43 days for Sir Keir to catch up with Rishi. After that about six weeks for him to overtake Sir Anthony Eden. And after that his sights will be trained on the Earl of Aberdeen.
Starmer has two big problems. He vetoed Burnham and while that was still bubbling Mandy gave Starmer's enemies all the ammunition they needed........
I think he's in genuine peril and if there was an obvious alternative he'd be in trouble. I've got mixed feelings. He strikes me as pretty straight which is important and I would hate for anything that could give Farage an opening. If a good alternative appears I think he'll go.
Macron doesn’t have a clean pair of hands with respect to Epstein.
Have you been listening to Candace Owens again?
Well you live and learn. I thought William was Candace Owens!
She’s absolutely bonkers.
I’ve met her husband, he’s a pollster, a Brit, went to the dump.
I have the same feeling I have towards Joshua Rozenberg, Christ your missus is bat shit crazy, how do you cope?
Comparing Melanie Phillips to Candace Owens? LOL.
I don't agree with Melanie on everything but I can see how incessant irrational hatred is going to make people slightly mad. Owens is just a freakshow.
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
She's got street smarts. That'll do for Labour
I think that's half right. It's not intelligence that is needed as a PM, or technical knowledge from education and experience, it's judgement.
I'm not certain that Rayner's judgement is great, and her short record as a minister is also not inspiring, but lack of education is certainly not her problem.
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
She's got street smarts. That'll do for Labour
I think that's half right. It's not intelligence that is needed as a PM, or technical knowledge from education and experience, it's judgement.
I'm not certain that Rayner's judgement is great, and her short record as a minister is also not inspiring, but lack of education is certainly not her problem.
I think someone (Callaghan?) said something like: To be PM you don't need a first class mind, but you do need a first class temperament.
Starmer exit in 2026 now shortened to 1.54:1, which is the shortest I've seen it. That's easy money if you're convinced he's going this year. (I'm not. I think those odds are about right.)
I think they're too short personally and have added to my currently massively offside lay, and will take more if 1.35 trades (looking v possible). Still, squeaky bum.
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
Starmer exit in 2026 now shortened to 1.54:1, which is the shortest I've seen it. That's easy money if you're convinced he's going this year. (I'm not. I think those odds are about right.)
I think they're too short personally and have added to my currently massively offside lay, and will take more if 1.35 trades (looking v possible). Still, squeaky bum.
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
Didn’t we hear news yesterday that it had severe cut through on focus groups?
The Epstein angle, which brought down Andrew, surely makes it quite high profile.
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
She's got street smarts. That'll do for Labour
I think that's half right. It's not intelligence that is needed as a PM, or technical knowledge from education and experience, it's judgement.
I'm not certain that Rayner's judgement is great, and her short record as a minister is also not inspiring, but lack of education is certainly not her problem.
But would she be able to string together a government ? What if it falls in the House of Commons. If the King were savvy, which he isn't of course he would ask Kemi to form a government. I really can see a General Election now, probably June. The idea that out Ange could hold a goverment together for over a month is quite frankly absurd.
🚨BREAKING: Angela Rayner has intervened to ask that the Intelligence & Security Committee has oversight of release of docs
This is very significant. It suggests govt amendment as tabled today not adequate/sufficient as it stands & thinks ISC oversight important for transparency/public confidence
That's both a manoeuvre, and fully justified. It gets more awkward for Starmer.
Unlike Starmer, Rayner is good at politics.
I don't think he can survive this one. There are too many directions from which the fatal blow comes. I suppose one of the least likely would be the PMs sense of honour and what would be good for country, parliament and party?
SFAICS things that could sae him for now are twofold: Kemi not wanting him to be replaced with someone who is a new broom with less baggage. And the problem of which named MP would be the first the wield the knife with 80 supporters, knowing that “The hand that wields the knife shall never wear the crown” is often true.
I am starting to come to the same view.
The crux for me was Starmer admitting the vetting flagged the relationship with Epstein. Now I suppose it would have been appalling vetting if it hadn’t, but I thought Starmer had a never crossed my desk strategy ready, which though embarrassingly inept would have tried to move the scrutiny away from him. But I think it’s very clear how he was fully aware of the fact there was a link, he just decided it was worth the risk and take the assurances at face value.
Yes. A further point is this: If you are vetting and something comes up which flashes a red light, that tells you that your researches have to be super thorough, and all the right questions asked. The PM has at his beck and call the entire resources of national intelligence. It isn't credible that they knew no more than the papers knew. And it isn't credible that they didn't have the capacity to find out more stuff than they already knew about Epstein.
The other thing is about 'The Buck Stops Here'. PM is in the number 1 position. Most people don't want to be there. Fair enough. I don't. The number 1 person can delegate all sorts of decision making, and decide all sorts of short cuts, and take all sorts of advice. But the whole point about being Number 1 is that you cannot delegate accountability for what ensues.
“ It isn't credible that they knew no more than the papers knew.”
Are you sure? If I don’t believe you, how are you going to convince me?
The leaking of UK’s market sensitive data to the financier friend has resulted in a dossier prepared by number ten being passed to the police to initiate a criminal investigation.
At what point prior to the publication of the emails last week are you saying the Snoopy Services already knew he had done this? And from that point they knew, who and when did they share it, who did not act on it?
thanks. Like you, I don't know. I said this of UK intelligence services:
It isn't credible that they knew no more than the papers knew. And it isn't credible that they didn't have the capacity to find out more stuff than they already knew about Epstein.
If it isn't the job of UK intelligence services to know and be able to find out about people with Mandelson's background, power, antecedents, form, friends, contacts, predilections for getting into trouble, and one who is in contact with an internationally significant wheeler and dealer, dealing among other things in trafficked women, and with a significant conviction then what might their job be?
I think you are stretching incredulity a bit far.
It’s noticeable to everyone, you repeated your position, but did not answer the question. The question to you remains. At what point prior to the publication of the emails last week are you saying the Snoopy Services already knew of Mandelson leaking UK’s market sensitive data to the financier friend? From that point they knew, who and when did they share it?
What you are advertently/inadvertently saying, there was so much known about it, no action was taken as no crime had been committed. The only alternative is Snoopy Services were unaware.
Are you not stretching incredulity a bit far, that this was known, but hushed up? How many governments and Prime Ministers involved in the cover up to protect Mandelson, you are convinced happened?
@afneil Monologue from today’s Times at One with Andrew Neil:
BETRAYAL
And still the revelations about Peter Mandleson’s betrayals from the heart of government come, each one more jaw-dropping than the last.
We learned earlier this week that he’d tipped off his convicted pedophile mate about an imminent €500bn bailout of the Eurozone, advance information hugely useful to a financial fixer like Jeffrey Epstein.
Even more incredibly, we saw how he’d advised America’s most powerful banker, via Epstein, to threaten the British government over plans to tax bankers’ bonuses in the wake of the Great Financial Crash, caused by said bankers.
Which the powerful banker then did in an intimidating call to then Chancellor Alastair Darling. A call inspired by the government’s very own business secretary, one Peter Mandleson.
Now we learn that the moment Mandleson was given a note about a highly sensitive meeting between Darling and then US Treasury secretary Larry Summers in March 2010, our business secretary had whisked it to Epstein within five minutes. That’s right. Five. Minutes.
Mandleson then received a second confidential note on the Darling-Summers exchanges. It took him only two minutes to send that to his pedo mate.
The reality is that Epstein had his very own mole at the heart of the British government, sending him secret and confidential information which could profit Epstein and his billionaire banker friends. And that mole was our business secretary.
He even tipped Epstein off about the state of talks between Britain and America over a £10bn aerospace contract to provide the RAF with air-to-air refuelling tankers.
At one stage Mandleson opines to Epstein that the then PM needs to be confined to a sanatorium. Remember Mandleson is saying this of the man who’d revived his political career. It doesn’t get much lower than that. No wonder Brown is seething.
Let’s be blunt: the evidence is compelling that Mandleson betrayed himself, his department, his PM, his government, his country.
And let us not forget Mandleson had previously been bunged $75,000 by Epstein. He says he has no recollection of such payments though the bank statements are clear for all to see. But, hey, who hasn’t forgotten a $75,000 gift?
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
She's got street smarts. That'll do for Labour
I think that's half right. It's not intelligence that is needed as a PM, or technical knowledge from education and experience, it's judgement.
I'm not certain that Rayner's judgement is great, and her short record as a minister is also not inspiring, but lack of education is certainly not her problem.
But would she be able to string together a government ? What if it falls in the House of Commons. If the King were savvy, which he isn't of course he would ask Kemi to form a government. I really can see a General Election now, probably June. The idea that out Ange could hold a goverment together for over a month is quite frankly absurd.
Yeah right
After the Tories had 4 Pm in 5 years.
The King is going to call Kemi whose Tory Party is close to electoral oblivion.
Mandleson’s partner also had his snout in the trough. We now learn he received three payments of £4,000 each from Epstein — this on top of £10,000 to take a course in osteopathy. Of course for Epstein it was all chicken feed. He must have been laughing all the way to his insider dealing.
Whether it’s for misconduct in public office, breaching the official secrets act or dealing in insider information, it’s only right that his former lordship be the subject of the most rigorous criminal investigation. And quickly. This should not be allowed to drag on.
But Keir Starmer has almost as many questions to answer as Mandleson. Just how was it that such a snake ended up as our man in Washington?
Starmer didn’t know what we now know about Mandleson. But he knew a lot. In a faltering performance at PMQs he’s just admitted he did know of Mandleson’s ongoing relationship with Epstein. But he still appointed him anyway.
Starmer now claims Mandleson lied and lied to him. But my understanding is that Mandleson was never properly quizzed about his links with Epstein, so anxious was Starmer and his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, to shoe-horn him into our palatial embassy on Massachusetts Avenue.
The push is on in Parliament today for the government to reveal all the details of the vetting of Peter Mandleson. At times like this the default of British governments is to stonewall.
But if Starmer truly regrets his Mandleson appointment, which has turned into a political catastrophe for him, he will sanction full disclosure of all relevant material, including who was involved in pressing Mandleson’s appointment.
Nothing less will suffice in what has become the greatest political scandal of our age.
Starmer has two big problems. He vetoed Burnham and while that was still bubbling Mandy gave Starmer's enemies all the ammunition they needed........
I think he's in genuine peril and if there was an obvious alternative he'd be in trouble. I've got mixed feelings. He strikes me as pretty straight which is important and I would hate for anything that could give Farage an opening. If a good alternative appears I think he'll go.
Thoughts and prayers for Burnham. The boat missed again. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Fantastic opportunity now for those on Labour benches who want Starmer gone for electoral reasons.
Better to ditch him over a point of high moral principle than just because he looks like a loser and voters hate him etc.
The dictum "he who wields the knife..." has been rolled out often regarding Starmer, as a reason why none of the potential challengers have thrown down the gauntlet in past weeks and months.
But I think we're at the point where whoever moves first is going to be embraced in gratitude by Labour MPs and members for getting rid of Starmer and Reeves and enabling a fresh start. So there's a huge advantage in going first.
The May elections had also been cited as a reason to hold off, for fear of taking the blame for what will still be dire results. But most Labour candidates know that they are dead and buried if Starmer stays any long in which case those elections become a referendum on him. They are now desperate for him to go.
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
She's got street smarts. That'll do for Labour
I think that's half right. It's not intelligence that is needed as a PM, or technical knowledge from education and experience, it's judgement.
I'm not certain that Rayner's judgement is great, and her short record as a minister is also not inspiring, but lack of education is certainly not her problem.
But would she be able to string together a government ? What if it falls in the House of Commons. If the King were savvy, which he isn't of course he would ask Kemi to form a government. I really can see a General Election now, probably June. The idea that out Ange could hold a goverment together for over a month is quite frankly absurd.
Yeah right
After the Tories had 4 Pm in 5 years.
The King is going to call Kemi whose Tory Party is close to electoral oblivion.
The party near oblivion is labour not the conservatives
Starmer exit in 2026 now shortened to 1.54:1, which is the shortest I've seen it. That's easy money if you're convinced he's going this year. (I'm not. I think those odds are about right.)
I think they're too short personally and have added to my currently massively offside lay, and will take more if 1.35 trades (looking v possible). Still, squeaky bum.
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
Didn’t we hear news yesterday that it had severe cut through on focus groups?
The Epstein angle, which brought down Andrew, surely makes it quite high profile.
At a politically focussed focus group, sure.
But when Boris's various scandals were going on, it was a topic of conversation amongst normies in the office. Pub bores would make jokes about it. I'm just not feeling the same sense of the country at large carying atm.
This is better than Currygate. But as I have been saying for several days, we’ve still got to play it straight, and remain on the ball. Don’t let them pesky algorithms take you over and flood your mind. We can think and deduce political things for ourselves. We are PB! 🙂
Starmer exit in 2026 now shortened to 1.54:1, which is the shortest I've seen it. That's easy money if you're convinced he's going this year. (I'm not. I think those odds are about right.)
I think they're too short personally and have added to my currently massively offside lay, and will take more if 1.35 trades (looking v possible). Still, squeaky bum.
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
Didn’t we hear news yesterday that it had severe cut through on focus groups?
The Epstein angle, which brought down Andrew, surely makes it quite high profile.
At a politically focussed focus group, sure.
But when Boris's various scandals were going on, it was a topic of conversation amongst normies in the office. Pub bores would make jokes about it. I'm just not feeling the same sense of the country at large carying atm.
Maybe I'm just talking my position, idk
It's being joked about by the not-very-politically-engaged where I work. I'd say people are even crosser about the arrogance and entitlement on display here than they were about Boris.
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
She's got street smarts. That'll do for Labour
I think that's half right. It's not intelligence that is needed as a PM, or technical knowledge from education and experience, it's judgement.
I'm not certain that Rayner's judgement is great, and her short record as a minister is also not inspiring, but lack of education is certainly not her problem.
But would she be able to string together a government ? What if it falls in the House of Commons. If the King were savvy, which he isn't of course he would ask Kemi to form a government. I really can see a General Election now, probably June. The idea that out Ange could hold a goverment together for over a month is quite frankly absurd.
Of course Rayner could put a government together. She'd be quite popular among Labour MPs, at least until the budget.
After that, who knows?
I have my doubts, but I don't think she'll do a Truss.
So: 1) McSweeney will undoubtedly be offered as sacrificial mutton 2) That will just enrage the party even more 3) Everyone goes back to their constituencies and gets told in no uncertain terms that its done 4) Starmer resigns on Monday
Question is how many of the grasping shits in his Cabinet get taken out by the mess? Streeting surely is also cooked. Other "Senior" members of the cabinet aren't credible or (Reeves as a prime example) also go by default.
Rayner is on manoeuvres and offers the change of direction so many in the party want. Will she even face a challenge?
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
A lot of Prime Ministers didn't go to University: John Major and Jim Callaghan, for example.
Fantastic opportunity now for those on Labour benches who want Starmer gone for electoral reasons.
Better to ditch him over a point of high moral principle than just because he looks like a loser and voters hate him etc.
The dictum "he who wields the knife..." has been rolled out often regarding Starmer, as a reason why none of the potential challengers have thrown down the gauntlet in past weeks and months.
But I think we're at the point where whoever moves first is going to be embraced in gratitude by Labour MPs and members for getting rid of Starmer and Reeves and enabling a fresh start. So there's a huge advantage in going first.
The May elections had also been cited as a reason to hold off, for fear of taking the blame for what will still be dire results. But most Labour candidates know that they are dead and buried if Starmer stays any long in which case those elections become a referendum on him. They are now desperate for him to go.
I think this is right.
There's only one teeny, tiny, minor problem.
Most Labour MPs are spineless non-entities. Who is there with gravitas and intelligence and standing and even a mear soupcon of talent, who can put the boot in?
To be fair to Big G. What Truth Warrior geezer is posting on X without evidence is no different than what A LOT PBers are posting today without evidence. That Snoopy Services knew everything, and told Starmer.
Thinking of it logically, if Starmer knew this, why wouldn’t he act? Whatever we all think of our opponents, whoever they are, can we think they really are THAT despicable?
On reflection, I am 100% certain Starmer and Kemi had a chat yesterday before PMQs today. Sense Starmer seemed to repeating to Kemi what he had already said.
If Starmer does go now, could Rayner realistically stand while still subject to an HMRC inquiry?
Might circumstances point to a more experienced, unity candidate - ie not Streeting or Rayner?
But who best fits that bill? Maybe Cooper?
I wondered about that. I'm not convinced the inquiry will necessarily be an impediment, but if it is I would think of Ed Miliband as the safe pair of hands, and emollient for the Labour soul.
You’re quoting a far right Advance member who has a history of bullshit.
I’ll need a link from Sky News.
Some of the more excitable PBers are getting way ahead of themselves today.
FWIW I am guessing Starmer is toast, but the eager anticipation of a Conservative Government by Friday teatime is I would say, unlikely.
Well yes. At the moment it's hard to see how the Conservatives ever form a government again, and it appears we are going to go from a government led by an incompetent from the Labour right to a government led by an incompetent from the Labour left. I'm finding yhe current news cycle absorbing, but that doesn't translate to optimism for the future. In contrast to our new poster, I do think Kemi's doing ok though.
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
She's got street smarts. That'll do for Labour
I think that's half right. It's not intelligence that is needed as a PM, or technical knowledge from education and experience, it's judgement.
I'm not certain that Rayner's judgement is great, and her short record as a minister is also not inspiring, but lack of education is certainly not her problem.
It's not unlikely to happen, but Starmer's crisis is because he appointed someone who had a tarnished record, did so on trust and discovered that character is destiny. It is sub optimal to appoint as the next PM someone with a tarnished record for probity.
Another unknown about Rayner is her capacity for team creation, building and sustaining from the top position. This is the one thing where the tarnished Cummings is right. Getting, keeping and leading the right team brilliantly well is the most ignored aspect of the top job.
Starmer exit in 2026 now shortened to 1.54:1, which is the shortest I've seen it. That's easy money if you're convinced he's going this year. (I'm not. I think those odds are about right.)
I think they're too short personally and have added to my currently massively offside lay, and will take more if 1.35 trades (looking v possible). Still, squeaky bum.
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
Didn’t we hear news yesterday that it had severe cut through on focus groups?
The Epstein angle, which brought down Andrew, surely makes it quite high profile.
At a politically focussed focus group, sure.
But when Boris's various scandals were going on, it was a topic of conversation amongst normies in the office. Pub bores would make jokes about it. I'm just not feeling the same sense of the country at large carying atm.
Maybe I'm just talking my position, idk
It's being joked about by the not-very-politically-engaged where I work. I'd say people are even crosser about the arrogance and entitlement on display here than they were about Boris.
What Mandelson did and got caught doing nearly 20 years on is without doubt the biggest scandal since Profumo, and quite possibly even bigger than Profumo. Mandelson is a duplicitous****. Boris Johnson fans on here are crying "innocent!", over a cake but ignoring the story that will appear in the history books in years to come. A story almost all on here have largely ignored.
Consider a sitting Foreign Secretary slipping his minders to attend an alcohol and hookers party in Italy hosted by a KGB Grandee, whose son was later elevated to the House of Lords. It's the stuff of Len Deighton.
I wish you'd stop being disingenuous about reporting what Sky say, Big G. This is a link to an interpretation by someone who has an AI generated picture of a medieval knight sitting below a sign saying "Truth Warrior" as a banner on his X/Twitter.
So you're actually not posting a link to what Sky are saying. You're linking to what a man who is "Pushing back on globalist control" is saying Sky is saying. Quite different.
"Mandelson’s adoration of wealth and power reaches its inevitable conclusion Peter Mandelson’s career sheds light on his party’s ideological fragility By Steve Richards"
"The Epstein files expose the rot of Mandelson’s Britain New Labour’s dead-end of pragmatism over everything else – including morality By Anoosh Chakelian"
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
A lot of Prime Ministers didn't go to University: John Major and Jim Callaghan, for example.
I went to university, and they didn't teach me a thing about how to run a country. Should I ask for a refund?
My problem with Ange isn't her lack of higher education, it's that she just doesn't seem very bright.
You’re quoting a far right Advance member who has a history of bullshit.
I’ll need a link from Sky News.
Some of the more excitable PBers are getting way ahead of themselves today.
FWIW I am guessing Starmer is toast, but the eager anticipation of a Conservative Government by Friday teatime is I would say, unlikely.
Well yes. At the moment it's hard to see how the Conservatives ever form a government again, and it appears we are going to go from a government led by an incompetent from the Labour right to a government led by an incompetent from the Labour left. I'm finding yhe current news cycle absorbing, but that doesn't translate to optimism for the future. In contrast to our new poster, I do think Kemi's doing ok though.
Fantastic opportunity now for those on Labour benches who want Starmer gone for electoral reasons.
Better to ditch him over a point of high moral principle than just because he looks like a loser and voters hate him etc.
The dictum "he who wields the knife..." has been rolled out often regarding Starmer, as a reason why none of the potential challengers have thrown down the gauntlet in past weeks and months.
But I think we're at the point where whoever moves first is going to be embraced in gratitude by Labour MPs and members for getting rid of Starmer and Reeves and enabling a fresh start. So there's a huge advantage in going first.
The May elections had also been cited as a reason to hold off, for fear of taking the blame for what will still be dire results. But most Labour candidates know that they are dead and buried if Starmer stays any long in which case those elections become a referendum on him. They are now desperate for him to go.
I think this is right.
There's only one teeny, tiny, minor problem.
Most Labour MPs are spineless non-entities. Who is there with gravitas and intelligence and standing and even a mear soupcon of talent, who can put the boot in?
This is very important and makes me think about my own generation, often referred to as millenials. We know how the Conservative vote leans old, how Labour do better with the young who can't get good jobs, house, careers etc. Over 400 Labour MPs in Parliament. Where are the talented young people with the vision to be the leaders of tomorrow? We're lost.
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
A lot of Prime Ministers didn't go to University: John Major and Jim Callaghan, for example.
I wish you'd stop being disingenuous about reporting what Sky say, Big G. This is a link to an interpretation by someone who has an AI generated picture of a medieval knight sitting below a sign saying "Truth Warrior" as a banner on his X/Twitter.
So you're actually not posting a link to what Sky are saying. You're linking to what a man who is "Pushing back on globalist control" is saying Sky is saying. Quite different.
You've got form in this department.
Maybe an innocent abroad
I have not heard of Jim Ferguson and I watch Sam Coates daily
If I have erred I apologise
My links to Sky are always direct and if I have been misled then I have learned the lesson
Scotland Yard confirms that it has warned Number 10 that the 'release of specific documents' could undermine its investigation
A government source said that these include the evidence that Keir Starmer is relying on to show that Mandelson lied - the peer's response to questions from Morgan McSweeney about his relationship with Epstein and whether he had stayed at his apartment in Manhattan
This feels tectonic. It's a big blow for Number 10 and Starmer
We could be in a position where the only thing that's published is evidence that Stamer knew Mandelson maintained his close friendship with Epstein after his conviction for child sex offences and appointed him anyway
Commander Ella Marriott, of the Metropolitan Police, said:
'As with any investigation, securing and preserving any potential evidence is vital. For this reason, when approached by the UK government today with their intent to publish material, we reviewed it immediately and advised that the release of specific documents could undermine our currrent investigation. We therefore asked them not to release certain documents at this time
'Going forward as material is made available to us, and if we identify further documents that we believe could prejudice our investigation, we will continue to ask the Government to pause their release until such time as the risk of prejudice no longer exists. The integrity of our investigation is paramount to securing justice. We are grateful for their cooperation'
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
She's got street smarts. That'll do for Labour
I think that's half right. It's not intelligence that is needed as a PM, or technical knowledge from education and experience, it's judgement.
I'm not certain that Rayner's judgement is great, and her short record as a minister is also not inspiring, but lack of education is certainly not her problem.
It's not unlikely to happen, but Starmer's crisis is because he appointed someone who had a tarnished record, did so on trust and discovered that character is destiny. It is sub optimal to appoint as the next PM someone with a tarnished record for probity.
Another unknown about Rayner is her capacity for team creation, building and sustaining from the top position. This is the one thing where the tarnished Cummings is right. Getting, keeping and leading the right team brilliantly well is the most ignored aspect of the top job.
Well yes, but then of course you could say the same about Starmer and his behaviour accepting gifts from all and sundry after criticising Johnson.
A person who can be the centre of a scandal and still put themselves forward for the top job seems to be precisely the person British politics currently selects to be PM. It will happen again.
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
A lot of Prime Ministers didn't go to University: John Major and Jim Callaghan, for example.
If Starmer does go now, could Rayner realistically stand while still subject to an HMRC inquiry?
Might circumstances point to a more experienced, unity candidate - ie not Streeting or Rayner?
But who best fits that bill? Maybe Cooper?
Yes she could. The inquiry is into whether it was a result of carelessness or deliberate. This will determine the penalty. She has said she hasn't had a demand from HRMC yet but will pay in full when she gets the demand.
This isn't a barrier to her becoming PM if Labour MPs and members vote for it. It might even be a coronation.
I see the PB tricouteuse round the tumbril are scenting blood in the water - why you'd put a tumbril near water I don't know, I mean, do decapitated heads float? I suspect not.
That may be the least of Starmer's worries as even this hardened old political cynic sees he's in a spot of bother. The admission he ignored the concerns raised by the Security (apparently called Snoopy nowadays) Services over the appointment of Mandelson in favour of the political reality of choosing someone with close links to Trump's circle now makes him look like a man in a circle (a circular flying squad I presume).
Probably better for him to make the admission in the Commons than lie and be found out in any later investigation for allthe good it may do him.
In Stodge's political universe (NOT to be confused with the political universe of the Labour candidate for Gorton and Denton), resignation occurs when the story isn't you but you are the story. The story was Mandelson - the story is becoming Starmer's judgement (or lack of it).
Given how difficult it is for a Labour leader to be ousted, the question has to be whether Starmer has reached the end of the road psychologically or when, as the French say, "le jeu n'en vaut pas la chandelle" and he simply decides to walk away.
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
She left school at 16- pregnant -got a union job then went back later when she could. I'd take her native wit and guile over nearly all the other creeps trying to climb the greasy pole.
I know intellectual snobbery is a very unappealing trait but Angela Raynor is someone of very limited education. Being Prime minister is a very demanding job. Would she handle it? Possibly. But she might also be found out very quickly.
A lot of Prime Ministers didn't go to University: John Major and Jim Callaghan, for example.
If Starmer does go now, could Rayner realistically stand while still subject to an HMRC inquiry?
Might circumstances point to a more experienced, unity candidate - ie not Streeting or Rayner?
But who best fits that bill? Maybe Cooper?
Yes she could. The inquiry is into whether it was a result of carelessness or deliberate. This will determine the penalty. She has said she hasn't had a demand from HRMC yet but will pay in full when she gets the demand.
This isn't a barrier to her becoming PM if Labour MPs and members vote for it. It might even be a coronation.
Of course it's possible - but do you think it will be a sensible move to appoint someone as PM who a few months later may be found to have deliberately misled HMRC?
Feels like a massive gamble at any time - let alone at this time.
Comments
Go for it, SKS!
"Kemi is unacceptable to 85% of voters".
Any evidence for this? Seems like nonsense to me.
I think he's in genuine peril and if there was an obvious alternative he'd be in trouble. I've got mixed feelings. He strikes me as pretty straight which is important and I would hate for anything that could give Farage an opening. If a good alternative appears I think he'll go.
Profumo of course spent years doing charity work to try and wipe the stain from his good name.
Are we to see Mandelson in similar sack clothe and ashes?
I don't agree with Melanie on everything but I can see how incessant irrational hatred is going to make people slightly mad. Owens is just a freakshow.
Just to be clear, we are way beyond the point McSweeney’s resignation can save Starmer.
I'm not certain that Rayner's judgement is great, and her short record as a minister is also not inspiring, but lack of education is certainly not her problem.
We are so far past that now.
Seems almost quaint to propose that now.
Better to ditch him over a point of high moral principle than just because he looks like a loser and voters hate him etc.
If he had Mandy’s indiscretions to sell, he had others. For sure.
So he’d buy* any useful information, then (probably) sell** it to as many as would pay for it.
The idea that he was an “Agent” working for any singular entity is almost certainly wrong.
*for money or other
**in return for money or other
This is a huge story in the political bubble but it doesn't feel to me to have as much cut through to the real world as Boris did.
There is also an amusing irony irony that some of the markets will atm be being driven by someone much like Mandelson leaking what's going on amongst MPs to traders...
The Epstein angle, which brought down Andrew, surely makes it quite high profile.
https://x.com/i/status/2019028858192744544
It's not as if Bezos is short of money is it?
What you are advertently/inadvertently saying, there was so much known about it, no action was taken as no crime had been committed. The only alternative is Snoopy Services were unaware.
Are you not stretching incredulity a bit far, that this was known, but hushed up? How many governments and Prime Ministers involved in the cover up to protect Mandelson, you are convinced happened?
You’re quoting a far right Advance member who has a history of bullshit.
I’ll need a link from Sky News.
Monologue from today’s Times at One with Andrew Neil:
BETRAYAL
And still the revelations about Peter Mandleson’s betrayals from the heart of government come, each one more jaw-dropping than the last.
We learned earlier this week that he’d tipped off his convicted pedophile mate about an imminent €500bn bailout of the Eurozone, advance information hugely useful to a financial fixer like Jeffrey Epstein.
Even more incredibly, we saw how he’d advised America’s most powerful banker, via Epstein, to threaten the British government over plans to tax bankers’ bonuses in the wake of the Great Financial Crash, caused by said bankers.
Which the powerful banker then did in an intimidating call to then Chancellor Alastair Darling. A call inspired by the government’s very own business secretary, one Peter Mandleson.
Now we learn that the moment Mandleson was given a note about a highly sensitive meeting between Darling and then US Treasury secretary Larry Summers in March 2010, our business secretary had whisked it to Epstein within five minutes. That’s right. Five. Minutes.
Mandleson then received a second confidential note on the Darling-Summers exchanges. It took him only two minutes to send that to his pedo mate.
The reality is that Epstein had his very own mole at the heart of the British government, sending him secret and confidential information which could profit Epstein and his billionaire banker friends. And that mole was our business secretary.
He even tipped Epstein off about the state of talks between Britain and America over a £10bn aerospace contract to provide the RAF with air-to-air refuelling tankers.
At one stage Mandleson opines to Epstein that the then PM needs to be confined to a sanatorium. Remember Mandleson is saying this of the man who’d revived his political career. It doesn’t get much lower than that. No wonder Brown is seething.
Let’s be blunt: the evidence is compelling that Mandleson betrayed himself, his department, his PM, his government, his country.
And let us not forget Mandleson had previously been bunged $75,000 by Epstein. He says he has no recollection of such payments though the bank statements are clear for all to see. But, hey, who hasn’t forgotten a $75,000 gift?
After the Tories had 4 Pm in 5 years.
The King is going to call Kemi whose Tory Party is close to electoral oblivion.
Whether it’s for misconduct in public office, breaching the official secrets act or dealing in insider information, it’s only right that his former lordship be the subject of the most rigorous criminal investigation. And quickly. This should not be allowed to drag on.
But Keir Starmer has almost as many questions to answer as Mandleson. Just how was it that such a snake ended up as our man in Washington?
Starmer didn’t know what we now know about Mandleson. But he knew a lot. In a faltering performance at PMQs he’s just admitted he did know of Mandleson’s ongoing relationship with Epstein. But he still appointed him anyway.
Starmer now claims Mandleson lied and lied to him. But my understanding is that Mandleson was never properly quizzed about his links with Epstein, so anxious was Starmer and his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, to shoe-horn him into our palatial embassy on Massachusetts Avenue.
The push is on in Parliament today for the government to reveal all the details of the vetting of Peter Mandleson.
At times like this the default of British governments is to stonewall.
But if Starmer truly regrets his Mandleson appointment, which has turned into a political catastrophe for him, he will sanction full disclosure of all relevant material, including who was involved in pressing Mandleson’s appointment.
Nothing less will suffice in what has become the greatest political scandal of our age.
But I think we're at the point where whoever moves first is going to be embraced in gratitude by Labour MPs and members for getting rid of Starmer and Reeves and enabling a fresh start. So there's a huge advantage in going first.
The May elections had also been cited as a reason to hold off, for fear of taking the blame for what will still be dire results. But most Labour candidates know that they are dead and buried if Starmer stays any long in which case those elections become a referendum on him. They are now desperate for him to go.
I would not have posted it without the link
But when Boris's various scandals were going on, it was a topic of conversation amongst normies in the office. Pub bores would make jokes about it. I'm just not feeling the same sense of the country at large carying atm.
Maybe I'm just talking my position, idk
It is almost as if everyone knew what he was like.
If that hadn't happened then presumably George Osborne would still be the US ambassador.
Looking on the Sky News website there’s no stories backing up his comments.
YouGov: Mandelson / Epstein Files revelations being closely followed by more than 4 in 10 of us. Not far off salience of Partygate...
https://x.com/JimFergusonUK
This is better than Currygate. But as I have been saying for several days, we’ve still got to play it straight, and remain on the ball. Don’t let them pesky algorithms take you over and flood your mind. We can think and deduce political things for ourselves. We are PB! 🙂
As you know I watch Sky most of the time and I have noticed, no doubt due to the speed of breaking stories, there is often a time lag on their site
FWIW I am guessing Starmer is toast, but the eager anticipation of a Conservative Government by Friday teatime is I would say, unlikely.
NEW - A Labour MP has become one of the first to break ranks on Morgan McSweeney.
Brian Leishman MP has told me that the position of the PM’s closest advisor is ‘surely untenable’.
He added: ‘I can understand why people are discussing the future of the Prime Minister’.
After that, who knows?
I have my doubts, but I don't think she'll do a Truss.
1) McSweeney will undoubtedly be offered as sacrificial mutton
2) That will just enrage the party even more
3) Everyone goes back to their constituencies and gets told in no uncertain terms that its done
4) Starmer resigns on Monday
Question is how many of the grasping shits in his Cabinet get taken out by the mess? Streeting surely is also cooked. Other "Senior" members of the cabinet aren't credible or (Reeves as a prime example) also go by default.
Rayner is on manoeuvres and offers the change of direction so many in the party want. Will she even face a challenge?
Might circumstances point to a more experienced, unity candidate - ie not Streeting or Rayner?
But who best fits that bill? Maybe Cooper?
And I suspect Trump is quite happy if Ukrane doesn't feature in the news.
(I have no financial axe to grind in any crypto)
AND she has Ed Balls to help!!!
There's only one teeny, tiny, minor problem.
Most Labour MPs are spineless non-entities. Who is there with gravitas and intelligence and standing and even a mear soupcon of talent, who can put the boot in?
Thinking of it logically, if Starmer knew this, why wouldn’t he act? Whatever we all think of our opponents, whoever they are, can we think they really are THAT despicable?
On reflection, I am 100% certain Starmer and Kemi had a chat yesterday before PMQs today. Sense Starmer seemed to repeating to Kemi what he had already said.
But in terms of best person for the job he might well be the answer - if he wanted it.
"My senior advisor advised me to overlook the security people's concerns and I just did what he said."
Yep. That should do it. No doubt at all.
In contrast to our new poster, I do think Kemi's doing ok though.
Another unknown about Rayner is her capacity for team creation, building and sustaining from the top position. This is the one thing where the tarnished Cummings is right. Getting, keeping and leading the right team brilliantly well is the most ignored aspect of the top job.
Consider a sitting Foreign Secretary slipping his minders to attend an alcohol and hookers party in Italy hosted by a KGB Grandee, whose son was later elevated to the House of Lords. It's the stuff of Len Deighton.
So you're actually not posting a link to what Sky are saying. You're linking to what a man who is "Pushing back on globalist control" is saying Sky is saying. Quite different.
You've got form in this department.
"Mandelson’s adoration of wealth and power reaches its inevitable conclusion
Peter Mandelson’s career sheds light on his party’s ideological fragility
By Steve Richards"
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/02/how-wealth-and-power-beguiled-new-labour
"The Mandelson affair: inside the scandal of a century
Mandelson’s fall from grace reveals a very Labour weakness
By Ailbhe Rea"
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour/2026/02/the-mandelson-affair-inside-the-scandal-of-a-century
"The Epstein files expose the rot of Mandelson’s Britain
New Labour’s dead-end of pragmatism over everything else – including morality
By Anoosh Chakelian"
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2026/02/the-epstein-files-expose-the-rot-of-mandelsons-britain
My problem with Ange isn't her lack of higher education, it's that she just doesn't seem very bright.
* Quite topical I thought for today's scandal.
https://x.com/swandesk/status/2018813252583498192?s=61
Why don't they go into overdrive and suggest Burgon?
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-mandelson-quits-lords-over-epstein-links-after-resigning-from-labour-party-12593360
I have not heard of Jim Ferguson and I watch Sam Coates daily
If I have erred I apologise
My links to Sky are always direct and if I have been misled then I have learned the lesson
BREAKING
Scotland Yard confirms that it has warned Number 10 that the 'release of specific documents' could undermine its investigation
A government source said that these include the evidence that Keir Starmer is relying on to show that Mandelson lied - the peer's response to questions from Morgan McSweeney about his relationship with Epstein and whether he had stayed at his apartment in Manhattan
This feels tectonic. It's a big blow for Number 10 and Starmer
We could be in a position where the only thing that's published is evidence that Stamer knew Mandelson maintained his close friendship with Epstein after his conviction for child sex offences and appointed him anyway
Commander Ella Marriott, of the Metropolitan Police, said:
'As with any investigation, securing and preserving any potential evidence is vital. For this reason, when approached by the UK government today with their intent to publish material, we reviewed it immediately and advised that the release of specific documents could undermine our currrent investigation. We therefore asked them not to release certain documents at this time
'Going forward as material is made available to us, and if we identify further documents that we believe could prejudice our investigation, we will continue to ask the Government to pause their release until such time as the risk of prejudice no longer exists. The integrity of our investigation is paramount to securing justice. We are grateful for their cooperation'
The list of experienced, safe choices looks like:
Cooper
Miliband (E)
Healey
Alexander (D)
McFadden
A person who can be the centre of a scandal and still put themselves forward for the top job seems to be precisely the person British politics currently selects to be PM. It will happen again.
Okay.
The inquiry is into whether it was a result of carelessness or deliberate. This will determine the penalty. She has said she hasn't had a demand from HRMC yet but will pay in full when she gets the demand.
This isn't a barrier to her becoming PM if Labour MPs and members vote for it.
It might even be a coronation.
I see the PB tricouteuse round the tumbril are scenting blood in the water - why you'd put a tumbril near water I don't know, I mean, do decapitated heads float? I suspect not.
That may be the least of Starmer's worries as even this hardened old political cynic sees he's in a spot of bother. The admission he ignored the concerns raised by the Security (apparently called Snoopy nowadays) Services over the appointment of Mandelson in favour of the political reality of choosing someone with close links to Trump's circle now makes him look like a man in a circle (a circular flying squad I presume).
Probably better for him to make the admission in the Commons than lie and be found out in any later investigation for allthe good it may do him.
In Stodge's political universe (NOT to be confused with the political universe of the Labour candidate for Gorton and Denton), resignation occurs when the story isn't you but you are the story. The story was Mandelson - the story is becoming Starmer's judgement (or lack of it).
Given how difficult it is for a Labour leader to be ousted, the question has to be whether Starmer has reached the end of the road psychologically or when, as the French say, "le jeu n'en vaut pas la chandelle" and he simply decides to walk away.
Could happen tonight I suppose....
Raynor 4
Streeting 5.3
Burnham 11
Mahmood 13
Ed Miliband 19.5
Powell 42
Cooper 42
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.170273835
As for Major so does Edwina Currie.
Feels like a massive gamble at any time - let alone at this time.