Who can Starmer blame for Mandelson's appointment?
His paunchy paws are all over it
It’s a question what Starmer knew at the time. Or what can be proved he knew. And it’s not easy to get to that to be honest. Or failing that, merely a slap for should have known better and been more diligent as we would have been.
For preservation of true history, {I didn’t like it} but PB consensus liked the appointment. back Bench Conservative MPs stood up in commons said it was good appointment. What did Starmer know at tgst time that we didn’t, what the Conservatives didn’t?
Did UKs security Services not know the detail held in the Epstein Files? Is this the first time anyone’s found out the true depth of PantyPetes collusion with Epstein? Is this the first time anyone’s found out UK Business Secretary was carrying out what looks like insider trading using levers of governmental power in UK, with an investment financier friend?
Correct. Being wise after the event by the likes of Badenoch is not a good look. I don't want to be partisan but it was generally those of us on the left who disdn't approve of Mandelson's appointment. In my case as most others i suspect it was the kow-towing to the loathsome Trump that was particularly unattractive.
Always good to see history re-written
In what way? Mandelson was never popular inside Labour, hence the Blair quote: My project will be complete when the Labour party learns to love Peter Mandelson.
Mandelson was also absolutely central to the reinvention of Labour as a party of centrist managerialism, hence the Blair quote.
But it's also true he was always hated by the left. That's why the only people salivating more than the right and tory partisans over this are the left. They share a deep antipathy to the New Labour project.
I presume that we can assume that the intelligence services knew more about Mandelson than the general public knew when he was appointed Ambassador
What information was given to the Prime Minister that he forensically ignored?
What information was withheld from Starmer by the intelligence services?
Presumably none, because the security services didn't know the really juicy stuff.
(At least I hope they didn't know. If the spooks knew this for the last fifteen years and told nobody, that's even worse than them not knowing.)
Their record over friend to politicians and the royals Savile suggests not knowing is their standard mo.
And that's the most alarming prospect of all.
The last straw clutched by Britain Is Still Great types was that our spies were the best. Even if everything else was decaying, our secret agents were still the best. James Bond, John Steed, Mother and M and Q were still there doing it for Queen and country.
The idea that they didn't know what was happening doesn't compute. But yes- it probably should, no matter how traumatic to national pride.
Many, many years ago, at the start of my career, I was in a rather large meeting.
A subject came up, and the Big Man professed ignorance on that. I raised my hand and filled in the gaps. I was rather surprised that it received such a frosty reception.
Afterwards my boss told me, that telling a senior person something he doesn’t want to know, in public, is pretty much the worst sin.
Seems like a good time to remember some Frankie Boyle mockery of Mandelson (in terrible quality because it was the first hit and I cba finding a better one).
His comments on Thatcher's planned funeral were hilarious, whatever your views on her.
'She should have a state funeral. A lot of people will want to pay their respects to a great national leader. And a lot more will want to make sure she's really dead.'
Good joke, but not as good as his Diana joke:
I thought it was sad, you know, that they had that pop concert to commemorate Diana. I mean, she didn't have much to do with pop music, did she? They should've done something that celebrated what was really great about her life: By staging a gangbang in a minefield.
The follow up was funnier.
While Dara O'Briain was still staring with a shocked look on his face, Boyle turned to him with an engaging smile and said 'be interesting to see if that makes it in, to be honest.'
Funnily enough it didn’t make it into the TV show, and appeared in an outtakes DVD some years later.
A mate went to a recording of MtW around that time, and said they filmed for almost two hours to get a half hour show and a 45m re-edit. They just kept running, and the comics said all sorts of sh!t knowing that no-one had a phone in the audience.
New episodes for mock the week are being made and is back on some obscure tv channel, which many of the original people, but no Frankie Boyle or Hugh Dennis.
I’m sure it will be to the same high standard it was before its resting.
The last few seasons before it could cut were piss poor. It was the first few seasons that was the magic.
It’s that classic scandal that everyone can imagine and understand. Nothing complicated, just a guy wandering around a peaedo’s house in his underwear about to get a bung of £75,000. Even voters with an IQ down there with Leon can relate to that.
To freak him out, they should have had a dog for scale
What Mandy has done is off the scale.
So a Big Dog then.
Pause
Parenthetically, it is a slight consolation that this is a massive sex scandal at the heart of the British establishment and Boris is nowhere near it.
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
It does depend on what sort of PM we want, though. Since Thatcher and Blair, the UK model has centralised power in its leader such that it is often called ‘presidential’ - yet ironically, until Trump showed what is possible by stretching the boundaries, our PMs have had more power than any US president. Reagan was also thick as **** yet ran a decent presidency by picking people be trusted and letting them make most of the decisions, content just to be the front man. There’s no theoretical reason why a British government couldn’t run like that - it’s just that we’ve forgotten, not having been alive back in the day, how collective cabinet government actually might work.
In some respects that's the government you might have thought Johnson would run. It seems to be how he ran London when he was Mayor, which is how so much proper cycle infrastructure was built.
But instead he appointed Cummings and a bunch of non-entities who were willing to be nodding dogs.
Just as we are constantly reminded of Cameron's pearls of wisdom over too many tweets, Ricky Gervais words of wisdom of those celebrities making speeches at award ceremories stands the test of time.
Gervais normally annoys me, i just don’t get with him.
But that Golden Globes joke remains spot on.
The number of idiots at the Grammys saying “no borders”, from inside a very clear border with tickets required and armed security, then going home afterwards to their houses in gated communities…
It’s that classic scandal that everyone can imagine and understand. Nothing complicated, just a guy wandering around a peaedo’s house in his underwear about to get a bung of £75,000. Even voters with an IQ down there with Leon can relate to that.
This has cut through to the public and no matter how many excuses Starmer and his supporters make, as our PM and the person who appointed him they will deliver their verdict in due course
Well, yes, but it's three years to a General Election and we'll see how much "cut through" it has then.
For those opposed to Starmer and Labour, it re-enforces a view and there seems very little possible defence for Mandelson and his actions both past and more recent but the extent to which Mandelson matters very much in today's politics set against all the other issues and crises, it's harder to say.
I wouldn't want to be pounding the streets canvassing for Labour currently....
Apparently my comrades are getting a good response on the doorstep.
I can only think that they are canvassing each other.
Worth noting that the Clintons have agreed to appear to be questioned on the Epstein revelations. I imagine there will -from Bill- be a lot of 'taking the fifth', but it could be a real interesting show.
They’re actually going to turn up in Congress in person? 🎇
Yes:
The more interesting testimony, I suspect, will be Ms Clinton's. Bill will take the Fifth, because he has to. But Ms Clinton...
And fwiw, I suspect that quite a lot of people (of every political hue) will be nervous about those two testifying.
Didn’t the Clinton’s state that they would only testify if it’s public rather than in private? I imagine not being stupid people, they know who is going to be most nervous.
That was last week.
Now they said they wanted it to be private, with no cameras and their own note-taker producing the official record of the meeting.
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Ok, coming from you that's convinced me. It has to be Rayner. Sorry Wes.
The irony is, if this is what *finally* ends Starmer's premiership (as the historically low polls, constant u-turns, economy, anger of his own MPs, etc don't seem to have), Kingmaker Mandelson's long-term protege will ascend straight to No 10.
That just shows how cunning and clever Mandleson really is, coming up with this devious plot to deliver the UK our first gay PM. And such selflessness, willing to sacrifice his peerage, title and reputation in order to bring it about?
Worth noting that the Clintons have agreed to appear to be questioned on the Epstein revelations. I imagine there will -from Bill- be a lot of 'taking the fifth', but it could be a real interesting show.
They’re actually going to turn up in Congress in person? 🎇
Yes:
The more interesting testimony, I suspect, will be Ms Clinton's. Bill will take the Fifth, because he has to. But Ms Clinton...
And fwiw, I suspect that quite a lot of people (of every political hue) will be nervous about those two testifying.
Didn’t the Clinton’s state that they would only testify if it’s public rather than in private? I imagine not being stupid people, they know who is going to be most nervous.
That was last week.
Now they said they wanted it to be private, with no cameras and their own note-taker producing the official record of the meeting.
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
It does depend on what sort of PM we want, though. Since Thatcher and Blair, the UK model has centralised power in its leader such that it is often called ‘presidential’ - yet ironically, until Trump showed what is possible by stretching the boundaries, our PMs have had more power than any US president. Reagan was also thick as **** yet ran a decent presidency by picking people be trusted and letting them make most of the decisions, content just to be the front man. There’s no theoretical reason why a British government couldn’t run like that - it’s just that we’ve forgotten, not having been alive back in the day, how collective cabinet government actually might work.
In some respects that the government you might have thought Johnson would run. It seems to be how he run London when he was Mayor, which is why so much proper cycle infrastructure was built.
But instead he appointed Cummings and a bunch of non-entities who were willing to be nodding dogs.
But there's an absolutely critical difference:
- the London Mayor appoints officials who can't therefore become political rivals, and so pose no threat. They have no political power base and are entirely under the Mayor's thumb in terms of hiring, firing and preferment
- the UK government already has officials appointed through the civil service, which is politically neutral and the process isn't under the direct control of politicians. The PM appoints a team of politicians, who have their own power base and any of them might one day bring you down. Consequently Johnson's buried self awareness of his own essential inability to do the job, having winged every gig he'd been given through his life and escaped accountability for his many failures with humour, bluster and charm, led him to appoint people who he thought would pose him no threat. Aka a cabinet of people chosen specifically for their idiocy and incompetence.
Seems like a good time to remember some Frankie Boyle mockery of Mandelson (in terrible quality because it was the first hit and I cba finding a better one).
His comments on Thatcher's planned funeral were hilarious, whatever your views on her.
'She should have a state funeral. A lot of people will want to pay their respects to a great national leader. And a lot more will want to make sure she's really dead.'
Good joke, but not as good as his Diana joke:
I thought it was sad, you know, that they had that pop concert to commemorate Diana. I mean, she didn't have much to do with pop music, did she? They should've done something that celebrated what was really great about her life: By staging a gangbang in a minefield.
The follow up was funnier.
While Dara O'Briain was still staring with a shocked look on his face, Boyle turned to him with an engaging smile and said 'be interesting to see if that makes it in, to be honest.'
Funnily enough it didn’t make it into the TV show, and appeared in an outtakes DVD some years later.
A mate went to a recording of MtW around that time, and said they filmed for almost two hours to get a half hour show and a 45m re-edit. They just kept running, and the comics said all sorts of sh!t knowing that no-one had a phone in the audience.
New episodes for mock the week are being made and is back on some obscure tv channel, which many of the original people, but no Frankie Boyle or Hugh Dennis.
I’m sure it will be to the same high standard it was before its resting.
The last few seasons before it could cut were piss poor. It was the first few seasons that was the magic.
Yeah, the early stuff was really good. I even remember Frankie Boyle releasing a podcast/audio of jokes he was trying out for it.
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Ok, coming from you that's convinced me. It has to be Rayner. Sorry Wes.
The irony is, if this is what *finally* ends Starmer's premiership (as the historically low polls, constant u-turns, economy, anger of his own MPs, etc don't seem to have), Kingmaker Mandelson's long-term protege will ascend straight to No 10.
That just shows how cunning and clever Mandleson really is, coming up with this devious plot to deliver the UK our first gay PM. And such selflessness, willing to sacrifice his peerage, title and reputation in order to bring it about?
First gay PM? LOL.
I don't think Streeting is going to get it, from what I am hearing about the chaos engulfing the NHS/PHE merger. He seems to be taking the Jacob Rees-Mogg line on 'the Lord commands and it gets done' except it doesn't...
It’s that classic scandal that everyone can imagine and understand. Nothing complicated, just a guy wandering around a peaedo’s house in his underwear about to get a bung of £75,000. Even voters with an IQ down there with Leon can relate to that.
This has cut through to the public and no matter how many excuses Starmer and his supporters make, as our PM and the person who appointed him they will deliver their verdict in due course
Well, yes, but it's three years to a General Election and we'll see how much "cut through" it has then.
For those opposed to Starmer and Labour, it re-enforces a view and there seems very little possible defence for Mandelson and his actions both past and more recent but the extent to which Mandelson matters very much in today's politics set against all the other issues and crises, it's harder to say.
I wouldn't want to be pounding the streets canvassing for Labour currently....
Reform currently lead the polls and Farage is viewed as a possible PM. It is going to be very difficult for the Tories to coral voters back to them on the basis that Reform have no chance of winning the election.
Labour, on the other hand, are far better placed to convince Green voters (and Plaid and SNP voters to some extent) that they are the only realistic option to the Tories/Reform. I doubt anybody really thinks the Greens are actually going to win a GE. Also, outside of their target seats (which are mainly Tory) the Lib Dems are significantly more likely to vote Labour tactically to keep out Reform/Tories.
I am betting on the basis that the right wing vote will be far more evenly spilt than the left and that Labour will get back with about 30-35% of the vote.
Reform couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.
👀🚨Meanwhile, while Mandelson scandal is galloping along, I hear that Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman ended up WITH LABOUR MPs in the AYE lobby on lifting two child benefit cap.
A source tells me they “got on their phones trying to get instructions from Farage as to whether they should be there or not”
“They tried to leave at one point but got trapped as the doors were locked”
Reform source confirms this happened & says it was a ‘genuine mistake’ & neither MP registered a vote. All other Reform MPs voted against….
Take my hat off to Putin. This is all brilliant. Firstly obtain Compromat by activating his agent to utilise and enable Epstein who they knew was a pederast and thoroughly convincing individual able to entice and entrap those they wanted him to meet.
Then, if and when this comes to light use the fall-out to implement and achieve “active measures” and cause the West an existential crisis implicating most, if not all the major players in its economic and political system. It’s outstanding. It really is.
One has to ask who the puppet master in all of this mess is. And who the person who inherited the contacts and networks which allowed Epstein to run his thoroughly abhorrent (in ways the mainstream media has not even yet dared to report) is.
We’re concentrating on Mandy and Pandy, as we would. And should. But this goes so much deeper. And we’ve not even been told what else has happened.
I thought Epstein was a paedophile, not a paederast? Paederast is specifically underage boys.
Paedophile is better used in its traditional way as meaning someone attracted to pre pubescent children. Its current popular usage - applying it without much discrimination to older children and young people including sometimes people at or over the age of consent - is simply too wide, and applies to all sorts of conduct which is illegal, inappropriate, immoral, oppressive and appalling but different in kind from attraction to small children.
But then "I'm not a paedo - I only shag 14 year olds" is not really going to get the public on your side.
Seems like a good time to remember some Frankie Boyle mockery of Mandelson (in terrible quality because it was the first hit and I cba finding a better one).
His comments on Thatcher's planned funeral were hilarious, whatever your views on her.
'She should have a state funeral. A lot of people will want to pay their respects to a great national leader. And a lot more will want to make sure she's really dead.'
Good joke, but not as good as his Diana joke:
I thought it was sad, you know, that they had that pop concert to commemorate Diana. I mean, she didn't have much to do with pop music, did she? They should've done something that celebrated what was really great about her life: By staging a gangbang in a minefield.
The follow up was funnier.
While Dara O'Briain was still staring with a shocked look on his face, Boyle turned to him with an engaging smile and said 'be interesting to see if that makes it in, to be honest.'
Funnily enough it didn’t make it into the TV show, and appeared in an outtakes DVD some years later.
A mate went to a recording of MtW around that time, and said they filmed for almost two hours to get a half hour show and a 45m re-edit. They just kept running, and the comics said all sorts of sh!t knowing that no-one had a phone in the audience.
New episodes for mock the week are being made and is back on some obscure tv channel, which many of the original people, but no Frankie Boyle or Hugh Dennis.
I’m sure it will be to the same high standard it was before its resting.
The last few seasons before it could cut were piss poor. It was the first few seasons that was the magic.
Yeah, the early stuff was really good. I even remember Frankie Boyle releasing a podcast/audio of jokes he was trying out for it.
But it really lost its way. Rather like HIGNFY
Original Frankie was brilliant, just one of those moments in time that’s never coming back. If you were there, you were there…
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
It does depend on what sort of PM we want, though. Since Thatcher and Blair, the UK model has centralised power in its leader such that it is often called ‘presidential’ - yet ironically, until Trump showed what is possible by stretching the boundaries, our PMs have had more power than any US president. Reagan was also thick as **** yet ran a decent presidency by picking people be trusted and letting them make most of the decisions, content just to be the front man. There’s no theoretical reason why a British government couldn’t run like that - it’s just that we’ve forgotten, not having been alive back in the day, how collective cabinet government actually might work.
In some respects that the government you might have thought Johnson would run. It seems to be how he run London when he was Mayor, which is why so much proper cycle infrastructure was built.
But instead he appointed Cummings and a bunch of non-entities who were willing to be nodding dogs.
But there's an absolutely critical difference:
- the London Mayor appoints officials who can't therefore become political rivals, and so pose no threat. They have no political power base and are entirely under the Mayor's thumb in terms of hiring, firing and preferment
- the UK government already has officials appointed through the civil service, which is politically neutral and the process isn't under the direct control of politicians. The PM appoints a team of politicians, who have their own power base and any of them might one day bring you down. Consequently Johnson's buried self awareness of his own essential inability to do the job, having winged every gig he'd been given through his life and escaped accountability for his many failures with humour, bluster and charm, led him to appoint people who he thought would pose him no threat. Aka a cabinet of people chosen specifically for their idiocy and incompetence.
This suggests that Britain might usefully learn from the Swiss system, where the position of President of the Swiss Confederation rotates among the members of the Federal Council.
Seems like a good time to remember some Frankie Boyle mockery of Mandelson (in terrible quality because it was the first hit and I cba finding a better one).
His comments on Thatcher's planned funeral were hilarious, whatever your views on her.
'She should have a state funeral. A lot of people will want to pay their respects to a great national leader. And a lot more will want to make sure she's really dead.'
Good joke, but not as good as his Diana joke:
I thought it was sad, you know, that they had that pop concert to commemorate Diana. I mean, she didn't have much to do with pop music, did she? They should've done something that celebrated what was really great about her life: By staging a gangbang in a minefield.
The follow up was funnier.
While Dara O'Briain was still staring with a shocked look on his face, Boyle turned to him with an engaging smile and said 'be interesting to see if that makes it in, to be honest.'
Funnily enough it didn’t make it into the TV show, and appeared in an outtakes DVD some years later.
A mate went to a recording of MtW around that time, and said they filmed for almost two hours to get a half hour show and a 45m re-edit. They just kept running, and the comics said all sorts of sh!t knowing that no-one had a phone in the audience.
New episodes for mock the week are being made and is back on some obscure tv channel, which many of the original people, but no Frankie Boyle or Hugh Dennis.
I’m sure it will be to the same high standard it was before its resting.
The last few seasons before it could cut were piss poor. It was the first few seasons that was the magic.
Yeah, the early stuff was really good. I even remember Frankie Boyle releasing a podcast/audio of jokes he was trying out for it.
But it really lost its way. Rather like HIGNFY
Original Frankie was brilliant, just one of those moments in time that’s never coming back. If you were there, you were there…
He also did a show, Tramadol Nights, which ran for six episodes. Jokes and comic sketches. I enjoyed it but it wasn’t too well received.
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
It does depend on what sort of PM we want, though. Since Thatcher and Blair, the UK model has centralised power in its leader such that it is often called ‘presidential’ - yet ironically, until Trump showed what is possible by stretching the boundaries, our PMs have had more power than any US president. Reagan was also thick as **** yet ran a decent presidency by picking people be trusted and letting them make most of the decisions, content just to be the front man. There’s no theoretical reason why a British government couldn’t run like that - it’s just that we’ve forgotten, not having been alive back in the day, how collective cabinet government actually might work.
I usually agree with you because I think politically we are in the same neck of the woods but it's more complex.
The role of the Prime Minister isn't just "primus inter pares" but he or she is an almost de facto spokesperson for "the nation" by which I mean their view or opinion is constantly sought on every subject whether of relevance to Government or not it seems.
At the same time, the role of Foreign Secretary has become as devalued as that of the American Secretary of State or even the Russian Foreign Minister. Foreign policy has moved directly to the Prime Minister - this started, I think, with the coming of summits such as the G20, G7, NATO, EU etc where the leaders met and talked which wasn't the case in times past when you had Foreign Ministers to do that kind of thing.
It's also a nice diversion from what might seem the trivialities of domestic politics to be on the world stage with Presidents and other Prime Ministers in nice conference halls, hotels and the like.
The modern PM is therefore de facto Foreign Secretary leaving the Chancellor and the Home Secretary to deal with the tough questions of money and domestic matters.
Just as we are constantly reminded of Cameron's pearls of wisdom over too many tweets, Ricky Gervais words of wisdom of those celebrities making speeches at award ceremories stands the test of time.
Gervais normally annoys me, i just don’t get with him.
But that Golden Globes joke remains spot on.
The number of idiots at the Grammys saying “no borders”, from inside a very clear border with tickets required and armed security, then going home afterwards to their houses in gated communities…
“If you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a political platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent, and your God and f*** off, OK?”
Worth noting that the Clintons have agreed to appear to be questioned on the Epstein revelations. I imagine there will -from Bill- be a lot of 'taking the fifth', but it could be a real interesting show.
They’re actually going to turn up in Congress in person? 🎇
Yes:
The more interesting testimony, I suspect, will be Ms Clinton's. Bill will take the Fifth, because he has to. But Ms Clinton...
And fwiw, I suspect that quite a lot of people (of every political hue) will be nervous about those two testifying.
Didn’t the Clinton’s state that they would only testify if it’s public rather than in private? I imagine not being stupid people, they know who is going to be most nervous.
That was last week.
Now they said they wanted it to be private, with no cameras and their own note-taker producing the official record of the meeting.
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
It does depend on what sort of PM we want, though. Since Thatcher and Blair, the UK model has centralised power in its leader such that it is often called ‘presidential’ - yet ironically, until Trump showed what is possible by stretching the boundaries, our PMs have had more power than any US president. Reagan was also thick as **** yet ran a decent presidency by picking people be trusted and letting them make most of the decisions, content just to be the front man. There’s no theoretical reason why a British government couldn’t run like that - it’s just that we’ve forgotten, not having been alive back in the day, how collective cabinet government actually might work.
I usually agree with you because I think politically we are in the same neck of the woods but it's more complex.
The role of the Prime Minister isn't just "primus inter pares" but he or she is an almost de facto spokesperson for "the nation" by which I mean their view or opinion is constantly sought on every subject whether of relevance to Government or not it seems.
At the same time, the role of Foreign Secretary has become as devalued as that of the American Secretary of State or even the Russian Foreign Minister. Foreign policy has moved directly to the Prime Minister - this started, I think, with the coming of summits such as the G20, G7, NATO, EU etc where the leaders met and talked which wasn't the case in times past when you had Foreign Ministers to do that kind of thing.
It's also a nice diversion from what might seem the trivialities of domestic politics to be on the world stage with Presidents and other Prime Ministers in nice conference halls, hotels and the like.
The modern PM is therefore de facto Foreign Secretary leaving the Chancellor and the Home Secretary to deal with the tough questions of money and domestic matters.
Air travel killed the role of Foreign Secretary. Previously diplomacy in an age of slower travel required being out of the country for longer continuous periods, so it couldn't be done routinely by the PM.
But still. If the role of PM was weakened then the position of Foreign Secretary, as the representative of the Cabinet government abroad, would be rejuvenated.
The close friendship that Noam Chomsky maintained with Jeffrey Epstein continued being detailed extensively among millions of investigative records pertaining to the late convicted sex offender recently released by the US justice department, including Chomsky “fantasizing about the Caribbean island”.
Worth noting that the Clintons have agreed to appear to be questioned on the Epstein revelations. I imagine there will -from Bill- be a lot of 'taking the fifth', but it could be a real interesting show.
Bill might well be using the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity.
The close friendship that Noam Chomsky maintained with Jeffrey Epstein continued being detailed extensively among millions of investigative records pertaining to the late convicted sex offender recently released by the US justice department, including Chomsky “fantasizing about the Caribbean island”.
The mess he’s getting the Labour Party into. That continuing failed Tory policies was a bad and unpopular move. His own lack of charisma. Will that do for starters?
Worth noting that the Clintons have agreed to appear to be questioned on the Epstein revelations. I imagine there will -from Bill- be a lot of 'taking the fifth', but it could be a real interesting show.
They’re actually going to turn up in Congress in person? 🎇
Yes:
The more interesting testimony, I suspect, will be Ms Clinton's. Bill will take the Fifth, because he has to. But Ms Clinton...
And fwiw, I suspect that quite a lot of people (of every political hue) will be nervous about those two testifying.
Didn’t the Clinton’s state that they would only testify if it’s public rather than in private? I imagine not being stupid people, they know who is going to be most nervous.
That was last week.
Now they said they wanted it to be private, with no cameras and their own note-taker producing the official record of the meeting.
Can’t read most of the article, but AIUI it’s not going to be broadcast live on CSPAN, as one might expect these things to be?
It's not, but at least the transcript will be publicly available.
This sounds like a compromise.
The Clintons were always prepared to testify, but only in public; the Congressional GOP were insisting it should be in camera - as they have tried with all such events in order to control the narrative (aka lie).
That said, Bill Clinton deserves a grilling, even if there are plenty more who deserve the same.
Has anyone here seen anything in the recently released Epstein files concerning a president of the US prior to Clinton that seems just, well, unbelievable as to be unbelievable. It’s been haunting me a little and hmmm. Anyway if you’ve read it you’ve read it and I’ll leave it at that.
Who can Starmer blame for Mandelson's appointment?
His paunchy paws are all over it
It’s a question what Starmer knew at the time. Or what can be proved he knew. And it’s not easy to get to that to be honest. Or failing that, merely a slap for should have known better and been more diligent as we would have been.
For preservation of true history, {I didn’t like it} but PB consensus liked the appointment. back Bench Conservative MPs stood up in commons said it was good appointment. What did Starmer know at tgst time that we didn’t, what the Conservatives didn’t?
Did UKs security Services not know the detail held in the Epstein Files? Is this the first time anyone’s found out the true depth of PantyPetes collusion with Epstein? Is this the first time anyone’s found out UK Business Secretary was carrying out what looks like insider trading using levers of governmental power in UK, with an investment financier friend?
What was known about Mandelson by the general public on the day of his appointment was enough to disqualify him from any important government position
He had been fired twice for impropriety
Then we knew he was friends with a paedo billionaire crook
Then the Prime Minister appointed him
The default assumption must be that 'due diligence' over the Mandelson appointment with security services and secret information gatherers would have to be exceptionally thorough given his past and his known connections.
The other default assumption must be that between them MI5, MI5, Special Branch, GCHQ and the overseas intelligence agencies with whom we had a good relationship will have known quite a lot of what we now know, and, safe to say, quite a lot more that we don't. Human nature is what it is.
Which is the bit or bits in the process which have gone wrong and why is a central question. There seem to me no possibilities that are not quite disconcerting.
Are you sure the snoopy services are that good? They would have to have tapped into these emails at the time they were being sent?
For example the smoking gun here, PantyPete sharing info he shouldn’t have with a financier friend. You are claiming to us the snoopy services have been sitting on this? You saying they put it into the dossier they showed Starmer?
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
If Labour ditch Starmer they need a street-fighter who can motivate the troops and stick it to Farage. Yvette? Ahem. Nope, it has to be Ange. And they need to move Left - again, to motivate the troops, and unite the left. Make it an existential fight with the Fash.
Be fun to watch.
The only winners from Rayner v Farage would be Kemi and Davey
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
It does depend on what sort of PM we want, though. Since Thatcher and Blair, the UK model has centralised power in its leader such that it is often called ‘presidential’ - yet ironically, until Trump showed what is possible by stretching the boundaries, our PMs have had more power than any US president. Reagan was also thick as **** yet ran a decent presidency by picking people be trusted and letting them make most of the decisions, content just to be the front man. There’s no theoretical reason why a British government couldn’t run like that - it’s just that we’ve forgotten, not having been alive back in the day, how collective cabinet government actually might work.
I usually agree with you because I think politically we are in the same neck of the woods but it's more complex.
The role of the Prime Minister isn't just "primus inter pares" but he or she is an almost de facto spokesperson for "the nation" by which I mean their view or opinion is constantly sought on every subject whether of relevance to Government or not it seems.
At the same time, the role of Foreign Secretary has become as devalued as that of the American Secretary of State or even the Russian Foreign Minister. Foreign policy has moved directly to the Prime Minister - this started, I think, with the coming of summits such as the G20, G7, NATO, EU etc where the leaders met and talked which wasn't the case in times past when you had Foreign Ministers to do that kind of thing.
It's also a nice diversion from what might seem the trivialities of domestic politics to be on the world stage with Presidents and other Prime Ministers in nice conference halls, hotels and the like.
The modern PM is therefore de facto Foreign Secretary leaving the Chancellor and the Home Secretary to deal with the tough questions of money and domestic matters.
Air travel killed the role of Foreign Secretary. Previously diplomacy in an age of slower travel required being out of the country for longer continuous periods, so it couldn't be done routinely by the PM.
But still. If the role of PM was weakened then the position of Foreign Secretary, as the representative of the Cabinet government abroad, would be rejuvenated.
You mean, in the way that those 19th century Prime Ministers Palmerston, Disraeli, and Salisbury* never ever meddled in foreign affairs?
Or, to bring it a little further forward, Lloyd George, McDonald, or Baldwin?
And of course, the Prime Minister of the late 1930s wisely left all of the manoeuverings over Nazi Germany to his foreign Secretary.
* Salisbury of course is a tricky one from that point of view because he actually was his own foreign secretary.
SHOCKING FEDERAL COURT MOMENT: DOJ attorney Julie Le, "The system sucks, this job sucks" to Judge Jerry Blackwell who pressed her on why so many court orders are being ignored by ICE/Trump admin. She asked to be held in contempt just so she could get 24 hours of sleep. @FOX9
Who can Starmer blame for Mandelson's appointment?
His paunchy paws are all over it
It’s a question what Starmer knew at the time. Or what can be proved he knew. And it’s not easy to get to that to be honest. Or failing that, merely a slap for should have known better and been more diligent as we would have been.
For preservation of true history, {I didn’t like it} but PB consensus liked the appointment. back Bench Conservative MPs stood up in commons said it was good appointment. What did Starmer know at tgst time that we didn’t, what the Conservatives didn’t?
Did UKs security Services not know the detail held in the Epstein Files? Is this the first time anyone’s found out the true depth of PantyPetes collusion with Epstein? Is this the first time anyone’s found out UK Business Secretary was carrying out what looks like insider trading using levers of governmental power in UK, with an investment financier friend?
What was known about Mandelson by the general public on the day of his appointment was enough to disqualify him from any important government position
He had been fired twice for impropriety
Then we knew he was friends with a paedo billionaire crook
Then the Prime Minister appointed him
The default assumption must be that 'due diligence' over the Mandelson appointment with security services and secret information gatherers would have to be exceptionally thorough given his past and his known connections.
The other default assumption must be that between them MI5, MI5, Special Branch, GCHQ and the overseas intelligence agencies with whom we had a good relationship will have known quite a lot of what we now know, and, safe to say, quite a lot more that we don't. Human nature is what it is.
Which is the bit or bits in the process which have gone wrong and why is a central question. There seem to me no possibilities that are not quite disconcerting.
Are you sure the snoopy services are that good? They would have to have tapped into these emails at the time they were being sent?
For example the smoking gun here, PantyPete sharing info he shouldn’t have with a financier friend. You are claiming to us the snoopy services have been sitting on this? You saying they put it into the dossier they showed Starmer?
I will repeat.
Email bounces through servers, completely unencrypted. A river of postcards. Due to the way the servers work, they leave a copy on each server, until erased.
For many, many years, intelligence services have hovered these up. It takes little effort and produces a huge pile of stuff to sift through.
Everyone does this.
Did the security services look at Mandy’s emails? We don’t know.
But for far less sensitive jobs, they are trawled.
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
JRM is brighter than Burnham, even if with less common touch
SHOCKING FEDERAL COURT MOMENT: DOJ attorney Julie Le, "The system sucks, this job sucks" to Judge Jerry Blackwell who pressed her on why so many court orders are being ignored by ICE/Trump admin. She asked to be held in contempt just so she could get 24 hours of sleep. @FOX9
Who can Starmer blame for Mandelson's appointment?
His paunchy paws are all over it
It’s a question what Starmer knew at the time. Or what can be proved he knew. And it’s not easy to get to that to be honest. Or failing that, merely a slap for should have known better and been more diligent as we would have been.
For preservation of true history, {I didn’t like it} but PB consensus liked the appointment. back Bench Conservative MPs stood up in commons said it was good appointment. What did Starmer know at tgst time that we didn’t, what the Conservatives didn’t?
Did UKs security Services not know the detail held in the Epstein Files? Is this the first time anyone’s found out the true depth of PantyPetes collusion with Epstein? Is this the first time anyone’s found out UK Business Secretary was carrying out what looks like insider trading using levers of governmental power in UK, with an investment financier friend?
What was known about Mandelson by the general public on the day of his appointment was enough to disqualify him from any important government position
He had been fired twice for impropriety
Then we knew he was friends with a paedo billionaire crook
Then the Prime Minister appointed him
The default assumption must be that 'due diligence' over the Mandelson appointment with security services and secret information gatherers would have to be exceptionally thorough given his past and his known connections.
The other default assumption must be that between them MI5, MI5, Special Branch, GCHQ and the overseas intelligence agencies with whom we had a good relationship will have known quite a lot of what we now know, and, safe to say, quite a lot more that we don't. Human nature is what it is.
Which is the bit or bits in the process which have gone wrong and why is a central question. There seem to me no possibilities that are not quite disconcerting.
Are you sure the snoopy services are that good? They would have to have tapped into these emails at the time they were being sent?
For example the smoking gun here, PantyPete sharing info he shouldn’t have with a financier friend. You are claiming to us the snoopy services have been sitting on this? You saying they put it into the dossier they showed Starmer?
I will repeat.
Email bounces through servers, completely unencrypted. A river of postcards. Due to the way the servers work, they leave a copy on each server, until erased.
For many, many years, intelligence services have hovered these up. It takes little effort and produces a huge pile of stuff to sift through.
Everyone does this.
Did the security services look at Mandy’s emails? We don’t know.
But for far less sensitive jobs, they are trawled.
So, what you're saying is that HMG should have asked the Chinese government whether Mandy had been up to any dodgy shit.
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
JRM is brighter than Burnham, even if with less common touch
Really? I had no idea Burnham was such a dumbarse.
Now we know that Mandelson was giving/selling official secrets when he was Business Sec.
Does anyone doubt that he would be willing to do the same when he was Ambassador ?
If so what was he giving/selling and to whom ?
There is no evidence he was selling official secrets.
I assume he was getting something in return for all the info he was giving Epstein.
Whether that was the odd $75k, access to other friends of Epstein or just useful info.
I have worked for over 25 years with people who work in sport, banking, business, politics, TV, and other high, profile industries, and I am not surprised there are people who like to show off by giving inside info to show they are important/in the know.
Mandelson feels like that kind of person, he is known to be a shameless name dropper.
Now we know that Mandelson was giving/selling official secrets when he was Business Sec.
Does anyone doubt that he would be willing to do the same when he was Ambassador ?
If so what was he giving/selling and to whom ?
There is no evidence he was selling official secrets.
I assume he was getting something in return for all the info he was giving Epstein.
Whether that was the odd $75k, access to other friends of Epstein or just useful info.
Even if he was merely giving information away to someone who was apparently even closer a friend than thought, that's pretty darn bad. At least doing it for money is an understandable, if bad, motive. And given part of the friendship seems to be because he loved sucking up to rich people, well, I don't think he can object to streneously to people making the inference it was about selling, even if that turns out not to be the case.
Who can Starmer blame for Mandelson's appointment?
His paunchy paws are all over it
It’s a question what Starmer knew at the time. Or what can be proved he knew. And it’s not easy to get to that to be honest. Or failing that, merely a slap for should have known better and been more diligent as we would have been.
For preservation of true history, {I didn’t like it} but PB consensus liked the appointment. back Bench Conservative MPs stood up in commons said it was good appointment. What did Starmer know at tgst time that we didn’t, what the Conservatives didn’t?
Did UKs security Services not know the detail held in the Epstein Files? Is this the first time anyone’s found out the true depth of PantyPetes collusion with Epstein? Is this the first time anyone’s found out UK Business Secretary was carrying out what looks like insider trading using levers of governmental power in UK, with an investment financier friend?
What was known about Mandelson by the general public on the day of his appointment was enough to disqualify him from any important government position
He had been fired twice for impropriety
Then we knew he was friends with a paedo billionaire crook
Then the Prime Minister appointed him
The default assumption must be that 'due diligence' over the Mandelson appointment with security services and secret information gatherers would have to be exceptionally thorough given his past and his known connections.
The other default assumption must be that between them MI5, MI5, Special Branch, GCHQ and the overseas intelligence agencies with whom we had a good relationship will have known quite a lot of what we now know, and, safe to say, quite a lot more that we don't. Human nature is what it is.
Which is the bit or bits in the process which have gone wrong and why is a central question. There seem to me no possibilities that are not quite disconcerting.
Are you sure the snoopy services are that good? They would have to have tapped into these emails at the time they were being sent?
For example the smoking gun here, PantyPete sharing info he shouldn’t have with a financier friend. You are claiming to us the snoopy services have been sitting on this? You saying they put it into the dossier they showed Starmer?
I will repeat.
Email bounces through servers, completely unencrypted. A river of postcards. Due to the way the servers work, they leave a copy on each server, until erased.
For many, many years, intelligence services have hovered these up. It takes little effort and produces a huge pile of stuff to sift through.
Everyone does this.
Did the security services look at Mandy’s emails? We don’t know.
But for far less sensitive jobs, they are trawled.
So, what you're saying is that HMG should have asked the Chinese government whether Mandy had been up to any dodgy shit.
I went to a university that was, for a while, the internet hub through which everything passed when on its way overseas (many years back) - the sys ops had many jokes about Dave from The Home Office and his server racks, back when that was how it was done.
I then worked in telecoms for a while. I wrote some fun code.
If the security services have stopped saving a copy of every email they can find, this will be news to a lot of people.
SHOCKING FEDERAL COURT MOMENT: DOJ attorney Julie Le, "The system sucks, this job sucks" to Judge Jerry Blackwell who pressed her on why so many court orders are being ignored by ICE/Trump admin. She asked to be held in contempt just so she could get 24 hours of sleep. @FOX9
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
It does depend on what sort of PM we want, though. Since Thatcher and Blair, the UK model has centralised power in its leader such that it is often called ‘presidential’ - yet ironically, until Trump showed what is possible by stretching the boundaries, our PMs have had more power than any US president. Reagan was also thick as **** yet ran a decent presidency by picking people be trusted and letting them make most of the decisions, content just to be the front man. There’s no theoretical reason why a British government couldn’t run like that - it’s just that we’ve forgotten, not having been alive back in the day, how collective cabinet government actually might work.
I usually agree with you because I think politically we are in the same neck of the woods but it's more complex.
The role of the Prime Minister isn't just "primus inter pares" but he or she is an almost de facto spokesperson for "the nation" by which I mean their view or opinion is constantly sought on every subject whether of relevance to Government or not it seems.
At the same time, the role of Foreign Secretary has become as devalued as that of the American Secretary of State or even the Russian Foreign Minister. Foreign policy has moved directly to the Prime Minister - this started, I think, with the coming of summits such as the G20, G7, NATO, EU etc where the leaders met and talked which wasn't the case in times past when you had Foreign Ministers to do that kind of thing.
It's also a nice diversion from what might seem the trivialities of domestic politics to be on the world stage with Presidents and other Prime Ministers in nice conference halls, hotels and the like.
The modern PM is therefore de facto Foreign Secretary leaving the Chancellor and the Home Secretary to deal with the tough questions of money and domestic matters.
Air travel killed the role of Foreign Secretary. Previously diplomacy in an age of slower travel required being out of the country for longer continuous periods, so it couldn't be done routinely by the PM.
But still. If the role of PM was weakened then the position of Foreign Secretary, as the representative of the Cabinet government abroad, would be rejuvenated.
You mean, in the way that those 19th century Prime Ministers Palmerston, Disraeli, and Salisbury* never ever meddled in foreign affairs?
Or, to bring it a little further forward, Lloyd George, McDonald, or Baldwin?
And of course, the Prime Minister of the late 1930s wisely left all of the manoeuverings over Nazi Germany to his foreign Secretary.
* Salisbury of course is a tricky one from that point of view because he actually was his own foreign secretary.
That just highlights that the decline of the role goes back even further.
It really doesn't deserve to be a Great Office of State now - Health would make more sense.
Epstein's advice to Mandelson in the aftermath of the 2010 election is fascinating.
Epstein seems to be the one pushing for a Lab/Lib coalition and Mandelson is pushing back and saying it would be a mutual suicide pact and saying that Blair is advising against it. Epstein responds that Blair has to think of the party but Mandelson's personal interest wouldn't be served by being in "a mere opposition party". It sounds like Epstein didn't want to lose his access to the heart of government.
Now we know that Mandelson was giving/selling official secrets when he was Business Sec.
Does anyone doubt that he would be willing to do the same when he was Ambassador ?
If so what was he giving/selling and to whom ?
There is no evidence he was selling official secrets.
'My Lord, I protest at this word 'sell.' I did not sell them. I gave them away freely to a man I considered a friend.'
I'm not sure that makes things better, actually...
It's a classic lack of concern for basic rules that you see a lot of people once they attain positions of authority, or at leat adjacent to authority. Sometimes rules prevent you from doing some basic things out of abundance of caution, or make things harder than you feel they should be, but just ignore all of that and think holding a position means you should be able to do what you want, even if it is share all the deep secrets of government with your upstanding buddy, and it can go very wrong.
You even see this kind of attitude with local councillors sometimes, frustrated how difficult things can be.
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
JRM is brighter than Burnham, even if with less common touch
Really? I had no idea Burnham was such a dumbarse.
Yes I know Ydoethur you think JRM is an idiot. Yet with his fortune of over £100 million, including founding a successful hedge fund, his Oxbridge degree, his former job as an MP and Cabinet Minister and his weekly show on GB news and his lovely family home in Somerset shared with his wife and 6 children Jacob of course will not give a shit what you think!
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
It does depend on what sort of PM we want, though. Since Thatcher and Blair, the UK model has centralised power in its leader such that it is often called ‘presidential’ - yet ironically, until Trump showed what is possible by stretching the boundaries, our PMs have had more power than any US president. Reagan was also thick as **** yet ran a decent presidency by picking people be trusted and letting them make most of the decisions, content just to be the front man. There’s no theoretical reason why a British government couldn’t run like that - it’s just that we’ve forgotten, not having been alive back in the day, how collective cabinet government actually might work.
I usually agree with you because I think politically we are in the same neck of the woods but it's more complex.
The role of the Prime Minister isn't just "primus inter pares" but he or she is an almost de facto spokesperson for "the nation" by which I mean their view or opinion is constantly sought on every subject whether of relevance to Government or not it seems.
At the same time, the role of Foreign Secretary has become as devalued as that of the American Secretary of State or even the Russian Foreign Minister. Foreign policy has moved directly to the Prime Minister - this started, I think, with the coming of summits such as the G20, G7, NATO, EU etc where the leaders met and talked which wasn't the case in times past when you had Foreign Ministers to do that kind of thing.
It's also a nice diversion from what might seem the trivialities of domestic politics to be on the world stage with Presidents and other Prime Ministers in nice conference halls, hotels and the like.
The modern PM is therefore de facto Foreign Secretary leaving the Chancellor and the Home Secretary to deal with the tough questions of money and domestic matters.
Air travel killed the role of Foreign Secretary. Previously diplomacy in an age of slower travel required being out of the country for longer continuous periods, so it couldn't be done routinely by the PM.
But still. If the role of PM was weakened then the position of Foreign Secretary, as the representative of the Cabinet government abroad, would be rejuvenated.
You mean, in the way that those 19th century Prime Ministers Palmerston, Disraeli, and Salisbury* never ever meddled in foreign affairs?
Or, to bring it a little further forward, Lloyd George, McDonald, or Baldwin?
And of course, the Prime Minister of the late 1930s wisely left all of the manoeuverings over Nazi Germany to his foreign Secretary.
* Salisbury of course is a tricky one from that point of view because he actually was his own foreign secretary.
That just highlights that the decline of the role goes back even further.
It really doesn't deserve to be a Great Office of State now - Health would make more sense.
The truth is that it's never actually been that important a role, as the PM has always had a decisive say in foreign affairs - either as head of the government, or as head of the Treasury.
Ever since the office was created in the mid-eighteenth century, it's been one where very often quite junior politicians being groomed for leadership would be sent to work with the leadership of the party/faction and build a profile, but have comparatively little responsibility. Grenville, or Derby, or Lansdowne, or Eden, all would be prime examples.
Of course, there have been exceptions. Where the PM has no interest in foreign affairs - Liverpool, or Grey, or Asquith spring to mind - the Foreign Secretary can pretty much run his (until 2006) own affairs. Castlereagh and Canning did for Liverpool, Palmerston for Grey, Grey (no relation) for Asquith, Austen Chamberlain for Baldwin in his second term. The consequences have frequently been disastrous, but that's a different problem.
But where a PM has chosen to take any interest at all in foreign affairs, the Foreign Secretary has always played second fiddle. It's just now it's much more noticeable.
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
JRM is brighter than Burnham, even if with less common touch
Really? I had no idea Burnham was such a dumbarse.
Yes I know Ydoethur you think JRM is an idiot but with his fortune of over £100 million, including founding a successful hedge fund, his Oxbridge degree and his weekly show on GB news and his lovely family home in Somerset shared with his wife and 6 children Jacob of course will not give a shift what you think!
Making a lot of money and being successful does not prevent someone being an idiot of course. Peter Mandelson did both (on his terms) for a long time.
SHOCKING FEDERAL COURT MOMENT: DOJ attorney Julie Le, "The system sucks, this job sucks" to Judge Jerry Blackwell who pressed her on why so many court orders are being ignored by ICE/Trump admin. She asked to be held in contempt just so she could get 24 hours of sleep. @FOX9
Now we know that Mandelson was giving/selling official secrets when he was Business Sec.
Does anyone doubt that he would be willing to do the same when he was Ambassador ?
If so what was he giving/selling and to whom ?
There is no evidence he was selling official secrets.
I assume he was getting something in return for all the info he was giving Epstein.
Whether that was the odd $75k, access to other friends of Epstein or just useful info.
I have worked for over 25 years with people who work in sport, banking, business, politics, TV, and other high, profile industries, and I am not surprised there are people who like to show off by giving inside info to show they are important/in the know.
Mandelson feels like that kind of person, he is known to be a shameless name dropper.
He should be happy that a lot of people will now be name dropping him, by saying 'Yes, I knew Peter Mandelson, I always knew he was a complete shit'.
I worked with someone once who had met him on a couple of occasions, and said he was the cleverest person they'd ever met.
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
JRM is brighter than Burnham, even if with less common touch
Really? I had no idea Burnham was such a dumbarse.
Yes I know Ydoethur you think JRM is an idiot. Yet with his fortune of over £100 million, including founding a successful hedge fund, his Oxbridge degree, his former job as an MP and Cabinet Minister and his weekly show on GB news and his lovely family home in Somerset shared with his wife and 6 children Jacob of course will not give a shit what you think!
His hedge fund, founded with his wife's money, his Oxbridge degree, which given its low classification is a piece of paper, his talk show on a disgraced news channel that functions as a Russian propaganda piece and his family home in Somerset again bought with his wife's money.
I'm sure he won't care what I say about him.
But his track record of failure, incompetence, arrogance and bad judgement in politics are not counterbalanced by examples that tend to show he is, in fact, an idiot.
And do you know, I don't care if he doesn't care what I know (not think, because it's a fact not an opinion). He still doesn't have two brain cells to rub together, and symbolises all that is wrong with this country - that it's who you know not what you know.
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
JRM is brighter than Burnham, even if with less common touch
Really? I had no idea Burnham was such a dumbarse.
Yes I know Ydoethur you think JRM is an idiot. Yet with his fortune of over £100 million, including founding a successful hedge fund, his Oxbridge degree, his former job as an MP and Cabinet Minister and his weekly show on GB news and his lovely family home in Somerset shared with his wife and 6 children Jacob of course will not give a shift what you think!
He may be intelligent. He can give me a nice lecture on post-Greek political philosophy. Of that there is no doubt. But is he “clever “ considering he was a politician relying on voters to vote for him, and he only came across only as an entitled arse. I’d say he was very un-clever in the vocation he had chosen. Hence he is thick in succeeding in the role he chose.
Rayner is neither intelligent nor clever btw. Hence she’s thick too.
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
JRM is brighter than Burnham, even if with less common touch
Really? I had no idea Burnham was such a dumbarse.
Yes I know Ydoethur you think JRM is an idiot but with his fortune of over £100 million, including founding a successful hedge fund, his Oxbridge degree and his weekly show on GB news and his lovely family home in Somerset shared with his wife and 6 children Jacob of course will not give a shift what you think!
Making a lot of money and being successful does not prevent someone being an idiot of course. Peter Mandelson did both (on his terms) for a long time.
As a naive northerner, I remember going to the [Oxford] Union for the lolz and seeing this creature from Outer Space with an accent such as I'd never heard trying to raise a bit of pedantry or make a lame joke. Whilst dressed in a ridiculous double breasted suit.
My opinion of JRM has not altered from the initial impressions.
Damian Hinds beat him for President, which was funny. He had to tone the pomposity down a bit.
Epstein's advice to Mandelson in the aftermath of the 2010 election is fascinating.
Epstein seems to be the one pushing for a Lab/Lib coalition and Mandelson is pushing back and saying it would be a mutual suicide pact and saying that Blair is advising against it. Epstein responds that Blair has to think of the party but Mandelson's personal interest wouldn't be served by being in "a mere opposition party". It sounds like Epstein didn't want to lose his access to the heart of government.
Why the hell was Epstein's opinion on British politics being considered at all?
From what I recall, even if there were those on the LD side who would have preferred a coalition with Labour rather than the Conservatives, the truth was such a coalition would have struggled - Conservatives plus DUP had 314, Labour plus LD 315 so it would have needed Plaid (3), SDLP (3) and Alliance (1) to have just about had a majority with those elected under the SF banner not attending.
The politics of propping up a tired unpopular 13 year old Government wouldn't have looked good (of course neither did going into coalition with the Conservatives as it turned out). In addition, Clegg had publicly committed to speaking first to the party with the most votes and the Conservatives outpolled Labour 36-29 or by two million if you prefer.
Everyone knew Labour couldn't remain in Government except it seems Epstein.
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
JRM is brighter than Burnham, even if with less common touch
Really? I had no idea Burnham was such a dumbarse.
Yes I know Ydoethur you think JRM is an idiot. Yet with his fortune of over £100 million, including founding a successful hedge fund, his Oxbridge degree, his former job as an MP and Cabinet Minister and his weekly show on GB news and his lovely family home in Somerset shared with his wife and 6 children Jacob of course will not give a shit what you think!
His hedge fund, founded with his wife's money, his Oxbridge degree, which given its low classification is a piece of paper, his talk show on a disgraced news channel that functions as a Russian propaganda piece and his family home in Somerset again bought with his wife's money.
I'm sure he won't care what I say about him.
But his track record of failure, incompetence, arrogance and bad judgement in politics are not counterbalanced by examples that tend to show he is, in fact, an idiot.
And do you know, I don't care if he doesn't care what I know (not think, because it's a fact not an opinion). He still doesn't have two brain cells to rub together, and symbolises all that is wrong with this country - that it's who you know not what you know.
No after university he worked at Rothschild and Lloyd George Emerging Markets and founded Somerset Capital with former colleagues and Crispin Odey and the company is still going strong and he is still a partner in it. He got a good upper second from Trinity College hardly a 'low classification'. His GB news show gets a lot of viewers and even if his home is partly his wife's they are a devoted couple.
He was also a hard working constituency MP who played a key part in helping deliver Brexit whether you liked it or not.
Though continue your all too frequent chippy whinging if you wish!
Now we know that Mandelson was giving/selling official secrets when he was Business Sec.
Does anyone doubt that he would be willing to do the same when he was Ambassador ?
If so what was he giving/selling and to whom ?
There is no evidence he was selling official secrets.
I assume he was getting something in return for all the info he was giving Epstein.
Whether that was the odd $75k, access to other friends of Epstein or just useful info.
I have worked for over 25 years with people who work in sport, banking, business, politics, TV, and other high, profile industries, and I am not surprised there are people who like to show off by giving inside info to show they are important/in the know.
Mandelson feels like that kind of person, he is known to be a shameless name dropper.
He should be happy that a lot of people will now be name dropping him, by saying 'Yes, I knew Peter Mandelson, I always knew he was a complete shit'.
I worked with someone once who had met him on a couple of occasions, and said he was the cleverest person they'd ever met.
I never met him but my first impression was that he was odious and that's never changed.
They would not be offered such an agreement without prima facie evidence against them, but the DOJ has stated in terms that there are no longer any open cases connected with the Epstein files. Why then are the names redacted ? It can't be to protect the reputation of the innocent.
And if they accepted a plea deal then the victims must by law be notified. There's no such thing under US law as a secret plea deal.
The Epstein files clearly show that the Southern District of Florida offered a Prosecution Agreement to Epstein and 4 co-conspirators, as well as other “potential” co-conspirators, but the Trump DOJ redacted their names. https://x.com/EdKrassen/status/2018751137562653046
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
JRM is brighter than Burnham, even if with less common touch
Really? I had no idea Burnham was such a dumbarse.
Yes I know Ydoethur you think JRM is an idiot. Yet with his fortune of over £100 million, including founding a successful hedge fund, his Oxbridge degree, his former job as an MP and Cabinet Minister and his weekly show on GB news and his lovely family home in Somerset shared with his wife and 6 children Jacob of course will not give a shift what you think!
He may be intelligent. He can give me a nice lecture on post-Greek political philosophy. Of that there is no doubt. But is he “clever “ considering he was a politician relying on voters to vote for him, and he only came across only as an entitled arse. I’d say he was very un-clever in the vocation he had chosen. Hence he is thick in succeeding in the role he chose.
Rayner is neither intelligent nor clever btw. Hence she’s thick too.
He worked in finance for a number of years before he entered politics. He also was elected MP for his constituency 4 times, only losing on national swing in 2024.
Rayner is sharp but not especially intelligent though i wouldn't call her thick either.
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
JRM is brighter than Burnham, even if with less common touch
Really? I had no idea Burnham was such a dumbarse.
Yes I know Ydoethur you think JRM is an idiot but with his fortune of over £100 million, including founding a successful hedge fund, his Oxbridge degree and his weekly show on GB news and his lovely family home in Somerset shared with his wife and 6 children Jacob of course will not give a shift what you think!
Making a lot of money and being successful does not prevent someone being an idiot of course. Peter Mandelson did both (on his terms) for a long time.
Mandelson showed some poor judgement, he certainly isn't an idiot either
First to say I can't see Starmer resigning over this.
An atomic bomb wouldn't remove Starmer
What about a redhead?
I think this all increases the chances of Ange being next.
It makes her financial arrangements seem a bit meh, and allows her to say we've had enough of the old boy's club.
Rayner is now best-placed
As I posted as the old thread was closing.
The obvious one is Angela.
She has behaved dutifully and perfectly since resignation.
Labour has a number of very competent ministers in place she would be well advised to keep
Cooper Mahmood Healy McFadden Both Alexanders Nandy Phillipson Ed M Emma Reynolds Jarvis
Some of the new intake.
Likes of Haigh and Thornbury return.
Compares very well with threadbare Shadow Cabinet of failures like Philp, Patel Stride, Atkins, Couthino.
Badenoch probably be gone before Starmer coronation for Cleverly.
Labour edge left. Tories edge centre.
“dutifully and perfectly since resignation”.
Has she paid her tax due?
If Angela Rayner is the answer, the wrong question is definitely being asked.
She’s no Mandelson, who can keep coming back again until yet another scandal finally kills her off almost three decades later.
Angela Rayner is not the answer to any question relating to the government of this country. Maybe “how can we fuck things up more”.
The question is, who do we put our money on? Not who would be best, or who would we like, but who will win?
If it helps I'm a Labour member and if/when the vote comes I'll be judging 2 things:
Who would be the better PM? Who would more likely beat Reform?
Assuming a Streeting v Rayner choice, I'm clear on the answer to the 1st. Streeting. But on the 2nd I'm not sure at all. And if I end up concluding it's Rayner I can see myself (reluctantly) prioritising that and voting for her.
Nothing (for me) is more important than preventing Farage and his gang getting their filthy mitts on this country.
Far be it from me to suggest solutions to Labours quandary but Rayner is so far from your desire to beat Reform as you can get. Honestly - Labour supporters and members need to read the fucking room. Your only hope is a Cooper ticket with Streeting as Chancellor maybe. This fascination and love for Rayner is perplexing. She’s clearly thick as shit. And a proven tax dodger.
Northern accent = thick as shit
Thank goodness none of my university exams were orals, or it would have been an instant fail.
Nope. You’re making that stretch, not me. JRM Is as thick as shit. As is Jenrick. Hague wasn’t. Neither is Burnham. She’s objectively as thick as shit. You just like her because she’s northern. And in your mind that means she’s beyond criticism.
JRM is brighter than Burnham, even if with less common touch
Really? I had no idea Burnham was such a dumbarse.
Yes I know Ydoethur you think JRM is an idiot but with his fortune of over £100 million, including founding a successful hedge fund, his Oxbridge degree and his weekly show on GB news and his lovely family home in Somerset shared with his wife and 6 children Jacob of course will not give a shift what you think!
Making a lot of money and being successful does not prevent someone being an idiot of course. Peter Mandelson did both (on his terms) for a long time.
Mandelson showed some poor judgement, he certainly isn't an idiot either
Where does the line between poor judgement and f*****' traitor dissect?
Not enough focus is on Trump's economic policies. He makes sure attention is elsewhere.
But the US is running a huge fiscal deficit whilst the economy is growing. Trump has made it clear he wants cuts to interest rates. This is classic short term populist economic policy. It can't end well and it's the biggest economy in the world. The precious metal market is crazy right now. I seem to remember Trump also relaxed lending rules for small banks during his first term. We seem to have forgotten that 2008 ever happened.
Comments
A subject came up, and the Big Man professed ignorance on that. I raised my hand and filled in the gaps. I was rather surprised that it received such a frosty reception.
Afterwards my boss told me, that telling a senior person something he doesn’t want to know, in public, is pretty much the worst sin.
Pause
Parenthetically, it is a slight consolation that this is a massive sex scandal at the heart of the British establishment and Boris is nowhere near it.
But instead he appointed Cummings and a bunch of non-entities who were willing to be nodding dogs.
But that Golden Globes joke remains spot on.
The number of idiots at the Grammys saying “no borders”, from inside a very clear border with tickets required and armed security, then going home afterwards to their houses in gated communities…
I can only think that they are canvassing each other.
- the London Mayor appoints officials who can't therefore become political rivals, and so pose no threat. They have no political power base and are entirely under the Mayor's thumb in terms of hiring, firing and preferment
- the UK government already has officials appointed through the civil service, which is politically neutral and the process isn't under the direct control of politicians. The PM appoints a team of politicians, who have their own power base and any of them might one day bring you down. Consequently Johnson's buried self awareness of his own essential inability to do the job, having winged every gig he'd been given through his life and escaped accountability for his many failures with humour, bluster and charm, led him to appoint people who he thought would pose him no threat. Aka a cabinet of people chosen specifically for their idiocy and incompetence.
But it really lost its way. Rather like HIGNFY
Labour, on the other hand, are far better placed to convince Green voters (and Plaid and SNP voters to some extent) that they are the only realistic option to the Tories/Reform. I doubt anybody really thinks the Greens are actually going to win a GE. Also, outside of their target seats (which are mainly Tory) the Lib Dems are significantly more likely to vote Labour tactically to keep out Reform/Tories.
I am betting on the basis that the right wing vote will be far more evenly spilt than the left and that Labour will get back with about 30-35% of the vote.
👀🚨Meanwhile, while Mandelson scandal is galloping along, I hear that Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman ended up WITH LABOUR MPs in the AYE lobby on lifting two child benefit cap.
A source tells me they “got on their phones trying to get instructions from Farage as to whether they should be there or not”
“They tried to leave at one point but got trapped as the doors were locked”
Reform source confirms this happened & says it was a ‘genuine mistake’ & neither MP registered a vote. All other Reform MPs voted against….
https://x.com/BethRigby/status/2018770720294404329
The role of the Prime Minister isn't just "primus inter pares" but he or she is an almost de facto spokesperson for "the nation" by which I mean their view or opinion is constantly sought on every subject whether of relevance to Government or not it seems.
At the same time, the role of Foreign Secretary has become as devalued as that of the American Secretary of State or even the Russian Foreign Minister. Foreign policy has moved directly to the Prime Minister - this started, I think, with the coming of summits such as the G20, G7, NATO, EU etc where the leaders met and talked which wasn't the case in times past when you had Foreign Ministers to do that kind of thing.
It's also a nice diversion from what might seem the trivialities of domestic politics to be on the world stage with Presidents and other Prime Ministers in nice conference halls, hotels and the like.
The modern PM is therefore de facto Foreign Secretary leaving the Chancellor and the Home Secretary to deal with the tough questions of money and domestic matters.
That probably explains it all
But still. If the role of PM was weakened then the position of Foreign Secretary, as the representative of the Cabinet government abroad, would be rejuvenated.
The close friendship that Noam Chomsky maintained with Jeffrey Epstein continued being detailed extensively among millions of investigative records pertaining to the late convicted sex offender recently released by the US justice department, including Chomsky “fantasizing about the Caribbean island”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/03/epstein-files-noam-chomsky
Woody Allen and Steve Bannon make an appearance in this chapter.
Does anyone doubt that he would be willing to do the same when he was Ambassador ?
If so what was he giving/selling and to whom ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance
https://x.com/RuthDavidsonPC/status/2018789199286247823?s=20
The Clintons were always prepared to testify, but only in public; the Congressional GOP were insisting it should be in camera - as they have tried with all such events in order to control the narrative (aka lie).
That said, Bill Clinton deserves a grilling, even if there are plenty more who deserve the same.
Massie and Rose join Dems.
https://x.com/TheMaineWonk/status/2018740945173279094
Or what did Mandelson know about Starmer?
The Tory Party desperately need to listen to her and Andy Street.
Kemi is taking them to oblivion
For example the smoking gun here, PantyPete sharing info he shouldn’t have with a financier friend. You are claiming to us the snoopy services have been sitting on this? You saying they put it into the dossier they showed Starmer?
It has been suggested she was a party girl
There is evidence that he was forwarding a number of highly sensitive emails from people like the PM to Epstein.
And evidence that Epstein was giving Mandy and his partner large amounts of money.
A complete coincidence, of course
Or, to bring it a little further forward, Lloyd George, McDonald, or Baldwin?
And of course, the Prime Minister of the late 1930s wisely left all of the manoeuverings over Nazi Germany to his foreign Secretary.
* Salisbury of course is a tricky one from that point of view because he actually was his own foreign secretary.
SHOCKING FEDERAL COURT MOMENT: DOJ attorney Julie Le, "The system sucks, this job sucks" to Judge Jerry Blackwell who pressed her on why so many court orders are being ignored by ICE/Trump admin. She asked to be held in contempt just so she could get 24 hours of sleep.
@FOX9
https://x.com/PaulBlume_FOX9/status/2018785125857902645?s=20
Email bounces through servers, completely unencrypted. A river of postcards. Due to the way the servers work, they leave a copy on each server, until erased.
For many, many years, intelligence services have hovered these up. It takes little effort and produces a huge pile of stuff to sift through.
Everyone does this.
Did the security services look at Mandy’s emails? We don’t know.
But for far less sensitive jobs, they are trawled.
Whether that was the odd $75k, access to other friends of Epstein or just useful info.
But you're probably right.
EdM hates Peterphilephile, I think
They could do with somebody good at getting a Johnson out and exposing it in public.
Mandelson feels like that kind of person, he is known to be a shameless name dropper.
I then worked in telecoms for a while. I wrote some fun code.
If the security services have stopped saving a copy of every email they can find, this will be news to a lot of people.
I'm not sure that makes things better, actually...
It really doesn't deserve to be a Great Office of State now - Health would make more sense.
You even see this kind of attitude with local councillors sometimes, frustrated how difficult things can be.
Ever since the office was created in the mid-eighteenth century, it's been one where very often quite junior politicians being groomed for leadership would be sent to work with the leadership of the party/faction and build a profile, but have comparatively little responsibility. Grenville, or Derby, or Lansdowne, or Eden, all would be prime examples.
Of course, there have been exceptions. Where the PM has no interest in foreign affairs - Liverpool, or Grey, or Asquith spring to mind - the Foreign Secretary can pretty much run his (until 2006) own affairs. Castlereagh and Canning did for Liverpool, Palmerston for Grey, Grey (no relation) for Asquith, Austen Chamberlain for Baldwin in his second term. The consequences have frequently been disastrous, but that's a different problem.
But where a PM has chosen to take any interest at all in foreign affairs, the Foreign Secretary has always played second fiddle. It's just now it's much more noticeable.
Tin hat time.
I worked with someone once who had met him on a couple of occasions, and said he was the cleverest person they'd ever met.
I'm sure he won't care what I say about him.
But his track record of failure, incompetence, arrogance and bad judgement in politics are not counterbalanced by examples that tend to show he is, in fact, an idiot.
And do you know, I don't care if he doesn't care what I know (not think, because it's a fact not an opinion). He still doesn't have two brain cells to rub together, and symbolises all that is wrong with this country - that it's who you know not what you know.
Rayner is neither intelligent nor clever btw. Hence she’s thick too.
My opinion of JRM has not altered from the initial impressions.
Damian Hinds beat him for President, which was funny. He had to tone the pomposity down a bit.
The politics of propping up a tired unpopular 13 year old Government wouldn't have looked good (of course neither did going into coalition with the Conservatives as it turned out). In addition, Clegg had publicly committed to speaking first to the party with the most votes and the Conservatives outpolled Labour 36-29 or by two million if you prefer.
Everyone knew Labour couldn't remain in Government except it seems Epstein.
He was also a hard working constituency MP who played a key part in helping deliver Brexit whether you liked it or not.
Though continue your all too frequent chippy whinging if you wish!
They would not be offered such an agreement without prima facie evidence against them, but the DOJ has stated in terms that there are no longer any open cases connected with the Epstein files.
Why then are the names redacted ? It can't be to protect the reputation of the innocent.
And if they accepted a plea deal then the victims must by law be notified. There's no such thing under US law as a secret plea deal.
The Epstein files clearly show that the Southern District of Florida offered a Prosecution Agreement to Epstein and 4 co-conspirators, as well as other “potential” co-conspirators, but the Trump DOJ redacted their names.
https://x.com/EdKrassen/status/2018751137562653046
Rayner is sharp but not especially intelligent though i wouldn't call her thick either.
What could possibly go wrong?
It's been terribly nice getting to know you all.
William Stevenson, 77, was arrested on Monday over the killing of 64-year-old Linda Stevenson at their home in Delaware.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15524459/Jill-Biden-ex-husband-charged-murder-wife.html?ico=comment-anchor#comments
But the US is running a huge fiscal deficit whilst the economy is growing. Trump has made it clear he wants cuts to interest rates. This is classic short term populist economic policy. It can't end well and it's the biggest economy in the world. The precious metal market is crazy right now. I seem to remember Trump also relaxed lending rules for small banks during his first term. We seem to have forgotten that 2008 ever happened.