The incessant vitriol toward Starmer on here is insane.
Representative of public opinion
Is it really tough?
The vast vast vast majority of the people i know rarely talk about politics, when they do it's with horror about Reform.
I'm not remotely suggesting my circle of friends is remotely representative, just like those you know be either.
I get memes daily from the less politically engaged of my friends and family.
Not seen since they took the piss of Truss.
Starmer is a laughing stock.
He’s an unlikeable bore, why wouldn’t he be unpopular?
He’s also a fraud
I agree he’s an unlikeable bore. I’ve no idea what “he’s a fraud” means.
You are Starmer derangement patient zero.
There are many things he has said and done that make him a fraud.
Yes I’m one of his biggest critics, so be it. It did drive me crazy how he got away with such slippery lies and evasion, then was elected so luckily with so few votes, but now the chickens are coming home to roost I am well pleased
Pension growth - due to using 2.5% twice; CPI 5 times, RPI once and wages 6 times : 89.2%
It'd be worse if Sunak hadn't switched the formula during Covid.
I’m not convinced that if Labour said, they’re retiring triple lock once it delivers 100% growth since implementation, that it would affect their polling one iota.
Pensioners aren’t voting for Labour anyway. The other parties would have to explain how they afford to keep it.
The key thing is an off ramp- a bit in the future, but not too far, before the exponential growth gets silly.
The original theory- means-testing pensions is bad, because that discourages most people from saving- is sound. That means the basic pension needs to be basic but not too basic, and the Thatcher formula was a bit too stingy for that. So a gentle uplift was the right thing to do- the mistake in 2010 was not inculding a sunset trigger.
Trouble is that any announcement would send the dishonest sector of the media bezerk. And that's most of it.
The incessant vitriol toward Starmer on here is insane.
Representative of public opinion
Is it really tough?
The vast vast vast majority of the people i know rarely talk about politics, when they do it's with horror about Reform.
I'm not remotely suggesting my circle of friends is remotely representative, just like those you know be either.
I get memes daily from the less politically engaged of my friends and family.
Not seen since they took the piss of Truss.
Starmer is a laughing stock.
There was a good hour of Starmer-mockery at work yesterday. He actually gets mocked more - in a middle class public sector organisation - than any of his Tory predecessors ever did. Even Truss had a 'well it'll all be over soon' air about it. That's not to say of course that anyone was openly suggesting any of the other parties were better, and it was interspersed with a sort-of 'oh God this means we're going to have to deal with a Reform government' fatalism. But still - I'm amazed at how much contempt there is for him even among people who would normally be his tribe.
Oh, and hello @ManchesterKurt - I cycled past you at the weekend going past The Bridge but I'd gone past before realising it was you.
That’s my experience. Even apolitical people laugh at him. He’s a clown at best and an object of contempt for many
Now I admit my personal loathing of him IS slightly unhinged. It’s of a ferocity I’ve never felt before. But, unfortunately, he is the kind of guy that evokes unhinged loathing
He doesn’t seem to have any redeeming features whatsoever. Not a sense of humour to disarm you, not an air of competence to placate you, not a smart brain to impress you. Nothing. Just dull homourless venal hypocritical narcissistic incompetence tinged with outright treachery
That was the point.
I don't think anyone's saying he shouldn't be unpopular, or the subject of mockery.
Chances of any government being popular right now are pretty thin.
Starmer has some obvious massive flaws as a politician. He's not quick-witted enough for our news culture, and is still pretty inexperienced. And it shows.
But the incessant vitriol is insane. And a fair chunk of it is the ongoing tantrum on the moderate right that they are pretty much impotent and irrelevant, in a way that wasn't even the case during the Blair years. And that irrelevance is also, somehow, Starmer's fault.
The key point. The Tories are bleeding out their arse because there's no arse left. Badenoch and her team are trying to cosplay Reform and attack all of Labour's failings, but get torn apart with the immediate memories of the exact same failings under the Tories.
How they climb out of the hole I don't know, but for God's sake stop digging. Every time Badenoch launches some hard nosed policy they dig themselves deeper. You can't outflank Farage on the right, and when Bobby J says "Labour should close this asylum hotel" he is pilloried with "so why did you open it" etc etc etc
I know there are moderate Tories - good people with honest views. How do you wrestle control of the party back from these lunatics? Because supposedly its Jenrick next, and he's even crazier.
Difficult, because getting involved in wrestling is a pretty lunatic thing to do. It's why a highly motivated minority can impose its will on a less motivated majority. But yeah- there comes a point where wrestling is the only option left. But Conservative wets aren't called wets for nothing.
If they "wrestle control" from the Tory right, they will probably defect to reform. Now let us be generous and say the woke nation Tories retain 50 percent of their vote. they now have 60 MPs and 8.5 percent of the vote. I can see why they are not keen on the idea.
Another indicator of British decline. Not a subject worthy of an “emergency debate”. Just circus stuff.
Nope - this is opposition oppositioning. Making things uncomfortable for Starmer. Classic politics. Just as much as Partygate, which you could equally have derided as not worthy of emergency debates.
Sir David Davies is taking Mandelson apart and receiving support from across the house including Plaid, Labour and Lib Dem mps
The government response is going to be extremely difficult
When you say "Labour", read Richard Burgon, banging on about his whipless mates.
The incessant vitriol toward Starmer on here is insane.
It’s consonant with his polling - possibly the worst in history - and the British public mood. I’ve never known a prime minister attract such hatred and scorn - not even Boris. Truss was too brief
The polling shows that even Labour Party voters abhor him - as confirmed by PB lefty @nico67 - “I don’t know anyone that approves of him”
You probably don’t get a sense of this from your eyrie in Manhattan
Actually I do get all of that. Starmer’s astonishing insipidness is maddening, and his main ally, Reeves, has been hopeless.
However, even accounting for that, the criticism is off the charts.
A fair-minded observer would allow that he is trying to govern what seems to have become ungovernable country. A fair-minded observer would also note that no other current party leader is likely to do any better; more likely even worse.
Trying to be fair-minded, Starmer's underlying problem is that like Rishi before him, he doesn't really have any real political beliefs, so he is not really driving the ship of state but simply trying to stay afloat.
And I disagree that no-one could do better. Labour are a party for the good times and their problem is they have inherited a bad situation and are being forced to make tough choices they don't want to make. If we had a situation where Labour had just been kicked out and Badenoch or Farage had just come in with a big majority, then I'm sure they would find it a lot easier to make the necessary cuts.
Pension growth - due to using 2.5% twice; CPI 5 times, RPI once and wages 6 times : 89.2%
It'd be worse if Sunak hadn't switched the formula during Covid.
I’m not convinced that if Labour said, they’re retiring triple lock once it delivers 100% growth since implementation, that it would affect their polling one iota.
Pensioners aren’t voting for Labour anyway. The other parties would have to explain how they afford to keep it.
The key thing is an off ramp- a bit in the future, but not too far, before the exponential growth gets silly.
The original theory- means-testing pensions is bad, because that discourages most people from saving- is sound. That means the basic pension needs to be basic but not too basic, and the Thatcher formula was a bit too stingy for that. So a gentle uplift was the right thing to do- the mistake in 2010 was not inculding a sunset trigger.
Trouble is that any announcement would send the dishonest sector of the media bezerk. And that's most of it.
They need to drone-swarm the media with other mad proposals in the budget. Make sure it's not the headline.
Pension growth - due to using 2.5% twice; CPI 5 times, RPI once and wages 6 times : 89.2%
It'd be worse if Sunak hadn't switched the formula during Covid.
I’m not convinced that if Labour said, they’re retiring triple lock once it delivers 100% growth since implementation, that it would affect their polling one iota.
Pensioners aren’t voting for Labour anyway. The other parties would have to explain how they afford to keep it.
The key thing is an off ramp- a bit in the future, but not too far, before the exponential growth gets silly.
The original theory- means-testing pensions is bad, because that discourages most people from saving- is sound. That means the basic pension needs to be basic but not too basic, and the Thatcher formula was a bit too stingy for that. So a gentle uplift was the right thing to do- the mistake in 2010 was not inculding a sunset trigger.
Trouble is that any announcement would send the dishonest sector of the media bezerk. And that's most of it.
It might reverse the moron premium current baked into British gilts.
During the five-day hearing, he denied "knowingly" providing false information. One allegation suggested Mr Mohindru lied during a job interview about studying biomedical science at the University of Oxford, but the company found no record of a student with his name.
This was followed up with a CV in which he claimed to have studied medicine at the university from 1993 to 1994.
O/T looking at our proposed budget and they mentioned the below and I wondered if the UK also treats sales of alcohol from larger vessels as a separate calculation for tax - I know they are trying to help pubs v supermarkets but was wondering if it’s something that has worked in the UK.
“1p increase on a can of beer but the introduction of ‘tap relief’ – meaning that duty on a pint of beer or cider sold from containers of ten litres or more will reduce by 5.4 pence per pint.”
The incessant vitriol toward Starmer on here is insane.
Do you think that maybe because he was vitriolic about the Tories, set himself up as the paragon of virtue and clean public life whilst suggesting that he was the grown-up in such a pompous and self regarding way that people see him as a huge empty hypocritical ming vase, but a worthless fake ming vase at that?
If he hadn’t been so superior and overly appraising of his own ability then maybe people wouldn’t be enjoying his difficulties quite as much but he set his standards and has utterly failed to reach them.
Starmer wasn’t nearly vitriolic enough about the fraudulent, disastrous, failed Tory regime.
Starmer doesn’t do vitriol, or any kind of interesting rhetoric, that’s part of his issue.
Other than that, top comment.
From left to right, Starmer is derided.
From the left for trans, Gaza, spending, welfare, WFA, sucking up to Trump and the bizarre attacks on a crap Northern Irish band and a bunch of Palestine protestors.
From the middle and the right it’s about being completely run by the courts - he seems to have subcontracted his conscience to the Supreme Court - and loading taxes on employment. Then not finding growth.
Note the dismal showing among Labour Party members. Who are not, generally, glued to GB News.
Centrist Dadism is finished. It has been since Cameron resigned. And has never recovered. Hence the Brexit AlwaysRemainer Syndrome
Thing is, the Cameron administration was the most legitimately *Right Wing government in 40 years.
(*Actually being on, and of, the Right, rather than whatever arbitrary Lefty strawman is considered 'right wing' these days)
Getting the centrist dads on board was always just clever set-dressing. That demographic is slightly dimwitted and easily-duped, with superficial values and a shallow understanding of politics.
The sort of idiots that will retweet generic protestations about '14 years of Tory failure', completely forgetting that several of those years were actually pretty good, and they themselves supported them at the time.
Ukraine’s new “Long-range drone” hitting O&G facilities 1,500km into Russia, is basically a remote-controlled light aircraft, stuffed with fuel and explosives instead of a couple of humans.
It flies low and slow, for several hours at a time, yet the enemy still appears to be incapable of shooting it down.
I remember reading here that Russian air defence was so good that a SAM battery near Moscow would be able to shoot down any NATO planes over Ukraine.
That PBer also claimed that anti-tank missiles never worked.
Was that the one, currently on sabbatical, who also said they had no significant SEAD/DEAD capacity ?
Both the Russians and Ukrainians had (and have) next to no airborne SEAD capability.
Both sides have been improvising by rigging up crude detection systems to locate SAM radars and improvising ways to attack them.
That's not true. Ukraine has been remarkably successful, recently, in droning radars all along the front, and beyond (notably in Crimea).
It's not how NATO would do it, but it has become fairly systematic,
Our militaries should be taking note, as it is another way in which drones change the terms on which warfare is conducted.
I said “airborne SEAD” - as in on aircraft. Which is what the absent poster was referring to. And indeed Russians Ukraine have very little capability.
The drones and other improvised stuff was as (as I said) a response to that lack of capability.
Drones fly, and drop stuff from the air, too. I get what you're saying, but it suggests some kind of boundary around categories, which doesn't really exist anymore.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
I was being facetious about executing Mandelson; the British Right probably wouldn't go that far. But Mandelson for them is a diabolical figure, who engineered a decade of Tony Blair and brought death into the world, and all our woe, with loss of Eden, till one greater man (Nigel) restore us, and regain the blissful seat.
The incessant vitriol toward Starmer on here is insane.
It’s consonant with his polling - possibly the worst in history - and the British public mood. I’ve never known a prime minister attract such hatred and scorn - not even Boris. Truss was too brief
The polling shows that even Labour Party voters abhor him - as confirmed by PB lefty @nico67 - “I don’t know anyone that approves of him”
You probably don’t get a sense of this from your eyrie in Manhattan
Actually I do get all of that. Starmer’s astonishing insipidness is maddening, and his main ally, Reeves, has been hopeless.
However, even accounting for that, the criticism is off the charts.
A fair-minded observer would allow that he is trying to govern what seems to have become ungovernable country. A fair-minded observer would also note that no other current party leader is likely to do any better; more likely even worse.
Trying to be fair-minded, Starmer's underlying problem is that like Rishi before him, he doesn't really have any real political beliefs, so he is not really driving the ship of state but simply trying to stay afloat.
And I disagree that no-one could do better. Labour are a party for the good times and their problem is they have inherited a bad situation and are being forced to make tough choices they don't want to make. If we had a situation where Labour had just been kicked out and Badenoch or Farage had just come in with a big majority, then I'm sure they would find it a lot easier to make the necessary cuts.
Imagine the following budget
1) announce gradual merger of employee NI into income tax over the Parliament. 2) with a preserved basic rate for pensioners, so only pensioners over £50k pay more. 3) sort out the tax rates. Personal allowance re-fixed. Simple rates above that to collect about the same (or a little more) + NI 4) all old age pensioner benefits in the blender. Come out with means tested/taxable result. “More money for Mrs Miggins on her state pension.” 5) crackdown on using “Contracting” to pay less than minimum wage to staff - see Deliveroo. Make companies legally responsible for the contractors and their actions. So no more out sourcing enforcement. (This would also slam illegal employment)
This would save money, make the markets happy, raise more (through NI) and would be much more appealing to Labour members than what happened.
The incessant vitriol toward Starmer on here is insane.
Representative of public opinion
Is it really tough?
The vast vast vast majority of the people i know rarely talk about politics, when they do it's with horror about Reform.
I'm not remotely suggesting my circle of friends is remotely representative, just like those you know be either.
I get memes daily from the less politically engaged of my friends and family.
Not seen since they took the piss of Truss.
Starmer is a laughing stock.
There was a good hour of Starmer-mockery at work yesterday. He actually gets mocked more - in a middle class public sector organisation - than any of his Tory predecessors ever did. Even Truss had a 'well it'll all be over soon' air about it. That's not to say of course that anyone was openly suggesting any of the other parties were better, and it was interspersed with a sort-of 'oh God this means we're going to have to deal with a Reform government' fatalism. But still - I'm amazed at how much contempt there is for him even among people who would normally be his tribe.
Oh, and hello @ManchesterKurt - I cycled past you at the weekend going past The Bridge but I'd gone past before realising it was you.
That’s my experience. Even apolitical people laugh at him. He’s a clown at best and an object of contempt for many
Now I admit my personal loathing of him IS slightly unhinged. It’s of a ferocity I’ve never felt before. But, unfortunately, he is the kind of guy that evokes unhinged loathing
He doesn’t seem to have any redeeming features whatsoever. Not a sense of humour to disarm you, not an air of competence to placate you, not a smart brain to impress you. Nothing. Just dull homourless venal hypocritical narcissistic incompetence tinged with outright treachery
You appear to be going through some sort of breakdown.
Meanwhile, no British government is popular midterm and they always become a focus for either ridicule or dislike. Nevertheless there's no logic for getting worked up beyond mild to moderate disappointment.
Most governments arent desperately unpopular during their honeymoon though
I heard an interesting theory about this at the weekend. Can't recall where it came from. The idea was that after the Trussterfuck, Starmer and Labour became in effect already in power, in as much as they had huge, almost unchanging leads. To the public they have been there for over three years, rather than just over one. Not sure if its right, but it is striking how bad their official honeymoon has been.
I don’t really buy this.
I just think they fucked the original budget, and first 90 days, leaving them no natural supporters or firewall against a now rabid online right.
Governing in 2025 barely resembles 2010, let alone 1997.
I think they would be best to look at 1979 for how a more radical government might make changes to the nation's trajectory.
Would they ? That was financed by state and local government asset sales, and a huge North Sea oil dividend, an average inflation rate of over 7% during the 80s, and eviscerated whole segments of UK industry.
Ukraine’s new “Long-range drone” hitting O&G facilities 1,500km into Russia, is basically a remote-controlled light aircraft, stuffed with fuel and explosives instead of a couple of humans.
It flies low and slow, for several hours at a time, yet the enemy still appears to be incapable of shooting it down.
I remember reading here that Russian air defence was so good that a SAM battery near Moscow would be able to shoot down any NATO planes over Ukraine.
That PBer also claimed that anti-tank missiles never worked.
Was that the one, currently on sabbatical, who also said they had no significant SEAD/DEAD capacity ?
Both the Russians and Ukrainians had (and have) next to no airborne SEAD capability.
Both sides have been improvising by rigging up crude detection systems to locate SAM radars and improvising ways to attack them.
That's not true. Ukraine has been remarkably successful, recently, in droning radars all along the front, and beyond (notably in Crimea).
It's not how NATO would do it, but it has become fairly systematic,
Our militaries should be taking note, as it is another way in which drones change the terms on which warfare is conducted.
I said “airborne SEAD” - as in on aircraft. Which is what the absent poster was referring to. And indeed Russians Ukraine have very little capability.
The drones and other improvised stuff was as (as I said) a response to that lack of capability.
Drones fly, and drop stuff from the air, too. I get what you're saying, but it suggests some kind of boundary around categories, which doesn't really exist anymore.
The point was one the original poster was making - at the start of the war, Russian and Ukrainian SEAD barely existed.
Pension growth - due to using 2.5% twice; CPI 5 times, RPI once and wages 6 times : 89.2%
It'd be worse if Sunak hadn't switched the formula during Covid.
I’m not convinced that if Labour said, they’re retiring triple lock once it delivers 100% growth since implementation, that it would affect their polling one iota.
Pensioners aren’t voting for Labour anyway. The other parties would have to explain how they afford to keep it.
The key thing is an off ramp- a bit in the future, but not too far, before the exponential growth gets silly.
The original theory- means-testing pensions is bad, because that discourages most people from saving- is sound. That means the basic pension needs to be basic but not too basic, and the Thatcher formula was a bit too stingy for that. So a gentle uplift was the right thing to do- the mistake in 2010 was not inculding a sunset trigger.
Trouble is that any announcement would send the dishonest sector of the media bezerk. And that's most of it.
It might reverse the moron premium current baked into British gilts.
It's the hopping about that causes the long term unaffordability imo.
Quite why three series couldn't be tracked with the pension just hopping between when it was set up I'm not sure. It'd still be a triple lock !
Yellow is what was used to switch, green would be the "sane" plan, blue is when they matched up.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
I was being facetious about executing Mandelson; the British Right probably wouldn't go that far. But Mandelson for them is a diabolical figure, who engineered a decade of Tony Blair and brought death into the world, and all our woe, with loss of Eden, till one greater man (Nigel) restore us, and regain the blissful seat.
That really isn't it.
Mandelson is a man who was forced to resign from government twice. Since leaving as an MP, he has developed lots of interesting contacts, and seemingly is a considerably richer man. The PM then brings him back, ignoring all of the above, and it has not ended well.
Mandelson may be seen by many as a diabolical man because he is slightly, if not diabolical, totally unsuited for the role?
You may like Mandelson because of his political skills. That doesn't mean he is a nice, or good, person.
(I am on record on praising his oratorical and poltiical skills.)
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
I was being facetious about executing Mandelson; the British Right probably wouldn't go that far. But Mandelson for them is a diabolical figure, who engineered a decade of Tony Blair and brought death into the world, and all our woe, with loss of Eden, till one greater man (Nigel) restore us, and regain the blissful seat.
But this is not coming from the right but across the house including the lib dems
I see pensioners are going to get inflation beating increases again this year. 4.8%.
The long-term unaffordability of the triple lock will eventually sink it. I say Labour should double down on their unpopularity and scrap it. Link increases to inflation only.
RPI inflation is also 4.8 per cent. (CPI 4.2 per cent).
The incessant vitriol toward Starmer on here is insane.
It’s consonant with his polling - possibly the worst in history - and the British public mood. I’ve never known a prime minister attract such hatred and scorn - not even Boris. Truss was too brief
The polling shows that even Labour Party voters abhor him - as confirmed by PB lefty @nico67 - “I don’t know anyone that approves of him”
You probably don’t get a sense of this from your eyrie in Manhattan
Actually I do get all of that. Starmer’s astonishing insipidness is maddening, and his main ally, Reeves, has been hopeless.
However, even accounting for that, the criticism is off the charts.
A fair-minded observer would allow that he is trying to govern what seems to have become ungovernable country. A fair-minded observer would also note that no other current party leader is likely to do any better; more likely even worse.
Trying to be fair-minded, Starmer's underlying problem is that like Rishi before him, he doesn't really have any real political beliefs, so he is not really driving the ship of state but simply trying to stay afloat.
And I disagree that no-one could do better. Labour are a party for the good times and their problem is they have inherited a bad situation and are being forced to make tough choices they don't want to make. If we had a situation where Labour had just been kicked out and Badenoch or Farage had just come in with a big majority, then I'm sure they would find it a lot easier to make the necessary cuts.
Rishi was actually quite a serious fiscal dry.
Starmer is at heart a human rights lawyer. Sadly, he doesn’t seem to have given broader economic or policy issues much thought in his 50-something years, and he surrounded himself with fantasists and grudge-holders of various stripes.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
I see pensioners are going to get inflation beating increases again this year. 4.8%.
The long-term unaffordability of the triple lock will eventually sink it. I say Labour should double down on their unpopularity and scrap it. Link increases to inflation only.
RPI inflation is also 4.8 per cent. (CPI 4.2 per cent).
RPI not relevant to the formula.
The relevant CPI figure expected to be be 3 8% when released tomorrow morning. So still a 1% uplift.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
A Labour mp has specifically referred to this interview and how their voice has to be heard
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
The family victims are clearly being exploited by Starmer’s political enemies. And to defend Starmer, as I am essentially doing so here, is not to excuse paedophilic crimes, either.
You have form for pearl-clutching and shroud-waving, and you are doing so again. Admittedly, this time you have much of the politico-media complex alongside you.
Another indicator of British decline. Not a subject worthy of an “emergency debate”. Just circus stuff.
The guy is sacked already. It's an issue; an emergency it is not.
It's politics and politicians playing politics which, let's face, stops them from doing anything more damaging. But the issue is not the sacking of Mandelson, the issue is the judgment of the PM who appointed him in the first place despite apparently being aware of the Epstein connection which was already electric in the US.
I rate Mandelson very highly but given the arguments about the disclosure of the Epstein files before and after the election it was a bizarre misjudgement by Starmer.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
The incessant vitriol toward Starmer on here is insane.
It’s consonant with his polling - possibly the worst in history - and the British public mood. I’ve never known a prime minister attract such hatred and scorn - not even Boris. Truss was too brief
The polling shows that even Labour Party voters abhor him - as confirmed by PB lefty @nico67 - “I don’t know anyone that approves of him”
You probably don’t get a sense of this from your eyrie in Manhattan
Actually I do get all of that. Starmer’s astonishing insipidness is maddening, and his main ally, Reeves, has been hopeless.
However, even accounting for that, the criticism is off the charts.
A fair-minded observer would allow that he is trying to govern what seems to have become ungovernable country. A fair-minded observer would also note that no other current party leader is likely to do any better; more likely even worse.
Trying to be fair-minded, Starmer's underlying problem is that like Rishi before him, he doesn't really have any real political beliefs, so he is not really driving the ship of state but simply trying to stay afloat.
And I disagree that no-one could do better. Labour are a party for the good times and their problem is they have inherited a bad situation and are being forced to make tough choices they don't want to make. If we had a situation where Labour had just been kicked out and Badenoch or Farage had just come in with a big majority, then I'm sure they would find it a lot easier to make the necessary cuts.
Rishi was actually quite a serious fiscal dry.
Really? EOTHO and an incredibly generous furlough scheme along with loans to various companies many, many of which were never recovered. You can argue the rights and wrongs of it but our response to Covid was nothing less than profligate.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
The family victims are clearly being exploited by Starmer’s political enemies. And to defend Starmer, as I am essentially doing so here, is not to excuse paedophilic crimes, either.
You have form for pearl-clutching and shroud-waving, and you are doing so again. Admittedly, this time you have much of the politico-media complex alongside you.
To me this is the same as partygate. Pointless trivia, has annoyed a load of people but its done.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
A Labour mp has specifically referred to this interview and how their voice has to be heard
Epstein has brought down a British prince, ambassador, and bank CEO* I think his victim’s voices are well-rehearsed in the UK.
I can’t think of anyone in the U.S. who has been brought down.
Ed Davey says this debate finds the house at its best holding the government and prime minister to account and congratulationed Sir David Davis for securing the debate
Anyone trying to whitewash this issue needs to understand that Mandelson is toxic and it will not be swept away under the carpet
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
A Labour mp has specifically referred to this interview and how their voice has to be heard
Epstein has brought down a British prince, ambassador, and bank CEO* I think his victim’s voices are well-rehearsed in the UK.
I can’t think of anyone in the U.S. who has been brought down.
*yes I know Staley is American himself.
That is a matter for US but this is the UK and Ed Davey is speaking movingly about the victims
"Suzanne Moore I went for dinner with Peter Mandelson – he’s blind to people of lower status The way the disgraced ambassador behaved towards the waiting staff spoke volumes about his lust for power" (£)
Sir Keir’s ‘Lots in, none out’ scheme working a treat!
Skilfully negotiated Chagos style
He’s supposed to be a lawyer of some repute, does he not understand why all previous efforts at deporting people failed?
Or did he think that his Labour deportations are good deportations, as opposed to the evil Tory deportations, and so the “human rights” NGOs and legal industry would stand down and give him a free pass?
This is calamitous for Starmer. Also for Cooper. She was apparently “really proud” of her “infinity migrants in, zero out” deal with France. So much so she was looking to do the same with Germany, pay them £3bn to take no migrants
Now it’s all fallen apart. Given that this government is emotionally incapable of leaving or reforming the ECHR this means they will never solve the problem
It’s not difficult, they just need to pass legislation that allows them to deport those who iligally entered the country or committed a serious crime, and with appeals only allowed from outside the country at the expense of the appellant.
This is how almost every other country in the world works.
Guess what, if I get picked up for anything more serious than dropping litter where I live, I’ll be on the next plane home and it’ll be on me to argue my case to be allowed back! That my wife also lives here, and is currently fostering a cute little kitten, are not valid reasons.
"This is how almost every other country in the world works." Evidence?
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
The incessant vitriol toward Starmer on here is insane.
It’s consonant with his polling - possibly the worst in history - and the British public mood. I’ve never known a prime minister attract such hatred and scorn - not even Boris. Truss was too brief
The polling shows that even Labour Party voters abhor him - as confirmed by PB lefty @nico67 - “I don’t know anyone that approves of him”
You probably don’t get a sense of this from your eyrie in Manhattan
Actually I do get all of that. Starmer’s astonishing insipidness is maddening, and his main ally, Reeves, has been hopeless.
However, even accounting for that, the criticism is off the charts.
A fair-minded observer would allow that he is trying to govern what seems to have become ungovernable country. A fair-minded observer would also note that no other current party leader is likely to do any better; more likely even worse.
Trying to be fair-minded, Starmer's underlying problem is that like Rishi before him, he doesn't really have any real political beliefs, so he is not really driving the ship of state but simply trying to stay afloat.
And I disagree that no-one could do better. Labour are a party for the good times and their problem is they have inherited a bad situation and are being forced to make tough choices they don't want to make. If we had a situation where Labour had just been kicked out and Badenoch or Farage had just come in with a big majority, then I'm sure they would find it a lot easier to make the necessary cuts.
Rishi was actually quite a serious fiscal dry.
Really? EOTHO and an incredibly generous furlough scheme along with loans to various companies many, many of which were never recovered. You can argue the rights and wrongs of it but our response to Covid was nothing less than profligate.
If you read any of the deeper profiles of Sunak, he is more Thatcherite than Thatcherite, economically speaking.
However he is not unorthodox. The furlough scheme was sound economics.
I think the jury is out on Covid profiligacy. In certain, respects, absolutely. In macro? Not sure.
LibDems are very visible and successful in about 100 constituencies. We are invisible in the rest.
If you live in a LibDem area, you know about it. If you don't you don't.
LibDems have very little national visibility. This partly because the LibDem strategy has been to concentrate on areas of geographic strength and downplay national visibility. It is also because the media, including the BBC, neglect the Lib Dems, either for partisan reasons or because we are not newsworthy. No scandals or defections.
With the current strategy, Lib Dems will be hard pressed to win 100 seats next time. But how to get national visibility? It is not about policies, - we have fistfuls of policies. Perhaps our more colourful personalities need to step up? Stunts aren't the answer. Scandals might be. Where is our Jeremy Thorpe? It needs to newsworthy. Perhaps the @RochdalePioneers approach nationally?
Sponsored Teslas for the entire Lib Dem Shadow Cabinet !!!
The incessant vitriol toward Starmer on here is insane.
It’s consonant with his polling - possibly the worst in history - and the British public mood. I’ve never known a prime minister attract such hatred and scorn - not even Boris. Truss was too brief
The polling shows that even Labour Party voters abhor him - as confirmed by PB lefty @nico67 - “I don’t know anyone that approves of him”
You probably don’t get a sense of this from your eyrie in Manhattan
Actually I do get all of that. Starmer’s astonishing insipidness is maddening, and his main ally, Reeves, has been hopeless.
However, even accounting for that, the criticism is off the charts.
A fair-minded observer would allow that he is trying to govern what seems to have become ungovernable country. A fair-minded observer would also note that no other current party leader is likely to do any better; more likely even worse.
Trying to be fair-minded, Starmer's underlying problem is that like Rishi before him, he doesn't really have any real political beliefs, so he is not really driving the ship of state but simply trying to stay afloat.
And I disagree that no-one could do better. Labour are a party for the good times and their problem is they have inherited a bad situation and are being forced to make tough choices they don't want to make. If we had a situation where Labour had just been kicked out and Badenoch or Farage had just come in with a big majority, then I'm sure they would find it a lot easier to make the necessary cuts.
Rishi was actually quite a serious fiscal dry.
Really? EOTHO and an incredibly generous furlough scheme along with loans to various companies many, many of which were never recovered. You can argue the rights and wrongs of it but our response to Covid was nothing less than profligate.
I'm pretty sure that Rishi wanted low taxes and a small state. Trouble is, he couldn't really find meaningful ways of shrinking the state- despite being Chief Sec, Chancellor and PM. The best he could come up with was an ongoing public sector pay squeeze.
So he ended up having to put taxes up in the background, but not by enough to cover spending.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
The family victims are clearly being exploited by Starmer’s political enemies. And to defend Starmer, as I am essentially doing so here, is not to excuse paedophilic crimes, either.
You have form for pearl-clutching and shroud-waving, and you are doing so again. Admittedly, this time you have much of the politico-media complex alongside you.
To me this is the same as partygate. Pointless trivia, has annoyed a load of people but its done.
No, i disagree. The PM has been caught expressing confidence whilst ignoring/avoiding evidence available, proper due diligence in the appointment was not apparently done, the story is changing on an hour to hour, day to day basis as they fire fight. He may have misled parliament. We need to know what other decisions he is short cutting or making whilst not looking at the evidence and information. This goes to the heart of his and his 'teams' competence and appropriateness to lead the nation. Quite right he is being held to account and shameful he is hiding from scrutiny. In my opinion.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
The family victims are clearly being exploited by Starmer’s political enemies. And to defend Starmer, as I am essentially doing so here, is not to excuse paedophilic crimes, either.
You have form for pearl-clutching and shroud-waving, and you are doing so again. Admittedly, this time you have much of the politico-media complex alongside you.
Reporting on politics is not pearl clutching or shroud waving and insults indicate you have no actual case
Ed Davey has just asked Starmer to give the victims families a personal apology
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
A Labour mp has specifically referred to this interview and how their voice has to be heard
Epstein has brought down a British prince, ambassador, and bank CEO* I think his victim’s voices are well-rehearsed in the UK.
I can’t think of anyone in the U.S. who has been brought down.
*yes I know Staley is American himself.
That is a matter for US but this is the UK and Ed Davey is speaking movingly about the victims
Well, do enjoy that spectacle. The tv license is indeed worth every penny.
LibDems are very visible and successful in about 100 constituencies. We are invisible in the rest.
If you live in a LibDem area, you know about it. If you don't you don't.
LibDems have very little national visibility. This partly because the LibDem strategy has been to concentrate on areas of geographic strength and downplay national visibility. It is also because the media, including the BBC, neglect the Lib Dems, either for partisan reasons or because we are not newsworthy. No scandals or defections.
With the current strategy, Lib Dems will be hard pressed to win 100 seats next time. But how to get national visibility? It is not about policies, - we have fistfuls of policies. Perhaps our more colourful personalities need to step up? Stunts aren't the answer. Scandals might be. Where is our Jeremy Thorpe? It needs to newsworthy. Perhaps the @RochdalePioneers approach nationally?
We apparently can't get MPs to go on the media when asked. So we have Matthew Hulbert as spokesperson on Talk Tory TV etc. I like Matthew, but he is just an activist. Where are our many many elected representatives?
I'm liking this.
Sponsored Teslas for the Lib Dem bigwigs and @RochdalePioneers co-hosting with Lee Anderson on GBNews.
Of course, there's a debate about Lord Mandelbrot. *
* I'll use it one last time before he vanishes without trace.
Another indicator of British decline. Not a subject worthy of an “emergency debate”. Just circus stuff.
How many hours of emergency debate have we had about Russian violating Polish territory?
I despair at this and I am one of life’s optimists.
Poland closing ofthe railway lines from Belarus, in retaliation for airspace violations last week, appears to be getting Beijing’s attention, thousands of containers already getting backed up.
Land transport from China to Europe is a €25bn/year business, and 90% of it runs through Belarus and Poland!
Those that buy Shien, Temu or similar appear to be addicted to it no matter how poor the quality or how dodgy the provenance of the source - cos it's cheap. We need some motivated pensioners to form JSS - Just Stop Shien.
"Suzanne Moore I went for dinner with Peter Mandelson – he’s blind to people of lower status The way the disgraced ambassador behaved towards the waiting staff spoke volumes about his lust for power" (£)
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
The family victims are clearly being exploited by Starmer’s political enemies. And to defend Starmer, as I am essentially doing so here, is not to excuse paedophilic crimes, either.
You have form for pearl-clutching and shroud-waving, and you are doing so again. Admittedly, this time you have much of the politico-media complex alongside you.
Reporting on politics is not pearl clutching or shroud waving and insults indicate you have no actual case
Ed Davey has just asked Starmer to give the victims families a personal apology
Presumably with one eye on the daft and emotionally incontinent pensioner vote.
"Suzanne Moore I went for dinner with Peter Mandelson – he’s blind to people of lower status The way the disgraced ambassador behaved towards the waiting staff spoke volumes about his lust for power" (£)
The incessant vitriol toward Starmer on here is insane.
It’s consonant with his polling - possibly the worst in history - and the British public mood. I’ve never known a prime minister attract such hatred and scorn - not even Boris. Truss was too brief
The polling shows that even Labour Party voters abhor him - as confirmed by PB lefty @nico67 - “I don’t know anyone that approves of him”
You probably don’t get a sense of this from your eyrie in Manhattan
Actually I do get all of that. Starmer’s astonishing insipidness is maddening, and his main ally, Reeves, has been hopeless.
However, even accounting for that, the criticism is off the charts.
A fair-minded observer would allow that he is trying to govern what seems to have become ungovernable country. A fair-minded observer would also note that no other current party leader is likely to do any better; more likely even worse.
Trying to be fair-minded, Starmer's underlying problem is that like Rishi before him, he doesn't really have any real political beliefs, so he is not really driving the ship of state but simply trying to stay afloat.
And I disagree that no-one could do better. Labour are a party for the good times and their problem is they have inherited a bad situation and are being forced to make tough choices they don't want to make. If we had a situation where Labour had just been kicked out and Badenoch or Farage had just come in with a big majority, then I'm sure they would find it a lot easier to make the necessary cuts.
Rishi was actually quite a serious fiscal dry.
Really? EOTHO and an incredibly generous furlough scheme along with loans to various companies many, many of which were never recovered. You can argue the rights and wrongs of it but our response to Covid was nothing less than profligate.
I'm pretty sure that Rishi wanted low taxes and a small state. Trouble is, he couldn't really find meaningful ways of shrinking the state- despite being Chief Sec, Chancellor and PM. The best he could come up with was an ongoing public sector pay squeeze.
So he ended up having to put taxes up in the background, but not by enough to cover spending.
Yes, I think that is fair. He had good intentions and was smart enough to see the negative consequences of large deficits but he struggled to bring his party with him on cuts, bit like Reeves really.
"Suzanne Moore I went for dinner with Peter Mandelson – he’s blind to people of lower status The way the disgraced ambassador behaved towards the waiting staff spoke volumes about his lust for power" (£)
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
The incessant vitriol toward Starmer on here is insane.
It’s consonant with his polling - possibly the worst in history - and the British public mood. I’ve never known a prime minister attract such hatred and scorn - not even Boris. Truss was too brief
The polling shows that even Labour Party voters abhor him - as confirmed by PB lefty @nico67 - “I don’t know anyone that approves of him”
You probably don’t get a sense of this from your eyrie in Manhattan
Actually I do get all of that. Starmer’s astonishing insipidness is maddening, and his main ally, Reeves, has been hopeless.
However, even accounting for that, the criticism is off the charts.
A fair-minded observer would allow that he is trying to govern what seems to have become ungovernable country. A fair-minded observer would also note that no other current party leader is likely to do any better; more likely even worse.
Trying to be fair-minded, Starmer's underlying problem is that like Rishi before him, he doesn't really have any real political beliefs, so he is not really driving the ship of state but simply trying to stay afloat.
And I disagree that no-one could do better. Labour are a party for the good times and their problem is they have inherited a bad situation and are being forced to make tough choices they don't want to make. If we had a situation where Labour had just been kicked out and Badenoch or Farage had just come in with a big majority, then I'm sure they would find it a lot easier to make the necessary cuts.
Rishi was actually quite a serious fiscal dry.
Really? EOTHO and an incredibly generous furlough scheme along with loans to various companies many, many of which were never recovered. You can argue the rights and wrongs of it but our response to Covid was nothing less than profligate.
If you read any of the deeper profiles of Sunak, he is more Thatcherite than Thatcherite, economically speaking.
However he is not unorthodox. The furlough scheme was sound economics.
I think the jury is out on Covid profiligacy. In certain, respects, absolutely. In macro? Not sure.
As I said, I think that you can argue it either way. He certainly restricted the damage that Covid and our shutdown policies did to our economy but the price was high.
LibDems are very visible and successful in about 100 constituencies. We are invisible in the rest.
If you live in a LibDem area, you know about it. If you don't you don't.
LibDems have very little national visibility. This partly because the LibDem strategy has been to concentrate on areas of geographic strength and downplay national visibility. It is also because the media, including the BBC, neglect the Lib Dems, either for partisan reasons or because we are not newsworthy. No scandals or defections.
With the current strategy, Lib Dems will be hard pressed to win 100 seats next time. But how to get national visibility? It is not about policies, - we have fistfuls of policies. Perhaps our more colourful personalities need to step up? Stunts aren't the answer. Scandals might be. Where is our Jeremy Thorpe? It needs to newsworthy. Perhaps the @RochdalePioneers approach nationally?
We apparently can't get MPs to go on the media when asked. So we have Matthew Hulbert as spokesperson on Talk Tory TV etc. I like Matthew, but he is just an activist. Where are our many many elected representatives?
I'm liking this.
Sponsored Teslas for the Lib Dem bigwigs and @RochdalePioneers co-hosting with Lee Anderson on GBNews.
Of course, there's a debate about Lord Mandelbrot. *
* I'll use it one last time before he vanishes without trace.
He can't. The Mandelbrot Set is always there, never mind how far away the cow is.
"Suzanne Moore I went for dinner with Peter Mandelson – he’s blind to people of lower status The way the disgraced ambassador behaved towards the waiting staff spoke volumes about his lust for power" (£)
I find myself warming to Peter Mandelson after reading that.
Do you think it is acceptable to be rude to a waitress? I thought your cocktail waitress headline previously was rather sexist and snobbish. (Yes, I know it is a song.)
Anway, I have just learnt that Robert Redford has died so I am going into mourning.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
"Suzanne Moore I went for dinner with Peter Mandelson – he’s blind to people of lower status The way the disgraced ambassador behaved towards the waiting staff spoke volumes about his lust for power" (£)
I find myself warming to Peter Mandelson after reading that.
Do you think it is acceptable to be rude to a waitress? I thought your cocktail waitress headline previously was rather sexist and snobbish. (Yes, I know it is a song.)
Anway, I have just learnt that Robert Redford has died so I am going into mourning.
I am somebody who is always very well mannered.
I have never been rude to staff even on the occasion one of them spilled my food and drink all over me.
Be nice to people and you’ll receive kindness back.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Disagree.
Johnson and his team asked the country to make enormous sacrifices that - it was revealed - they themselves were not willing to make.
"Suzanne Moore I went for dinner with Peter Mandelson – he’s blind to people of lower status The way the disgraced ambassador behaved towards the waiting staff spoke volumes about his lust for power" (£)
I had lunch once with Peter Mandelson (and about twenty other people). I arrived late and had to sit right next to him! He is a rather chilly person, an exception to the general rule that politicians tend to be affable IRL. John Redwood possibly the only pol I've met who was more unfriendly. Starmer wasn't very likeable either. I don't remember him being notably rude or offhand with the waiting staff. Unfortunately it is the norm for important people to treat waiting staff as though they are not there. John Major is an exception. He is usually nicer to the waiting staff than to the people who are paying to meet him!
The incessant vitriol toward Starmer on here is insane.
It’s consonant with his polling - possibly the worst in history - and the British public mood. I’ve never known a prime minister attract such hatred and scorn - not even Boris. Truss was too brief
The polling shows that even Labour Party voters abhor him - as confirmed by PB lefty @nico67 - “I don’t know anyone that approves of him”
You probably don’t get a sense of this from your eyrie in Manhattan
Actually I do get all of that. Starmer’s astonishing insipidness is maddening, and his main ally, Reeves, has been hopeless.
However, even accounting for that, the criticism is off the charts.
A fair-minded observer would allow that he is trying to govern what seems to have become ungovernable country. A fair-minded observer would also note that no other current party leader is likely to do any better; more likely even worse.
Trying to be fair-minded, Starmer's underlying problem is that like Rishi before him, he doesn't really have any real political beliefs, so he is not really driving the ship of state but simply trying to stay afloat.
And I disagree that no-one could do better. Labour are a party for the good times and their problem is they have inherited a bad situation and are being forced to make tough choices they don't want to make. If we had a situation where Labour had just been kicked out and Badenoch or Farage had just come in with a big majority, then I'm sure they would find it a lot easier to make the necessary cuts.
Rishi was actually quite a serious fiscal dry.
Really? EOTHO and an incredibly generous furlough scheme along with loans to various companies many, many of which were never recovered. You can argue the rights and wrongs of it but our response to Covid was nothing less than profligate.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Partygate seems neither comparable or trivial. We've recently had more revelations about Johnson holding gatherings in breach of the rules as well.
The incessant vitriol toward Starmer on here is insane.
Representative of public opinion
Is it really tough?
The vast vast vast majority of the people i know rarely talk about politics, when they do it's with horror about Reform.
I'm not remotely suggesting my circle of friends is remotely representative, just like those you know be either.
"With horror about Reform" doesn't sound very representative when they've got from 15% to 30% over the last 12 months.
It's a political forum, so it attracts people interested in politics. Most people aren't very interested (until it affects them). But I did a lot of canvassing in the local elections last year in a ward that ultimately went Reform. Very few voters were openly pro-Reform (by contrast, Tories and LibDems were generally pretty frank), saying instead things like "I'll decide on the day" - it was still I think seen as slightly disreputable. I think that is gradually changing as people get used to the idea of a possible Reform government, especially with the accretion of people like Kruger who are not obviously loonies. That's not to say that most people regard them as a respectable choice (like Kurt I don't actually know anyone who is openly p[ro-Reform), but they're not seen as obvious fruitcakes.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Partygate seems neither comparable or trivial. We've recently had more revelations about Johnson holding gatherings in breach of the rules as well.
Partygate was exceptionally trivial compared to this. Our government gave the top diplomatic post to a man, ahead of all the better-qualified candidates. to a man who has had strong links with a known sex offender and child trafficker. Worse than that, a man who has had lots of *interesting* connections with people from Russia and other countries who are not friends of ours.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Partygate seems neither comparable or trivial. We've recently had more revelations about Johnson holding gatherings in breach of the rules as well.
Put it this way.
If the parties were so trivial, why bother lying about them?
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Partygate seems neither comparable or trivial. We've recently had more revelations about Johnson holding gatherings in breach of the rules as well.
Partygate was certainly not trivial on the doorstep. When I was canvassing in the West Country one old boy burst into tears when the topic came up.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Partygate seems neither comparable or trivial. We've recently had more revelations about Johnson holding gatherings in breach of the rules as well.
Partygate was exceptionally trivial compared to this. Our government gave the top diplomatic post to a man, ahead of all the better-qualified candidates. to a man who has had strong links with a known sex offender and child trafficker. Worse than that, a man who has had lots of *interesting* connections with people from Russia and other countries who are not friends of ours.
The damage Mandelson could have done is immense.
Ambassador to the USA is more important internationally than most gov't jobs, bar the PM and Foreign Secretary, certainly far more important than Government Deputy Chief Whip & Treasurer of the Household (Pincher's positions before exiting Gov't). Boris was ultimately hung for that error, and though the Starmer - Mandelson - Epstein link is a step removed from Johnson - Pincher the seriousness of Mandelson's position makes Starmer's error on this just as bad as Johnson's imo.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Partygate seems neither comparable or trivial. We've recently had more revelations about Johnson holding gatherings in breach of the rules as well.
Partygate was exceptionally trivial compared to this. Our government gave the top diplomatic post to a man, ahead of all the better-qualified candidates. to a man who has had strong links with a known sex offender and child trafficker. Worse than that, a man who has had lots of *interesting* connections with people from Russia and other countries who are not friends of ours.
The damage Mandelson could have done is immense.
Mandelson was a fool in his choice of friends, but the evidence of wrongdoing or impact on his diplomatic post is absent. With Partygate, the Prime Minister and his staff repeatedly broke the law and Johnson repeatedly lied to Parliament.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Disagree.
Johnson and his team asked the country to make enormous sacrifices that - it was revealed - they themselves were not willing to make.
I disagree with this. For the most part they did make those sacrifices but, as for most people, they bent the rules on occasion. Most people did. Some did not.
The bigger issue was the rules themselves, which were often moronic and not up to date with out knowledge of the virus.
"Suzanne Moore I went for dinner with Peter Mandelson – he’s blind to people of lower status The way the disgraced ambassador behaved towards the waiting staff spoke volumes about his lust for power" (£)
I find myself warming to Peter Mandelson after reading that.
Do you think it is acceptable to be rude to a waitress? I thought your cocktail waitress headline previously was rather sexist and snobbish. (Yes, I know it is a song.)
Anway, I have just learnt that Robert Redford has died so I am going into mourning.
I am somebody who is always very well mannered.
I have never been rude to staff even on the occasion one of them spilled my food and drink all over me.
Be nice to people and you’ll receive kindness back.
Yes, and you don't want to know what will end up in your food/drinks if you are rude.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Partygate seems neither comparable or trivial. We've recently had more revelations about Johnson holding gatherings in breach of the rules as well.
Partygate was certainly not trivial on the doorstep. When I was canvassing in the West Country one old boy burst into tears when the topic came up.
And I am sure that you can find many similarly aghast at Mandelson - victims of childhood sexual abuse for instance. The point upthread is that there are serious issues affecting the country yet parliament is wasting three hours on this. I felt the same about partygate.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
I was being facetious about executing Mandelson; the British Right probably wouldn't go that far. But Mandelson for them is a diabolical figure, who engineered a decade of Tony Blair and brought death into the world, and all our woe, with loss of Eden, till one greater man (Nigel) restore us, and regain the blissful seat.
That really isn't it.
Mandelson is a man who was forced to resign from government twice. Since leaving as an MP, he has developed lots of interesting contacts, and seemingly is a considerably richer man. The PM then brings him back, ignoring all of the above, and it has not ended well.
Mandelson may be seen by many as a diabolical man because he is slightly, if not diabolical, totally unsuited for the role?
You may like Mandelson because of his political skills. That doesn't mean he is a nice, or good, person.
(I am on record on praising his oratorical and poltiical skills.)
I have never met the man, but those I know who have paint a consistent picture. Consistently Peter Mandelson is a shit.
Sir Kier Starmer must have known Mandelson's reputation, since it is very widely known and even the suggestion that he should go to DC was greeted with howls of protest across the political spectrum- especially, and this is important, from Starmer's own colleagues who also know Peter Mandelson. Despite this, Starmer nevertheless decided to take the risk, on the grounds that Mandelson does have undoubted gifts in schmoozing bigger shits than himself, and the UK, post Brexit, is in something of a diplomatic hole.
However, Starmer knew, he must have known the risk he was taking, yet he did not do the due diligence or if he did he ignored the implications. That is a clear failure of judgement. If you are going to take the risk of appointing Mandelson, as a minimum you should have a get out clause, and SKS did not. It is not as if the appointment of this notably odious man was uncontroversial- it was widely, rightly condemned, but Starmer stood out to get him and that was a failure of judgement.
I think those calling for Starmer's own head won't get it, but continuing failures will lead to rebellion. Ed Davey has been criticized for his anti Trump stance, but that is certainly where most Labour MPs would be, if they could.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Partygate seems neither comparable or trivial. We've recently had more revelations about Johnson holding gatherings in breach of the rules as well.
Partygate was exceptionally trivial compared to this. Our government gave the top diplomatic post to a man, ahead of all the better-qualified candidates. to a man who has had strong links with a known sex offender and child trafficker. Worse than that, a man who has had lots of *interesting* connections with people from Russia and other countries who are not friends of ours.
The damage Mandelson could have done is immense.
Ambassador to the USA is more important internationally than most gov't jobs, bar the PM and Foreign Secretary, certainly far more important than Government Deputy Chief Whip & Treasurer of the Household (Pincher's positions before exiting Gov't). Boris was ultimately hung for that error, and though the Starmer - Mandelson - Epstein link is a step removed from Johnson - Pincher the seriousness of Mandelson's position makes Starmer's error on this just as bad as Johnson's imo.
The link is one removed from Mandelson. Pincher committed sexual misconduct. Mandelson is not accused of having done so.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Partygate seems neither comparable or trivial. We've recently had more revelations about Johnson holding gatherings in breach of the rules as well.
Partygate was exceptionally trivial compared to this. Our government gave the top diplomatic post to a man, ahead of all the better-qualified candidates. to a man who has had strong links with a known sex offender and child trafficker. Worse than that, a man who has had lots of *interesting* connections with people from Russia and other countries who are not friends of ours.
The damage Mandelson could have done is immense.
Ambassador to the USA is more important internationally than most gov't jobs, bar the PM and Foreign Secretary, certainly far more important than Government Deputy Chief Whip & Treasurer of the Household (Pincher's positions before exiting Gov't). Boris was ultimately hung for that error, and though the Starmer - Mandelson - Epstein link is a step removed from Johnson - Pincher the seriousness of Mandelson's position makes Starmer's error on this just as bad as Johnson's imo.
Ambassador to the US is an important diplomatic role, but it's one with less autonomy than government positions and the really important bilateral discussions are done President<->PM.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Partygate seems neither comparable or trivial. We've recently had more revelations about Johnson holding gatherings in breach of the rules as well.
Partygate was exceptionally trivial compared to this. Our government gave the top diplomatic post to a man, ahead of all the better-qualified candidates. to a man who has had strong links with a known sex offender and child trafficker. Worse than that, a man who has had lots of *interesting* connections with people from Russia and other countries who are not friends of ours.
The damage Mandelson could have done is immense.
Mandelson was a fool in his choice of friends, but the evidence of wrongdoing or impact on his diplomatic post is absent. With Partygate, the Prime Minister and his staff repeatedly broke the law and Johnson repeatedly lied to Parliament.
It is more than just "Mandelson was a fool in his choice of friends." There's a three-hour debate going on at the moment about the problems with his appointment, and the Epstein links are probably the least of them on a global aspect.
Comments
Yes I’m one of his biggest critics, so be it. It did drive me crazy how he got away with such slippery lies and evasion, then was elected so luckily with so few votes, but now the chickens are coming home to roost I am well pleased
The original theory- means-testing pensions is bad, because that discourages most people from saving- is sound. That means the basic pension needs to be basic but not too basic, and the Thatcher formula was a bit too stingy for that. So a gentle uplift was the right thing to do- the mistake in 2010 was not inculding a sunset trigger.
Trouble is that any announcement would send the dishonest sector of the media bezerk. And that's most of it.
And I disagree that no-one could do better. Labour are a party for the good times and their problem is they have inherited a bad situation and are being forced to make tough choices they don't want to make. If we had a situation where Labour had just been kicked out and Badenoch or Farage had just come in with a big majority, then I'm sure they would find it a lot easier to make the necessary cuts.
During the five-day hearing, he denied "knowingly" providing false information. One allegation suggested Mr Mohindru lied during a job interview about studying biomedical science at the University of Oxford, but the company found no record of a student with his name.
This was followed up with a CV in which he claimed to have studied medicine at the university from 1993 to 1994.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpw17nkddp0o
I tripped and fell and University of Oxford ended up on my CV. I have no recollection how that occurred.
“1p increase on a can of beer but the introduction of ‘tap relief’ – meaning that duty on a pint of beer or cider sold from containers of ten litres or more will reduce by 5.4 pence per pint.”
From the left for trans, Gaza, spending, welfare, WFA, sucking up to Trump and the bizarre attacks on a crap Northern Irish band and a bunch of Palestine protestors.
From the middle and the right it’s about being completely run by the courts - he seems to have subcontracted his conscience to the Supreme Court - and loading taxes on employment. Then not finding growth.
Note the dismal showing among Labour Party members. Who are not, generally, glued to GB News.
It's an issue; an emergency it is not.
Thing is, the Cameron administration was the most legitimately *Right Wing government in 40 years.
(*Actually being on, and of, the Right, rather than whatever arbitrary Lefty strawman is considered 'right wing' these days)
Getting the centrist dads on board was always just clever set-dressing. That demographic is slightly dimwitted and easily-duped, with superficial values and a shallow understanding of politics.
The sort of idiots that will retweet generic protestations about '14 years of Tory failure', completely forgetting that several of those years were actually pretty good, and they themselves supported them at the time.
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
I get what you're saying, but it suggests some kind of boundary around categories, which doesn't really exist anymore.
1) announce gradual merger of employee NI into income tax over the Parliament.
2) with a preserved basic rate for pensioners, so only pensioners over £50k pay more.
3) sort out the tax rates. Personal allowance re-fixed. Simple rates above that to collect about the same (or a little more) + NI
4) all old age pensioner benefits in the blender. Come out with means tested/taxable result. “More money for Mrs Miggins on her state pension.”
5) crackdown on using “Contracting” to pay less than minimum wage to staff - see Deliveroo. Make companies legally responsible for the contractors and their actions. So no more out sourcing enforcement. (This would also slam illegal employment)
This would save money, make the markets happy, raise more (through NI) and would be much more appealing to Labour members than what happened.
Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
That was financed by state and local government asset sales, and a huge North Sea oil dividend, an average inflation rate of over 7% during the 80s, and eviscerated whole segments of UK industry.
Oh, and regular defence cuts.
They improvised.
Quite why three series couldn't be tracked with the pension just hopping between when it was set up I'm not sure. It'd still be a triple lock !
Yellow is what was used to switch, green would be the "sane" plan, blue is when they matched up.
Mandelson is a man who was forced to resign from government twice. Since leaving as an MP, he has developed lots of interesting contacts, and seemingly is a considerably richer man. The PM then brings him back, ignoring all of the above, and it has not ended well.
Mandelson may be seen by many as a diabolical man because he is slightly, if not diabolical, totally unsuited for the role?
You may like Mandelson because of his political skills. That doesn't mean he is a nice, or good, person.
(I am on record on praising his oratorical and poltiical skills.)
Starmer is at heart a human rights lawyer. Sadly, he doesn’t seem to have given broader economic or policy issues much thought in his 50-something years, and he surrounded himself with fantasists and grudge-holders of various stripes.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
The relevant CPI figure expected to be be 3
8% when released tomorrow morning. So still a 1% uplift.
I wonder how jealous BoZo is on a daily basis
He wanted so badly to be World King and Donny Boy just went ahead and did it!
You have form for pearl-clutching and shroud-waving, and you are doing so again. Admittedly, this time you have much of the politico-media complex alongside you.
I rate Mandelson very highly but given the arguments about the disclosure of the Epstein files before and after the election it was a bizarre misjudgement by Starmer.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
I can’t think of anyone in the U.S. who has been brought down.
*yes I know Staley is American himself.
Anyone trying to whitewash this issue needs to understand that Mandelson is toxic and it will not be swept away under the carpet
I went for dinner with Peter Mandelson – he’s blind to people of lower status
The way the disgraced ambassador behaved towards the waiting staff spoke volumes about his lust for power" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/16/went-dinner-lord-mandelson-blind-people-lower-status
The claim that someone was not deported because they had a cat was just straight up wrong: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15171980
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
However he is not unorthodox. The furlough scheme was sound economics.
I think the jury is out on Covid profiligacy. In certain, respects, absolutely. In macro? Not sure.
They should be focusing on crucial matters, like the PM himself
@Keir_Starmer
·
11m
Congratulations to the cast and crew of Adolescence – an impressive sweep of wins at the Emmys.
I met with the show's creators and campaigners earlier this year to talk about the issues Adolescence raised.
Its success is a reminder that we need to keep conversations going.
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1967930797933072526
So he ended up having to put taxes up in the background, but not by enough to cover spending.
We need to know what other decisions he is short cutting or making whilst not looking at the evidence and information.
This goes to the heart of his and his 'teams' competence and appropriateness to lead the nation. Quite right he is being held to account and shameful he is hiding from scrutiny.
In my opinion.
Ed Davey has just asked Starmer to give the victims families a personal apology
The tv license is indeed worth every penny.
Sponsored Teslas for the Lib Dem bigwigs and @RochdalePioneers co-hosting with Lee Anderson on GBNews.
Of course, there's a debate about Lord Mandelbrot. *
* I'll use it one last time before he vanishes without trace.
100% Starmer's X isn't his own work.
Do you know who I am?, iirc.
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Anway, I have just learnt that Robert Redford has died so I am going into mourning.
I have never been rude to staff even on the occasion one of them spilled my food and drink all over me.
Be nice to people and you’ll receive kindness back.
Johnson and his team asked the country to make enormous sacrifices that - it was revealed - they themselves were not willing to make.
My father (90) told me last night that he was aiming for 102, as that was the age of some lady he “saw on the news”.
The damage Mandelson could have done is immense.
If the parties were so trivial, why bother lying about them?
https://liberalengland.blogspot.com/2025/09/guest-post-defections-update-lib-dem.html
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/12/19/is-trump-seeking-to-enter-godels-loophole/
Well done to @bigjohnowls and @carnforth for getting it right...
The bigger issue was the rules themselves, which were often moronic and not up to date with out knowledge of the virus.
Consistently Peter Mandelson is a shit.
Sir Kier Starmer must have known Mandelson's reputation, since it is very widely known and even the suggestion that he should go to DC was greeted with howls of protest across the political spectrum- especially, and this is important, from Starmer's own colleagues who also know Peter Mandelson. Despite this, Starmer nevertheless decided to take the risk, on the grounds that Mandelson does have undoubted gifts in schmoozing bigger shits than himself, and the UK, post Brexit, is in something of a diplomatic hole.
However, Starmer knew, he must have known the risk he was taking, yet he did not do the due diligence or if he did he ignored the implications.
That is a clear failure of judgement. If you are going to take the risk of appointing Mandelson, as a minimum you should have a get out clause, and SKS did not. It is not as if the appointment of this notably odious man was uncontroversial- it was widely, rightly condemned, but Starmer stood out to get him and that was a failure of judgement.
I think those calling for Starmer's own head won't get it, but continuing failures will lead to rebellion. Ed Davey has been criticized for his anti Trump stance, but that is certainly where most Labour MPs would be, if they could.
This is getting savage. I know Mandelson is a tough personality, but I hope he has (decent) friends around him at the moment.