I was in Washington DC when Peter Mandelson was appointed as ambassador. There was serious dismay in the British embassy about it - not specifically because of his Epstein links, but because everyone knew he was trouble and it always ends in tears with him. Plus, Karen Pierce was a brilliant ambassador who had a great relationship with Trump’s team, and wanted to extend. It was just awful judgement by Keir Starmer and his No10 from the very get go.
It’s because Starmer thought Mandelson could sell the stupid Chagos deal. That was Mandy’s job
When the history of this bizarrely tragic government is written, a little tropic archipelago near nowhere will be oddly prominent
Why are you saying it was about Chagos in particular rather than the general perception (of SKS) that Mandelson's peculiar talents would suit working with a peculiar White House?
Seeing as both Trump and Mandelson had relationships with Epstein it may even have been that Mandy's moving in these kinds of circles was what convinced the government to make him ambassador. Trump's world is one where rich and powerful men (and they are all men) carve up the world to their benefit. Treating women and girls Ike commodities is a feature not a bug, as to these people everything is a commodity, to be bought and sold for their benefit. To my mind this is the reality that the Epstein files lay open for all to see, although really it was all there anyway for those who want to see it.
Yes, I'm afraid 'takes a sleaze to manage a sleaze' might well have been a part of it. And now look. Nothing Mandelson could have achieved in Washington is worth even a fraction of this fallout. Such a bad call.
Really? The fallout is lots of embarrassment for Labour politicians for a few weeks alongside a perhaps 10% chance that a mediocre at best PM loses their job to be replaced by another likely mediocre at best PM.
The volatility in the UK-Trump relationship includes the future of Ukraine, NATO survival and trillions in the economy over the next couple of decades.
It's led to a massive scandal that damages Labour and helps Reform. By how much, we don't know, but it doesn't feel trivial. That, for me, outweighs whatever marginal utility PM had or could have had as our US ambassador.
Does it? It embarrasses Labour but Badenoch is the one who gets to scrutinise Starmer, not Farage. Also if it makes the voting public skeptical of politicians with a colourful history and connections to foreign powers and billionaires that is hardly any use for Reform is it?
If that (distinctly sunnier than mine) take proves correct I'll grab it with both hands. One thing I don't mind (if it happens) is a change of Labour PM. Even before this Starmer wasn't looking like somebody who can win the next election.
Starmer was on the ropes today. He was forced to admit "I was" when asked whether he was aware of Mandelson's continuing relationship with Epstein at the time of his appointment as Ambassador.
But I don't know how he could have handled it any better than he did. Perhaps reduce the use of the word "process"?
A leadership contest is also a process.
By offering the job to someone else. (Would Osborne have even considered it ?)
Starmer was on the ropes today. He was forced to admit "I was" when asked whether he was aware of Mandelson's continuing relationship with Epstein at the time of his appointment as Ambassador.
But I don't know how he could have handled it any better than he did. Perhaps reduce the use of the word "process"?
He was far more exposed by Liz Saville Roberts zinger and to a degree Davey than Kemi awful incompetence.
Tory benches in stony silence when order papers should have been flapping.
Kemi fails to land any real blow on Starmer, he may be hiding behind the fact that Mandy lied to him but it's something she failed to make any progress on.
As he rightly points out this is now a Police matter.
She asks a specific question that she knows he cannot answer. Mandelson clearly told lies that's clear.
Her failure to accept national security issue demeans her, demeans protocol and is completely hypocritical.
Tory benches remarkably quiet given the circumstances, grandees sitting on their hands shaking heads.
Let's repeat Boris redacted 20 pages and released 2.
She's talking to 20 front benchetsbthe rest of her Party are aghast at her incompetence.
A resounding and statesman like win for Starmer.
Cleverly would have far better.
Tory benches sat on complete silence.
Open goal she puts the ball over the Stands
"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."
Didn't watch but per the betting that wasn't great for Keir. The 2026 exit has shortened by about 20 points.
On that market I'm long 27/28, flat 29+ and short 26. That book could prove to be sub-optimal. But let's see.
It was very interesting. One of those listening quietly, like in court, not noisy yah boo stuff.
Starmer came to play the victim. Kemi done very well with clear strong questions, and it created a strong impression of a government conducting a cover up, hiding behind “you can’t have full disclosure because of National Security implications.”
Already we see the “investigations underway we can’t prejudice, you can’t raise this subject anymore now” that made the Covid Party thing so interminable.
Starmer’s quite safe from this, just one of those “a week is a long time in politics” type days. After the publications and sharing of data, debate and votes - which ‘Starmer will comfortably win, this things got few actual legs after today.
My betting book hopes you're right. It's built on him surviving this year and going in 27 or 28.
I was in Washington DC when Peter Mandelson was appointed as ambassador. There was serious dismay in the British embassy about it - not specifically because of his Epstein links, but because everyone knew he was trouble and it always ends in tears with him. Plus, Karen Pierce was a brilliant ambassador who had a great relationship with Trump’s team, and wanted to extend. It was just awful judgement by Keir Starmer and his No10 from the very get go.
It’s because Starmer thought Mandelson could sell the stupid Chagos deal. That was Mandy’s job
When the history of this bizarrely tragic government is written, a little tropic archipelago near nowhere will be oddly prominent
Why are you saying it was about Chagos in particular rather than the general perception (of SKS) that Mandelson's peculiar talents would suit working with a peculiar White House?
Seeing as both Trump and Mandelson had relationships with Epstein it may even have been that Mandy's moving in these kinds of circles was what convinced the government to make him ambassador. Trump's world is one where rich and powerful men (and they are all men) carve up the world to their benefit. Treating women and girls Ike commodities is a feature not a bug, as to these people everything is a commodity, to be bought and sold for their benefit. To my mind this is the reality that the Epstein files lay open for all to see, although really it was all there anyway for those who want to see it.
Yes, I'm afraid 'takes a sleaze to manage a sleaze' might well have been a part of it. And now look. Nothing Mandelson could have achieved in Washington is worth even a fraction of this fallout. Such a bad call.
Really? The fallout is lots of embarrassment for Labour politicians for a few weeks alongside a perhaps 10% chance that a mediocre at best PM loses their job to be replaced by another likely mediocre at best PM.
The volatility in the UK-Trump relationship includes the future of Ukraine, NATO survival and trillions in the economy over the next couple of decades.
It's led to a massive scandal that damages Labour and helps Reform. By how much, we don't know, but it doesn't feel trivial. That, for me, outweighs whatever marginal utility PM had or could have had as our US ambassador.
Does it? It embarrasses Labour but Badenoch is the one who gets to scrutinise Starmer, not Farage. Also if it makes the voting public skeptical of politicians with a colourful history and connections to foreign powers and billionaires that is hardly any use for Reform is it?
If that (distinctly sunnier than mine) take proves correct I'll grab it with both hands. One thing I don't mind (if it happens) is a change of Labour PM. Even before this Starmer wasn't looking like somebody who can win the next election.
Yeah, I don't think it moves Reforms chance of being in power much and if anything I think its a further shift to Con from Reform as the benefit of being Loto kicks in. Makes Starmer less likely to be leader into the next election for sure - I still think he goes 2027 as that timescale suits all involved best.
Starmer was on the ropes today. He was forced to admit "I was" when asked whether he was aware of Mandelson's continuing relationship with Epstein at the time of his appointment as Ambassador.
But I don't know how he could have handled it any better than he did. Perhaps reduce the use of the word "process"?
He was far more exposed by Liz Saville Roberts zinger and to a degree Davey than Kemi awful incompetence.
Tory benches in stony silence when order papers should have been flapping.
You're aware we have our own eyes and ears right ?
Starmer was on the ropes today. He was forced to admit "I was" when asked whether he was aware of Mandelson's continuing relationship with Epstein at the time of his appointment as Ambassador.
But I don't know how he could have handled it any better than he did. Perhaps reduce the use of the word "process"?
He was far more exposed by Liz Saville Roberts zinger and to a degree Davey than Kemi awful incompetence.
Tory benches in stony silence when order papers should have been flapping.
Good to know that is how Labour MPs would have shown their respect to the victims of Epstein.
Starmer was on the ropes today. He was forced to admit "I was" when asked whether he was aware of Mandelson's continuing relationship with Epstein at the time of his appointment as Ambassador.
But I don't know how he could have handled it any better than he did. Perhaps reduce the use of the word "process"?
He was far more exposed by Liz Saville Roberts zinger and to a degree Davey than Kemi awful incompetence.
Tory benches in stony silence when order papers should have been flapping.
You're aware we have our own eyes and ears right ?
Yes. It wasn’t a “boisterous paper waving” type of day. A lot of PMQs when Starmer asked about Covid Party revelations in the weeks papers were conducted in the same type of silence.
Triple stabbing ought not necessitate nearly 18h of closed roads and a total media blackout.
Edit - Leicester police say it wasn't a triple stabbing.
The report I saw said a murder investigation as a result of someone being stabbed.
I presume it's a murder investigation because someone has been killed. I suppose we'll just have to wait but the lack of detail at this point is.... strange.
I can't recall many incidents like this that have had 18 h of road closures and a media blackout, but hey, the police are the experts.
Just tell people what you know, and what you want them to do (or not do). Something like:
"Police are investigating a stabbing incident at x place, at y time. A man in his approx age has been arrested and is helping police with their inquiries. We are not looking for anyone else in connection with this incident at this time. Police have cordoned off area x + dx in order to gather evidence and the public are asked to avoid this area at this time. Anyone in this area at y time who thinks they might have any information relating to this incident is asked to contact police at z number/police station. Police will be making a further statement with more information at t hours."
It's not difficult.
Instant questions - why arent they saying how many victims? What race were the perpetrator and victim? Terrorist or not? Etc
Whatever they say, people will want to know more.
Which is why there's a further statement later. But they shouldn't be not saying anything at all, just because they don't have a complete story to tell yet.
I was in Washington DC when Peter Mandelson was appointed as ambassador. There was serious dismay in the British embassy about it - not specifically because of his Epstein links, but because everyone knew he was trouble and it always ends in tears with him. Plus, Karen Pierce was a brilliant ambassador who had a great relationship with Trump’s team, and wanted to extend. It was just awful judgement by Keir Starmer and his No10 from the very get go.
It’s because Starmer thought Mandelson could sell the stupid Chagos deal. That was Mandy’s job
When the history of this bizarrely tragic government is written, a little tropic archipelago near nowhere will be oddly prominent
Why are you saying it was about Chagos in particular rather than the general perception (of SKS) that Mandelson's peculiar talents would suit working with a peculiar White House?
Seeing as both Trump and Mandelson had relationships with Epstein it may even have been that Mandy's moving in these kinds of circles was what convinced the government to make him ambassador. Trump's world is one where rich and powerful men (and they are all men) carve up the world to their benefit. Treating women and girls Ike commodities is a feature not a bug, as to these people everything is a commodity, to be bought and sold for their benefit. To my mind this is the reality that the Epstein files lay open for all to see, although really it was all there anyway for those who want to see it.
Yes, I'm afraid 'takes a sleaze to manage a sleaze' might well have been a part of it. And now look. Nothing Mandelson could have achieved in Washington is worth even a fraction of this fallout. Such a bad call.
Really? The fallout is lots of embarrassment for Labour politicians for a few weeks alongside a perhaps 10% chance that a mediocre at best PM loses their job to be replaced by another likely mediocre at best PM.
The volatility in the UK-Trump relationship includes the future of Ukraine, NATO survival and trillions in the economy over the next couple of decades.
It's led to a massive scandal that damages Labour and helps Reform. By how much, we don't know, but it doesn't feel trivial. That, for me, outweighs whatever marginal utility PM had or could have had as our US ambassador.
Does it? It embarrasses Labour but Badenoch is the one who gets to scrutinise Starmer, not Farage. Also if it makes the voting public skeptical of politicians with a colourful history and connections to foreign powers and billionaires that is hardly any use for Reform is it?
If that (distinctly sunnier than mine) take proves correct I'll grab it with both hands. One thing I don't mind (if it happens) is a change of Labour PM. Even before this Starmer wasn't looking like somebody who can win the next election.
Yeah, I don't think it moves Reforms chance of being in power much and if anything I think its a further shift to Con from Reform as the benefit of being Loto kicks in. Makes Starmer less likely to be leader into the next election for sure - I still think he goes 2027 as that timescale suits all involved best.
I think he'll step down/be challenged in May after the locals/Scotland/Wales still. It's impractical to hold a leadership election while parliament is sitting.
“Given that PM’s argument is that it was ok for Mandelson to be friends with a paedophile but the "scale and extent" crossed a line, will the Cabinet Office be publishing guidance on acceptable relationships with paedophiles. Coffee ok but not dinner?”
Starmer was on the ropes today. He was forced to admit "I was" when asked whether he was aware of Mandelson's continuing relationship with Epstein at the time of his appointment as Ambassador.
But I don't know how he could have handled it any better than he did. Perhaps reduce the use of the word "process"?
The problem for Starmer is that the contours of the whole matter are now incredibly problematic. He probably did as well as he could do today given that he is in a very difficult place.
Reading between the lines, it appears that something like this went down. The vetting said Mandelson had a friendship with Epstein (and this was also public knowledge). Now, immediately, considering that the biggest and most visible public scandal of recent years (Andy’s interview and the fallout) revolved around this man and that he was an utter monster , one might have thought that alarm bells should be ringing at the top of government that maybe putting forward someone Epstein-adjacent wasn’t a tremendously good idea.
It then appears that someone asked Peter Mandelson (of course well known for being the paragon of probity) to give more details about his friendship and what he said was false. So everyone just went along with it anyway and didn’t bother to follow it up any further.
It’s a matter of judgement at the end of the day but one does have to say that it’s a pretty crap judgement.
Starmer was on the ropes today. He was forced to admit "I was" when asked whether he was aware of Mandelson's continuing relationship with Epstein at the time of his appointment as Ambassador.
But I don't know how he could have handled it any better than he did. Perhaps reduce the use of the word "process"?
He was far more exposed by Liz Saville Roberts zinger and to a degree Davey than Kemi awful incompetence.
Tory benches in stony silence when order papers should have been flapping.
You're aware we have our own eyes and ears right ?
I thought Kemi did fine today. I don’t usually watch PMQ’s, preferring my collection of DVDs or doing something productive, but I thought she did just fine.
As did Ed and Liz.
Starmer was hopeless.
I was impressed with Jonathan Brash actually going into bat for his seat too rather than asking SKS how brilliant he is. Mind you Brash is very focussed on Hartlepool on social media too.
I was in Washington DC when Peter Mandelson was appointed as ambassador. There was serious dismay in the British embassy about it - not specifically because of his Epstein links, but because everyone knew he was trouble and it always ends in tears with him. Plus, Karen Pierce was a brilliant ambassador who had a great relationship with Trump’s team, and wanted to extend. It was just awful judgement by Keir Starmer and his No10 from the very get go.
It’s because Starmer thought Mandelson could sell the stupid Chagos deal. That was Mandy’s job
When the history of this bizarrely tragic government is written, a little tropic archipelago near nowhere will be oddly prominent
Why are you saying it was about Chagos in particular rather than the general perception (of SKS) that Mandelson's peculiar talents would suit working with a peculiar White House?
Seeing as both Trump and Mandelson had relationships with Epstein it may even have been that Mandy's moving in these kinds of circles was what convinced the government to make him ambassador. Trump's world is one where rich and powerful men (and they are all men) carve up the world to their benefit. Treating women and girls Ike commodities is a feature not a bug, as to these people everything is a commodity, to be bought and sold for their benefit. To my mind this is the reality that the Epstein files lay open for all to see, although really it was all there anyway for those who want to see it.
Yes, I'm afraid 'takes a sleaze to manage a sleaze' might well have been a part of it. And now look. Nothing Mandelson could have achieved in Washington is worth even a fraction of this fallout. Such a bad call.
Really? The fallout is lots of embarrassment for Labour politicians for a few weeks alongside a perhaps 10% chance that a mediocre at best PM loses their job to be replaced by another likely mediocre at best PM.
The volatility in the UK-Trump relationship includes the future of Ukraine, NATO survival and trillions in the economy over the next couple of decades.
It's led to a massive scandal that damages Labour and helps Reform. By how much, we don't know, but it doesn't feel trivial. That, for me, outweighs whatever marginal utility PM had or could have had as our US ambassador.
Does it? It embarrasses Labour but Badenoch is the one who gets to scrutinise Starmer, not Farage. Also if it makes the voting public skeptical of politicians with a colourful history and connections to foreign powers and billionaires that is hardly any use for Reform is it?
If that (distinctly sunnier than mine) take proves correct I'll grab it with both hands. One thing I don't mind (if it happens) is a change of Labour PM. Even before this Starmer wasn't looking like somebody who can win the next election.
Yeah, I don't think it moves Reforms chance of being in power much and if anything I think its a further shift to Con from Reform as the benefit of being Loto kicks in. Makes Starmer less likely to be leader into the next election for sure - I still think he goes 2027 as that timescale suits all involved best.
27 is my best result, 28 also good, flat on later. I'd lose on 26.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby On this. A Conservative spokesman says: “The PM has just admitted that the official security vetting highlighted Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but he went ahead and appointed him anyway.
“This is the first time the PM has admitted this and it raises very serious questions over Keir Starmer’s shocking judgement.
“The PM is now trying to orchestrate a cover up by having his own government mark his homework. All MPs must now support the Conservatives’ humble address so that we reveal the full extent of this scandal and the shocking failure of Keir Starmer and his operation.”
Starmer was on the ropes today. He was forced to admit "I was" when asked whether he was aware of Mandelson's continuing relationship with Epstein at the time of his appointment as Ambassador.
But I don't know how he could have handled it any better than he did. Perhaps reduce the use of the word "process"?
The problem for Starmer is that the contours of the whole matter are now incredibly problematic. He probably did as well as he could do today given that he is in a very difficult place.
Reading between the lines, it appears that something like this went down. The vetting said Mandelson had a friendship with Epstein (and this was also public knowledge). Now, immediately, considering that the biggest and most visible public scandal of recent years (Andy’s interview and the fallout) revolved around this man, one might have thought that alarm bells should be ringing at the top of government that maybe putting forward someone Epstein-adjacent wasn’t a tremendously good idea.
It then appears that someone asked Peter Mandelson (of course well known for being the paragon of probity) to give more details about his friendship and what he said was false. So everyone just went along with it anyway and didn’t bother to follow it up any further.
It’s a matter of judgement at the end of the day but one does have to say that it’s a pretty crap judgement.
A point made repeatedly on PB at the time of the appointment was that the President's relationship with Epstein might also have been a factor in the choice. Did anyone raise that in the Commons ?
Starmer was on the ropes today. He was forced to admit "I was" when asked whether he was aware of Mandelson's continuing relationship with Epstein at the time of his appointment as Ambassador.
But I don't know how he could have handled it any better than he did. Perhaps reduce the use of the word "process"?
A leadership contest is also a process.
By offering the job to someone else. (Would Osborne have even considered it ?)
I meant handle it better than he did today. As you say, he could have handled it much better at the time of the appointment.
Kemi fails to land any real blow on Starmer, he may be hiding behind the fact that Mandy lied to him but it's something she failed to make any progress on.
As he rightly points out this is now a Police matter.
She asks a specific question that she knows he cannot answer. Mandelson clearly told lies that's clear.
Her failure to accept national security issue demeans her, demeans protocol and is completely hypocritical.
Tory benches remarkably quiet given the circumstances, grandees sitting on their hands shaking heads.
Let's repeat Boris redacted 20 pages and released 2.
She's talking to 20 front benchetsbthe rest of her Party are aghast at her incompetence.
I mean, if anything makes clear that Starmer was after a particular species of schmoozer for the Trump / US Ambassador role, a shortlist of Osborne and Mandelson is the clincher. Appointing yacht people came with risks that Starmer was prepared to take.
I was in Washington DC when Peter Mandelson was appointed as ambassador. There was serious dismay in the British embassy about it - not specifically because of his Epstein links, but because everyone knew he was trouble and it always ends in tears with him. Plus, Karen Pierce was a brilliant ambassador who had a great relationship with Trump’s team, and wanted to extend. It was just awful judgement by Keir Starmer and his No10 from the very get go.
It’s because Starmer thought Mandelson could sell the stupid Chagos deal. That was Mandy’s job
When the history of this bizarrely tragic government is written, a little tropic archipelago near nowhere will be oddly prominent
Why are you saying it was about Chagos in particular rather than the general perception (of SKS) that Mandelson's peculiar talents would suit working with a peculiar White House?
Seeing as both Trump and Mandelson had relationships with Epstein it may even have been that Mandy's moving in these kinds of circles was what convinced the government to make him ambassador. Trump's world is one where rich and powerful men (and they are all men) carve up the world to their benefit. Treating women and girls Ike commodities is a feature not a bug, as to these people everything is a commodity, to be bought and sold for their benefit. To my mind this is the reality that the Epstein files lay open for all to see, although really it was all there anyway for those who want to see it.
Yes, I'm afraid 'takes a sleaze to manage a sleaze' might well have been a part of it. And now look. Nothing Mandelson could have achieved in Washington is worth even a fraction of this fallout. Such a bad call.
Really? The fallout is lots of embarrassment for Labour politicians for a few weeks alongside a perhaps 10% chance that a mediocre at best PM loses their job to be replaced by another likely mediocre at best PM.
The volatility in the UK-Trump relationship includes the future of Ukraine, NATO survival and trillions in the economy over the next couple of decades.
It's led to a massive scandal that damages Labour and helps Reform. By how much, we don't know, but it doesn't feel trivial. That, for me, outweighs whatever marginal utility PM had or could have had as our US ambassador.
Does it? It embarrasses Labour but Badenoch is the one who gets to scrutinise Starmer, not Farage. Also if it makes the voting public skeptical of politicians with a colourful history and connections to foreign powers and billionaires that is hardly any use for Reform is it?
If that (distinctly sunnier than mine) take proves correct I'll grab it with both hands. One thing I don't mind (if it happens) is a change of Labour PM. Even before this Starmer wasn't looking like somebody who can win the next election.
Yeah, I don't think it moves Reforms chance of being in power much and if anything I think its a further shift to Con from Reform as the benefit of being Loto kicks in. Makes Starmer less likely to be leader into the next election for sure - I still think he goes 2027 as that timescale suits all involved best.
27 is my best result, 28 also good, flat on later. I'd lose on 26.
Starmer was on the ropes today. He was forced to admit "I was" when asked whether he was aware of Mandelson's continuing relationship with Epstein at the time of his appointment as Ambassador.
But I don't know how he could have handled it any better than he did. Perhaps reduce the use of the word "process"?
The problem for Starmer is that the contours of the whole matter are now incredibly problematic. He probably did as well as he could do today given that he is in a very difficult place.
Reading between the lines, it appears that something like this went down. The vetting said Mandelson had a friendship with Epstein (and this was also public knowledge). Now, immediately, considering that the biggest and most visible public scandal of recent years (Andy’s interview and the fallout) revolved around this man and that he was an utter monster , one might have thought that alarm bells should be ringing at the top of government that maybe putting forward someone Epstein-adjacent wasn’t a tremendously good idea.
It then appears that someone asked Peter Mandelson (of course well known for being the paragon of probity) to give more details about his friendship and what he said was false. So everyone just went along with it anyway and didn’t bother to follow it up any further.
It’s a matter of judgement at the end of the day but one does have to say that it’s a pretty crap judgement.
Given his past, he should have been subject to a full, detailed and thorough vetting for the job.
Hell, for that job, he should have been subject to a full , detailed and thorough vetting, anyway.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby On this. A Conservative spokesman says: “The PM has just admitted that the official security vetting highlighted Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but he went ahead and appointed him anyway.
“This is the first time the PM has admitted this and it raises very serious questions over Keir Starmer’s shocking judgement.
“The PM is now trying to orchestrate a cover up by having his own government mark his homework. All MPs must now support the Conservatives’ humble address so that we reveal the full extent of this scandal and the shocking failure of Keir Starmer and his operation.”
“Given that PM’s argument is that it was ok for Mandelson to be friends with a paedophile but the "scale and extent" crossed a line, will the Cabinet Office be publishing guidance on acceptable relationships with paedophiles. Coffee ok but not dinner?”
Beth Rigby @BethRigby On this. A Conservative spokesman says: “The PM has just admitted that the official security vetting highlighted Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but he went ahead and appointed him anyway.
“This is the first time the PM has admitted this and it raises very serious questions over Keir Starmer’s shocking judgement.
“The PM is now trying to orchestrate a cover up by having his own government mark his homework. All MPs must now support the Conservatives’ humble address so that we reveal the full extent of this scandal and the shocking failure of Keir Starmer and his operation.”
Wow. This is high-stakes stuff. If Kemi can get Sir Keir's head on a pike (perfectly possible) then we could see her acclaimed as the most accomplished politician of her generation. That could totally change the dynamics, with even Nigel metaphorically having to kiss her ring on bended knee.
I wonder if labours forensic look at trying to nobble Reform before the locals foreign interference in our politics will include Mandelson after the comments from Ed Davey who put the boot in like it was a sub postmaster with a faulty till.
I was in Washington DC when Peter Mandelson was appointed as ambassador. There was serious dismay in the British embassy about it - not specifically because of his Epstein links, but because everyone knew he was trouble and it always ends in tears with him. Plus, Karen Pierce was a brilliant ambassador who had a great relationship with Trump’s team, and wanted to extend. It was just awful judgement by Keir Starmer and his No10 from the very get go.
It’s because Starmer thought Mandelson could sell the stupid Chagos deal. That was Mandy’s job
When the history of this bizarrely tragic government is written, a little tropic archipelago near nowhere will be oddly prominent
Why are you saying it was about Chagos in particular rather than the general perception (of SKS) that Mandelson's peculiar talents would suit working with a peculiar White House?
Seeing as both Trump and Mandelson had relationships with Epstein it may even have been that Mandy's moving in these kinds of circles was what convinced the government to make him ambassador. Trump's world is one where rich and powerful men (and they are all men) carve up the world to their benefit. Treating women and girls Ike commodities is a feature not a bug, as to these people everything is a commodity, to be bought and sold for their benefit. To my mind this is the reality that the Epstein files lay open for all to see, although really it was all there anyway for those who want to see it.
Yes, I'm afraid 'takes a sleaze to manage a sleaze' might well have been a part of it. And now look. Nothing Mandelson could have achieved in Washington is worth even a fraction of this fallout. Such a bad call.
Really? The fallout is lots of embarrassment for Labour politicians for a few weeks alongside a perhaps 10% chance that a mediocre at best PM loses their job to be replaced by another likely mediocre at best PM.
The volatility in the UK-Trump relationship includes the future of Ukraine, NATO survival and trillions in the economy over the next couple of decades.
It's led to a massive scandal that damages Labour and helps Reform. By how much, we don't know, but it doesn't feel trivial. That, for me, outweighs whatever marginal utility PM had or could have had as our US ambassador.
Does it? It embarrasses Labour but Badenoch is the one who gets to scrutinise Starmer, not Farage. Also if it makes the voting public skeptical of politicians with a colourful history and connections to foreign powers and billionaires that is hardly any use for Reform is it?
If that (distinctly sunnier than mine) take proves correct I'll grab it with both hands. One thing I don't mind (if it happens) is a change of Labour PM. Even before this Starmer wasn't looking like somebody who can win the next election.
Yeah, I don't think it moves Reforms chance of being in power much and if anything I think its a further shift to Con from Reform as the benefit of being Loto kicks in. Makes Starmer less likely to be leader into the next election for sure - I still think he goes 2027 as that timescale suits all involved best.
Do you have a sense the Labour MPs are keen on a change of economic plan?
Otherwise We’ve seen this before, certainly in 80’s with Lady Thatcher, 90s with Major, and Brown premiership too. People talk up replacing PMs, but it doesn’t always happen. An improving economy and cost of living feel good factor will lift Labour in the polls, that economy will improve but Labours position won’t is bit of wishful thinking.
The problem with thinking Starmer won’t lead Labour into next election is that replacing him starts with the MPs - do the MPs want to see a shift in Labours economic policy to the left? If they don’t therefore they won’t move against him. Does anyone have a sense Labour MPs are keen on a change of economic plan? That’s the “it’s not working, it needs a change” to watch for. Starmer’s position rests on the current economic plan showing results.
“Given that PM’s argument is that it was ok for Mandelson to be friends with a paedophile but the "scale and extent" crossed a line, will the Cabinet Office be publishing guidance on acceptable relationships with paedophiles. Coffee ok but not dinner?”
Triple stabbing ought not necessitate nearly 18h of closed roads and a total media blackout.
Edit - Leicester police say it wasn't a triple stabbing.
The report I saw said a murder investigation as a result of someone being stabbed.
I presume it's a murder investigation because someone has been killed. I suppose we'll just have to wait but the lack of detail at this point is.... strange.
I can't recall many incidents like this that have had 18 h of road closures and a media blackout, but hey, the police are the experts.
Just tell people what you know, and what you want them to do (or not do). Something like:
"Police are investigating a stabbing incident at x place, at y time. A man in his approx age has been arrested and is helping police with their inquiries. We are not looking for anyone else in connection with this incident at this time. Police have cordoned off area x + dx in order to gather evidence and the public are asked to avoid this area at this time. Anyone in this area at y time who thinks they might have any information relating to this incident is asked to contact police at z number/police station. Police will be making a further statement with more information at t hours."
It's not difficult.
Instant questions - why arent they saying how many victims? What race were the perpetrator and victim? Terrorist or not? Etc
Whatever they say, people will want to know more.
Which is why there's a further statement later. But they shouldn't be not saying anything at all, just because they don't have a complete story to tell yet.
I think its one of those things where whatever they do they get criticised. That doesn't mean they always get it right, and I sympathise with the direction of travel you suggest, but I suspect they would get similar criticism releasing your statement and the opposite criticisms if they release things early and it turns out incorrect.
EXC: Disgraced peer Peter Mandelson was directly involved in helping Morgan McSweeney select Labour’s parliamentary candidates ahead of the 2024 general election, a party whistleblower told The i Paper.
I mean, if anything makes clear that Starmer was after a particular species of schmoozer for the Trump / US Ambassador role, a shortlist of Osborne and Mandelson is the clincher. Appointing yacht people came with risks that Starmer was prepared to take.
Again the puzzle is that we already had a very respected ambassador who had good relations with the Trump team. If there's no problem don't fix it.
Hmm. If this continues Nigel might soon have to start thinking of doing a mass expulsion of those Tory defectors - they're clearly doing him no favours. He could just say that he got wind that they were plotting to oust him. Perfectly believable and who would actually care?
Starmer doesn't have the previous 23 yellow cards Boris had accumulated at the time.
We've just had David Davis of all people talk about Oleg Deripaska links to Mandelson when Boris and Sunak bent over backwards for him and his roubles.
I wonder if labours forensic look at trying to nobble Reform before the locals foreign interference in our politics will include Mandelson after the comments from Ed Davey who put the boot in like it was a sub postmaster with a faulty till.
Yes I agree. I posted this in the last thread. In light of Mandelson Scandal the Tories and Labour and Libdem votes can create new laws where the inherent vice entangles Reform - like a dolphin in a net of crabs.
It was notable in PMQs (it certainly stood out to my ears) Starmer literally said “new legislation to boot out crooked politicians.”
Beth Rigby @BethRigby On this. A Conservative spokesman says: “The PM has just admitted that the official security vetting highlighted Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but he went ahead and appointed him anyway.
“This is the first time the PM has admitted this and it raises very serious questions over Keir Starmer’s shocking judgement.
“The PM is now trying to orchestrate a cover up by having his own government mark his homework. All MPs must now support the Conservatives’ humble address so that we reveal the full extent of this scandal and the shocking failure of Keir Starmer and his operation.”
Wow. This is high-stakes stuff. If Kemi can get Sir Keir's head on a pike (perfectly possible) then we could see her acclaimed as the most accomplished politician of her generation. That could totally change the dynamics, with even Nigel metaphorically having to kiss her ring on bended knee.
The only head on a pike will be Kemi when Cleverly is anointed in mid May.
Six Palestine Action activists have been cleared of aggravated burglary over a break-in at a UK subsidiary of an Israeli defence firm.
Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, Fatema Rajwani, 21, Zoe Rogers, 22, and Jordan Devlin, 31, were also charged with criminal damage and violent disorder but the jury reached partial or no verdicts.
The alleged raid targeted the Elbit Systems building near Bristol in the early hours of 6 August 2024.
The six defendants hugged in the dock and waved to supporters in the public gallery, who cheered loudly after the judge had left the court.
The jury at Woolwich Crown Court had been deliberating for more than 36 hours after a trial that began in November 2025. Rajwani, Rogers and Devlin were found not guilty of violent disorder. No verdict was reached for charges of violent disorder for Head, Corner and Kamio.
Jurors were also unable to reach a verdict on Corner's charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent relating to an alleged attack on a security guard.
Starmer doesn't have the previous 23 yellow cards Boris had accumulated at the time.
We've just had David Davis of all people talk about Oleg Deripaska links to Mandelson when Boris and Sunak bent over backwards for him and his roubles.
Utter hypocrisy.
There’s a difference between a bottom pincher and a convicted paedophile.
2,700 people have been arrested so far for peaceful protest; that the CPS/Crown Office haven't secured a single conviction and yet continue to make these arrests is an affront to justice and a disgrace in what's supposed to be a free country. Put them in front of a jury you cowards.
The question is why did Starmer appoint him. It could be because he thought he'd be good at it or more likely I'd suggest to placate Mandelson and stop him interfering in Westminster.
Spot on, Frank. Why, indeed?
We don't yet know the answer to that question. If we had a decent Press, we might find out sooner rather than later. In fact we are more likely to reach an informed opinion on this through following some of the better posters on here.
The question is why did Starmer appoint him. It could be because he thought he'd be good at it or more likely I'd suggest to placate Mandelson and stop him interfering in Westminster.
Spot on, Frank. Why, indeed?
We don't yet know the answer to that question. If we had a decent Press, we might find out sooner rather than later. In fact we are more likely to reach an informed opinion on this through following some of the better posters on here.
May take a while though.
Because Mandy sold himself as The Smartest Guy In The Room. Who could play Trump like fiddle.
Mandy omitted the bit about playing everyone else. And being played himself.
The question is why did Starmer appoint him. It could be because he thought he'd be good at it or more likely I'd suggest to placate Mandelson and stop him interfering in Westminster.
Spot on, Frank. Why, indeed?
We don't yet know the answer to that question. If we had a decent Press, we might find out sooner rather than later. In fact we are more likely to reach an informed opinion on this through following some of the better posters on here.
May take a while though.
Easy, who is going to fill the papers with the latest in the Beckham v Pelz wars, inform us of what crap Meghan Markle is selling this week or whether Katie Price’s latest marriage will work if these fine and noble journos are made to cover boring old politics and global affairs. Doesn’t drive the clicks.
Six Palestine Action activists have been cleared of aggravated burglary over a break-in at a UK subsidiary of an Israeli defence firm.
Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, Fatema Rajwani, 21, Zoe Rogers, 22, and Jordan Devlin, 31, were also charged with criminal damage and violent disorder but the jury reached partial or no verdicts.
The alleged raid targeted the Elbit Systems building near Bristol in the early hours of 6 August 2024.
The six defendants hugged in the dock and waved to supporters in the public gallery, who cheered loudly after the judge had left the court.
The jury at Woolwich Crown Court had been deliberating for more than 36 hours after a trial that began in November 2025. Rajwani, Rogers and Devlin were found not guilty of violent disorder. No verdict was reached for charges of violent disorder for Head, Corner and Kamio.
Jurors were also unable to reach a verdict on Corner's charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent relating to an alleged attack on a security guard.
Starmer was on the ropes today. He was forced to admit "I was" when asked whether he was aware of Mandelson's continuing relationship with Epstein at the time of his appointment as Ambassador.
But I don't know how he could have handled it any better than he did. Perhaps reduce the use of the word "process"?
The problem for Starmer is that the contours of the whole matter are now incredibly problematic. He probably did as well as he could do today given that he is in a very difficult place.
Reading between the lines, it appears that something like this went down. The vetting said Mandelson had a friendship with Epstein (and this was also public knowledge). Now, immediately, considering that the biggest and most visible public scandal of recent years (Andy’s interview and the fallout) revolved around this man and that he was an utter monster , one might have thought that alarm bells should be ringing at the top of government that maybe putting forward someone Epstein-adjacent wasn’t a tremendously good idea.
It then appears that someone asked Peter Mandelson (of course well known for being the paragon of probity) to give more details about his friendship and what he said was false. So everyone just went along with it anyway and didn’t bother to follow it up any further.
It’s a matter of judgement at the end of the day but one does have to say that it’s a pretty crap judgement.
Given his past, he should have been subject to a full, detailed and thorough vetting for the job.
Hell, for that job, he should have been subject to a full , detailed and thorough vetting, anyway.
One of the quirks of our system is that politicians aren't subject to the same sort of vetting as normals. (Mandy is not the first disgraceful national security risk to walk the highest corridors of power, is he?)
The Will Of The People doctrine stretches a long way, and probably should, because the alternative is worse.
The question is why did Starmer appoint him. It could be because he thought he'd be good at it or more likely I'd suggest to placate Mandelson and stop him interfering in Westminster.
Spot on, Frank. Why, indeed?
We don't yet know the answer to that question. If we had a decent Press, we might find out sooner rather than later. In fact we are more likely to reach an informed opinion on this through following some of the better posters on here.
May take a while though.
The Foreign Office rightly predicted Trump 2.0 would need a non career diplomat as our chap in Washington and Mandy was the best man for the job.
I think a lot of people do forget until the scandal he was seen as doing a job with Trump.
The question is why did Starmer appoint him. It could be because he thought he'd be good at it or more likely I'd suggest to placate Mandelson and stop him interfering in Westminster.
Spot on, Frank. Why, indeed?
We don't yet know the answer to that question. If we had a decent Press, we might find out sooner rather than later. In fact we are more likely to reach an informed opinion on this through following some of the better posters on here.
May take a while though.
What Starmer can’t admit (because in hindsight it looks like a shockingly bad and maybe career-ending decision) is that he needed an ambassador to the US that he felt could do business with Trump, and, either due to McSweeney’s prompting, or party politics, or what he saw as simple realpolitik he decided that Peter Mandelson was an appropriate choice and if there were risks they were risks worth taking. That seems to be the crux of it.
I wonder if labours forensic look at trying to nobble Reform before the locals foreign interference in our politics will include Mandelson after the comments from Ed Davey who put the boot in like it was a sub postmaster with a faulty till.
Yes I agree. I posted this in the last thread. In light of Mandelson Scandal the Tories and Labour and Libdem votes can create new laws where the inherent vice entangles Reform - like a dolphin in a net of crabs.
It was notable in PMQs (it certainly stood out to my ears) Starmer literally said “new legislation to boot out crooked politicians.”
To his credit Ed Davey has always said any investigation should cover all parties and be thorough. The Tories and Labour have questions to answer too. They won’t want that.
It's the confluence of sexual and financial sleaze that makes this story so toxic for the government. The implication of Starmer's answers is that he knew Mandelson was friends with a convicted sex offender and was okay to give him a pass on that, but if only he'd known that Mandelson was also dodgy financially (as if he didn't know) then he would never have touched him with a barge pole.
Starmer was on the ropes today. He was forced to admit "I was" when asked whether he was aware of Mandelson's continuing relationship with Epstein at the time of his appointment as Ambassador.
But I don't know how he could have handled it any better than he did. Perhaps reduce the use of the word "process"?
The problem for Starmer is that the contours of the whole matter are now incredibly problematic. He probably did as well as he could do today given that he is in a very difficult place.
Reading between the lines, it appears that something like this went down. The vetting said Mandelson had a friendship with Epstein (and this was also public knowledge). Now, immediately, considering that the biggest and most visible public scandal of recent years (Andy’s interview and the fallout) revolved around this man and that he was an utter monster , one might have thought that alarm bells should be ringing at the top of government that maybe putting forward someone Epstein-adjacent wasn’t a tremendously good idea.
It then appears that someone asked Peter Mandelson (of course well known for being the paragon of probity) to give more details about his friendship and what he said was false. So everyone just went along with it anyway and didn’t bother to follow it up any further.
It’s a matter of judgement at the end of the day but one does have to say that it’s a pretty crap judgement.
Given his past, he should have been subject to a full, detailed and thorough vetting for the job.
Hell, for that job, he should have been subject to a full , detailed and thorough vetting, anyway.
That’s back to where we were yesterday, what actually is “the most thorough” vetting if someone already made their mind up they are happy to appoint a UK Ambassador they know is still besties with a convicted Paedophile. 🤷♀️
Are you still convinced Snoopy Services knew all about the leaking of market sensitive information to Epstein, and shared this information with successive governments including Starmer’s? I’m in two minds about that, you havn’t convinced me.
When I predicted that Starmer would still be PM at the end of the year, for the prediction competition, I realise the error I made was in thinking of the difficulties those actively wanting to replace Starmer would have in doing so.
But, actually, the end of a PM comes when they no longer have enough supporters willing to defend them.
Starmer has never had that many strong supporters. He's failed to define a Starmerism supporters might rally around. He's shown no evidence of having an electorally important relationship with the voters.
Just like with Boris Johnson he's forced colleagues to support policies in public before making them look like idiots when he u-turns. What is the reason why Labour politicians would support and defend Starmer? He's not even going to be the source of patronage for much longer. The question of his replacement is a matter of timing and identity. Who and when?
If he's not forced to go until after the locals, the timing of a leadership contest implies that any replacement won't take office until well into the summer - meaning they would face the same problems of establishing momentum and preparing for the budget as Starmer/Reeves faced in July 2024.
The question is why did Starmer appoint him. It could be because he thought he'd be good at it or more likely I'd suggest to placate Mandelson and stop him interfering in Westminster.
Spot on, Frank. Why, indeed?
We don't yet know the answer to that question. If we had a decent Press, we might find out sooner rather than later. In fact we are more likely to reach an informed opinion on this through following some of the better posters on here.
May take a while though.
What Starmer can’t admit (because in hindsight it looks like a shockingly bad and maybe career-ending decision) is that he needed an ambassador to the US that he felt could do business with Trump, and, either due to McSweeney’s prompting, or party politics, or what he saw as simple realpolitik he decided that Peter Mandelson was an appropriate choice and if there were risks they were risks worth taking. That seems to be the crux of it.
Effing bad call then, no?
I can actually remember a similar cock-up when Jim Callaghan appointed his son-in-law Peter Jay to the post of US Ambassador. That ended in tears too.
Most PBers would be far too young to remember that though.
I was in Washington DC when Peter Mandelson was appointed as ambassador. There was serious dismay in the British embassy about it - not specifically because of his Epstein links, but because everyone knew he was trouble and it always ends in tears with him. Plus, Karen Pierce was a brilliant ambassador who had a great relationship with Trump’s team, and wanted to extend. It was just awful judgement by Keir Starmer and his No10 from the very get go.
It’s because Starmer thought Mandelson could sell the stupid Chagos deal. That was Mandy’s job
When the history of this bizarrely tragic government is written, a little tropic archipelago near nowhere will be oddly prominent
Why are you saying it was about Chagos in particular rather than the general perception (of SKS) that Mandelson's peculiar talents would suit working with a peculiar White House?
Seeing as both Trump and Mandelson had relationships with Epstein it may even have been that Mandy's moving in these kinds of circles was what convinced the government to make him ambassador. Trump's world is one where rich and powerful men (and they are all men) carve up the world to their benefit. Treating women and girls Ike commodities is a feature not a bug, as to these people everything is a commodity, to be bought and sold for their benefit. To my mind this is the reality that the Epstein files lay open for all to see, although really it was all there anyway for those who want to see it.
Yes, I'm afraid 'takes a sleaze to manage a sleaze' might well have been a part of it. And now look. Nothing Mandelson could have achieved in Washington is worth even a fraction of this fallout. Such a bad call.
Really? The fallout is lots of embarrassment for Labour politicians for a few weeks alongside a perhaps 10% chance that a mediocre at best PM loses their job to be replaced by another likely mediocre at best PM.
The volatility in the UK-Trump relationship includes the future of Ukraine, NATO survival and trillions in the economy over the next couple of decades.
It's led to a massive scandal that damages Labour and helps Reform. By how much, we don't know, but it doesn't feel trivial. That, for me, outweighs whatever marginal utility PM had or could have had as our US ambassador.
Does it? It embarrasses Labour but Badenoch is the one who gets to scrutinise Starmer, not Farage. Also if it makes the voting public skeptical of politicians with a colourful history and connections to foreign powers and billionaires that is hardly any use for Reform is it?
If that (distinctly sunnier than mine) take proves correct I'll grab it with both hands. One thing I don't mind (if it happens) is a change of Labour PM. Even before this Starmer wasn't looking like somebody who can win the next election.
Yeah, I don't think it moves Reforms chance of being in power much and if anything I think its a further shift to Con from Reform as the benefit of being Loto kicks in. Makes Starmer less likely to be leader into the next election for sure - I still think he goes 2027 as that timescale suits all involved best.
27 is my best result, 28 also good, flat on later. I'd lose on 26.
Six Palestine Action activists have been cleared of aggravated burglary over a break-in at a UK subsidiary of an Israeli defence firm.
Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, Fatema Rajwani, 21, Zoe Rogers, 22, and Jordan Devlin, 31, were also charged with criminal damage and violent disorder but the jury reached partial or no verdicts.
The alleged raid targeted the Elbit Systems building near Bristol in the early hours of 6 August 2024.
The six defendants hugged in the dock and waved to supporters in the public gallery, who cheered loudly after the judge had left the court.
The jury at Woolwich Crown Court had been deliberating for more than 36 hours after a trial that began in November 2025. Rajwani, Rogers and Devlin were found not guilty of violent disorder. No verdict was reached for charges of violent disorder for Head, Corner and Kamio.
Jurors were also unable to reach a verdict on Corner's charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent relating to an alleged attack on a security guard.
Excellent news. A jury that won't be cowed. This presumably means all the Palestine Action trials will fail. This authoritarianism is what Starmer should be being pilloried for. He's been in Israel's pocket for far too long. All those Labour candidates thrown off lists must be smiling widely.
The question is why did Starmer appoint him. It could be because he thought he'd be good at it or more likely I'd suggest to placate Mandelson and stop him interfering in Westminster.
Spot on, Frank. Why, indeed?
We don't yet know the answer to that question. If we had a decent Press, we might find out sooner rather than later. In fact we are more likely to reach an informed opinion on this through following some of the better posters on here.
May take a while though.
What Starmer can’t admit (because in hindsight it looks like a shockingly bad and maybe career-ending decision) is that he needed an ambassador to the US that he felt could do business with Trump, and, either due to McSweeney’s prompting, or party politics, or what he saw as simple realpolitik he decided that Peter Mandelson was an appropriate choice and if there were risks they were risks worth taking. That seems to be the crux of it.
Given that Trump is still President it is hard for Starmer to say the obvious, that he thought Mandelson was the right person to deal with Trump precisely because he was comfortable mixing with sex offenders and slimeballs.
I wonder if labours forensic look at trying to nobble Reform before the locals foreign interference in our politics will include Mandelson after the comments from Ed Davey who put the boot in like it was a sub postmaster with a faulty till.
Yes I agree. I posted this in the last thread. In light of Mandelson Scandal the Tories and Labour and Libdem votes can create new laws where the inherent vice entangles Reform - like a dolphin in a net of crabs.
It was notable in PMQs (it certainly stood out to my ears) Starmer literally said “new legislation to boot out crooked politicians.”
If they try and do that, they are insane. If you don't like Reform, that's fine, go and try to defeat them at the ballot box, by convincing the country they're the wrong choice.
Convincing yourself they're literally Nazis / Russian agents (they mostly aren't), then trying to ban them will have two possible outcomes. 1) They will be able to play the victim, and are thus more likely to get elected. 2) If they are actually Nazis / Russian agents, when they get elected (see 1), you've thoughtfully provided them with legislation designed for persecuting the government's political opponents (like errr - you).
The utter stupidity of our polical class never ceases to amaze me.
Does anyone still think Starmer will fight the 2029 GE?
I’m still not quite sure when he will go, but I simply can’t see this now. He is far too wounded on too many fronts to face the electorate again.
No. The question of when he goes remains an open one.
If the economy really does pick up, and the immigration numbers continue to decline significantly, then closer to the next general election would surely suit Labour ?
It's the confluence of sexual and financial sleaze that makes this story so toxic for the government. The implication of Starmer's answers is that he knew Mandelson was friends with a convicted sex offender and was okay to give him a pass on that, but if only he'd known that Mandelson was also dodgy financially (as if he didn't know) then he would never have touched him with a barge pole.
I totally agree with your post, that is exactly what Starmer and his team want us to believe.
They admit they knew he carried on being friends with Epstein for a bit after conviction, but claim they knew nothing about the dodgy financial closeness.
But any closeness to Epstein means dodgy financial closeness, that’s patently obvious to everyone, isn’t it? That’s how the “Epstein Business Model” actually worked. 🤷♀️
Epstein wasn’t a philanthropic magic money tree - he was a GROOMER!
The question is why did Starmer appoint him. It could be because he thought he'd be good at it or more likely I'd suggest to placate Mandelson and stop him interfering in Westminster.
Spot on, Frank. Why, indeed?
We don't yet know the answer to that question. If we had a decent Press, we might find out sooner rather than later. In fact we are more likely to reach an informed opinion on this through following some of the better posters on here.
May take a while though.
The Foreign Office rightly predicted Trump 2.0 would need a non career diplomat as our chap in Washington and Mandy was the best man for the job.
I think a lot of people do forget until the scandal he was seen as doing a job with Trump.
That calls the competence of the Foreign Office into question. If they don't have people in house who can deal with characters like Trump, what use are they?
The French don't have a Mandy equivalent in Washington but their previous ambassador to China.
Simon Sebag Montefiore is one of the good guys. He just tweeted this. I make no apologies for its length. Everyone in the world should read it
The images emerging now from Iran of young people, older people, boys and girls, who were murdered in the last few weeks by the Iranian Islamic dictator, the Islamic Corps of Revolutionary Guards, Basij militia and imported killers from Iraq, are heartbreaking but also enraging.
Some depict beautiful people at play, at the gym, dancing, on motorbikes; some makeshift morgues full of bodies; some streetscenes where killers shoot down unarmed protesters; and many show families opening bodybags to find their dead children shot in the head; others discover bodies of protesters wounded then executed in hospital beds and particularly women with uteruses removed or other horrors to conceal brutal rapes... Many are not young but it looks like the slaughter of the best and brightest of Iran Gen Z. Ive tried to repost these here.
I have been contacted by people in Iran (who weirdly read my books in pirated Farsi editions) who manage to come online in various ways and they beg me to keep posting these images and faces and keep talking about them. Embarrassingly they thank me just for doing this! That is why i am writing this now. We must keep going and keep doing so.
The numbers killed are astonishing: based on sources within the murderous dictatorship, it may be as many as 36000 were murdered just in the first days of the terror 8/9 January and more later - making it likely that 40,000 is a horribly plausible estimate.
This makes this event the most greatest massacre in modern Iranian history by far, the greatest single event slaughter in modern MIddle Eastern history since 1900 - along with the Assad's liquidation of an entire town, site of Islamist insurgents, Hama, in 1982 when around 30,000 were killed. Both of them not taking place in wars but in cold blood - and this Iranian atrocity being far more terrible since none of the protesters were armed.
We live in a time of egregious comparisons to the Holocaust when the Holocaust is repellently abused and minimized by cynical cretins - radiohosts, podders, politicians- to criticize anything from vaccination to ICE raids. But here is a comparison that stands in its scale and horror: in size and horror this does resemble the two days of Babi Yar near Kiev in Sept 1941 where 33,000 Jews were killed. It is also worth pointing out that an entire progressive movement arose against the autocracy of the Shah.
And his was an autocracy. But in his forty year one reign, only around 3000 people were killed, mainly in the last year before his downfall.
It is very striking that the UN has barely commented on thiis…
There's only one country with the power to intervene against the murderous Iranian regime, and it's currently sending Witkoff and Kushner to negotiate with them.
But Monteviore is essentially correct; it is not hyperbole to compare the Iranian regime with that of Stalin at Katyn for example. (The Holocaust comparison is problematic, since it was different in kind.)
He is and always has been an arch Zionist. If you support Netanyahu's work in Gaza he's your man
So nothing about the young, dead, unarmed Iranians who have been brutally murdered by their own authoritarian dictatorship in cold blood?
Nothing about a dictatorship which is not fighting terrorists or an insurgency, merely slaughtering unarmed protestors?
Instead its all about the Zionists.
Never change Roger, never change.
You are the person who said that 'Israel should kill as many Gazans as they could' so l know where you're coming from. I think you might also be the poster who said the Israelis were doing the Gazan women a favour by killing their kids because it was making them martyrs.
My only hesitation is that might have been Blanche. You two are pretty interchangeable when it comes to slaughtering people about whom you know nothing
Six Palestine Action activists have been cleared of aggravated burglary over a break-in at a UK subsidiary of an Israeli defence firm.
Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, Fatema Rajwani, 21, Zoe Rogers, 22, and Jordan Devlin, 31, were also charged with criminal damage and violent disorder but the jury reached partial or no verdicts.
The alleged raid targeted the Elbit Systems building near Bristol in the early hours of 6 August 2024.
The six defendants hugged in the dock and waved to supporters in the public gallery, who cheered loudly after the judge had left the court.
The jury at Woolwich Crown Court had been deliberating for more than 36 hours after a trial that began in November 2025. Rajwani, Rogers and Devlin were found not guilty of violent disorder. No verdict was reached for charges of violent disorder for Head, Corner and Kamio.
Jurors were also unable to reach a verdict on Corner's charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent relating to an alleged attack on a security guard.
I'm not entirety shocked by this but from what I'd read of the charges and what appeared to be fairly incontrovertible key facts, I'm still a little suprised.
Did BBC Question Time researchers organise the jury selection?
This seemingly ridiculous verdict raises some wider and uncomfortable questions for those of us who support trial by jury but also the rule of law.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby On this. A Conservative spokesman says: “The PM has just admitted that the official security vetting highlighted Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but he went ahead and appointed him anyway.
“This is the first time the PM has admitted this and it raises very serious questions over Keir Starmer’s shocking judgement.
“The PM is now trying to orchestrate a cover up by having his own government mark his homework. All MPs must now support the Conservatives’ humble address so that we reveal the full extent of this scandal and the shocking failure of Keir Starmer and his operation.”
Wow. This is high-stakes stuff. If Kemi can get Sir Keir's head on a pike (perfectly possible) then we could see her acclaimed as the most accomplished politician of her generation. That could totally change the dynamics, with even Nigel metaphorically having to kiss her ring on bended knee.
It's not necessarily to Kemi's advantage to see Starmer removed and replaced by someone a) better at politics and/or b) more left wing. Much better to let Starmer hobble on, crippled.
Nobody in their right mind would appoint Mandelson to such a high profile role after knowing that he continued to have contact with Epstein after his prison release .
Starmer needs to go as he’s now so toxic that it’s impossible to see him repairing the damage .
Woolie fly by, afternoon all. Is Mandy the end of Starmer? Maybe. A big rebellion on the humble address cover up amendment woukd assist in that. If it did, don't waste your mobey on Wes as his social media and piccy closeness to Petey will do for his chances short term. PM Ange by June? Stranger things have happened.
On local elections 26 (if not mentioned) the cancellations are very useful for the Toriea. There are very few councils up they can 'lose control' of outside London (where i expect them to gain 2 or 3 and lose 2) - they retain Broxbourne regardless as elected in thirds, theyve a chance of holding Fareham (half up) and theyll probably lose Newcaste Under Lyme and Walsall with Solihull in the balance. They will lose control of Essex and Hampshire. So the 'damage' will mostly be Scotland and Wales. Labour, on the other hand, will get butchered everywhere.
The question is why did Starmer appoint him. It could be because he thought he'd be good at it or more likely I'd suggest to placate Mandelson and stop him interfering in Westminster.
Spot on, Frank. Why, indeed?
We don't yet know the answer to that question. If we had a decent Press, we might find out sooner rather than later. In fact we are more likely to reach an informed opinion on this through following some of the better posters on here.
May take a while though.
What Starmer can’t admit (because in hindsight it looks like a shockingly bad and maybe career-ending decision) is that he needed an ambassador to the US that he felt could do business with Trump, and, either due to McSweeney’s prompting, or party politics, or what he saw as simple realpolitik he decided that Peter Mandelson was an appropriate choice and if there were risks they were risks worth taking. That seems to be the crux of it.
Given that Trump is still President it is hard for Starmer to say the obvious, that he thought Mandelson was the right person to deal with Trump precisely because he was comfortable mixing with sex offenders and slimeballs.
Maybe should have chosen a keen golfer instead.
Some real 4D thinking.
Since art was being discussed, this can be bought as a framed print.
If you've seen the video footage of the Palestine Action case I'd suggest the Jury decision is at the very least dubious. There's no verdict yet on one person accused of GBH against a police officer.
The question is why did Starmer appoint him. It could be because he thought he'd be good at it or more likely I'd suggest to placate Mandelson and stop him interfering in Westminster.
Spot on, Frank. Why, indeed?
We don't yet know the answer to that question. If we had a decent Press, we might find out sooner rather than later. In fact we are more likely to reach an informed opinion on this through following some of the better posters on here.
May take a while though.
What Starmer can’t admit (because in hindsight it looks like a shockingly bad and maybe career-ending decision) is that he needed an ambassador to the US that he felt could do business with Trump, and, either due to McSweeney’s prompting, or party politics, or what he saw as simple realpolitik he decided that Peter Mandelson was an appropriate choice and if there were risks they were risks worth taking. That seems to be the crux of it.
That's right. If Mandelson's ease (like Trump) in Epstein and Epstein type circles was seen as a positive in the context of the appointment that cannot be admitted in public.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby On this. A Conservative spokesman says: “The PM has just admitted that the official security vetting highlighted Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but he went ahead and appointed him anyway.
“This is the first time the PM has admitted this and it raises very serious questions over Keir Starmer’s shocking judgement.
“The PM is now trying to orchestrate a cover up by having his own government mark his homework. All MPs must now support the Conservatives’ humble address so that we reveal the full extent of this scandal and the shocking failure of Keir Starmer and his operation.”
Wow. This is high-stakes stuff. If Kemi can get Sir Keir's head on a pike (perfectly possible) then we could see her acclaimed as the most accomplished politician of her generation. That could totally change the dynamics, with even Nigel metaphorically having to kiss her ring on bended knee.
It's not necessarily to Kemi's advantage to see Starmer removed and replaced by someone a) better at politics and/or b) more left wing. Much better to let Starmer hobble on, crippled.
If we accept he's gone before the election, would it be better for Kemi (or successor) to face someone who has had to deal with the usual sh*t that comes with the job and inevitably had some stick, or someone vaguely new and still shiny?
Of course, the most important question might be what is better for the country, and that's much more of a grey area depending on who the replacement might be.
I wonder if labours forensic look at trying to nobble Reform before the locals foreign interference in our politics will include Mandelson after the comments from Ed Davey who put the boot in like it was a sub postmaster with a faulty till.
Yes I agree. I posted this in the last thread. In light of Mandelson Scandal the Tories and Labour and Libdem votes can create new laws where the inherent vice entangles Reform - like a dolphin in a net of crabs.
It was notable in PMQs (it certainly stood out to my ears) Starmer literally said “new legislation to boot out crooked politicians.”
If they try and do that, they are insane. If you don't like Reform, that's fine, go and try to defeat them at the ballot box, by convincing the country they're the wrong choice.
Convincing yourself they're literally Nazis / Russian agents (they mostly aren't), then trying to ban them will have two possible outcomes. 1) They will be able to play the victim, and are thus more likely to get elected. 2) If they are actually Nazis / Russian agents, when they get elected (see 1), you've thoughtfully provided them with legislation designed for persecuting the government's political opponents (like errr - you).
The utter stupidity of our polical class never ceases to amaze me.
They don’t currently have an instrument to boot out “ crooked politicians” at least they are claiming they don’t, hence way they must now rush through some legislation to do this.
But in this hurried “strip Mandy of peerage” legislation, what is the unintended (this is politics so also intended) Inherent Vice?
Would Conservatives and Libdems and Labour like to see the following fall foul of the “boot out crooked politics” new laws?
The Churchwarden Donation: In January 2026, it was revealed that John Richard Simpson, a 59-year-old Anglican churchwarden and lay leader from Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, was behind £200,000 in donations to Reform UK. Simpson, who works for a wealthy Kazakhstan-born couple, made seven payments to the party last summer through his firm, Interior Architecture Landscape Limited.
The Record £9m Donation: The largest donation in Reform UK's history—and the largest ever from a living person to a UK political party—came from Christopher Harborne, a Thailand-based British cryptocurrency investor and aviation entrepreneur. He donated £9 million in August 2025, bringing his total contributions to Farage's parties to over £19 million.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby On this. A Conservative spokesman says: “The PM has just admitted that the official security vetting highlighted Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but he went ahead and appointed him anyway.
“This is the first time the PM has admitted this and it raises very serious questions over Keir Starmer’s shocking judgement.
“The PM is now trying to orchestrate a cover up by having his own government mark his homework. All MPs must now support the Conservatives’ humble address so that we reveal the full extent of this scandal and the shocking failure of Keir Starmer and his operation.”
Wow. This is high-stakes stuff. If Kemi can get Sir Keir's head on a pike (perfectly possible) then we could see her acclaimed as the most accomplished politician of her generation. That could totally change the dynamics, with even Nigel metaphorically having to kiss her ring on bended knee.
It's not necessarily to Kemi's advantage to see Starmer removed and replaced by someone a) better at politics and/or b) more left wing. Much better to let Starmer hobble on, crippled.
Woolie fly by, afternoon all. Is Mandy the end of Starmer? Maybe. A big rebellion on the humble address cover up amendment woukd assist in that. If it did, don't waste your mobey on Wes as his social media and piccy closeness to Petey will do for his chances short term. PM Ange by June? Stranger things have happened.
On local elections 26 (if not mentioned) the cancellations are very useful for the Toriea. There are very few councils up they can 'lose control' of outside London (where i expect them to gain 2 or 3 and lose 2) - they retain Broxbourne regardless as elected in thirds, theyve a chance of holding Fareham (half up) and theyll probably lose Newcaste Under Lyme and Walsall with Solihull in the balance. They will lose control of Essex and Hampshire. So the 'damage' will mostly be Scotland and Wales. Labour, on the other hand, will get butchered everywhere.
Hope all are well
The Tories could also lose Dudley but yes given Labour won the LEs in 2022 when most council seats up in May were last up the results should be better for Kemi than last year given those seats were last up in 2021 when the Tories won the LEs.
Unfortunately as you say Scotland and Wales were also last up in 2021 so the Tories will likely see big losses there as will Labour in Wales, though Labour might on a good night make a few gains from the SNP in Scotland as they were 3rd in Scotland behind the Tories in 2021 and Reform will mainly eat into the Scottish Tory vote
Beth Rigby @BethRigby On this. A Conservative spokesman says: “The PM has just admitted that the official security vetting highlighted Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but he went ahead and appointed him anyway.
“This is the first time the PM has admitted this and it raises very serious questions over Keir Starmer’s shocking judgement.
“The PM is now trying to orchestrate a cover up by having his own government mark his homework. All MPs must now support the Conservatives’ humble address so that we reveal the full extent of this scandal and the shocking failure of Keir Starmer and his operation.”
Wow. This is high-stakes stuff. If Kemi can get Sir Keir's head on a pike (perfectly possible) then we could see her acclaimed as the most accomplished politician of her generation. That could totally change the dynamics, with even Nigel metaphorically having to kiss her ring on bended knee.
It's not necessarily to Kemi's advantage to see Starmer removed and replaced by someone a) better at politics and/or b) more left wing. Much better to let Starmer hobble on, crippled.
Why would she not want Labour to tack left?
Kemi would want Rayner or Ed Miliband to replace Starmer if he was removed yes, she wouldn't want Streeting.
Farage would want Ed Miliband, Polanski would not want Ed Miliband but would be OK with Streeting. Burnham would have been the worst option as Labour leader for Reform and the Greens but that has been avoided for now
Beth Rigby @BethRigby On this. A Conservative spokesman says: “The PM has just admitted that the official security vetting highlighted Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but he went ahead and appointed him anyway.
“This is the first time the PM has admitted this and it raises very serious questions over Keir Starmer’s shocking judgement.
“The PM is now trying to orchestrate a cover up by having his own government mark his homework. All MPs must now support the Conservatives’ humble address so that we reveal the full extent of this scandal and the shocking failure of Keir Starmer and his operation.”
Wow. This is high-stakes stuff. If Kemi can get Sir Keir's head on a pike (perfectly possible) then we could see her acclaimed as the most accomplished politician of her generation. That could totally change the dynamics, with even Nigel metaphorically having to kiss her ring on bended knee.
It's not necessarily to Kemi's advantage to see Starmer removed and replaced by someone a) better at politics and/or b) more left wing. Much better to let Starmer hobble on, crippled.
Why would she not want Labour to tack left?
Kemi would want Rayner or Ed Miliband to replace Starmer if he was removed yes, she wouldn't want Streeting.
Farage would want Ed Miliband, Polanski would not want Ed Miliband
Six Palestine Action activists have been cleared of aggravated burglary over a break-in at a UK subsidiary of an Israeli defence firm.
Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, Fatema Rajwani, 21, Zoe Rogers, 22, and Jordan Devlin, 31, were also charged with criminal damage and violent disorder but the jury reached partial or no verdicts.
The alleged raid targeted the Elbit Systems building near Bristol in the early hours of 6 August 2024.
The six defendants hugged in the dock and waved to supporters in the public gallery, who cheered loudly after the judge had left the court.
The jury at Woolwich Crown Court had been deliberating for more than 36 hours after a trial that began in November 2025. Rajwani, Rogers and Devlin were found not guilty of violent disorder. No verdict was reached for charges of violent disorder for Head, Corner and Kamio.
Jurors were also unable to reach a verdict on Corner's charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent relating to an alleged attack on a security guard.
I'm not entirety shocked by this but from what I'd read of the charges and what appeared to be fairly incontrovertible key facts, I'm still a little suprised.
Did BBC Question Time researchers organise the jury selection?
This seemingly ridiculous verdict raises some wider and uncomfortable questions for those of us who support trial by jury but also the rule of law.
Various protest groups have used non-violent direct action tactics with the aim of causing enough criminal damage to get a jury trial, and to make a political argument to the jury that the criminal damage was justified because of an issue (nuclear weapons, global warming, war in Gaza, etc).
I think there's a case for seeing this as a part of the democratic process, in that juries are a defence against laws being enforced unjustly. But, as with any other part of the democratic process, there's a risk that if you lose the public debate you will see it used against you.
Suppose an anti-vaccine protest group wrecks lab work on new vaccine development - if there are enough anti-vaxxers on the jury they might escape conviction. Similarly with other issues like abortion, chemtrails, refugees, etc.
But ultimately this just goes to show that there's no alternative in a democracy to winning the debate and convincing people to agree with you.
Comments
By offering the job to someone else. (Would Osborne have even considered it ?)
Tory benches in stony silence when order papers should have been flapping.
You fail to comment on Kemi, is Llandudno as dark and gloomy as the Tory benches.
Classy.
Hence quibbles.
And Llandudno is a beautiful town, unlike your attempts to defend the indefensible
“I think of what Peter Mandelson would do. Then I don’t do that.”
James Heale
@JAHeale
Tory source gets in touch…
“Given that PM’s argument is that it was ok for Mandelson to be friends with a paedophile but the "scale and extent" crossed a line, will the Cabinet Office be publishing guidance on acceptable relationships with paedophiles. Coffee ok but not dinner?”
https://x.com/JAHeale/status/2019025614036934930
Reading between the lines, it appears that something like this went down. The vetting said Mandelson had a friendship with Epstein (and this was also public knowledge). Now, immediately, considering that the biggest and most visible public scandal of recent years (Andy’s interview and the fallout) revolved around this man and that he was an utter monster , one might have thought that alarm bells should be ringing at the top of government that maybe putting forward someone Epstein-adjacent wasn’t a tremendously good idea.
It then appears that someone asked Peter Mandelson (of course well known for being the paragon of probity) to give more details about his friendship and what he said was false. So everyone just went along with it anyway and didn’t bother to follow it up any further.
It’s a matter of judgement at the end of the day but one does have to say that it’s a pretty crap judgement.
As did Ed and Liz.
Starmer was hopeless.
I was impressed with Jonathan Brash actually going into bat for his seat too rather than asking SKS how brilliant he is. Mind you Brash is very focussed on Hartlepool on social media too.
Beth Rigby
@BethRigby
On this. A Conservative spokesman says: “The PM has just admitted that the official security vetting highlighted Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but he went ahead and appointed him anyway.
“This is the first time the PM has admitted this and it raises very serious questions over Keir Starmer’s shocking judgement.
“The PM is now trying to orchestrate a cover up by having his own government mark his homework. All MPs must now support the Conservatives’ humble address so that we reveal the full extent of this scandal and the shocking failure of Keir Starmer and his operation.”
Poor Petey was clearly a victim of grooming
As you say, he could have handled it much better at the time of the appointment.
Hell, for that job, he should have been subject to a full , detailed and thorough vetting, anyway.
Oh dearly me
The Tory glass houses smashed from within
➡️ Ref: 30% (-3)
🔵 Con: 22% (+3)
🔴 Lab: 17% (-2)
🟢 Grn: 14% (+2)
🟠 Lib: 14% (+2)
-- Seats --
➡️ Ref: 318
🔵 Con: 99
🟠 Lib: 80
🟢 Grn: 46
🟡 SNP: 42
🔴 Lab: 39
Poll: Freshwater, 30 Jan-1 Feb (+/- vs 11 Jan)
https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/2018972808379011444?s=20
trying to nobble Reform before the localsforeign interference in our politics will include Mandelson after the comments from Ed Davey who put the boot in like it was a sub postmaster with a faulty till.Otherwise We’ve seen this before, certainly in 80’s with Lady Thatcher, 90s with Major, and Brown premiership too. People talk up replacing PMs, but it doesn’t always happen. An improving economy and cost of living feel good factor will lift Labour in the polls, that economy will improve but Labours position won’t is bit of wishful thinking.
The problem with thinking Starmer won’t lead Labour into next election is that replacing him starts with the MPs - do the MPs want to see a shift in Labours economic policy to the left? If they don’t therefore they won’t move against him. Does anyone have a sense Labour MPs are keen on a change of economic plan? That’s the “it’s not working, it needs a change” to watch for. Starmer’s position rests on the current economic plan showing results.
We all know what happened to Boris Johnson next.
EXC: Disgraced peer Peter Mandelson was directly involved in helping Morgan McSweeney select Labour’s parliamentary candidates ahead of the 2024 general election, a party whistleblower told The i Paper.
https://x.com/stephenflynnsnp/status/2019003497400934460?s=61
We've just had David Davis of all people talk about Oleg Deripaska links to Mandelson when Boris and Sunak bent over backwards for him and his roubles.
Utter hypocrisy.
It was notable in PMQs (it certainly stood out to my ears) Starmer literally said “new legislation to boot out crooked politicians.”
Six Palestine Action activists have been cleared of aggravated burglary over a break-in at a UK subsidiary of an Israeli defence firm.
Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, Fatema Rajwani, 21, Zoe Rogers, 22, and Jordan Devlin, 31, were also charged with criminal damage and violent disorder but the jury reached partial or no verdicts.
The alleged raid targeted the Elbit Systems building near Bristol in the early hours of 6 August 2024.
The six defendants hugged in the dock and waved to supporters in the public gallery, who cheered loudly after the judge had left the court.
The jury at Woolwich Crown Court had been deliberating for more than 36 hours after a trial that began in November 2025.
Rajwani, Rogers and Devlin were found not guilty of violent disorder. No verdict was reached for charges of violent disorder for Head, Corner and Kamio.
Jurors were also unable to reach a verdict on Corner's charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent relating to an alleged attack on a security guard.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wxlv99xrjo
BBC News - Palestine Action group cleared of Elbit burglary
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wxlv99xrjo
2,700 people have been arrested so far for peaceful protest; that the CPS/Crown Office haven't secured a single conviction and yet continue to make these arrests is an affront to justice and a disgrace in what's supposed to be a free country. Put them in front of a jury you cowards.
We don't yet know the answer to that question. If we had a decent Press, we might find out sooner rather than later. In fact we are more likely to reach an informed opinion on this through following some of the better posters on here.
May take a while though.
I’m still not quite sure when he will go, but I simply can’t see this now. He is far too wounded on too many fronts to face the electorate again.
Mandy omitted the bit about playing everyone else. And being played himself.
The Will Of The People doctrine stretches a long way, and probably should, because the alternative is worse.
I think a lot of people do forget until the scandal he was seen as doing a job with Trump.
Are you still convinced Snoopy Services knew all about the leaking of market sensitive information to Epstein, and shared this information with successive governments including Starmer’s? I’m in two minds about that, you havn’t convinced me.
Which gave the no doubt unintentional impression that big bruv was one of them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0410rzz03qo
But, actually, the end of a PM comes when they no longer have enough supporters willing to defend them.
Starmer has never had that many strong supporters. He's failed to define a Starmerism supporters might rally around. He's shown no evidence of having an electorally important relationship with the voters.
Just like with Boris Johnson he's forced colleagues to support policies in public before making them look like idiots when he u-turns. What is the reason why Labour politicians would support and defend Starmer? He's not even going to be the source of patronage for much longer. The question of his replacement is a matter of timing and identity. Who and when?
If he's not forced to go until after the locals, the timing of a leadership contest implies that any replacement won't take office until well into the summer - meaning they would face the same problems of establishing momentum and preparing for the budget as Starmer/Reeves faced in July 2024.
Perhaps sooner is better than later.
I can actually remember a similar cock-up when Jim Callaghan appointed his son-in-law Peter Jay to the post of US Ambassador. That ended in tears too.
Most PBers would be far too young to remember that though.
Only adding to the pressure on Sir Blue Steel Arson Attacks
Maybe should have chosen a keen golfer instead.
Convincing yourself they're literally Nazis / Russian agents (they mostly aren't), then trying to ban them will have two possible outcomes.
1) They will be able to play the victim, and are thus more likely to get elected.
2) If they are actually Nazis / Russian agents, when they get elected (see 1), you've thoughtfully provided them with legislation designed for persecuting the government's political opponents (like errr - you).
The utter stupidity of our polical class never ceases to amaze me.
The question of when he goes remains an open one.
If the economy really does pick up, and the immigration numbers continue to decline significantly, then closer to the next general election would surely suit Labour ?
If not, then they're screwed whatever they do.
They admit they knew he carried on being friends with Epstein for a bit after conviction, but claim they knew nothing about the dodgy financial closeness.
But any closeness to Epstein means dodgy financial closeness, that’s patently obvious to everyone, isn’t it? That’s how the “Epstein Business Model” actually worked. 🤷♀️
Epstein wasn’t a philanthropic magic money tree - he was a GROOMER!
The French don't have a Mandy equivalent in Washington but their previous ambassador to China.
I have never said that and never would.
I never said either of those things.
Did BBC Question Time researchers organise the jury selection?
This seemingly ridiculous verdict raises some wider and uncomfortable questions for those of us who support trial by jury but also the rule of law.
Starmer needs to go as he’s now so toxic that it’s impossible to see him repairing the damage .
Is Mandy the end of Starmer? Maybe. A big rebellion on the humble address cover up amendment woukd assist in that.
If it did, don't waste your mobey on Wes as his social media and piccy closeness to Petey will do for his chances short term.
PM Ange by June? Stranger things have happened.
On local elections 26 (if not mentioned) the cancellations are very useful for the Toriea. There are very few councils up they can 'lose control' of outside London (where i expect them to gain 2 or 3 and lose 2) - they retain Broxbourne regardless as elected in thirds, theyve a chance of holding Fareham (half up) and theyll probably lose Newcaste Under Lyme and Walsall with Solihull in the balance. They will lose control of Essex and Hampshire. So the 'damage' will mostly be Scotland and Wales.
Labour, on the other hand, will get butchered everywhere.
Hope all are well
Since art was being discussed, this can be bought as a framed print.
Of course, the most important question might be what is better for the country, and that's much more of a grey area depending on who the replacement might be.
But in this hurried “strip Mandy of peerage” legislation, what is the unintended (this is politics so also intended) Inherent Vice?
Would Conservatives and Libdems and Labour like to see the following fall foul of the “boot out crooked politics” new laws?
The Churchwarden Donation: In January 2026, it was revealed that John Richard Simpson, a 59-year-old Anglican churchwarden and lay leader from Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, was behind £200,000 in donations to Reform UK. Simpson, who works for a wealthy Kazakhstan-born couple, made seven payments to the party last summer through his firm, Interior Architecture Landscape Limited.
The Record £9m Donation: The largest donation in Reform UK's history—and the largest ever from a living person to a UK political party—came from Christopher Harborne, a Thailand-based British cryptocurrency investor and aviation entrepreneur. He donated £9 million in August 2025, bringing his total contributions to Farage's parties to over £19 million.
https://bylinetimes.com/2025/12/16/nigel-farages-9m-donor-profits-from-putin-propaganda-platform-while-holding-mod-stake/
Starmer claimed today he was misled by Mandelson.
But Yvette Cooper admitted Mandelson was appointed *before* the security vetting had even started.
Starmer ignored it. He has nobody to blame but himself.
Unfortunately as you say Scotland and Wales were also last up in 2021 so the Tories will likely see big losses there as will Labour in Wales, though Labour might on a good night make a few gains from the SNP in Scotland as they were 3rd in Scotland behind the Tories in 2021 and Reform will mainly eat into the Scottish Tory vote
Farage would want Ed Miliband, Polanski would not want Ed Miliband but would be OK with Streeting. Burnham would have been the worst option as Labour leader for Reform and the Greens but that has been avoided for now
I think there's a case for seeing this as a part of the democratic process, in that juries are a defence against laws being enforced unjustly. But, as with any other part of the democratic process, there's a risk that if you lose the public debate you will see it used against you.
Suppose an anti-vaccine protest group wrecks lab work on new vaccine development - if there are enough anti-vaxxers on the jury they might escape conviction. Similarly with other issues like abortion, chemtrails, refugees, etc.
But ultimately this just goes to show that there's no alternative in a democracy to winning the debate and convincing people to agree with you.