a fag paper between it all.
The reason he appointed Mandelson isn't sayable by him - he judged the need to suck up to Donald Trump to be more important than maintaining normal standards of propriety. State visit, the same. Lammy Vance, the same. Rutte "daddy", the same. Euro leaders dash to Washington after Alaska, the same. Pakistan and the nobel peace prize, the same. There's hundreds of examples from around the world. It's a big global theme right now. All a bit pathetic, if you ask me, and counterproductive, but they're all at it so I suppose I must be wrong and it's very worthwhile.
UK has done better than other countries at avoiding Trump's ire. Some big nuclear deals coming soon also.
Starmer’s new position is that he “knew about the emails from Mandelson to Epstein after Epstein’s conviction” but HE DIDN’T KNOW WHAT WAS IN THEM
So he didn’t think to ask?
Next it will be “yes I read the emails where Mandelson praises Epstein as the worlds greatest pedo but AS I READ THEM SOMEONE COVERED MY SCREEN WITH VASELINE SO THE ACTUAL WORDS WERE BLURRED”
It’s a very lame defence. I knew this person was chummy with Epstein, he proved to be even more chummy with Epstein which was absolutely beyond the pale (not beforehand though, no) and I knew there were some emails doing the rounds but I hadn’t read them so I wasn’t quite sure how chummy they were so I didn’t bother finding that out until after I had to publicly defend him.
It’s a classic politician’s excuse, in the real world there’s not much of a fag paper between it all.
The reason he appointed Mandelson isn't sayable by him - he judged the need to suck up to Donald Trump to be more important than maintaining normal standards of propriety. State visit, the same. Lammy Vance, the same. Rutte "daddy", the same. Euro leaders dash to Washington after Alaska, the same. Pakistan and the nobel peace prize, the same. There's hundreds of examples from around the world. It's a big global theme right now. All a bit pathetic, if you ask me, and counterproductive, but they're all at it so I suppose I must be wrong and it's very worthwhile.
UK has done better than other countries at avoiding Trump's ire. Some big nuclear deals coming soon also.
Trouble is with Mandelson gone and Lammy shifted (at Mandelson's behest?) who is left to sweet-talk the Trump White House? Surely not Yvette Cooper.
OT according to Countdown, today is the anniversary of Charles Darwin reaching the Galapagos Islands and making a watercolour sketch of a table and tall glass of gin or lager.
Reform cant call a by election for Wilts East. Too much danger of losing which would be a massively damaging own goal and destroy the 'we are the real opposition on the right' narrative. But that sets a precedent.... id expect defections of sitting MPs to Reform to be rather rare before a GE now as they cant blow hot and cold on by elections and a raft of them looks a bit ummmm 'iffy' and opportunist
Personally, I think the only problem with London's cyclists is the ones on overpowered and illegal ebikes.
Otherwise, the introduction of cyclelanes, the proliferation of Boris bikes, and the like are all overwhelmingly positive. Simply: because bikes take up so much less space than cars, you can have more people on the road at any point. And - of course - bikes seem pretty resistant to ending up in jams.
Speaking as a pedestrian, I'd rather face an ebike with the driver looking where he is going than cyclists who might be looking at the ground if pedalling hard, who might stop at the crossing, or not, and who veer on and off the pavement.
Unless I am anxious about getting my phone snatched – that is an ebike crime.
As a regular cycle commuter, as are kids, people on ebikes are as, if not more, likely to run through crossings or veer on or off pavements and they tend to be worse at cycling, plus the bikes are heavy, lime bikes are easily 3-4 times the weight of an unpowered pedal cycle. I'd take my chances with 70-80kgs of soft human on an 11kg bike.
Emergency debate about Mandelson tomorrow in Parliament
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
Not really. As I see it, the question is did the PM lie about the sequencing of Mandy's appointment. Did he engage in (typical?) spin so as to give the impression, or indeed flatly state that he didn't know something that he did actually know because as we have seen with this PM, he is not averse to changing his mind or trying to change the facts to accord with what would have been politically preferable to have happened.
So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.
Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).
Responding to your edit:
Mandelson has already had to 'resign' from government twice over dodgy dealings. Starmer, not once.
Why would you back Mandelson, given that?
(As an aside, what has Mandelson said about his departure? Is he actually personally at odds with Starmer?)
The point is that Mandy in all likelihood has a "little black book" or equivalent wherein he notes down all this stuff. Whatever else he is he is an operator.
OT according to Countdown, today is the anniversary of Charles Darwin reaching the Galapagos Islands and making a watercolour sketch of a table and tall glass of gin or lager.
Starmer’s new position is that he “knew about the emails from Mandelson to Epstein after Epstein’s conviction” but HE DIDN’T KNOW WHAT WAS IN THEM
So he didn’t think to ask?
Next it will be “yes I read the emails where Mandelson praises Epstein as the worlds greatest pedo but AS I READ THEM SOMEONE COVERED MY SCREEN WITH VASELINE SO THE ACTUAL WORDS WERE BLURRED”
It’s a very lame defence. I knew this person was chummy with Epstein, he proved to be even more chummy with Epstein which was absolutely beyond the pale (not beforehand though, no) and I knew there were some emails doing the rounds but I hadn’t read them so I wasn’t quite sure how chummy they were so I didn’t bother finding that out until after I had to publicly defend him.
It’s a classic politician’s excuse, in the real world there’s not much of a fag paper between it all.
The reason he appointed Mandelson isn't sayable by him - he judged the need to suck up to Donald Trump to be more important than maintaining normal standards of propriety. State visit, the same. Lammy Vance, the same. Rutte "daddy", the same. Euro leaders dash to Washington after Alaska, the same. Pakistan and the nobel peace prize, the same. There's hundreds of examples from around the world. It's a big global theme right now. All a bit pathetic, if you ask me, and counterproductive, but they're all at it so I suppose I must be wrong and it's very worthwhile.
And you are not wrong
Starmer fawning and King's invite was not only embarrassing but unnecessary, and as for Rutte of NATO - he is an embarrassment
One odd thing about the Mandelson/Epstein emails – Mandelson describes Epstein as his ‘best pal’. If I were to hear a man use this phrase – or more commonly, ‘best friend’ or ‘best mate’ I would infer it to be someone he had known since childhood – or, at the very outset, since his late teens or early twenties. Can Jeffrey Epstein really be Peter Mandelson’s ‘best pal’? It paints a very strange picture of him.
Everything seems to paint an odd picture of Mandelson. It'd be nice to know what Mandelson actually honestly wanted from this life...
Money, power and the company and influence of the powerful. And he got it
Emergency commons debate on Mandelson set for tomorrow.
I expect Strarmer and Cooper to be in hiding as it all unfolds, and what happens on his own side will be enlightening and the timing of the utterly lobnoxious comments re Diane Abbott is not going to aid Starmer and No 10 one little bit
Emergency debate about Mandelson tomorrow in Parliament
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
Not really. As I see it, the question is did the PM lie about the sequencing of Mandy's appointment. Did he engage in (typical?) spin so as to give the impression, or indeed flatly state that he didn't know something that he did actually know because as we have seen with this PM, he is not averse to changing his mind or trying to change the facts to accord with what would have been politically preferable to have happened.
So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.
Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).
Responding to your edit:
Mandelson has already had to 'resign' from government twice over dodgy dealings. Starmer, not once.
Why would you back Mandelson, given that?
(As an aside, what has Mandelson said about his departure? Is he actually personally at odds with Starmer?)
Apparently Yum Yum gets a six figure sum if his dismissal was unfair. That's the prism through which to view any response from him
Surely he hasn't been in post long enough. Unless he can claim discrimination.
Doesn't mean the Times is right. The civil servants held up as examples are career civil servants who will have served much more than two years. And there's a fair bit of could and maybe and might.
Reform cant call a by election for Wilts East. Too much danger of losing which would be a massively damaging own goal and destroy the 'we are the real opposition on the right' narrative. But that sets a precedent.... id expect defections of sitting MPs to Reform to be rather rare before a GE now as they cant blow hot and cold on by elections and a raft of them looks a bit ummmm 'iffy' and opportunist
I wouldn't - a by-election costs £x0,000 to run, so why bother because it's just an opposition MP moving a few seats along the opposition benches.
Now it's slightly different if you are a Government MP moving to the opposition but again it won't matter.
And remember when you vote you vote the constituency's Member of Parliament (an individual). No matter what people think you don't vote for a party you vote for a person who is the nominated candidate of the party and as with @RochdalePioneers they could change their party alliance at any point (not a dig at RP btw he was just the best example to hand).
Emergency debate about Mandelson tomorrow in Parliament
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
Not really. As I see it, the question is did the PM lie about the sequencing of Mandy's appointment. Did he engage in (typical?) spin so as to give the impression, or indeed flatly state that he didn't know something that he did actually know because as we have seen with this PM, he is not averse to changing his mind or trying to change the facts to accord with what would have been politically preferable to have happened.
So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.
Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).
Responding to your edit:
Mandelson has already had to 'resign' from government twice over dodgy dealings. Starmer, not once.
Why would you back Mandelson, given that?
(As an aside, what has Mandelson said about his departure? Is he actually personally at odds with Starmer?)
The point is that Mandy in all likelihood has a "little black book" or equivalent wherein he notes down all this stuff. Whatever else he is he is an operator.
Comments
Defection of Kruger probably helps Reform as he will take some personal supporters with him.
Come on. This is not difficult.
Otherwise, the introduction of cyclelanes, the proliferation of Boris bikes, and the like are all overwhelmingly positive. Simply: because bikes take up so much less space than cars, you can have more people on the road at any point. And - of course - bikes seem pretty resistant to ending up in jams.
Epstein clearly satisfied some deep insecurity in Mandelson. Something from his childhood where Mandy never felt good enough or rich enough
Hence the constant succumbing to corruption by rich men. And I can also believe that Epstein was VERY charming. That was his whole shtick
Any commercial outfit of any sort is bound to consider the reputational damage of being associated with particular and egregious bits of speechifying.
The artist in question may also find that lots of venues will be able to enhance their particular reputation by inviting him.
And nobody is listening to labour in the Red Wall
Some senior politicians - e.g. Major, Balls, or Portillo, are hated during their time in politics, but become more popular afterwards. In the case of the latter two, through TV. Mandelson was admired for his skills, but also disliked, and when he left power seems to have done little to improve his standing.
I think many of us have seen, know, or are, similar people.
It is just that politics is a very visible business.
Here is Danny Kruger MP in Parliament, as a Tory MP before defecting today, berating Reform UK for "simply replacing the words Conservative Party with the words Reform Party... in a desperate search for relevance", then warning they would "spend money like drunken sailors". ~AA
https://x.com/BestForBritain/status/1967608066993746062
Apologies to Skyr
Journalists were threatened over the Post Office, Hillsborough and the thing we can't talk about
All British towns should do this. JFDI
https://x.com/createstreets/status/1965071914155860409?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Also includes the revelation that the leaflet was partly written by one of the undercover plod.
That was the SDS, there's no mention of them infiltrating any "head chopper type" groups, just environmental, social justice and the Lawrence family.
What is interesting about the Saturday rally is the strong religious component it contained. Is Reform now the Church of England at prayer?
So you can see why they dropped that one.
Is my impression but I don't know the man and his autobiography remains unread on my bookshelf.
https://karenattiah.substack.com/p/the-washington-post-fired-me-but
There are serious issues around free speech and the intersection with the law/policing. The miss-use of police time by certain trans-activists is one example, but there are many more.
One doesn't (as a London cyclist) come into contact with e-bikes so much as they are mainly deliveroo riders who simply don't stop at anything, whether red lights or little old ladies in their paths. Oh and phone snatchers, obvs. They (e-bikes) only make up a tiny percentage of bikes on the road.
There remains, however, nothing more twattish than someone on an e-scooter. Not their fault, just looks absurd. Plus the odd dolt on a powered unicycle or whatever they call it with an F1 helmet on. Twats also.
But yes, generally there is a great cycling network in London and it is well used by cyclists.
So your position is that editors should publish anything their journalists want, regardless of truth, sourcing, or public interest?
It must pain you to have seen so many ghastly people all in one place of a Saturday in London instead of those peace-loving, diversity-loving pro-Palestinians.
So it turns on his integrity which imo is grounds for an emergency debate.
Oh and if it comes down to the detail of what actually happened and who knew what and when and what they then did as a result....I'd back Mandy all day long over the PM (and his office).
Remember how the Red Rag shits tried to use Ivan Cameron's illness against his father. The way the truth is represented can matter a great deal.
Listen to yourself. What a truly great gift you evidently have.
I'm no fan of Starmer; and I'm certainly no fan of Mandelson. But the blows have landed, and the damage done.
Lab 399
Con 119
LD 72
SNP 9
SF 7
Ind Alliance 6
Ref 5
DUP 5
Grn 4
PC 4
SDLP 2
Alliance 1
TUV 1
UUP 1
Speaker 1
Inds 14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_the_United_Kingdom
https://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussball/charlie-kirk-felix-nmecha-von-borussia-dortmund-trauert-und-polarisiert-a-5695796e-562d-4cec-9499-74f000b52b91 (German)
He's got in trouble before for posting Christian stuff that was considered "homophobic and queerphobic" (quite interestingly - to me! - "homophob und queerfeindlich" in German)
I think if Reform are on 35% in the polls, which is possible pretty soon, they'd get around 50% in this seat.
Reform clearly aren't organised very well in Wiltshire at the moment, but that would probably be compensated for by Kruger being the sitting MP.
Mandelson has already had to 'resign' from government twice over dodgy dealings. Starmer, not once.
Why would you back Mandelson, given that?
(As an aside, what has Mandelson said about his departure? Is he actually personally at odds with Starmer?)
No different than Boris's travails
They require type approval, insurance, a driving license and appropriate safety gear.
They can confiscate on the spot for no insurance, as they can with any other motor vehicle which requires it.
Bloody foreigners! Coming over here and doing the jobs native Brits would never countenance doing!!
It is quite probable that *both* Mandelbrot and No.10's stories are not entirely accurate.
I thought you were in MAGAstan?
I very much doubt whether all the editorial decisions about who is in and who is out in our political weeklies is based on principles of fairness, probity and justice.
The chilling nature of the free(ish) world is a good deal less cool than the chilling nature of worlds in which no value is placed on either free speech or moral accountability.
Wiltshire they got 22% in third and 10 out of 98 wards with Lab and Greens sitting it out mainly in May. Their best area by far is SW Wilts.
I don't think Kruger has a personal vote of note, he performed worse than John Glen in Salisbury and Donelan in a losing cause in the Devizes part of his former seat and was one of the worse performing Tories in Wiltshire in vote share loss
There are some areas they ain't surging to the same degree. This (imho) is one of them
https://liberalengland.blogspot.com/2025/09/guest-post-defections-update-lib-dem.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2025/09/10/bestseller-list-harcover-washington-post-september-14/
Robert Galbraith's latest is at number 6 on the fiction list.
(I've read Troubled Blood, and liked it, but my tastes in fiction run more to Charles Sheffield, Robert L. Forward, Larry Niven, and similar writers.)
Look at the various scandals Mandelson has been involved him, such as being on the yacht when Osborne was tapping up foreigners, or the three that brought him down, the loan from Geoffrey Robinson, the Hindujas, and Epstein, even his involvement with billionaire Donald Trump. What's the common factor? What's in it for Mandelson? Not sex, possibly power, definitely money.
So, yes - social climbing and feeding his own importance.
Arguably that is just like George Osborne.
Unless I am anxious about getting my phone snatched – that is an ebike crime.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/cd74c2ae-dc74-41ec-a161-01bfbd6da13f?shareToken=5fc73ffb6e52131e6b5a5b3bfccd8aa5
But that sets a precedent.... id expect defections of sitting MPs to Reform to be rather rare before a GE now as they cant blow hot and cold on by elections and a raft of them looks a bit ummmm 'iffy' and opportunist
I'd take my chances with 70-80kgs of soft human on an 11kg bike.
Starmer fawning and King's invite was not only embarrassing but unnecessary, and as for Rutte of NATO - he is an embarrassment
Now it's slightly different if you are a Government MP moving to the opposition but again it won't matter.
And remember when you vote you vote the constituency's Member of Parliament (an individual). No matter what people think you don't vote for a party you vote for a person who is the nominated candidate of the party and as with @RochdalePioneers they could change their party alliance at any point (not a dig at RP btw he was just the best example to hand).