Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
She's been rubbish. She's missed open goal after open goal. Cleverly would have slotted them all into the back of the net.
I wouldn’t know. I don’t really watch it. I only watched yesterday’s out of curiosity. Cleverly strikes me as a dull empty suit.
After the hysteria yesterday, Starmer could have taken the easier route and made his speech this morning without taking press questions. But he didn't - he faced the flak and, to my mind, did so pretty calmly.
As for Labour MPs - there's around 400 of them, and only a handful so far have put their head above the parapet and called for him to go. I'm ignoring anonymous briefings to Dan Hodges, Chris Mason and others. And, so far, no Cabinet Ministers have resigned or asked for him to go.
So I'm sticking with my view that Starmer will ride this current hysteria out, and will either be decapitated in 2027 or will lead Labour into the next GE. And, if he does go next year, I don't think it will be Ange: private and financial life too messy.
I don't see that he can. If he were a Tory PM, maybe.
I always use Peter Hain as my reference point. Hain tried to hang on in Cabinet for ten days. A ten day time frame where the media got angrier and angrier. And the media were pussycats compared to today's media pack back in the day.
After the hysteria yesterday, Starmer could have taken the easier route and made his speech this morning without taking press questions. But he didn't - he faced the flak and, to my mind, did so pretty calmly.
As for Labour MPs - there's around 400 of them, and only a handful so far have put their head above the parapet and called for him to go. I'm ignoring anonymous briefings to Dan Hodges, Chris Mason and others. And, so far, no Cabinet Ministers have resigned or asked for him to go.
So I'm sticking with my view that Starmer will ride this current hysteria out, and will either be decapitated in 2027 or will lead Labour into the next GE. And, if he does go next year, I don't think it will be Ange: private and financial life too messy.
It's intense right now, but truth is most things do blow over.
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
NImrods routinely did it but those crews would have welcomed a crash to get away from the Honkers.
Guys in blue do lots of silly things that civvy aviation definitely don’t. Reversers in flight is a good one, or tactical approaches. Most airlines use derated takeoffs as well, because they have to pay for their own engine maintenance. Look up “balanced field” or “assumed temperature”.
I seem to recall a ?German pilot committing suicide and murder by crashing a plane-load of returning holidaymakers. Five or so years ago?
Germanwings, crashed it into the Alps, though may have been slightly more than 5 years ago. I remember it because I was on a flight near the Alps shortly afterwards and the pilot (or co pilot, I suppose) left the cockpit to use the loo at the front of the cabin and was stood there for what felt like 5 or 10 minutes as passengers occasionally glanced at him nervously. The occupant, who was either doing a poo or perhaps something more nefarious, got daggers on his way back to his seat.
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
Why can he not admit that this was the basis on which he appointed Mandelson and instead has to construct an obviously fictitious narrative that makes him the victim?
Oh s***e! That's the second time in ten minutes I've agreed with you.
Starmer could announce a cure for cancer and no one would be listening .
It all looks rather tragic and the public simply don’t care about what he has to say anymore . As with all PMs once in they will cling on for dear life but all he’s doing is acting as a handmaiden to help Reform into power .
If Rayner is leader I think I will consider voting against Labour.
She's that bad?
She’s utter shit. It wouldn’t necessarily stop me voting Labour (if Darren Grimes was the Reform candidate here) but she’s crap. Dense and appeals to middle class people who see here as a working class everyperson !
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
Sky are showing her answering all the questions and taking Starmer apart
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
The problem he has is that he should just say he made a decision knowing the previous ties and in hindsight it was a terrible decision.
He isn’t willing to do that so he is trying to contort himself into very awkward and untenable positions about what he was told and what he relied on rather than the basic point which is - it was a bad idea and I messed up in hindsight.
Maybe he should tell the truth
We took a gamble on Mandy as he has all the dirt on Trump and his cronies and Epstein
We thought we could manage Mandy and get the best deal.
We actually got the best deal and still have the best deal, saving jobs creating jobs
However, we fecked up with Mandy and the Epstein dumps have fecked us, not Trump and we can't tell the truth as we'll be stuffed like Canada
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
Are you still ok hun? Do you need a lie-down or a warm milky drink?
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
The problem he has is that he should just say he made a decision knowing the previous ties and in hindsight it was a terrible decision.
He isn’t willing to do that so he is trying to contort himself into very awkward and untenable positions about what he was told and what he relied on rather than the basic point which is - it was a bad idea and I messed up in hindsight.
That is a fair point. I personally reckon he knew it was a risk - but had no idea about the quantum of that risk. However, if he runs that argument it will get into an all consuming argument about what exactly did he know (and when) and why was he incurious to find out more? Easier to say - “I asked him, he said “barely know the bugger,” I believed him, he lied.”
I also do not think Starmer or even the Security Services knew the extent of Mandelson’s involvement with Epstein (or if the Security Services did they may well not have shared it - certainly seems to have come as a surprise to Brown). There is an open question about whether they should have asked the Yanks to do a key word search of the Epstein files, or if we did would the Yanks honestly answer (they may have their own incentives to have a UK ambassador in the mire).
But does that mean Starmer has to go. On its own probably not - depending on what comes out in the papers. With his current popularity, his blundering and the likely outcome of the May elections it does look increasingly difficult for him to remain in position.
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
Are you still ok hun? Do you need a lie-down or a warm milky drink?
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
Are you still ok hun? Do you need a lie-down or a warm milky drink?
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
You seem disproportionately furious at Kemi. Are you a spurned ex-boyfriend?
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
Sky are showing her answering all the questions and taking Starmer apart
Must be after they left her to go to bank if England news at midday... Oh well
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
You seem disproportionately furious at Kemi. Are you a spurned ex-boyfriend?
A bit unkind - there seems a general view she's improved but she's hardly setting the world on fire either.
This can't be true. At least 110% of council budgets are spent on woke - we should keep hiring more and more outside accountants and consultants at £1k per day until they can prove it.
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
The problem he has is that he should just say he made a decision knowing the previous ties and in hindsight it was a terrible decision.
He isn’t willing to do that so he is trying to contort himself into very awkward and untenable positions about what he was told and what he relied on rather than the basic point which is - it was a bad idea and I messed up in hindsight.
Maybe he should tell the truth
We took a gamble on Mandy as he has all the dirt on Trump and his cronies and Epstein
We thought we could manage Mandy and get the best deal.
We actually got the best deal and still have the best deal, saving jobs creating jobs
However, we fecked up with Mandy and the Epstein dumps have fecked us, not Trump and we can't tell the truth as we'll be stuffed like Canada
That is THE CRUX of the shambles
I wrote on here yesterday that at PMQs he should admit the error, put the exercise book down his trousers and take the caning.
Everyone knows Mandelson was a risky appointment in a bid to manipulate Trump. It was a good idea at the time but it backfired.
I don't believe Mandelson, a backstory liar, being found to have lied, butters any parsnips.
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
Are you still ok hun? Do you need a lie-down or a warm milky drink?
The truth hurts
Posters on this forum discuss politics seriously and disagree as you would expect but add to the debate
You just repeat Kemi is rubbish and give the impression you are employed by Morgan McSweeney
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
You seem disproportionately furious at Kemi. Are you a spurned ex-boyfriend?
A bit unkind - there seems a general view she's improved but she's hardly setting the world on fire either.
Well no. But nor does she seem the major focus of all this. Of Brixian's 59 posts, a good half seem to have been furious denunciations of Kemi. I take back my barb about being a spurned ex-boyfriend: on reflection that was a bit nasty. But I'm baffled by the way Kemi seems to be the target of our new poster's ire.
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
Are you still ok hun? Do you need a lie-down or a warm milky drink?
The truth hurts
Posters on this forum discuss politics seriously and disagree as you would expect but add to the debate
You just repeat Kemi is rubbish and give the impression you are employed by Morgan McSweeney
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
The problem he has is that he should just say he made a decision knowing the previous ties and in hindsight it was a terrible decision.
He isn’t willing to do that so he is trying to contort himself into very awkward and untenable positions about what he was told and what he relied on rather than the basic point which is - it was a bad idea and I messed up in hindsight.
That is a fair point. I personally reckon he knew it was a risk - but had no idea about the quantum of that risk. However, if he runs that argument it will get into an all consuming argument about what exactly did he know (and when) and why was he incurious to find out more? Easier to say - “I asked him, he said “barely know the bugger,” I believed him, he lied.”
I also do not think Starmer or even the Security Services knew the extent of Mandelson’s involvement with Epstein (or if the Security Services did they may well not have shared it - certainly seems to have come as a surprise to Brown). There is an open question about whether they should have asked the Yanks to do a key word search of the Epstein files, or if we did would the Yanks honestly answer (they may have their own incentives to have a UK ambassador in the mire).
But does that mean Starmer has to go. On its own probably not - depending on what comes out in the papers. With his current popularity, his blundering and the likely outcome of the May elections it does look increasingly difficult for him to remain in position.
Re your second paragraph - they may not have done. I think the issue is twofold though which is (a) was a personal assurance from Peter Mandelson himself (or, to be fair, any individual in that scenario) enough to alleviate the concern or should you really have tried to further verify it and (b) was the fact Epstein was being mentioned at all in the context of a political appointment a big enough red flag to say well clear?
I think it’s (b) that Starmer has the biggest problem on because we all knew at that point who Epstein was and how reputationally damaging it has been for anyone remotely connected to him.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
NImrods routinely did it but those crews would have welcomed a crash to get away from the Honkers.
Guys in blue do lots of silly things that civvy aviation definitely don’t. Reversers in flight is a good one, or tactical approaches. Most airlines use derated takeoffs as well, because they have to pay for their own engine maintenance. Look up “balanced field” or “assumed temperature”.
I have a wealth of experience of investigating air crashes. (OK, that amounts to me being an avid viewer of "Air Crash Investigation" on repeat, one of the best things to come out of Canada.) That experience tells me that very many of the incidents reported come about when a vastly experienced former air force pilot is flying a civilian airliner. Some just can't seem to get rid of an ingrained trained instinct to take risks in order to complete the mission, come what may.
After the hysteria yesterday, Starmer could have taken the easier route and made his speech this morning without taking press questions. But he didn't - he faced the flak and, to my mind, did so pretty calmly.
As for Labour MPs - there's around 400 of them, and only a handful so far have put their head above the parapet and called for him to go. I'm ignoring anonymous briefings to Dan Hodges, Chris Mason and others. And, so far, no Cabinet Ministers have resigned or asked for him to go.
So I'm sticking with my view that Starmer will ride this current hysteria out, and will either be decapitated in 2027 or will lead Labour into the next GE. And, if he does go next year, I don't think it will be Ange: private and financial life too messy.
I have respect for you, taking this unpopular line, as the rest of the cosmos cries for Skyr to go. And your argument has some merit
However, consider this: the best possible outcome for Reform, and probably the Tories, is an injured and pathetic Starmer remaining in power, like Major in the 90s, but times 1000
That guarantees a 1997 result, but even more spectacular: Farage becomes PM. Is that what you want?!
If Labour anoint Rayner or Wes instead, they have a decent chance of recovery, maybe not winning, but a close defeat. Even Mahmood maybe, Miliband no
Starmer is now so loathed and ridiculous it is impossible to see how he recovers
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
You seem disproportionately furious at Kemi. Are you a spurned ex-boyfriend?
A bit unkind - there seems a general view she's improved but she's hardly setting the world on fire either.
Well no. But nor does she seem the major focus of all this. Of Brixian's 59 posts, a good half seem to have been furious denunciations of Kemi. I take back my barb about being a spurned ex-boyfriend: on reflection that was a bit nasty. But I'm baffled by the way Kemi seems to be the target of our new poster's ire.
The Labour HQ bots know that Kemi's ratings are improving fast and that recovery will eventually tell in the VI. They have to attack her and Nige because if the Tories go clear of Labour rather than just tied voters will completely abandon them and leave them tied for third with the Greens.
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
You seem disproportionately furious at Kemi. Are you a spurned ex-boyfriend?
A bit unkind - there seems a general view she's improved but she's hardly setting the world on fire either.
Well no. But nor does she seem the major focus of all this. Of Brixian's 59 posts, a good half seem to have been furious denunciations of Kemi. I take back my barb about being a spurned ex-boyfriend: on reflection that was a bit nasty. But I'm baffled by the way Kemi seems to be the target of our new poster's ire.
Her personal ratings rise has inspired much oddness. Jenricks race to irrelevance with Reform for example She was going to be 'gone before Angela' a few months ago
Starmer the legal genius...when these scandals hit he always seems to come up with terrible defence tactics.
I hardly knew him, how could I have known, he told porkies, as if he was somebody you hired off the street after they sent in their CV and you did ring a referee and they said he is alright bloke.
Not lifetime labour party insider, former labour party spin doctor, business minister, and constant connected to scandal and dodgy rich people, and been caught out numerous times over his passing connection to the truth....
And a load of evidence for Mandy / Epstein love in were on the record at time of appointment.
I reckon that Starmer is such a poor judge of character because he has next to no empathy; he doesn’t understand people
I think it’s more that he just isn’t good at politics and too weak to make his own decisions. I don’t think he’s a bad person just basically clueless about how to govern .
After the hysteria yesterday, Starmer could have taken the easier route and made his speech this morning without taking press questions. But he didn't - he faced the flak and, to my mind, did so pretty calmly.
As for Labour MPs - there's around 400 of them, and only a handful so far have put their head above the parapet and called for him to go. I'm ignoring anonymous briefings to Dan Hodges, Chris Mason and others. And, so far, no Cabinet Ministers have resigned or asked for him to go.
So I'm sticking with my view that Starmer will ride this current hysteria out, and will either be decapitated in 2027 or will lead Labour into the next GE. And, if he does go next year, I don't think it will be Ange: private and financial life too messy.
I have respect for you, taking this unpopular line, as the rest of the cosmos cries for Skyr to go. And your argument has some merit
However, consider this: the best possible outcome for Reform, and probably the Tories, is an injured and pathetic Starmer remaining in power, like Major in the 90s, but times 1000
That guarantees a 1997 result, but even more spectacular: Farage becomes PM. Is that what you want?!
If Labour anoint Rayner or Wes instead, they have a decent chance of recovery, maybe not winning, but a close defeat. Even Mahmood maybe, Miliband no
Starmer is now so loathed and ridiculous it is impossible to see how he recovers
Agreed, Leon, but as you and your many girlfriends know, timing is everything. Whoever takes over now has a shellacking coming in May. Not good. So love him or loathe him, surely he stays till then at least?
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
Are you still ok hun? Do you need a lie-down or a warm milky drink?
The truth hurts
Posters on this forum discuss politics seriously and disagree as you would expect but add to the debate
You just repeat Kemi is rubbish and give the impression you are employed by Morgan McSweeney
"Gentlemen, you can't discuss elections on here! This is politicalbetting.com!"
Starmer might have survived all of this* had he embraced this line of argument.
It would be pretty remarkable if the Epstein scandal took down Keir Starmer while Trump's creepy old ass sits in the Oval Office telling women who ask about Epstein's victims to smile more. https://x.com/TVietor08/status/2019181889450315786
But for some reason he and everyone else are still in thrall to the whole special relationship with Trump's creepy old ass..
*OK, that's a bit fanciful, as he has no instincts at all for political warfare.
Makes you proud to be British. Despite everything, we do still cling to some values that the Americans have entirely discarded.
We might bin a PM twice removed from Epstein. Meanwhile, Trump, who is actually in the files and had umpteen allegations against him...
In fairness to the Yanks it is always going to be easier to get rid of a Prime Minister then a directly-elected President. It's one of the main advantages of a Parliamentary system over an executive presidency.
After the hysteria yesterday, Starmer could have taken the easier route and made his speech this morning without taking press questions. But he didn't - he faced the flak and, to my mind, did so pretty calmly.
As for Labour MPs - there's around 400 of them, and only a handful so far have put their head above the parapet and called for him to go. I'm ignoring anonymous briefings to Dan Hodges, Chris Mason and others. And, so far, no Cabinet Ministers have resigned or asked for him to go.
So I'm sticking with my view that Starmer will ride this current hysteria out, and will either be decapitated in 2027 or will lead Labour into the next GE. And, if he does go next year, I don't think it will be Ange: private and financial life too messy.
I have respect for you, taking this unpopular line, as the rest of the cosmos cries for Skyr to go. And your argument has some merit
However, consider this: the best possible outcome for Reform, and probably the Tories, is an injured and pathetic Starmer remaining in power, like Major in the 90s, but times 1000
That guarantees a 1997 result, but even more spectacular: Farage becomes PM. Is that what you want?!
If Labour anoint Rayner or Wes instead, they have a decent chance of recovery, maybe not winning, but a close defeat. Even Mahmood maybe, Miliband no
Starmer is now so loathed and ridiculous it is impossible to see how he recovers
After the hysteria yesterday, Starmer could have taken the easier route and made his speech this morning without taking press questions. But he didn't - he faced the flak and, to my mind, did so pretty calmly.
As for Labour MPs - there's around 400 of them, and only a handful so far have put their head above the parapet and called for him to go. I'm ignoring anonymous briefings to Dan Hodges, Chris Mason and others. And, so far, no Cabinet Ministers have resigned or asked for him to go.
So I'm sticking with my view that Starmer will ride this current hysteria out, and will either be decapitated in 2027 or will lead Labour into the next GE. And, if he does go next year, I don't think it will be Ange: private and financial life too messy.
I have respect for you, taking this unpopular line, as the rest of the cosmos cries for Skyr to go. And your argument has some merit
However, consider this: the best possible outcome for Reform, and probably the Tories, is an injured and pathetic Starmer remaining in power, like Major in the 90s, but times 1000
That guarantees a 1997 result, but even more spectacular: Farage becomes PM. Is that what you want?!
If Labour anoint Rayner or Wes instead, they have a decent chance of recovery, maybe not winning, but a close defeat. Even Mahmood maybe, Miliband no
Starmer is now so loathed and ridiculous it is impossible to see how he recovers
That press conference has made things incalculably worse for Starmer. He could - just - try and defend the line he believed Mandelson when he said he cut off the relationship. But not that he “barely knew him”. I’d now be surprised if Starmer is still PM this time next week."
Whatever Starmer's failings, it's crazy he might go over something Epstein-related when there seems to be barely a whisper of a question about Trump in the USA.
After the hysteria yesterday, Starmer could have taken the easier route and made his speech this morning without taking press questions. But he didn't - he faced the flak and, to my mind, did so pretty calmly.
As for Labour MPs - there's around 400 of them, and only a handful so far have put their head above the parapet and called for him to go. I'm ignoring anonymous briefings to Dan Hodges, Chris Mason and others. And, so far, no Cabinet Ministers have resigned or asked for him to go.
So I'm sticking with my view that Starmer will ride this current hysteria out, and will either be decapitated in 2027 or will lead Labour into the next GE. And, if he does go next year, I don't think it will be Ange: private and financial life too messy.
I have respect for you, taking this unpopular line, as the rest of the cosmos cries for Skyr to go. And your argument has some merit
However, consider this: the best possible outcome for Reform, and probably the Tories, is an injured and pathetic Starmer remaining in power, like Major in the 90s, but times 1000
That guarantees a 1997 result, but even more spectacular: Farage becomes PM. Is that what you want?!
If Labour anoint Rayner or Wes instead, they have a decent chance of recovery, maybe not winning, but a close defeat. Even Mahmood maybe, Miliband no
Starmer is now so loathed and ridiculous it is impossible to see how he recovers
Had anyone here heard of Pride in Place before this morning?
Is it a "lost" Jane Austen?
I had not. I understand it's the replacement for Levelling Up, which is something I'm both personally and professionally interested in, so I'm moderately surprised it had passed me by. I think it's a less good name than Levelling Up. But if i is broadly the same policy - i.e. make bad places as good as good places - I'm in. The impression I get is that it's a bit more small-scale than Levelling Up was - placemaking rather than infrastructure. But that probably overstates how Levelling Up worked in practice. And even if it is, I'd very much welcome a simple 'let's make places less shit' policy; indeed, I'd been mulling myself how such a thing might happen.
That press conference has made things incalculably worse for Starmer. He could - just - try and defend the line he believed Mandelson when he said he cut off the relationship. But not that he “barely knew him”. I’d now be surprised if Starmer is still PM this time next week."
Do we think Starmer's speech has made his survival less likely?
I think he’s done more or less what he needs to for now. The “sorry” was essentially enough to avoid an immediate revolt.
The issue is he has (a) PMQs next week where if Badenoch actually manages to be forensic I think he will dig a deeper hole (b) the release of the vetting info which its hard to see taking the pressure off and (c) Gorton and Denton at the end of the month.
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
You seem disproportionately furious at Kemi. Are you a spurned ex-boyfriend?
A bit unkind - there seems a general view she's improved but she's hardly setting the world on fire either.
Well no. But nor does she seem the major focus of all this. Of Brixian's 59 posts, a good half seem to have been furious denunciations of Kemi. I take back my barb about being a spurned ex-boyfriend: on reflection that was a bit nasty. But I'm baffled by the way Kemi seems to be the target of our new poster's ire.
Her personal ratings rise has inspired much oddness. Jenricks race to irrelevance with Reform for example She was going to be 'gone before Angela' a few months ago
What has happened to Jenrick? His was supposed to be the defection of the century, but recent news only tells of him getting accidently trapped in the aye lobby by closing doors and therefore wrongly voting for the removal of two-child benefit limit. Odd.
Whatever Starmer's failings, it's crazy he might go over something Epstein-related when there seems to be barely a whisper of a question about Trump in the USA.
We have a different culture and media. The fact that Boris Johnson was ousted by a pliant media must mean Starmer with an aggressive media is already done.
This may not be popular but Kemi is very much improved and seems confident
She has the benefit of being leader of the opposition and gets more exposure
I will watch with interest how the party performs in May and how her colleagues act, but I expect she will continue and lead into the next GE
Shes safe until the next GE now that the idiot pair have gone. I think Cleverley will fight for London mayor and Stride will stay loyal in return for a chicken run. Katie Lam knows shes probably front runner post GE. I dont see any othet contenders that coukd get the signatures flowing And her ratings are now at or better than Farages
Whatever Starmer's failings, it's crazy he might go over something Epstein-related when there seems to be barely a whisper of a question about Trump in the USA.
It's far far easier to remove a PM in the Westminster system than an Executive President. Always has been.
After the hysteria yesterday, Starmer could have taken the easier route and made his speech this morning without taking press questions. But he didn't - he faced the flak and, to my mind, did so pretty calmly.
As for Labour MPs - there's around 400 of them, and only a handful so far have put their head above the parapet and called for him to go. I'm ignoring anonymous briefings to Dan Hodges, Chris Mason and others. And, so far, no Cabinet Ministers have resigned or asked for him to go.
So I'm sticking with my view that Starmer will ride this current hysteria out, and will either be decapitated in 2027 or will lead Labour into the next GE. And, if he does go next year, I don't think it will be Ange: private and financial life too messy.
I have respect for you, taking this unpopular line, as the rest of the cosmos cries for Skyr to go. And your argument has some merit
However, consider this: the best possible outcome for Reform, and probably the Tories, is an injured and pathetic Starmer remaining in power, like Major in the 90s, but times 1000
That guarantees a 1997 result, but even more spectacular: Farage becomes PM. Is that what you want?!
If Labour anoint Rayner or Wes instead, they have a decent chance of recovery, maybe not winning, but a close defeat. Even Mahmood maybe, Miliband no
Starmer is now so loathed and ridiculous it is impossible to see how he recovers
I didn't say I wanted Starmer to stay. I was outlining what I predict will happen.
As for beating Reform, yes, that's my number one priority. My personal view is that the Labour person best placed to do that is Streeting. But if Starmer is pushed out now, Streeting won't get the leadership. So, I'm advising caution.
Generally, I think people on here and elsewhere don't take sufficient account of how long there is until the next GE. Given the breath-taking pace of modern politics, I don't think anybody has a clue how things will align in 28/29. Hence my message to my Labour colleagues: don't panic, take your time, get it right.
Do we think Starmer's speech has made his survival less likely?
I think he’s done more or less what he needs to for now. The “sorry” was essentially enough to avoid an immediate revolt.
The issue is he has (a) PMQs next week where if Badenoch actually manages to be forensic I think he will dig a deeper hole (b) the release of the vetting info which its hard to see taking the pressure off and (c) Gorton and Denton at the end of the month.
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
Are you still ok hun? Do you need a lie-down or a warm milky drink?
The truth hurts
Posters on this forum discuss politics seriouslyn and disagree as you would expect but add to the debate
You just repeat Kemi is rubbish and give the impression you are employed by Morgan McSweeney
You'll need to assert evidence for the first of your claims in this post. I'm dubious.
Stephen Bush in the FT daily round-up email thing:
Starmer is now at the same sort of point that Theresa May was in the summer of 2017, that Boris Johnson was after Partygate, and that Liz Truss was after the market reaction to her “mini” Budget. Theresa May lasted two years. Boris Johnson a little under a year, Liz Truss 29 days.
2027 as his exit year is available at 8.2:1 on Betfair. 2026 is now the shortest I've seen it at 1.39.
There is a lot of 2026 left, 11 months, give-or-take.
Question for Leon - which well known contributor to the Spectator published an article titled "Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump" ?
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
The problem he has is that he should just say he made a decision knowing the previous ties and in hindsight it was a terrible decision.
He isn’t willing to do that so he is trying to contort himself into very awkward and untenable positions about what he was told and what he relied on rather than the basic point which is - it was a bad idea and I messed up in hindsight.
That is a fair point. I personally reckon he knew it was a risk - but had no idea about the quantum of that risk. However, if he runs that argument it will get into an all consuming argument about what exactly did he know (and when) and why was he incurious to find out more? Easier to say - “I asked him, he said “barely know the bugger,” I believed him, he lied.”
I also do not think Starmer or even the Security Services knew the extent of Mandelson’s involvement with Epstein (or if the Security Services did they may well not have shared it - certainly seems to have come as a surprise to Brown). There is an open question about whether they should have asked the Yanks to do a key word search of the Epstein files, or if we did would the Yanks honestly answer (they may have their own incentives to have a UK ambassador in the mire).
But does that mean Starmer has to go. On its own probably not - depending on what comes out in the papers. With his current popularity, his blundering and the likely outcome of the May elections it does look increasingly difficult for him to remain in position.
Re your second paragraph - they may not have done. I think the issue is twofold though which is (a) was a personal assurance from Peter Mandelson himself (or, to be fair, any individual in that scenario) enough to alleviate the concern or should you really have tried to further verify it and (b) was the fact Epstein was being mentioned at all in the context of a political appointment a big enough red flag to say well clear?
I think it’s (b) that Starmer has the biggest problem on because we all knew at that point who Epstein was and how reputationally damaging it has been for anyone remotely connected to him.
He's certainly trying to edge some of the responsibilities over on to the security services, but there is only so far he can go in that direction without getting pushback, even if he has some justification.
What do I believe? Personally I think he has been remarkably incurious. Never mind the security boys, there would have been enough Labour insiders in the know sufficiently to alert him. On the balance of probabilities I should say he took a chance and it has gone horribly wrong. What we don't know is why he wanted to take a chance. Why did he want M in that job? It isn't as if the incumbent was doing a bad one.
Would be nice if our Press hounds focused on that one and came up with something better than speculation.
Bit of background - after the Air India crash, the apparent cause was one of the pilots shutting the engines down, using the main fuel switches. There was evidence there were manually operated.
The family of the pilot and the pilots union in India tried to find a way that it could be a technical fault.
Then, the above - an Air India pilot, about to fly out of LHR logged an apparent fault with the fuel switches. Then flew the flight anyway.
The U.K. authorities are now demanding to know the details of the failure*, since flying with a non 100% functional fuel switch would be a massive breach of U.K. safety rules.
So either it was someone smashing the safety rules (Airline could get in serious trouble) or they are telling pork pies.
*if it actually happened.
The amazing thing is that, having allegedly found an issue with the switch, they decided to carry out a nine-hour flight with it. Remember that they have had one plane crash already with this issue, and a genuinely faulty switch could potentially shut down an engine in flight.
They should of course have had the switch replaced at Heathrow, but that would have meant the old one ended up either back at Boeing or in the hands of the AAIB. Neither of which suit Air India’s narrative of faulty switches.
So the CAA has asked Air India to explain themselves, with a thinly veiled threat to ban them from the UK if they can’t adequately respond. That’s not an idle threat either, there’s a long list of banned airlines with poor safety records. EU and US would likely copy any UK ban as well, until the issue is resolved.
Isn't that quite routine, primarily because they have to burn fuel off. As long as they are within ETOPS/EROPS of course.
Is what routine, shutting down an engine in flight? No, definitely not. ETOPS rules plan for safety margins if it happens, but it’s never done on purpose.
NImrods routinely did it but those crews would have welcomed a crash to get away from the Honkers.
Guys in blue do lots of silly things that civvy aviation definitely don’t.
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
You seem disproportionately furious at Kemi. Are you a spurned ex-boyfriend?
A bit unkind - there seems a general view she's improved but she's hardly setting the world on fire either.
Well no. But nor does she seem the major focus of all this. Of Brixian's 59 posts, a good half seem to have been furious denunciations of Kemi. I take back my barb about being a spurned ex-boyfriend: on reflection that was a bit nasty. But I'm baffled by the way Kemi seems to be the target of our new poster's ire.
Her personal ratings rise has inspired much oddness. Jenricks race to irrelevance with Reform for example She was going to be 'gone before Angela' a few months ago
What has happened to Jenrick? His was supposed to be the defection of the century, but recent news only tells of him getting accidently trapped in the aye lobby by closing doors and therefore wrongly voting for the removal of two-child benefit limit. Odd.
He got outmanouevered and history has already forgotten him. I think him and Kruger lose their seats. Rosindell will be tight but probably wins, Suella safest
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
Are you still ok hun? Do you need a lie-down or a warm milky drink?
The truth hurts
Posters on this forum discuss politics seriouslyn and disagree as you would expect but add to the debate
You just repeat Kemi is rubbish and give the impression you are employed by Morgan McSweeney
You'll need to assert evidence for the first of your claims in this post. I'm dubious.
That press conference has made things incalculably worse for Starmer. He could - just - try and defend the line he believed Mandelson when he said he cut off the relationship. But not that he “barely knew him”. I’d now be surprised if Starmer is still PM this time next week."
Do we think Starmer's speech has made his survival less likely?
I think he’s done more or less what he needs to for now. The “sorry” was essentially enough to avoid an immediate revolt.
The issue is he has (a) PMQs next week where if Badenoch actually manages to be forensic I think he will dig a deeper hole (b) the release of the vetting info which its hard to see taking the pressure off and (c) Gorton and Denton at the end of the month.
Just cancelled my TV licence. Started off quite a pleasant call but soon went south... Guy on the phone gave me a right interrogation over my viewing habits and didn't seem very happy with me!
It showed that it believes the UK economy grew by 1.4% in 2025, having last predicted growth of 1.5% for the year. It also downgraded its GDP (gross domestic product) forecasts for 2026, to 0.9% from 1.2%, and 2027, to 1.5% from 1.6%. Growth is, however, expected to lift above previous guidance to 1.9% in 2028.
1.9%....crack open the Champers....
These poor growth predictions are apparently going to eat Rachel's headroom, so back for more tax rises.
Do we think Starmer's speech has made his survival less likely?
I think he’s done more or less what he needs to for now. The “sorry” was essentially enough to avoid an immediate revolt.
The issue is he has (a) PMQs next week where if Badenoch actually manages to be forensic I think he will dig a deeper hole (b) the release of the vetting info which its hard to see taking the pressure off and (c) Gorton and Denton at the end of the month.
I suspect I should be channelling my inner David Davis.
Starmer the legal genius...when these scandals hit he always seems to come up with terrible defence tactics.
I hardly knew him, how could I have known, he told porkies, as if he was somebody you hired off the street after they sent in their CV and you did ring a referee and they said he is alright bloke.
Not lifetime labour party insider, former labour party spin doctor, business minister, and constant connected to scandal and dodgy rich people, and been caught out numerous times over his passing connection to the truth....
And a load of evidence for Mandy / Epstein love in were on the record at time of appointment.
"How was I to know that the Prince of Darkness might tell a fib from time to time?"
Do we think Starmer's speech has made his survival less likely?
I think he’s done more or less what he needs to for now. The “sorry” was essentially enough to avoid an immediate revolt.
The issue is he has (a) PMQs next week where if Badenoch actually manages to be forensic I think he will dig a deeper hole (b) the release of the vetting info which its hard to see taking the pressure off and (c) Gorton and Denton at the end of the month.
Of course there could also be further revelations and more data drops. Could it get even worse? Hard to see how, but you just never know...
Starmer the legal genius...when these scandals hit he always seems to come up with terrible defence tactics.
I hardly knew him, how could I have known, he told porkies, as if he was somebody you hired off the street after they sent in their CV and you did ring a referee and they said he is alright bloke.
Not lifetime labour party insider, former labour party spin doctor, business minister, and constant connected to scandal and dodgy rich people, and been caught out numerous times over his passing connection to the truth....
And a load of evidence for Mandy / Epstein love in were on the record at time of appointment.
"How was I to know that the Prince of Darkness might tell a fib from time to time?"
The only time you should hire someone nicknamed 'The Prince of Darkness' is when they come with their own heavy metal group...
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
You seem disproportionately furious at Kemi. Are you a spurned ex-boyfriend?
A bit unkind - there seems a general view she's improved but she's hardly setting the world on fire either.
Well no. But nor does she seem the major focus of all this. Of Brixian's 59 posts, a good half seem to have been furious denunciations of Kemi. I take back my barb about being a spurned ex-boyfriend: on reflection that was a bit nasty. But I'm baffled by the way Kemi seems to be the target of our new poster's ire.
Her personal ratings rise has inspired much oddness. Jenricks race to irrelevance with Reform for example She was going to be 'gone before Angela' a few months ago
What has happened to Jenrick? His was supposed to be the defection of the century, but recent news only tells of him getting accidently trapped in the aye lobby by closing doors and therefore wrongly voting for the removal of two-child benefit limit. Odd.
He got outmanouevered and history has already forgotten him. I think him and Kruger lose their seats. Rosindell will be tight but probably wins, Suella safest
Never write that bastard off. I'm not saying this will happen but I can see him leading Reform by the General Election.
It showed that it believes the UK economy grew by 1.4% in 2025, having last predicted growth of 1.5% for the year. It also downgraded its GDP (gross domestic product) forecasts for 2026, to 0.9% from 1.2%, and 2027, to 1.5% from 1.6%. Growth is, however, expected to lift above previous guidance to 1.9% in 2028.
1.9%....crack open the Champers....
These poor growth predictions are apparently going to eat Rachel's headroom, so back for more tax rises.
Were you a supporter of Leave or did you see it for the folly it was and is?
Question for Leon - which well known contributor to the Spectator published an article titled "Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump" ?
Also interested in why in 20+ articles in the Telegraph, the same contributor has made zero references to the massacres in Iran? Instead "suicidal penguins" and "I wet myself in a phone box".
Do we think Starmer's speech has made his survival less likely?
I think he’s done more or less what he needs to for now. The “sorry” was essentially enough to avoid an immediate revolt.
The issue is he has (a) PMQs next week where if Badenoch actually manages to be forensic I think he will dig a deeper hole (b) the release of the vetting info which its hard to see taking the pressure off and (c) Gorton and Denton at the end of the month.
Starmer is on a meathook with this imo.
Although he did not know (and couldn't be expected to) about Mandelson's spying for Epstein from the heart of government back in New Labour days, he did know about the friendship and that it had persisted after Epstein's criminal conviction. The closeness of it, no, but the fact of it, yes.
Now here's the kicker, the thing that has got him trapped. In appointing PM to Washington, because of the nature of the current US president the iffy side to his character was judged to be potentially a plus and certainly no bar.
This he cannot admit in public. He cannot come out and say, "Look, there's a guy in the White House as sleazy and corrupt as they come, so we felt we'd get better results with an Ambassador over there who is unfazed by that and knows how to roll with it."
He can't say that. It's the truth but he can't say it. So he's left with "I got fooled" - which for someone already extremely unpopular translates as "I am a fool".
It showed that it believes the UK economy grew by 1.4% in 2025, having last predicted growth of 1.5% for the year. It also downgraded its GDP (gross domestic product) forecasts for 2026, to 0.9% from 1.2%, and 2027, to 1.5% from 1.6%. Growth is, however, expected to lift above previous guidance to 1.9% in 2028.
1.9%....crack open the Champers....
These poor growth predictions are apparently going to eat Rachel's headroom, so back for more tax rises.
Were you a supporter of Leave or did you see it for the folly it was and is?
Erhhh no I wasn't, as somebody who has a business in the EU.
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
The problem he has is that he should just say he made a decision knowing the previous ties and in hindsight it was a terrible decision.
He isn’t willing to do that so he is trying to contort himself into very awkward and untenable positions about what he was told and what he relied on rather than the basic point which is - it was a bad idea and I messed up in hindsight.
That is a fair point. I personally reckon he knew it was a risk - but had no idea about the quantum of that risk. However, if he runs that argument it will get into an all consuming argument about what exactly did he know (and when) and why was he incurious to find out more? Easier to say - “I asked him, he said “barely know the bugger,” I believed him, he lied.”
I also do not think Starmer or even the Security Services knew the extent of Mandelson’s involvement with Epstein (or if the Security Services did they may well not have shared it - certainly seems to have come as a surprise to Brown). There is an open question about whether they should have asked the Yanks to do a key word search of the Epstein files, or if we did would the Yanks honestly answer (they may have their own incentives to have a UK ambassador in the mire).
But does that mean Starmer has to go. On its own probably not - depending on what comes out in the papers. With his current popularity, his blundering and the likely outcome of the May elections it does look increasingly difficult for him to remain in position.
Re your second paragraph - they may not have done. I think the issue is twofold though which is (a) was a personal assurance from Peter Mandelson himself (or, to be fair, any individual in that scenario) enough to alleviate the concern or should you really have tried to further verify it and (b) was the fact Epstein was being mentioned at all in the context of a political appointment a big enough red flag to say well clear?
I think it’s (b) that Starmer has the biggest problem on because we all knew at that point who Epstein was and how reputationally damaging it has been for anyone remotely connected to him.
He's certainly trying to edge some of the responsibilities over on to the security services, but there is only so far he can go in that direction without getting pushback, even if he has some justification.
What do I believe? Personally I think he has been remarkably incurious. Never mind the security boys, there would have been enough Labour insiders in the know sufficiently to alert him. On the balance of probabilities I should say he took a chance and it has gone horribly wrong. What we don't know is why he wanted to take a chance. Why did he want M in that job? It isn't as if the incumbent was doing a bad one.
Would be nice if our Press hounds focused on that one and came up with something better than speculation.
This isn't just about the Ambassador's job.
We've heard recently that Mandelson was involved in selecting Labour candidates for GE2024. We know the big money behind Labour at the moment - and the source of many of the gifts for Starmer - is a friend of Mandelson's. Mandelson was already at the heart of the Starmer project before being appointed Ambassador.
The decision was made to appoint him as Ambassador at least in part to thank him for all the other help. So any inconvenient facts had to be smoothed away to make that happen.
Question for Leon - which well known contributor to the Spectator published an article titled "Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump" ?
Not just a mere contributor but the current editor of The Spectator.
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
The problem he has is that he should just say he made a decision knowing the previous ties and in hindsight it was a terrible decision.
He isn’t willing to do that so he is trying to contort himself into very awkward and untenable positions about what he was told and what he relied on rather than the basic point which is - it was a bad idea and I messed up in hindsight.
That is a fair point. I personally reckon he knew it was a risk - but had no idea about the quantum of that risk. However, if he runs that argument it will get into an all consuming argument about what exactly did he know (and when) and why was he incurious to find out more? Easier to say - “I asked him, he said “barely know the bugger,” I believed him, he lied.”
I also do not think Starmer or even the Security Services knew the extent of Mandelson’s involvement with Epstein (or if the Security Services did they may well not have shared it - certainly seems to have come as a surprise to Brown). There is an open question about whether they should have asked the Yanks to do a key word search of the Epstein files, or if we did would the Yanks honestly answer (they may have their own incentives to have a UK ambassador in the mire).
But does that mean Starmer has to go. On its own probably not - depending on what comes out in the papers. With his current popularity, his blundering and the likely outcome of the May elections it does look increasingly difficult for him to remain in position.
Re your second paragraph - they may not have done. I think the issue is twofold though which is (a) was a personal assurance from Peter Mandelson himself (or, to be fair, any individual in that scenario) enough to alleviate the concern or should you really have tried to further verify it and (b) was the fact Epstein was being mentioned at all in the context of a political appointment a big enough red flag to say well clear?
I think it’s (b) that Starmer has the biggest problem on because we all knew at that point who Epstein was and how reputationally damaging it has been for anyone remotely connected to him.
He's certainly trying to edge some of the responsibilities over on to the security services, but there is only so far he can go in that direction without getting pushback, even if he has some justification.
What do I believe? Personally I think he has been remarkably incurious. Never mind the security boys, there would have been enough Labour insiders in the know sufficiently to alert him. On the balance of probabilities I should say he took a chance and it has gone horribly wrong. What we don't know is why he wanted to take a chance. Why did he want M in that job? It isn't as if the incumbent was doing a bad one.
Would be nice if our Press hounds focused on that one and came up with something better than speculation.
This isn't just about the Ambassador's job.
We've heard recently that Mandelson was involved in selecting Labour candidates for GE2024. We know the big money behind Labour at the moment - and the source of many of the gifts for Starmer - is a friend of Mandelson's. Mandelson was already at the heart of the Starmer project before being appointed Ambassador.
The decision was made to appoint him as Ambassador at least in part to thank him for all the other help. So any inconvenient facts had to be smoothed away to make that happen.
According to the New Statesman, he also had a hand in reshuffles. Must have been a big shock for Starmer who hardly knew the guy when this unknown bloke in the corner kept telling him who to hire for various roles.
Its a bit like Boris being shocked to find his team in #10 liked partying allnight on Friday evenings during COVID.
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
You seem disproportionately furious at Kemi. Are you a spurned ex-boyfriend?
A bit unkind - there seems a general view she's improved but she's hardly setting the world on fire either.
Well no. But nor does she seem the major focus of all this. Of Brixian's 59 posts, a good half seem to have been furious denunciations of Kemi. I take back my barb about being a spurned ex-boyfriend: on reflection that was a bit nasty. But I'm baffled by the way Kemi seems to be the target of our new poster's ire.
Her personal ratings rise has inspired much oddness. Jenricks race to irrelevance with Reform for example She was going to be 'gone before Angela' a few months ago
What has happened to Jenrick? His was supposed to be the defection of the century, but recent news only tells of him getting accidently trapped in the aye lobby by closing doors and therefore wrongly voting for the removal of two-child benefit limit. Odd.
He got outmanouevered and history has already forgotten him. I think him and Kruger lose their seats. Rosindell will be tight but probably wins, Suella safest
Never write that bastard off. I'm not saying this will happen but I can see him leading Reform by the General Election.
The civil war of Reform/Yusuf purists versus fifth column Tories would end their poll lead very swiftly. Reform after Farage < UKIP after Farage
Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
With every day that passes the Chagos Surrender becomes murkier yet more grimly explicable
I thought it was Russia everyone was worried about. Now Epstein was working with the Chinese?
It just gets worse and worse for Starmer.
No, there's very little on that score. In contrast, Russia, Russia money, Russian intelligence individuals, Russian trafficked women and Russian influence efforts are all over the Epstein files.
It seems pretty likely that Epstein worked for Russian intelligence, one way or another.
That press conference has made things incalculably worse for Starmer. He could - just - try and defend the line he believed Mandelson when he said he cut off the relationship. But not that he “barely knew him”. I’d now be surprised if Starmer is still PM this time next week."
Dan's always very excitable. I suspect Starmer will cling on for a bit longer.
We're nearly 24 hours on and nothing much has happened in terms of Labour MPs calling openly for Starmer to go, so I think you're probably right. But by "a bit longer", I think we are talking only weeks.
One of the challengers - and it takes only one - will IMO move either in the aftermath of a disasterous by-election defeat this month or in the aftermath of a disasterous set of May elections. I very much doubt that it will go beyond that.
Most in Labour will agree with Starmer's words this morning that ".... we must unite this country, understand that to be British is to be tolerant, reasonable, compassionate and diverse, and fight for it, against the toxic division of Reform. Every minute we spend not talking and focusing on that is an absolute minute wasted." However, nearly all have by now concluded that such a focus is now impossible while Starmer is in charge.
Starmer wss too busy caring about improving the lot of the kids to know about Mandelsons close relationship with a predatory nonce and sex tr******. Odious lying fraud
There is a lot of hyperbole and invective, most of which is conjecture by PB posters who despise Starmer. There is a simple answer as to why he must go.
He has to go, not because Wooliedyed doesn't like socialists in general and Starmer in particular, but because he made a decision based on risk and it bit him on the arse. He goes because he made the decision with a decent amount of understanding that it could bite him on the arse, and the buck stops with him. It's as simple as as that.
The problem he has is that he should just say he made a decision knowing the previous ties and in hindsight it was a terrible decision.
He isn’t willing to do that so he is trying to contort himself into very awkward and untenable positions about what he was told and what he relied on rather than the basic point which is - it was a bad idea and I messed up in hindsight.
That is a fair point. I personally reckon he knew it was a risk - but had no idea about the quantum of that risk. However, if he runs that argument it will get into an all consuming argument about what exactly did he know (and when) and why was he incurious to find out more? Easier to say - “I asked him, he said “barely know the bugger,” I believed him, he lied.”
I also do not think Starmer or even the Security Services knew the extent of Mandelson’s involvement with Epstein (or if the Security Services did they may well not have shared it - certainly seems to have come as a surprise to Brown). There is an open question about whether they should have asked the Yanks to do a key word search of the Epstein files, or if we did would the Yanks honestly answer (they may have their own incentives to have a UK ambassador in the mire).
But does that mean Starmer has to go. On its own probably not - depending on what comes out in the papers. With his current popularity, his blundering and the likely outcome of the May elections it does look increasingly difficult for him to remain in position.
Re your second paragraph - they may not have done. I think the issue is twofold though which is (a) was a personal assurance from Peter Mandelson himself (or, to be fair, any individual in that scenario) enough to alleviate the concern or should you really have tried to further verify it and (b) was the fact Epstein was being mentioned at all in the context of a political appointment a big enough red flag to say well clear?
I think it’s (b) that Starmer has the biggest problem on because we all knew at that point who Epstein was and how reputationally damaging it has been for anyone remotely connected to him.
He's certainly trying to edge some of the responsibilities over on to the security services, but there is only so far he can go in that direction without getting pushback, even if he has some justification.
What do I believe? Personally I think he has been remarkably incurious. Never mind the security boys, there would have been enough Labour insiders in the know sufficiently to alert him. On the balance of probabilities I should say he took a chance and it has gone horribly wrong. What we don't know is why he wanted to take a chance. Why did he want M in that job? It isn't as if the incumbent was doing a bad one.
Would be nice if our Press hounds focused on that one and came up with something better than speculation.
This isn't just about the Ambassador's job.
We've heard recently that Mandelson was involved in selecting Labour candidates for GE2024. We know the big money behind Labour at the moment - and the source of many of the gifts for Starmer - is a friend of Mandelson's. Mandelson was already at the heart of the Starmer project before being appointed Ambassador.
The decision was made to appoint him as Ambassador at least in part to thank him for all the other help. So any inconvenient facts had to be smoothed away to make that happen.
According to the New Statesman, he also had a hand in reshuffles. Must have been a big shock for Starmer who hardly knew the guy when this unknown bloke in the corner kept telling him who to hire for various roles.
Yes. Here's a question for Kemi, or a journalist, to ask Starmer. "How many times have you spoken to Mandelson since you sacked him as US Ambassador?"
Or perhaps, "What favour did Mandelson do for you that you felt you had to repay him for by making him US Ambassador?"
Do we think Starmer's speech has made his survival less likely?
I think he’s done more or less what he needs to for now. The “sorry” was essentially enough to avoid an immediate revolt.
The issue is he has (a) PMQs next week where if Badenoch actually manages to be forensic I think he will dig a deeper hole (b) the release of the vetting info which its hard to see taking the pressure off and (c) Gorton and Denton at the end of the month.
Starmer is on a meathook with this imo.
Although he did not know (and couldn't be expected to) about Mandelson's spying for Epstein from the heart of government back in New Labour days, he did know about the friendship and that it had persisted after Epstein's criminal conviction. The closeness of it, no, but the fact of it, yes.
Now here's the kicker, the thing that has got him trapped. In appointing PM to Washington, because of the nature of the current US president the iffy side to his character was judged to be potentially a plus and certainly no bar.
This he cannot admit in public. He cannot come out and say, "Look, there's a guy in the White House as sleazy and corrupt as they come, so we felt we'd get better results with an Ambassador over there who is unfazed by that and knows how to roll with it."
He can't say that. It's the truth but he can't say it. So he's left with "I got fooled" - which for someone already extremely unpopular translates as "I am a fool".
It's a bad place to be.
It's time to make the break with Starmer. He's been a disappointment. Time for someone street smart.
Surely he's wise enough to realise the game is up.
Kemi up to give Starmer a kicking. She actually nailed it, Starmer is trying to play the victim. Now calling out Powell and Hermer.
I thought she did well yesterday. She seems to be gaining in confidence and competence, I personally think whatever happens in May the Tories should stick with her. But then I’m not a Tory and not likely to vote for them. But she has (PB klaxon time) surprised on the upside.
What?
Sky showed her 6 minute scripted speech retrospectively after Starmer finished.
A 2 minute rehash of what she said yesterday A 2 minute attack on Farage and Reform A 2 minute repeat of the old were rebuilding, we're different my party script.
Lots of sips of water and paper shuffling
On to questions from a z list of journos as the big hitters are with Starmer or Farage
Distinctly c grade Sums up Kemi and the Tories right now
They are talking to themselves, no one outside the room is listening.
You seem disproportionately furious at Kemi. Are you a spurned ex-boyfriend?
A bit unkind - there seems a general view she's improved but she's hardly setting the world on fire either.
Well no. But nor does she seem the major focus of all this. Of Brixian's 59 posts, a good half seem to have been furious denunciations of Kemi. I take back my barb about being a spurned ex-boyfriend: on reflection that was a bit nasty. But I'm baffled by the way Kemi seems to be the target of our new poster's ire.
Her personal ratings rise has inspired much oddness. Jenricks race to irrelevance with Reform for example She was going to be 'gone before Angela' a few months ago
What has happened to Jenrick? His was supposed to be the defection of the century, but recent news only tells of him getting accidently trapped in the aye lobby by closing doors and therefore wrongly voting for the removal of two-child benefit limit. Odd.
He got outmanouevered and history has already forgotten him. I think him and Kruger lose their seats. Rosindell will be tight but probably wins, Suella safest
Never write that bastard off. I'm not saying this will happen but I can see him leading Reform by the General Election.
The civil war of Reform/Yusuf purists versus fifth column Tories would end their poll lead very swiftly. Reform after Farage < UKIP after Farage
I'd love to think so but who knows. One of the weird things about the future is that the medium term is the hardest to predict.
Starmer the legal genius...when these scandals hit he always seems to come up with terrible defence tactics.
I hardly knew him, how could I have known, he told porkies, as if he was somebody you hired off the street after they sent in their CV and you did ring a referee and they said he is alright bloke.
Not lifetime labour party insider, former labour party spin doctor, business minister, and constant connected to scandal and dodgy rich people, and been caught out numerous times over his passing connection to the truth....
And a load of evidence for Mandy / Epstein love in were on the record at time of appointment.
"How was I to know that the Prince of Darkness might tell a fib from time to time?"
The only time you should hire someone nicknamed 'The Prince of Darkness' is when they come with their own heavy metal group...
I can imagine Mandelson biting the head off an Ortelan without a napkin to conceal the horror.
That press conference has made things incalculably worse for Starmer. He could - just - try and defend the line he believed Mandelson when he said he cut off the relationship. But not that he “barely knew him”. I’d now be surprised if Starmer is still PM this time next week."
Dan's always very excitable. I suspect Starmer will cling on for a bit longer.
We're nearly 24 hours on and nothing much has happened, so I think you're probably right. But by "a bit longer", I think we are talking only weeks.
One of the challengers - and it takes only one - will IMO move either in the aftermath of a disasterous by-election defeat this month or in the aftermath of a disasterous set of May elections. I very much doubt that it will go beyond that.
Most in Labour will agree with Starmer's words this morning that ".... we must unite this country, understand that to be British is to be tolerant, reasonable, compassionate and diverse, and fight for it, against the toxic division of Reform. Every minute we spend not talking and focusing on that is an absolute minute wasted." However, nearly all have by now concluded that such a focus is now impossible while Starmer is in charge.
Yes, I think it'll either be after the by election or the locals in May. He''ll be gone as Labour leader and PM by the Lab conference in September.
Do we think Starmer's speech has made his survival less likely?
I think he’s done more or less what he needs to for now. The “sorry” was essentially enough to avoid an immediate revolt.
The issue is he has (a) PMQs next week where if Badenoch actually manages to be forensic I think he will dig a deeper hole (b) the release of the vetting info which its hard to see taking the pressure off and (c) Gorton and Denton at the end of the month.
Starmer is on a meathook with this imo.
Although he did not know (and couldn't be expected to) about Mandelson's spying for Epstein from the heart of government back in New Labour days, he did know about the friendship and that it had persisted after Epstein's criminal conviction. The closeness of it, no, but the fact of it, yes.
Now here's the kicker, the thing that has got him trapped. In appointing PM to Washington, because of the nature of the current US president the iffy side to his character was judged to be potentially a plus and certainly no bar.
This he cannot admit in public. He cannot come out and say, "Look, there's a guy in the White House as sleazy and corrupt as they come, so we felt we'd get better results with an Ambassador over there who is unfazed by that and knows how to roll with it."
He can't say that. It's the truth but he can't say it. So he's left with "I got fooled" - which for someone already extremely unpopular translates as "I am a fool".
It's a bad place to be.
It's time to make the break with Starmer. He's been a disappointment. Time for someone street smart.
Surely he's wise enough to realise the game is up.
That lack of political nous is part of the problem.
Do we think Starmer's speech has made his survival less likely?
I think he’s done more or less what he needs to for now. The “sorry” was essentially enough to avoid an immediate revolt.
The issue is he has (a) PMQs next week where if Badenoch actually manages to be forensic I think he will dig a deeper hole (b) the release of the vetting info which its hard to see taking the pressure off and (c) Gorton and Denton at the end of the month.
Starmer is on a meathook with this imo.
Although he did not know (and couldn't be expected to) about Mandelson's spying for Epstein from the heart of government back in New Labour days, he did know about the friendship and that it had persisted after Epstein's criminal conviction. The closeness of it, no, but the fact of it, yes.
Now here's the kicker, the thing that has got him trapped. In appointing PM to Washington, because of the nature of the current US president the iffy side to his character was judged to be potentially a plus and certainly no bar.
This he cannot admit in public. He cannot come out and say, "Look, there's a guy in the White House as sleazy and corrupt as they come, so we felt we'd get better results with an Ambassador over there who is unfazed by that and knows how to roll with it."
He can't say that. It's the truth but he can't say it. So he's left with "I got fooled" - which for someone already extremely unpopular translates as "I am a fool".
It's a bad place to be.
Do you know what though? He may be better just saying that. And that he was only fooled by both of them proving to be even worse than anyone could have imagined. It couldn't play any worse.
Question for Leon - which well known contributor to the Spectator published an article titled "Why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump" ?
If the Epstein stuff hadn't been released Mandelson would still be doing a good job as US ambassador (whilst no doubt breaking laws, making money for his connections and himself, and showing complete disregard for the vulnerable).
It is a rare occurrence in an almost unique situation, where I think holding our noses was potentially worthwhile. The public disclosures, which perhaps should have been foreseen, obviously made it untenable but it was a reasonable appointment at the time.
Marco Rubio warned Labour over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
In comments understood to have been relayed to Downing Street, the US secretary of state is believed to have expressed deep unease about the peer’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and links to China.
One well-placed source told The Telegraph there was a unanimous view of “what are you doing?” in the White House.
With every day that passes the Chagos Surrender becomes murkier yet more grimly explicable
I thought it was Russia everyone was worried about. Now Epstein was working with the Chinese?
It just gets worse and worse for Starmer.
No, there's very little on that score. In contrast, Russia, Russia money, Russian intelligence individuals, Russian trafficked women and Russian influence efforts are all over the Epstein files.
It seems pretty likely that Epstein worked for Russian intelligence, one way or another.
Epstein certainly had an interest is acquiring Russian women. His relationship with Belyakov (an associate of Deripaska) is quite well documented.
I thought it was interesting to find out the George Osborne was supposedly the favourite for the US gig, but Morgan McSacked made a big thing that Mandy had to get it. Don't know how much of that is people arse covering by talking to New Statesman journos. The fact that Osborne was even pre-vetted and in the mix was an interesting what if.
Comments
I always use Peter Hain as my reference point. Hain tried to hang on in Cabinet for ten days. A ten day time frame where the media got angrier and angrier. And the media were pussycats compared to today's media pack back in the day.
Starmer could announce a cure for cancer and no one would be listening .
It all looks rather tragic and the public simply don’t care about what he has to say anymore . As with all PMs once in they will cling on for dear life but all he’s doing is acting as a handmaiden to help Reform into power .
Surely Labour MPs realise the gig is up .
We took a gamble on Mandy as he has all the dirt on Trump and his cronies and Epstein
We thought we could manage Mandy and get the best deal.
We actually got the best deal and still have the best deal, saving jobs creating jobs
However, we fecked up with Mandy and the Epstein dumps have fecked us, not Trump and we can't tell the truth as we'll be stuffed like Canada
That is THE CRUX of the shambles
I also do not think Starmer or even the Security Services knew the extent of Mandelson’s involvement with Epstein (or if the Security Services did they may well not have shared it - certainly seems to have come as a surprise to Brown). There is an open question about whether they should have asked the Yanks to do a key word search of the Epstein files, or if we did would the Yanks honestly answer (they may have their own incentives to have a UK ambassador in the mire).
But does that mean Starmer has to go. On its own probably not - depending on what comes out in the papers. With his current popularity, his blundering and the likely outcome of the May elections it does look increasingly difficult for him to remain in position.
Everyone knows Mandelson was a risky appointment in a bid to manipulate Trump. It was a good idea at the time but it backfired.
I don't believe Mandelson, a backstory liar, being found to have lied, butters any parsnips.
You just repeat Kemi is rubbish and give the impression you are employed by Morgan McSweeney
I take back my barb about being a spurned ex-boyfriend: on reflection that was a bit nasty. But I'm baffled by the way Kemi seems to be the target of our new poster's ire.
I think it’s (b) that Starmer has the biggest problem on because we all knew at that point who Epstein was and how reputationally damaging it has been for anyone remotely connected to him.
However, consider this: the best possible outcome for Reform, and probably the Tories, is an injured and pathetic Starmer remaining in power, like Major in the 90s, but times 1000
That guarantees a 1997 result, but even more spectacular: Farage becomes PM. Is that what you want?!
If Labour anoint Rayner or Wes instead, they have a decent chance of recovery, maybe not winning, but a close defeat. Even Mahmood maybe, Miliband no
Starmer is now so loathed and ridiculous it is impossible to see how he recovers
She was going to be 'gone before Angela' a few months ago
I hardly knew him, how could I have known, he told porkies, as if he was somebody you hired off the street after they sent in their CV and you did ring a referee and they said he is alright bloke.
Not lifetime labour party insider, former labour party spin doctor, business minister, and constant connected to scandal and dodgy rich people, and been caught out numerous times over his passing connection to the truth....
And a load of evidence for Mandy / Epstein love in were on the record at time of appointment.
She has the benefit of being leader of the opposition and gets more exposure
I will watch with interest how the party performs in May and how her colleagues act, but I expect she will continue and lead into the next GE
https://x.com/UKinUSA/status/1889081969910145169
and
OUST STARMER
@DPJHodges
That press conference has made things incalculably worse for Starmer. He could - just - try and defend the line he believed Mandelson when he said he cut off the relationship. But not that he “barely knew him”. I’d now be surprised if Starmer is still PM this time next week."
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2019380369146155230
I think it's a less good name than Levelling Up. But if i is broadly the same policy - i.e. make bad places as good as good places - I'm in.
The impression I get is that it's a bit more small-scale than Levelling Up was - placemaking rather than infrastructure. But that probably overstates how Levelling Up worked in practice. And even if it is, I'd very much welcome a simple 'let's make places less shit' policy; indeed, I'd been mulling myself how such a thing might happen.
The issue is he has (a) PMQs next week where if Badenoch actually manages to be forensic I think he will dig a deeper hole (b) the release of the vetting info which its hard to see taking the pressure off and (c) Gorton and Denton at the end of the month.
I think Cleverley will fight for London mayor and Stride will stay loyal in return for a chicken run. Katie Lam knows shes probably front runner post GE. I dont see any othet contenders that coukd get the signatures flowing
And her ratings are now at or better than Farages
As for beating Reform, yes, that's my number one priority. My personal view is that the Labour person best placed to do that is Streeting. But if Starmer is pushed out now, Streeting won't get the leadership. So, I'm advising caution.
Generally, I think people on here and elsewhere don't take sufficient account of how long there is until the next GE. Given the breath-taking pace of modern politics, I don't think anybody has a clue how things will align in 28/29. Hence my message to my Labour colleagues: don't panic, take your time, get it right.
What do I believe? Personally I think he has been remarkably incurious. Never mind the security boys, there would have been enough Labour insiders in the know sufficiently to alert him. On the balance of probabilities I should say he took a chance and it has gone horribly wrong. What we don't know is why he wanted to take a chance. Why did he want M in that job? It isn't as if the incumbent was doing a bad one.
Would be nice if our Press hounds focused on that one and came up with something better than speculation.
I think him and Kruger lose their seats. Rosindell will be tight but probably wins, Suella safest
1.9%....crack open the Champers....
These poor growth predictions are apparently going to eat Rachel's headroom, so back for more tax rises.
This man is now the treasurer of Reform UK...
https://x.com/Heccles94/status/2018737747930775826
Although he did not know (and couldn't be expected to) about Mandelson's spying for Epstein from the heart of government back in New Labour days, he did know about the friendship and that it had persisted after Epstein's criminal conviction. The closeness of it, no, but the fact of it, yes.
Now here's the kicker, the thing that has got him trapped. In appointing PM to Washington, because of the nature of the current US president the iffy side to his character was judged to be potentially a plus and certainly no bar.
This he cannot admit in public. He cannot come out and say, "Look, there's a guy in the White House as sleazy and corrupt as they come, so we felt we'd get better results with an Ambassador over there who is unfazed by that and knows how to roll with it."
He can't say that. It's the truth but he can't say it. So he's left with "I got fooled" - which for someone already extremely unpopular translates as "I am a fool".
It's a bad place to be.
We've heard recently that Mandelson was involved in selecting Labour candidates for GE2024. We know the big money behind Labour at the moment - and the source of many of the gifts for Starmer - is a friend of Mandelson's. Mandelson was already at the heart of the Starmer project before being appointed Ambassador.
The decision was made to appoint him as Ambassador at least in part to thank him for all the other help. So any inconvenient facts had to be smoothed away to make that happen.
Its a bit like Boris being shocked to find his team in #10 liked partying allnight on Friday evenings during COVID.
Reform after Farage < UKIP after Farage
In contrast, Russia, Russia money, Russian intelligence individuals, Russian trafficked women and Russian influence efforts are all over the Epstein files.
It seems pretty likely that Epstein worked for Russian intelligence, one way or another.
One of the challengers - and it takes only one - will IMO move either in the aftermath of a disasterous by-election defeat this month or in the aftermath of a disasterous set of May elections. I very much doubt that it will go beyond that.
Most in Labour will agree with Starmer's words this morning that ".... we must unite this country, understand that to be British is to be tolerant, reasonable, compassionate and diverse, and fight for it, against the toxic division of Reform. Every minute we spend not talking and focusing on that is an absolute minute wasted." However, nearly all have by now concluded that such a focus is now impossible while Starmer is in charge.
Or perhaps, "What favour did Mandelson do for you that you felt you had to repay him for by making him US Ambassador?"
Surely he's wise enough to realise the game is up.
She won't be the last Labour MP to do so
He may be better just saying that.
And that he was only fooled by both of them proving to be even worse than anyone could have imagined.
It couldn't play any worse.
It is a rare occurrence in an almost unique situation, where I think holding our noses was potentially worthwhile. The public disclosures, which perhaps should have been foreseen, obviously made it untenable but it was a reasonable appointment at the time.
Have a lovely afternoon, PB!