Alistair Carns is slowly and steadily shortening in next PM market. Potentially quite interesting if its anything other than a couple of straw-in-the-wind backers. I can see him quite appealing to some on the backbenches that have had enough.
(He's a good result for me, but far from my best, and I've not backed him directly)
He sounds a bit like the 2026 equivalent of John Moore in 1989.
Had to look Moore up. I was also thinking a bit about John Redwood - when he threw his hat in the ring against Major he was pretty obscure (although maybe that was just me).
Has a steady military gaze rather than swivel eyes. Active on X, where he's relentlessly positive in a hearty but bland manner.
Otherwise there's absolutely nothing to suggest any ability to make a decent PM. The assumption that military leadership is a template for political leadership is hardly infallible.
The best thing about the Hawthorns is the smell from the bread factory just over the road. I wonder if it is still there,
The worst think about it is the walk through the slums from the station.
Best day at the Haawthorns was seeing WBA miss two penalties in a row, before converting a third as Town thrashed then 2-1. It felt like three pens in 5 mins at the time.
As a gay man....who hardly sweats and loves Pizza Express....
Despite telling the BBC presenter he had only seen “middle-aged housekeepers”, he (Mandelson) spent an evening with Epstein and two female students at the paedophile’s New York home in 2012, and went underwear shopping before the occasion.
Hold the front page. Peter Mandelson swings both ways!
Two points. Mandelson's continued friendship with a vile criminal rapist and pervert puts him in the same line as a whole bunch of other mover and shaker perverts. That is not to defend him but contextualise his personal potential criminality that I will suggest in my second point.
As serving Business Secretary he provided sensitive insider information regarding Cabinet policy to a foreign financier. This is the hanging offence.
What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
Starmer works 7 days a week
Don't believe the daily mail and telegraph crap, derived only from a throw away comment that he spent times with his kids on Friday6 nights when loto
Isn't it that his wife is Jewish and he likes the idea of 'family Friday nights'? What will happen when his son wants to go out on the pull (or something) on Friday nights I don't know. Although in my youth Friday night was, allegedly anyway, hair washing night.
It was one of the unfair lies told about Starmer from an innocent throw away comment. Mind you an element of laziness does enter the picture. Starmer took full delegation to the extreme. He was a "democratic style manager" who delegated away his authority. He should have held Reeves on a tight leash and realised he was McSweeney's boss and not the other way around.
The Mandelson business is what it is, but the overarching weak management is why his Prime Ministership has ultimately failed. The failure is very basic.
Your last paragraph is very astute. Mandy is just the peg for some disgruntled Labour MPs to hang their hats. Starmer's' been disappointing but not mendacious and the two things are becoming confused. It would be great if there was a reasonable alternative but looking at Wulfrun's list there isn't one. My hope is that this will die down and if he doesn't improve it will be revisited later in the year. They'll still have three years left
Not just disgruntled Labour MPs, of course. Also anyone on the right shut out of relevance for the first time since 1979.
The key thing to remember, as an absent friend has said,
For those considering Sir Keir Starmer's potential replacement, NB since 1902 every Prime Minister who has ascended to that position, as opposed to being elected, has in the past been Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary or Chancellor of the Exchequer.
If that rule were followed here, that means we consider Reeves, Lammy, Cooper and Mahmood. That's a short list.
I'd also consider Miliband, as a former leader, and Rayner and Powell by virtue of their party role.
You'll note even Streeting is lightweight on this test.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
The Profumo scandal wasn’t really about Jack being a scumbag though. He had an affair with a call girl. The security services warned him that she (Keeler) was mixing in dangerous circles (Ward) so he wound down the affair. A year or more later the press started investigating Keeler because of something else and uncovered the links to Profumo. Ultimately he resigned because it was too embarrassing for the government but the “security risk” was a little bit of a facade - possibly real, but once he had been informed of the risk he mitigated it.
Mandelson hung out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, took money from them, and appears* to have shared state secrets with Epstein.
* the only evidence that I am aware of is emails from the Epstein release. Those can be doctored but it’s most likely that Mandelson did leak sensitive information.
What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
Starmer works 7 days a week
Don't believe the daily mail and telegraph crap, derived only from a throw away comment that he spent times with his kids on Friday6 nights when loto
Isn't it that his wife is Jewish and he likes the idea of 'family Friday nights'? What will happen when his son wants to go out on the pull (or something) on Friday nights I don't know. Although in my youth Friday night was, allegedly anyway, hair washing night.
It was one of the unfair lies told about Starmer from an innocent throw away comment. Mind you an element of laziness does enter the picture. Starmer took full delegation to the extreme. He was a "democratic style manager" who delegated away his authority. He should have held Reeves on a tight leash and realised he was McSweeney's boss and not the other way around.
The Mandelson business is what it is, but the overarching weak management is why his Prime Ministership has ultimately failed. The failure is very basic.
Your last paragraph is very astute. Mandy is just the peg for some disgruntled Labour MPs to hang their hats. Starmer's' been disappointing but not mendacious and the two things are becoming confused. It would be great if there was a reasonable alternative but looking at Wulfrun's list there isn't one. My hope is that this will die down and if he doesn't improve it will be revisited later in the year. They'll still have three years left
He's had eighteen months to settle into the role of Prime Minister. That is long enough. He's the Newport County of the EFL, he's the Welsh National Rugby Team. The coach needs changing.
Since Burnham isn't eligible to stand, and Labour leadership contests are nowadays never won on the first ballot, it is better to look at broader support including 2nd and probably 3rd preferences.
Combined 1st or 2nd preferences: Burnham 53% Rayner 36% Streeting 34% Miliband 26% Mahmood 17% Cooper 17%
Combined 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences: Burnham 62% Rayner 55% Miliband 48% Streeting 45% Cooper 31% Mahmood 24%
Conclusions:
1. Streeting is in a weaker position than the betting markets suggest. The fact that 2nd and 3rd preferences heavily favour Rayner and MIliband points to most Burnham supporters switching to those two. And this doesn't factor in the full effect of an explicit Burnham endorsement of either Rayner or Miliband (which seems inevitable and will carry weight with the 41% for whom Burnham is 1st preference.)
2. Rayner should be favourite even if the contest comes while (as now) the HMRC verdict is awaited.
3. Miliband is in with a decent shout if Rayner does not stand.
4. Of the candidates at longer odds, Cooper stands a better chance than Mahmood. Cooper should not be discounted because it is not too fanciful to think that both Rayner and Streeting might see their campaign falter for different reasons (an adverse HMRC ruling in Rayner's case, revelations from correspondence with his close friend and ally Mandelson in Streeting's case)
5. Powell and Haigh are not credible alternative soft left candidates to Rayner and Miliband, each only received 1% of 1st preferences.
The main caveat is how representative is the sample base of the wider Labour selectorate of all Labour members plus non-members who are political levy payers in a Labour affiliated union.
Cooper is the long shot, worth a look. Rayner comes unstuck because the one disqualification in the current climate is a hint of dodginess. The party (wrongly) don't like Streeting. Miliband should be a non-starter as an already failed. Mahmood is not popular with the party and there is no such thing as a currently popular current home secretary.
Cooper or Carns worth a look.
Outside of betting, what they should look for? The person who in every respect would understand what is entailed in the slogan 'The Buck Stops Here'. The implications about what it means to be the CEO of UK plc are immense. That Starmer just does not get it has been a major surprise. We shall find out, but from here I would guess Carney has the quality.
The qualities can be tested for, but how PMs are appointed make it a pretty random thing.
One possible complicating factor is the zeitgeist might swing to it being time for a woman in which case alliances might be formed. It was previously reported Ed Miliband had approached Angela Rayner about a joint ticket with her on top which could imply that he also believes this could happen.
For the moment, however, we can perhaps wait for Starmer. If he delays (either selfishly clinging to office or nobly to take the flak for the locals in May) that might be time for Rayner's tax issue to go away.
Thank the Lord, Milliband is currently an also ran and Burnham isn't an MP. Too late for Cooper, too early for Mahmood. Rayner is in Zahawi- legal jeopardy which leaves Streeting.
I'd roll the dice on Rayner. It could go all Liz Truss, but it could work. Streeting is most likely continuity Sunak-Starmer.
I still favour Streeting as we speak but Rayner is in with a chance with me. Maybe it's time to bring the curtain down (and this time for good) on the Blair New Labour project. If that sort of politics, even well delivered, can't now beat Farage then we might have to look at something different.
That is my feeling. Mandelson has soiled New Labour to the point of extinction. He's Johnsoned the brand.
Ratner would be a better comparison.
The problem with the Mandelson scandal is that it reveals an essential truth about the New Labour project which there was previously a polite refusal to confront.
So how does Labour detoxify it. Simply throwing Mandelson to the Wolves and making out it’s just him won’t work.
I was very specific. The long term toxicity is in the New Labour brand.
Of course in the medium term Mandelson trashes Labour but by jettisoning the entire project they have a chance of repatriating the lefty vote. A tall order but possible. Remember Mandelson's treachery was aimed as much at his own Labour Government in Office as discrediting the nation.
You were very specific, but what if you're wrong? What if it's the Labiur brand rather than the new Labour brand he's trashed? Ask 100 people in the street for thoughta about Mandelson, I bet it's no more than 10 who identify him specifically with 'new labour' rather than just 'labour'. I'm certainly not hearing anyone say 'that new labour lot, they're dodgy as fuck, but the rest of the party is mustard'.
Some of you have your blue scarves tied so tightly around your necks it is cutting off the blood supply to your heads.
I have been remarkably circumspect. Of course Labour could be finished forever, a narrative which you are rooting for. I am suggesting that if they have any hope of survival they tack to the left.
Why do you assume anyone who doesn't support the Labour Party is a partisan Tory? Is it because you can't imagine any other reason for not being left wing but tribalism? I find this particularly strange for someone who I believe vites Lib Dem.
I only voted Lib Dem to mitigate Tory votes. Much the same as voting Labour, which I do here in the Vale. I will be voting Plaid in May to ensure Reform don't win in Wales. My scarf is anything but blue.
Well that is just as daftly tribal as what you are accusing others of. Most of us vote for whomever we perceive to be the beat option for each election.
I'm not sure you're right, particularly in what look, ATM, to be the circumstances of the next election. Take my case. I'm Lab/LibDem, definitely not, and never have been, a Conservative supporter. I've voted at every election...... Council, County, National ..... since May 1959, and only once have I voted Conservative; when my father stood for the county council in the v. early 60's. But, as things stand, at the next General Election, in this area it could well be Priti Patel or Reform, with Labour LibDem and Green very much also rans. Given that situation I might well feel it my duty to vote for Patel to try to stop Reform.
What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
Starmer works 7 days a week
Don't believe the daily mail and telegraph crap, derived only from a throw away comment that he spent times with his kids on Friday6 nights when loto
Isn't it that his wife is Jewish and he likes the idea of 'family Friday nights'? What will happen when his son wants to go out on the pull (or something) on Friday nights I don't know. Although in my youth Friday night was, allegedly anyway, hair washing night.
It was one of the unfair lies told about Starmer from an innocent throw away comment. Mind you an element of laziness does enter the picture. Starmer took full delegation to the extreme. He was a "democratic style manager" who delegated away his authority. He should have held Reeves on a tight leash and realised he was McSweeney's boss and not the other way around.
The Mandelson business is what it is, but the overarching weak management is why his Prime Ministership has ultimately failed. The failure is very basic.
Your last paragraph is very astute. Mandy is just the peg for some disgruntled Labour MPs to hang their hats. Starmer's' been disappointing but not mendacious and the two things are becoming confused. It would be great if there was a reasonable alternative but looking at Wulfrun's list there isn't one. My hope is that this will die down and if he doesn't improve it will be revisited later in the year. They'll still have three years left
Not just disgruntled Labour MPs, of course. Also anyone on the right shut out of relevance for the first time since 1979.
The key thing to remember, as an absent friend has said,
For those considering Sir Keir Starmer's potential replacement, NB since 1902 every Prime Minister who has ascended to that position, as opposed to being elected, has in the past been Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary or Chancellor of the Exchequer.
If that rule were followed here, that means we consider Reeves, Lammy, Cooper and Mahmood. That's a short list.
I'd also consider Miliband, as a former leader, and Rayner and Powell by virtue of their party role.
You'll note even Streeting is lightweight on this test.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
Spot on Roger
They have been attacking him since day 1 at 10am!
He CAN help himself though by immediately removing McSweeney, informed sources believe he was moving back to Election Planning Role anyway in March. Move that forwards it takes a lot of heat out of the situation.
He needs individual Ministers too the FRONT UP ALL NEXT WEEK a day at a time to REFUTE the utter lies of the Tories that the Government is not doing or delivering anything because of this. THEY ARE and the only ones doing nothing and fixating on it are TORIES and LD. To be fair to Farage on this he is moving on with POLICY!
Gentle tip: any post like this with random shouty capitals in it will be ignored.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
Spot on Roger
They have been attacking him since day 1 at 10am!
He CAN help himself though by immediately removing McSweeney, informed sources believe he was moving back to Election Planning Role anyway in March. Move that forwards it takes a lot of heat out of the situation.
He needs individual Ministers too the FRONT UP ALL NEXT WEEK a day at a time to REFUTE the utter lies of the Tories that the Government is not doing or delivering anything because of this. THEY ARE and the only ones doing nothing and fixating on it are TORIES and LD. To be fair to Farage on this he is moving on with POLICY!
Gentle tip: any post like this with random shouty capitals in it will be ignored.
Why pick on this chap?
I thought you were a big fan of Leon's insightful posts. Often Avec capital letters and sans punctuation.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
The Profumo scandal wasn’t really about Jack being a scumbag though. He had an affair with a call girl. The security services warned him that she (Keeler) was mixing in dangerous circles (Ward) so he wound down the affair. A year or more later the press started investigating Keeler because of something else and uncovered the links to Profumo. Ultimately he resigned because it was too embarrassing for the government but the “security risk” was a little bit of a facade - possibly real, but once he had been informed of the risk he mitigated it.
Mandelson hung out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, took money from them, and appears* to have shared state secrets with Epstein.
* the only evidence that I am aware of is emails from the Epstein release. Those can be doctored but it’s most likely that Mandelson did leak sensitive information.
The Profumo security angle was not simply that the Secretary of State for War was sleeping with Christine Keeler but that she was also sharing a bed with the Soviet Naval Attaché.
Profumo was not helped by this being the umpteenth in a series of spy scandals undermining the Conservative government: Burgess & Maclean; the Portland spy ring; George Blake; Vassall, the Admiralty spy; the defection of Kim Philby, the third man, who had previously been cleared by the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan.
On the substantive, I simply don't get the almost visceral contempt toward Starmer from some on here.
Yes, I know the prevailing sentiment on here has been a mixture of anti-Labour and anti-politician for a while but I remember Starmer being attacked while his car was still on the way back from the Palace.
MY view on him is more one of disappointment than anger - large majorities often encourage radical thinking - Attlee and Thatcher's second term being good examples (and indeed you can even be radical with a small majority) but, as with Blair after 1997, Starner has been over cautious.
The truth is there were probably no radical ideas out there - the centre left as a whole has failed to come up with a coherent socio-economic policy since 2008 and the centre Right has run out of road with "austerity" so we drift with no one able or willing to come up with the ideas to promote growth in a demographically and technologically evolving society.
I'm convinced the ideas of the 20th century won't work in the 21st and we need some new thinking around wealth, the environment and the kind of society that works for us all, both young and old, both those who were born here and those who have chosen to make the UK their home.
There's little sign of that thinking in Reform, Conservative, LDs and Greens if I'm being truthful and Badenoch as Prime Minister would simply move some different chairs around but I don't accept the notion of managed decline. This is still a wonderful country and a good time to be alive for many but too many fall through the cracks and we need to address those issues of child poverty, housing poverty and the technological challenges to existing forms of work and education rather than simply cheering their demise.
There's also something about the nature of power the Mandelson saga has uncovered - the "powerful" have always had influence through networking and that's as true in a democracy as it is a dictatorship. I sense though just as there was a revulsion to Truss's economic policies on the notion of "fairness", many feel Epstein, Mandelson and those like them (and this reverberates through other scandals such as the Post Office) are somehow able to circumvent the notions of accountability and responsibility by which most of us have to live (or choose to live).
There's a growing desire for an Augean-style cleansing of the stables though that often masquerades as a new "elite" replacing the old (that is the truth of Communism, Fascism and Populism).
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
The Profumo scandal wasn’t really about Jack being a scumbag though. He had an affair with a call girl. The security services warned him that she (Keeler) was mixing in dangerous circles (Ward) so he wound down the affair. A year or more later the press started investigating Keeler because of something else and uncovered the links to Profumo. Ultimately he resigned because it was too embarrassing for the government but the “security risk” was a little bit of a facade - possibly real, but once he had been informed of the risk he mitigated it.
Mandelson hung out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, took money from them, and appears* to have shared state secrets with Epstein.
* the only evidence that I am aware of is emails from the Epstein release. Those can be doctored but it’s most likely that Mandelson did leak sensitive information.
The Profumo security angle was not simply that he was sleeping with Christine Keeler but that she was also sharing a bed with the Soviet Naval Attaché.
Profumo was not helped by this being the umpteenth in a series of spy scandals undermining the Conservative government: Burgess & Maclean; the Portland spy ring; George Blake; Vassall, the Admiralty spy; the defection of Kim Philby, the third man, who had previously been cleared by the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan.
You're also both forgetting that he lied to the House of Commons to try to dodge respsonsibility, having also lied to the Cabinet.
He was a bit like Massive in that respect, whom Hyufd has conveniently forgotten would have been expelled from the Commons if he hadn't resigned.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
Spot on Roger
They have been attacking him since day 1 at 10am!
He CAN help himself though by immediately removing McSweeney, informed sources believe he was moving back to Election Planning Role anyway in March. Move that forwards it takes a lot of heat out of the situation.
He needs individual Ministers too the FRONT UP ALL NEXT WEEK a day at a time to REFUTE the utter lies of the Tories that the Government is not doing or delivering anything because of this. THEY ARE and the only ones doing nothing and fixating on it are TORIES and LD. To be fair to Farage on this he is moving on with POLICY!
Gentle tip: any post like this with random shouty capitals in it will be ignored.
The missing ingredient in all this 'I support Starmer, it's all tory lies' is the voters
Apparently this has cut through to 95% of the public which is astonishing and had this been a conservative PM then Starmer would have gone for the jugular, as he did
It doesnt matter how tribal, or how bad the spelling, or shouting in capitals, the public will deliver their verdict in the ballot box in the next few months especially here in Wales
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
The Profumo scandal wasn’t really about Jack being a scumbag though. He had an affair with a call girl. The security services warned him that she (Keeler) was mixing in dangerous circles (Ward) so he wound down the affair. A year or more later the press started investigating Keeler because of something else and uncovered the links to Profumo. Ultimately he resigned because it was too embarrassing for the government but the “security risk” was a little bit of a facade - possibly real, but once he had been informed of the risk he mitigated it.
Mandelson hung out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, took money from them, and appears* to have shared state secrets with Epstein.
* the only evidence that I am aware of is emails from the Epstein release. Those can be doctored but it’s most likely that Mandelson did leak sensitive information.
Mandelson is Profumo, Starmer is McMillan in the simplest terms.
The difference between Profumo and Mandelson is Profumo was a junior minister whereas Mandelson was Deputy Prime Minister. Mandelson's misdeeds probably extend into his days at the European Commission. From that point of view the Mandelson scandal is far, far worse. It's a sort of John Stonehouse on steroids. Profumo saw his days out as a charitable benefactor. I don't see Mandelson retrieving his reputation through good deeds.
I do hope if we see a Reform government I am still alive to see how that foreign espionage scandal pans out.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
The Profumo scandal wasn’t really about Jack being a scumbag though. He had an affair with a call girl. The security services warned him that she (Keeler) was mixing in dangerous circles (Ward) so he wound down the affair. A year or more later the press started investigating Keeler because of something else and uncovered the links to Profumo. Ultimately he resigned because it was too embarrassing for the government but the “security risk” was a little bit of a facade - possibly real, but once he had been informed of the risk he mitigated it.
Mandelson hung out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, took money from them, and appears* to have shared state secrets with Epstein.
* the only evidence that I am aware of is emails from the Epstein release. Those can be doctored but it’s most likely that Mandelson did leak sensitive information.
The Profumo security angle was not simply that he was sleeping with Christine Keeler but that she was also sharing a bed with the Soviet Naval Attaché.
Profumo was not helped by this being the umpteenth in a series of spy scandals undermining the Conservative government: Burgess & Maclean; the Portland spy ring; George Blake; Vassall, the Admiralty spy; the defection of Kim Philby, the third man, who had previously been cleared by the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan.
You're also both forgetting that he lied to the House of Commons to try to dodge respsonsibility, having also lied to the Cabinet.
He was a bit like Massive in that respect, whom Hyufd has conveniently forgotten would have been expelled from the Commons if he hadn't resigned.
Not forgotten but also not relevant to the Profumo Affair having security concerns (the SoS for War sleeping with Keeler who had also been sleeping with the Soviet Naval Attaché and presumed KGB spy) and that this closely followed a whole series of spy scandals.
But yes, you are right that Profumo did lie to the Commons.
Since Burnham isn't eligible to stand, and Labour leadership contests are nowadays never won on the first ballot, it is better to look at broader support including 2nd and probably 3rd preferences.
Combined 1st or 2nd preferences: Burnham 53% Rayner 36% Streeting 34% Miliband 26% Mahmood 17% Cooper 17%
Combined 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences: Burnham 62% Rayner 55% Miliband 48% Streeting 45% Cooper 31% Mahmood 24%
Conclusions:
1. Streeting is in a weaker position than the betting markets suggest. The fact that 2nd and 3rd preferences heavily favour Rayner and MIliband points to most Burnham supporters switching to those two. And this doesn't factor in the full effect of an explicit Burnham endorsement of either Rayner or Miliband (which seems inevitable and will carry weight with the 41% for whom Burnham is 1st preference.)
2. Rayner should be favourite even if the contest comes while (as now) the HMRC verdict is awaited.
3. Miliband is in with a decent shout if Rayner does not stand.
4. Of the candidates at longer odds, Cooper stands a better chance than Mahmood. Cooper should not be discounted because it is not too fanciful to think that both Rayner and Streeting might see their campaign falter for different reasons (an adverse HMRC ruling in Rayner's case, revelations from correspondence with his close friend and ally Mandelson in Streeting's case)
5. Powell and Haigh are not credible alternative soft left candidates to Rayner and Miliband, each only received 1% of 1st preferences.
The main caveat is how representative is the sample base of the wider Labour selectorate of all Labour members plus non-members who are political levy payers in a Labour affiliated union.
One objection to Milliband (E) is that he led the party to defeat in 2015. Two points I think should be taken into account here (they won't be on the right), viz Milliband's defeat was primarily as a result of losing seats in Scotland, not England or Wales and secondly it's only recently that we've held that it's one strike, lose and you';re out. Harold Wilson, for example lost in 1970, but four years later was back as PM. It was his health which forced him out.
Scotland is a bit of a red herring. Miliband could have swept all 57 in Scotland and Cameron would still have had a majority
Scotland did for Miliband in England too.
But this time, were he to get the chance, the electorate would be judging Miliband after 3 years in which he showed what he could or could not achieve, and they had formed their opinion accordingly at that point. Rather different to judging someone before they get into office, based on images of him in Salmond's pocket on Conservative leaflets etc.
Miliband lost because he wasn't the best candidate for PM, regardless of the divisiveness of what came afterwards.
The electorate made the right decision then, and they'd make it again today.
The use of drones to film the downhill is great in the way it gives you a much better feeling of the run and the speed than just the static cams at fixed points down the run.
What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
Starmer works 7 days a week
Don't believe the daily mail and telegraph crap, derived only from a throw away comment that he spent times with his kids on Friday6 nights when loto
Isn't it that his wife is Jewish and he likes the idea of 'family Friday nights'? What will happen when his son wants to go out on the pull (or something) on Friday nights I don't know. Although in my youth Friday night was, allegedly anyway, hair washing night.
It was one of the unfair lies told about Starmer from an innocent throw away comment. Mind you an element of laziness does enter the picture. Starmer took full delegation to the extreme. He was a "democratic style manager" who delegated away his authority. He should have held Reeves on a tight leash and realised he was McSweeney's boss and not the other way around.
The Mandelson business is what it is, but the overarching weak management is why his Prime Ministership has ultimately failed. The failure is very basic.
Your last paragraph is very astute. Mandy is just the peg for some disgruntled Labour MPs to hang their hats. Starmer's' been disappointing but not mendacious and the two things are becoming confused. It would be great if there was a reasonable alternative but looking at Wulfrun's list there isn't one. My hope is that this will die down and if he doesn't improve it will be revisited later in the year. They'll still have three years left
What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
Starmer works 7 days a week
Don't believe the daily mail and telegraph crap, derived only from a throw away comment that he spent times with his kids on Friday6 nights when loto
Isn't it that his wife is Jewish and he likes the idea of 'family Friday nights'? What will happen when his son wants to go out on the pull (or something) on Friday nights I don't know. Although in my youth Friday night was, allegedly anyway, hair washing night.
It was one of the unfair lies told about Starmer from an innocent throw away comment. Mind you an element of laziness does enter the picture. Starmer took full delegation to the extreme. He was a "democratic style manager" who delegated away his authority. He should have held Reeves on a tight leash and realised he was McSweeney's boss and not the other way around.
The Mandelson business is what it is, but the overarching weak management is why his Prime Ministership has ultimately failed. The failure is very basic.
Your last paragraph is very astute. Mandy is just the peg for some disgruntled Labour MPs to hang their hats. Starmer's' been disappointing but not mendacious and the two things are becoming confused. It would be great if there was a reasonable alternative but looking at Wulfrun's list there isn't one. My hope is that this will die down and if he doesn't improve it will be revisited later in the year. They'll still have three years left
He's had eighteen months to settle into the role of Prime Minister. That is long enough. He's the Newport County of the EFL, he's the Welsh National Rugby Team. The coach needs changing.
Thank the Lord, Milliband is currently an also ran and Burnham isn't an MP. Too late for Cooper, too early for Mahmood. Rayner is in Zahawi- legal jeopardy which leaves Streeting.
I'd roll the dice on Rayner. It could go all Liz Truss, but it could work. Streeting is most likely continuity Sunak-Starmer.
I still favour Streeting as we speak but Rayner is in with a chance with me. Maybe it's time to bring the curtain down (and this time for good) on the Blair New Labour project. If that sort of politics, even well delivered, can't now beat Farage then we might have to look at something different.
That is my feeling. Mandelson has soiled New Labour to the point of extinction. He's Johnsoned the brand.
Ratner would be a better comparison.
The problem with the Mandelson scandal is that it reveals an essential truth about the New Labour project which there was previously a polite refusal to confront.
So how does Labour detoxify it. Simply throwing Mandelson to the Wolves and making out it’s just him won’t work.
I was very specific. The long term toxicity is in the New Labour brand.
Of course in the medium term Mandelson trashes Labour but by jettisoning the entire project they have a chance of repatriating the lefty vote. A tall order but possible. Remember Mandelson's treachery was aimed as much at his own Labour Government in Office as discrediting the nation.
You were very specific, but what if you're wrong? What if it's the Labiur brand rather than the new Labour brand he's trashed? Ask 100 people in the street for thoughta about Mandelson, I bet it's no more than 10 who identify him specifically with 'new labour' rather than just 'labour'. I'm certainly not hearing anyone say 'that new labour lot, they're dodgy as fuck, but the rest of the party is mustard'.
Some of you have your blue scarves tied so tightly around your necks it is cutting off the blood supply to your heads.
I have been remarkably circumspect. Of course Labour could be finished forever, a narrative which you are rooting for. I am suggesting that if they have any hope of survival they tack to the left.
Why do you assume anyone who doesn't support the Labour Party is a partisan Tory? Is it because you can't imagine any other reason for not being left wing but tribalism? I find this particularly strange for someone who I believe vites Lib Dem.
I only voted Lib Dem to mitigate Tory votes. Much the same as voting Labour, which I do here in the Vale. I will be voting Plaid in May to ensure Reform don't win in Wales. My scarf is anything but blue.
Well that is just as daftly tribal as what you are accusing others of. Most of us vote for whomever we perceive to be the beat option for each election.
I'm not sure you're right, particularly in what look, ATM, to be the circumstances of the next election. Take my case. I'm Lab/LibDem, definitely not, and never have been, a Conservative supporter. I've voted at every election...... Council, County, National ..... since May 1959, and only once have I voted Conservative; when my father stood for the county council in the v. early 60's. But, as things stand, at the next General Election, in this area it could well be Priti Patel or Reform, with Labour LibDem and Green very much also rans. Given that situation I might well feel it my duty to vote for Patel to try to stop Reform.
It's an interesting point, voting tactically vs voting your principles. The latter sounds more fragrant but I think I'd do the same as you in current circumstances. I'd square the circle by saying I have plenty of principles and right now my biggest one is that the country must not fall into the hands of Nigel Farage.
Consensus seems to be forming within the Cabinet and PLP. Starmer cannot continue. But it is too soon for an immediate leadership contest. Suspect the resolution of the crisis rests in aligning these two realities.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
The Profumo scandal wasn’t really about Jack being a scumbag though. He had an affair with a call girl. The security services warned him that she (Keeler) was mixing in dangerous circles (Ward) so he wound down the affair. A year or more later the press started investigating Keeler because of something else and uncovered the links to Profumo. Ultimately he resigned because it was too embarrassing for the government but the “security risk” was a little bit of a facade - possibly real, but once he had been informed of the risk he mitigated it.
Mandelson hung out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, took money from them, and appears* to have shared state secrets with Epstein.
* the only evidence that I am aware of is emails from the Epstein release. Those can be doctored but it’s most likely that Mandelson did leak sensitive information.
Mandelson is Profumo, Starmer is McMillan in the simplest terms.
The difference between Profumo and Mandelson is Profumo was a junior minister whereas Mandelson was Deputy Prime Minister. Mandelson's misdeeds probably extend into his days at the European Commission. From that point of view the Mandelson scandal is far, far worse. It's a sort of John Stonehouse on steroids. Profumo saw his days out as a charitable benefactor. I don't see Mandelson retrieving his reputation through good deeds.
I do hope if we see a Reform government I am still alive to see how that foreign espionage scandal pans out.
Profumo wasn't that junior. He was Secretary of State for War and considered a possible successor to Macmillan.
Consensus seems to be forming within the Cabinet and PLP. Starmer cannot continue. But it is too soon for an immediate leadership contest. Suspect the resolution of the crisis rests in aligning these two realities.
Good morning, everyone.
The power of inertia is strong. If they delay, he may remain.
Consensus seems to be forming within the Cabinet and PLP. Starmer cannot continue. But it is too soon for an immediate leadership contest. Suspect the resolution of the crisis rests in aligning these two realities.
The Labour party thanks you for your patience and invites you to enjoy the crumbling ruins of the nation whilst they wet nurse some utterly worthless spanners to complete the bodge.
Thank the Lord, Milliband is currently an also ran and Burnham isn't an MP. Too late for Cooper, too early for Mahmood. Rayner is in Zahawi- legal jeopardy which leaves Streeting.
I'd roll the dice on Rayner. It could go all Liz Truss, but it could work. Streeting is most likely continuity Sunak-Starmer.
I still favour Streeting as we speak but Rayner is in with a chance with me. Maybe it's time to bring the curtain down (and this time for good) on the Blair New Labour project. If that sort of politics, even well delivered, can't now beat Farage then we might have to look at something different.
That is my feeling. Mandelson has soiled New Labour to the point of extinction. He's Johnsoned the brand.
Ratner would be a better comparison.
The problem with the Mandelson scandal is that it reveals an essential truth about the New Labour project which there was previously a polite refusal to confront.
So how does Labour detoxify it. Simply throwing Mandelson to the Wolves and making out it’s just him won’t work.
I was very specific. The long term toxicity is in the New Labour brand.
Of course in the medium term Mandelson trashes Labour but by jettisoning the entire project they have a chance of repatriating the lefty vote. A tall order but possible. Remember Mandelson's treachery was aimed as much at his own Labour Government in Office as discrediting the nation.
You were very specific, but what if you're wrong? What if it's the Labiur brand rather than the new Labour brand he's trashed? Ask 100 people in the street for thoughta about Mandelson, I bet it's no more than 10 who identify him specifically with 'new labour' rather than just 'labour'. I'm certainly not hearing anyone say 'that new labour lot, they're dodgy as fuck, but the rest of the party is mustard'.
Some of you have your blue scarves tied so tightly around your necks it is cutting off the blood supply to your heads.
I have been remarkably circumspect. Of course Labour could be finished forever, a narrative which you are rooting for. I am suggesting that if they have any hope of survival they tack to the left.
Why do you assume anyone who doesn't support the Labour Party is a partisan Tory? Is it because you can't imagine any other reason for not being left wing but tribalism? I find this particularly strange for someone who I believe vites Lib Dem.
I only voted Lib Dem to mitigate Tory votes. Much the same as voting Labour, which I do here in the Vale. I will be voting Plaid in May to ensure Reform don't win in Wales. My scarf is anything but blue.
Well that is just as daftly tribal as what you are accusing others of. Most of us vote for whomever we perceive to be the beat option for each election.
I'm not sure you're right, particularly in what look, ATM, to be the circumstances of the next election. Take my case. I'm Lab/LibDem, definitely not, and never have been, a Conservative supporter. I've voted at every election...... Council, County, National ..... since May 1959, and only once have I voted Conservative; when my father stood for the county council in the v. early 60's. But, as things stand, at the next General Election, in this area it could well be Priti Patel or Reform, with Labour LibDem and Green very much also rans. Given that situation I might well feel it my duty to vote for Patel to try to stop Reform.
Yes, I'm in a similar situation. I've never voted Conservative, but I may well do if that's what it takes to keep Reform out. But if the Tories track too far to the right, that becomes less likely.
Consensus seems to be forming within the Cabinet and PLP. Starmer cannot continue. But it is too soon for an immediate leadership contest. Suspect the resolution of the crisis rests in aligning these two realities.
Well, we know Hodges isn't a fan but he may be right.
Perhaps the May locals will be the deciding factor and again I'd be looking at Labour's performance in London in particular as a guide to how party sentiment might move.
IF Labour loses a swathe of councils, that could be the tipping point.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
Spot on Roger
They have been attacking him since day 1 at 10am!
He CAN help himself though by immediately removing McSweeney, informed sources believe he was moving back to Election Planning Role anyway in March. Move that forwards it takes a lot of heat out of the situation.
He needs individual Ministers too the FRONT UP ALL NEXT WEEK a day at a time to REFUTE the utter lies of the Tories that the Government is not doing or delivering anything because of this. THEY ARE and the only ones doing nothing and fixating on it are TORIES and LD. To be fair to Farage on this he is moving on with POLICY!
Gentle tip: any post like this with random shouty capitals in it will be ignored.
Oh dear! According to the memoirs of former Stalybridge MP Tom Pendry, the selection of current Government Chief Whip Jonathan Reynolds as subsequent Labour candidate for the Stalybridge seat (and MP from 2010) was fixed by a chap called Peter Mandelson.
Oh dear! According to the memoirs of former Stalybridge MP Tom Pendry, the selection of current Government Chief Whip Jonathan Reynolds as subsequent Labour candidate for the Stalybridge seat (and MP from 2010) was fixed by a chap called Peter Mandelson.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
Spot on Roger
They have been attacking him since day 1 at 10am!
He CAN help himself though by immediately removing McSweeney, informed sources believe he was moving back to Election Planning Role anyway in March. Move that forwards it takes a lot of heat out of the situation.
He needs individual Ministers too the FRONT UP ALL NEXT WEEK a day at a time to REFUTE the utter lies of the Tories that the Government is not doing or delivering anything because of this. THEY ARE and the only ones doing nothing and fixating on it are TORIES and LD. To be fair to Farage on this he is moving on with POLICY!
Gentle tip: any post like this with random shouty capitals in it will be ignored.
I DEMAND YOU IGNORE THIS POST! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
Consensus seems to be forming within the Cabinet and PLP. Starmer cannot continue. But it is too soon for an immediate leadership contest. Suspect the resolution of the crisis rests in aligning these two realities.
Well, we know Hodges isn't a fan but he may be right.
Perhaps the May locals will be the deciding factor and again I'd be looking at Labour's performance in London in particular as a guide to how party sentiment might move.
IF Labour loses a swathe of councils, that could be the tipping point.
They might get lucky in that 19 of the 33 they defend outside London are electing thirds So we may get a few 'lose 10 but hold' (noting i havent checked what majorities they have)
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
The Profumo scandal wasn’t really about Jack being a scumbag though. He had an affair with a call girl. The security services warned him that she (Keeler) was mixing in dangerous circles (Ward) so he wound down the affair. A year or more later the press started investigating Keeler because of something else and uncovered the links to Profumo. Ultimately he resigned because it was too embarrassing for the government but the “security risk” was a little bit of a facade - possibly real, but once he had been informed of the risk he mitigated it.
Mandelson hung out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, took money from them, and appears* to have shared state secrets with Epstein.
* the only evidence that I am aware of is emails from the Epstein release. Those can be doctored but it’s most likely that Mandelson did leak sensitive information.
Mandelson is Profumo, Starmer is McMillan in the simplest terms.
The difference between Profumo and Mandelson is Profumo was a junior minister whereas Mandelson was Deputy Prime Minister. Mandelson's misdeeds probably extend into his days at the European Commission. From that point of view the Mandelson scandal is far, far worse. It's a sort of John Stonehouse on steroids. Profumo saw his days out as a charitable benefactor. I don't see Mandelson retrieving his reputation through good deeds.
I do hope if we see a Reform government I am still alive to see how that foreign espionage scandal pans out.
Profumo wasn't that junior. He was Secretary of State for War and considered a possible successor to Macmillan.
He was second division. He wasn't defacto PM in the event of Brown falling under a bus.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
The Profumo scandal wasn’t really about Jack being a scumbag though. He had an affair with a call girl. The security services warned him that she (Keeler) was mixing in dangerous circles (Ward) so he wound down the affair. A year or more later the press started investigating Keeler because of something else and uncovered the links to Profumo. Ultimately he resigned because it was too embarrassing for the government but the “security risk” was a little bit of a facade - possibly real, but once he had been informed of the risk he mitigated it.
Mandelson hung out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, took money from them, and appears* to have shared state secrets with Epstein.
* the only evidence that I am aware of is emails from the Epstein release. Those can be doctored but it’s most likely that Mandelson did leak sensitive information.
Mandelson is Profumo, Starmer is McMillan in the simplest terms.
The difference between Profumo and Mandelson is Profumo was a junior minister whereas Mandelson was Deputy Prime Minister. Mandelson's misdeeds probably extend into his days at the European Commission. From that point of view the Mandelson scandal is far, far worse. It's a sort of John Stonehouse on steroids. Profumo saw his days out as a charitable benefactor. I don't see Mandelson retrieving his reputation through good deeds.
I do hope if we see a Reform government I am still alive to see how that foreign espionage scandal pans out.
Incredible coincidence that a player in both scandals, a fake osteopath.
Consensus seems to be forming within the Cabinet and PLP. Starmer cannot continue. But it is too soon for an immediate leadership contest. Suspect the resolution of the crisis rests in aligning these two realities.
Hodges used to be very insightful until he took the Daily Mail shilling. His summary of current events is no more informative than the PB commentariat*.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
The Profumo scandal wasn’t really about Jack being a scumbag though. He had an affair with a call girl. The security services warned him that she (Keeler) was mixing in dangerous circles (Ward) so he wound down the affair. A year or more later the press started investigating Keeler because of something else and uncovered the links to Profumo. Ultimately he resigned because it was too embarrassing for the government but the “security risk” was a little bit of a facade - possibly real, but once he had been informed of the risk he mitigated it.
Mandelson hung out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, took money from them, and appears* to have shared state secrets with Epstein.
* the only evidence that I am aware of is emails from the Epstein release. Those can be doctored but it’s most likely that Mandelson did leak sensitive information.
Mandelson is Profumo, Starmer is McMillan in the simplest terms.
The difference between Profumo and Mandelson is Profumo was a junior minister whereas Mandelson was Deputy Prime Minister. Mandelson's misdeeds probably extend into his days at the European Commission. From that point of view the Mandelson scandal is far, far worse. It's a sort of John Stonehouse on steroids. Profumo saw his days out as a charitable benefactor. I don't see Mandelson retrieving his reputation through good deeds.
I do hope if we see a Reform government I am still alive to see how that foreign espionage scandal pans out.
Incredible coincidence that a player in both scandals, a fake osteopath.
That is very, very good. Much, much better than your usual fayre.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
The Profumo scandal wasn’t really about Jack being a scumbag though. He had an affair with a call girl. The security services warned him that she (Keeler) was mixing in dangerous circles (Ward) so he wound down the affair. A year or more later the press started investigating Keeler because of something else and uncovered the links to Profumo. Ultimately he resigned because it was too embarrassing for the government but the “security risk” was a little bit of a facade - possibly real, but once he had been informed of the risk he mitigated it.
Mandelson hung out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, took money from them, and appears* to have shared state secrets with Epstein.
* the only evidence that I am aware of is emails from the Epstein release. Those can be doctored but it’s most likely that Mandelson did leak sensitive information.
Mandelson is Profumo, Starmer is McMillan in the simplest terms.
The difference between Profumo and Mandelson is Profumo was a junior minister whereas Mandelson was Deputy Prime Minister. Mandelson's misdeeds probably extend into his days at the European Commission. From that point of view the Mandelson scandal is far, far worse. It's a sort of John Stonehouse on steroids. Profumo saw his days out as a charitable benefactor. I don't see Mandelson retrieving his reputation through good deeds.
I do hope if we see a Reform government I am still alive to see how that foreign espionage scandal pans out.
Incredible coincidence that a player in both scandals, a fake osteopath.
Is that a reference to Mandelson's habit of rubbing people up the wrong way?
What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
Starmer works 7 days a week
Don't believe the daily mail and telegraph crap, derived only from a throw away comment that he spent times with his kids on Friday6 nights when loto
Isn't it that his wife is Jewish and he likes the idea of 'family Friday nights'? What will happen when his son wants to go out on the pull (or something) on Friday nights I don't know. Although in my youth Friday night was, allegedly anyway, hair washing night.
It was one of the unfair lies told about Starmer from an innocent throw away comment. Mind you an element of laziness does enter the picture. Starmer took full delegation to the extreme. He was a "democratic style manager" who delegated away his authority. He should have held Reeves on a tight leash and realised he was McSweeney's boss and not the other way around.
The Mandelson business is what it is, but the overarching weak management is why his Prime Ministership has ultimately failed. The failure is very basic.
Ultimately, it’s about being in office and not in power.
Thatcher, Blair, Brown and Cameron were both in office and in power. No one doubted they ran the government. So when they delegated they were lending power *they* possessed.
Starmer delegated by allowing others to take the power that he himself didn’t have.
It’s hard to imagine any of the PMs on that list publicly complaining about being unable to do things.
That's not quite true. It was already becoming apparent in Cameron’s era that he did not hold all the power. There was a regularly commented on phenomenon of Cameron doing speeches summing up the zeitgeist and 'calling for' things. Yet he was Prime Minister, so was presumably in a position to implement policies, not call for them. This wasn't a coalition thing - it became particularly notable in the second term.
It was the result of a series of legislative changes implemented by Blair and Brown. Cameron, May and Boris made successively more. Each one has literally had less power than the last, so whilst we can point to how the character and qualities have declined, the role and its powers have also declined.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
Spot on Roger
They have been attacking him since day 1 at 10am!
He CAN help himself though by immediately removing McSweeney, informed sources believe he was moving back to Election Planning Role anyway in March. Move that forwards it takes a lot of heat out of the situation.
He needs individual Ministers too the FRONT UP ALL NEXT WEEK a day at a time to REFUTE the utter lies of the Tories that the Government is not doing or delivering anything because of this. THEY ARE and the only ones doing nothing and fixating on it are TORIES and LD. To be fair to Farage on this he is moving on with POLICY!
Gentle tip: any post like this with random shouty capitals in it will be ignored.
I DEMAND YOU IGNORE THIS POST! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
Consensus seems to be forming within the Cabinet and PLP. Starmer cannot continue. But it is too soon for an immediate leadership contest. Suspect the resolution of the crisis rests in aligning these two realities.
Well, we know Hodges isn't a fan but he may be right.
Perhaps the May locals will be the deciding factor and again I'd be looking at Labour's performance in London in particular as a guide to how party sentiment might move.
IF Labour loses a swathe of councils, that could be the tipping point.
Fortunately their pre-emptive postponing of elections in many councils Labour are defending and are vulnerable to losing will prevent more losses.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
The Profumo scandal wasn’t really about Jack being a scumbag though. He had an affair with a call girl. The security services warned him that she (Keeler) was mixing in dangerous circles (Ward) so he wound down the affair. A year or more later the press started investigating Keeler because of something else and uncovered the links to Profumo. Ultimately he resigned because it was too embarrassing for the government but the “security risk” was a little bit of a facade - possibly real, but once he had been informed of the risk he mitigated it.
Mandelson hung out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, took money from them, and appears* to have shared state secrets with Epstein.
* the only evidence that I am aware of is emails from the Epstein release. Those can be doctored but it’s most likely that Mandelson did leak sensitive information.
Mandelson is Profumo, Starmer is McMillan in the simplest terms.
The difference between Profumo and Mandelson is Profumo was a junior minister whereas Mandelson was Deputy Prime Minister. Mandelson's misdeeds probably extend into his days at the European Commission. From that point of view the Mandelson scandal is far, far worse. It's a sort of John Stonehouse on steroids. Profumo saw his days out as a charitable benefactor. I don't see Mandelson retrieving his reputation through good deeds.
I do hope if we see a Reform government I am still alive to see how that foreign espionage scandal pans out.
Incredible coincidence that a player in both scandals, a fake osteopath.
That is very, very good. Much, much better than your usual fayre.
I don't think Ward was a fake osteopath. Thought he was genuine.
Consensus seems to be forming within the Cabinet and PLP. Starmer cannot continue. But it is too soon for an immediate leadership contest. Suspect the resolution of the crisis rests in aligning these two realities.
AKA I got it wrong as I'm a idiot searching for clicks.
Oh dear! According to the memoirs of former Stalybridge MP Tom Pendry, the selection of current Government Chief Whip Jonathan Reynolds as subsequent Labour candidate for the Stalybridge seat (and MP from 2010) was fixed by a chap called Peter Mandelson.
And so it begins
Not really.
Political fixes are commonplace irrespective of party. It is unfortunate for Reynolds was that his political fixer was quite possibly a traitor to both his party and his country.
Looking at what might count as 'terminally catastrophic' for Labour in May,
Non London Councils - losing more than half of the 33 they control Scotland - i think third is priced in and cant see any lower but fourth is game over but Scotand likely least damaging deep wound Wales - behind Tories on votes or seats London - not first on votes, lose swathes of councils
Since Burnham isn't eligible to stand, and Labour leadership contests are nowadays never won on the first ballot, it is better to look at broader support including 2nd and probably 3rd preferences.
Combined 1st or 2nd preferences: Burnham 53% Rayner 36% Streeting 34% Miliband 26% Mahmood 17% Cooper 17%
Combined 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences: Burnham 62% Rayner 55% Miliband 48% Streeting 45% Cooper 31% Mahmood 24%
Conclusions:
1. Streeting is in a weaker position than the betting markets suggest. The fact that 2nd and 3rd preferences heavily favour Rayner and MIliband points to most Burnham supporters switching to those two. And this doesn't factor in the full effect of an explicit Burnham endorsement of either Rayner or Miliband (which seems inevitable and will carry weight with the 41% for whom Burnham is 1st preference.)
2. Rayner should be favourite even if the contest comes while (as now) the HMRC verdict is awaited.
3. Miliband is in with a decent shout if Rayner does not stand.
4. Of the candidates at longer odds, Cooper stands a better chance than Mahmood. Cooper should not be discounted because it is not too fanciful to think that both Rayner and Streeting might see their campaign falter for different reasons (an adverse HMRC ruling in Rayner's case, revelations from correspondence with his close friend and ally Mandelson in Streeting's case)
5. Powell and Haigh are not credible alternative soft left candidates to Rayner and Miliband, each only received 1% of 1st preferences.
The main caveat is how representative is the sample base of the wider Labour selectorate of all Labour members plus non-members who are political levy payers in a Labour affiliated union.
One objection to Milliband (E) is that he led the party to defeat in 2015. Two points I think should be taken into account here (they won't be on the right), viz Milliband's defeat was primarily as a result of losing seats in Scotland, not England or Wales and secondly it's only recently that we've held that it's one strike, lose and you';re out. Harold Wilson, for example lost in 1970, but four years later was back as PM. It was his health which forced him out.
Scotland is a bit of a red herring. Miliband could have swept all 57 in Scotland and Cameron would still have had a majority
Scotland did for Miliband in England too.
But this time, were he to get the chance, the electorate would be judging Miliband after 3 years in which he showed what he could or could not achieve, and they had formed their opinion accordingly at that point. Rather different to judging someone before they get into office, based on images of him in Salmond's pocket on Conservative leaflets etc.
Miliband lost because he wasn't the best candidate for PM, regardless of the divisiveness of what came afterwards.
The electorate made the right decision then, and they'd make it again today.
I think there's evidence to suggest the SNP factor helped the Tories destroy the Lib Dems. Taking it away probably wouldn't have been enough to get Ed into No10, but Cameron would probably have lacked a majority (which ironically probably would have been a better outcome for him) without 10+ extra Lib Dem seats.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
The Profumo scandal wasn’t really about Jack being a scumbag though. He had an affair with a call girl. The security services warned him that she (Keeler) was mixing in dangerous circles (Ward) so he wound down the affair. A year or more later the press started investigating Keeler because of something else and uncovered the links to Profumo. Ultimately he resigned because it was too embarrassing for the government but the “security risk” was a little bit of a facade - possibly real, but once he had been informed of the risk he mitigated it.
Mandelson hung out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, took money from them, and appears* to have shared state secrets with Epstein.
* the only evidence that I am aware of is emails from the Epstein release. Those can be doctored but it’s most likely that Mandelson did leak sensitive information.
Mandelson is Profumo, Starmer is McMillan in the simplest terms.
The difference between Profumo and Mandelson is Profumo was a junior minister whereas Mandelson was Deputy Prime Minister. Mandelson's misdeeds probably extend into his days at the European Commission. From that point of view the Mandelson scandal is far, far worse. It's a sort of John Stonehouse on steroids. Profumo saw his days out as a charitable benefactor. I don't see Mandelson retrieving his reputation through good deeds.
I do hope if we see a Reform government I am still alive to see how that foreign espionage scandal pans out.
Incredible coincidence that a player in both scandals, a fake osteopath.
Is that a reference to Mandelson's habit of rubbing people up the wrong way?
What amazes me is the PB commentariat either have not realised the excellent connective joke or they have no sense of humour. Some "likes" for that post please!
Consensus seems to be forming within the Cabinet and PLP. Starmer cannot continue. But it is too soon for an immediate leadership contest. Suspect the resolution of the crisis rests in aligning these two realities.
AKA I got it wrong as I'm a idiot searching for clicks.
Yes, a lot of the 'he'll be gone tomorrow' crowd are going to have a bit of egg on their faces I think. There's just nobody else. The entire PLP is untalented, uninspiring, unappealing, tainted, or all of the above. That saves Starmer. It also continues the downward spiral of the Government, as the Mandelson story unfolds.
Oh dear! According to the memoirs of former Stalybridge MP Tom Pendry, the selection of current Government Chief Whip Jonathan Reynolds as subsequent Labour candidate for the Stalybridge seat (and MP from 2010) was fixed by a chap called Peter Mandelson.
And so it begins
Not really.
Political fixes are commonplace irrespective of party. It is unfortunate for Reynolds was that his political fixer was quite possibly a traitor to both his party and his country.
I think its more the point that Mandelson is a proper wrong 'un and it will become more and more evident that he IS the Labour Party. They cannot escape his poison and will go down electorally and in public perception with him (albeit his travails are more literally legal problems)
I think the political reality is the contest to replace Starmer has to include Burnham. The polls clearly show he's most popular amongst Labour members and the public. Any new leader elected without him on the ballot will just have him looming over their shoulder from Day 1.
The press largely antagonistic towards Starmer are minute by minute digging up stuff on Mandelson and putting it in the 'Starmer must' go column.
It is absurd and if they're not careful they'll face a backlash. The Telegraph and the Mail have completely lost the plot and the BBC are not far behind. Starmer is not Mandelson and he is certainly not Epstein though some are even blurring that
Starmer made one mistake and one only. And even that is not as obvious as the 'wise after the eventers' are making it
The problem is, as much as there is always an element of "wise after the event" about these things, it was a clanger of a mistake.
The appointment is only one small part of this though. The saga of Mandelson's dealings with Epstein looks like it has enough fuel to run and run. I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest that this certainly has the potential to be the biggest scandal since Profumo, and indeed it may yet exceed it.
Spot on Roger
They have been attacking him since day 1 at 10am!
He CAN help himself though by immediately removing McSweeney, informed sources believe he was moving back to Election Planning Role anyway in March. Move that forwards it takes a lot of heat out of the situation.
He needs individual Ministers too the FRONT UP ALL NEXT WEEK a day at a time to REFUTE the utter lies of the Tories that the Government is not doing or delivering anything because of this. THEY ARE and the only ones doing nothing and fixating on it are TORIES and LD. To be fair to Farage on this he is moving on with POLICY!
Gentle tip: any post like this with random shouty capitals in it will be ignored.
The missing ingredient in all this 'I support Starmer, it's all tory lies' is the voters
Apparently this has cut through to 95% of the public which is astonishing and had this been a conservative PM then Starmer would have gone for the jugular, as he did
It doesnt matter how tribal, or how bad the spelling, or shouting in capitals, the public will deliver their verdict in the ballot box in the next few months especially here in Wales
Starmer has to go a) because he is not up to the job rather than b) he made a particularly unwise appointment. When the two combine there is no alternative but to fall on his sword. I would hope Starmer realises this and is engaged this weekend with smoothing out his managed transition from the role of Prime Minister.
The assumption that military leadership is a template for political leadership is hardly infallible.
I mean there's military leadership and military leadership. This character was a bootie (Royal Marine) and a mustang (commissioned from the ranks) which doesn't exactly make him a Suvorov. He is well used to ordering teenage louts off council estates to kill everyone on sight in Afghanistan. I don't how much of that skill set translates to being P-fucking-M but I'm guessing not a lot.
This emergent dewy eyed reverence for martial prowess by our political class is misplaced and essentially quite stupid.
Consensus seems to be forming within the Cabinet and PLP. Starmer cannot continue. But it is too soon for an immediate leadership contest. Suspect the resolution of the crisis rests in aligning these two realities.
Hodges used to be very insightful until he took the Daily Mail shilling. His summary of current events is no more informative than the PB commentariat*.
*That is not a sleight on the PB commentariat.
Hodges seems to be losing it recently. Saying some very odd things indeed.
I think the political reality is the contest to replace Starmer has to include Burnham. The polls clearly show he's most popular amongst Labour members and the public. Any new leader elected without him on the ballot will just have him looming over their shoulder from Day 1.
What happened to Hodges? Trumpian levels of neurological decline appear to be present.
I was travelling out in asia recently. People out there cant believe how far the west has fallen. People were actually saying to me so your govt is run by pedophiles then. Unbelievable.
The implosion of the Labour right will accelerate the realignment of two-party politics around the contest between Reform and the Tories. Maybe Labour can survive as a minor party and aim to play kingmaker.
Thank the Lord, Milliband is currently an also ran and Burnham isn't an MP. Too late for Cooper, too early for Mahmood. Rayner is in Zahawi- legal jeopardy which leaves Streeting.
I'd roll the dice on Rayner. It could go all Liz Truss, but it could work. Streeting is most likely continuity Sunak-Starmer.
I still favour Streeting as we speak but Rayner is in with a chance with me. Maybe it's time to bring the curtain down (and this time for good) on the Blair New Labour project. If that sort of politics, even well delivered, can't now beat Farage then we might have to look at something different.
That is my feeling. Mandelson has soiled New Labour to the point of extinction. He's Johnsoned the brand.
Ratner would be a better comparison.
The problem with the Mandelson scandal is that it reveals an essential truth about the New Labour project which there was previously a polite refusal to confront.
So how does Labour detoxify it. Simply throwing Mandelson to the Wolves and making out it’s just him won’t work.
I was very specific. The long term toxicity is in the New Labour brand.
Of course in the medium term Mandelson trashes Labour but by jettisoning the entire project they have a chance of repatriating the lefty vote. A tall order but possible. Remember Mandelson's treachery was aimed as much at his own Labour Government in Office as discrediting the nation.
You were very specific, but what if you're wrong? What if it's the Labiur brand rather than the new Labour brand he's trashed? Ask 100 people in the street for thoughta about Mandelson, I bet it's no more than 10 who identify him specifically with 'new labour' rather than just 'labour'. I'm certainly not hearing anyone say 'that new labour lot, they're dodgy as fuck, but the rest of the party is mustard'.
Some of you have your blue scarves tied so tightly around your necks it is cutting off the blood supply to your heads.
I have been remarkably circumspect. Of course Labour could be finished forever, a narrative which you are rooting for. I am suggesting that if they have any hope of survival they tack to the left.
Why do you assume anyone who doesn't support the Labour Party is a partisan Tory? Is it because you can't imagine any other reason for not being left wing but tribalism? I find this particularly strange for someone who I believe vites Lib Dem.
I only voted Lib Dem to mitigate Tory votes. Much the same as voting Labour, which I do here in the Vale. I will be voting Plaid in May to ensure Reform don't win in Wales. My scarf is anything but blue.
Well that is just as daftly tribal as what you are accusing others of. Most of us vote for whomever we perceive to be the beat option for each election.
I'm not sure you're right, particularly in what look, ATM, to be the circumstances of the next election. Take my case. I'm Lab/LibDem, definitely not, and never have been, a Conservative supporter. I've voted at every election...... Council, County, National ..... since May 1959, and only once have I voted Conservative; when my father stood for the county council in the v. early 60's. But, as things stand, at the next General Election, in this area it could well be Priti Patel or Reform, with Labour LibDem and Green very much also rans. Given that situation I might well feel it my duty to vote for Patel to try to stop Reform.
But that's, presumably, due to some perception on your part of which candidate would best accird with your values along with who has a realistic chance of winning, rather tham some basic "I don't like Tories" like some idiot football fan? I've voted Tory more often than anyone else, but not because they are my team or because I identify with that party - but because historically of all the parties with a relaistic chance of winning they most accord with how I want to see the country run. But I voted for an 'other' in 2024, and in any forthcoming GM mayoral election I'd be voting Labour - and if there was a by-election in ky constituency tomorrow I'd probably vote Labour because my perception is that that would lead to a better outcome than a Reform MP. But again, that's nota tribal rejection of Reform - just a preference for Lab over Ref at the moment. And of courae, that coule change if Lab selected someone Corbyn-adjacent.
I was travelling out in asia recently. People out there cant believe how far the west has fallen. People were actually saying to me so your govt is run by pedophiles then. Unbelievable.
I was travelling out in asia recently. People out there cant believe how far the west has fallen. People were actually saying to me so your govt is run by pedophiles then. Unbelievable.
I think the political reality is the contest to replace Starmer has to include Burnham. The polls clearly show he's most popular amongst Labour members and the public. Any new leader elected without him on the ballot will just have him looming over their shoulder from Day 1.
What happened to Hodges? Trumpian levels of neurological decline appear to be present.
Suspect it all goes back to Currygate.
Hodges has been waving his fist in the air and saying "I'll get you, Penelope Pitstop Keir Starmer" ever since.
I was travelling out in asia recently. People out there cant believe how far the west has fallen. People were actually saying to me so your govt is run by pedophiles then. Unbelievable.
What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
Starmer works 7 days a week
Don't believe the daily mail and telegraph crap, derived only from a throw away comment that he spent times with his kids on Friday6 nights when loto
Isn't it that his wife is Jewish and he likes the idea of 'family Friday nights'? What will happen when his son wants to go out on the pull (or something) on Friday nights I don't know. Although in my youth Friday night was, allegedly anyway, hair washing night.
It was one of the unfair lies told about Starmer from an innocent throw away comment. Mind you an element of laziness does enter the picture. Starmer took full delegation to the extreme. He was a "democratic style manager" who delegated away his authority. He should have held Reeves on a tight leash and realised he was McSweeney's boss and not the other way around.
The Mandelson business is what it is, but the overarching weak management is why his Prime Ministership has ultimately failed. The failure is very basic.
Ultimately, it’s about being in office and not in power.
Thatcher, Blair, Brown and Cameron were both in office and in power. No one doubted they ran the government. So when they delegated they were lending power *they* possessed.
Starmer delegated by allowing others to take the power that he himself didn’t have.
It’s hard to imagine any of the PMs on that list publicly complaining about being unable to do things.
That's not quite true. It was already becoming apparent in Cameron’s era that he did not hold all the power. There was a regularly commented on phenomenon of Cameron doing speeches summing up the zeitgeist and 'calling for' things. Yet he was Prime Minister, so was presumably in a position to implement policies, not call for them. This wasn't a coalition thing - it became particularly notable in the second term.
It was the result of a series of legislative changes implemented by Blair and Brown. Cameron, May and Boris made successively more. Each one has literally had less power than the last, so whilst we can point to how the character and qualities have declined, the role and its powers have also declined.
There was something else going on with Cameron, I think, which was he presided over a slightly bizarre version of Cabinet government. In Opposition, various ministers cooked up their own policies with apparently no collective discussion, which were then rammed through in government.
Hence Osborne not knowing about (and refusing to fund) IDS's welfare reforms; the whole Cabinet denying knowledge of Lansley's NHS reforms which were subsequently stepped back, at least in part; and even if the Cabinet agreed with Gove at education, it is unlikely they approved the means to the end (and Gove was relieved of his duties).
I was travelling out in asia recently. People out there cant believe how far the west has fallen. People were actually saying to me so your govt is run by pedophiles then. Unbelievable.
I agree with you, that does sound unbelievable.
Not really. In my gym steam room a guy mentioned the uk govt is run by pedophiles. Of the ten there not one dissented. Times truly are changing.
The implosion of the Labour right will accelerate the realignment of two-party politics around the contest between Reform and the Tories. Maybe Labour can survive as a minor party and aim to play kingmaker.
Is it Saturday already? What's the weather like in St Petersburg this morning?
I was travelling out in asia recently. People out there cant believe how far the west has fallen. People were actually saying to me so your govt is run by pedophiles then. Unbelievable.
Anywhere in particular in Asia... ?
The Ukrainian-Chinese border would be in Asia, wouldn't it?
I was travelling out in asia recently. People out there cant believe how far the west has fallen. People were actually saying to me so your govt is run by pedophiles then. Unbelievable.
Anywhere in particular in Asia... ?
The Ukrainian-Chinese border would be in Asia, wouldn't it?
The implosion of the Labour right will accelerate the realignment of two-party politics around the contest between Reform and the Tories. Maybe Labour can survive as a minor party and aim to play kingmaker.
Is it Saturday already? What's the weather like in St Petersburg this morning?
I was travelling out in asia recently. People out there cant believe how far the west has fallen. People were actually saying to me so your govt is run by pedophiles then. Unbelievable.
The implosion of the Labour right will accelerate the realignment of two-party politics around the contest between Reform and the Tories. Maybe Labour can survive as a minor party and aim to play kingmaker.
Is it Saturday already? What's the weather like in St Petersburg this morning?
Your paranoia strikes again.
You've fucked this one, mate. But surely there's still time to regenerate and come back as someone new today?
I was travelling out in asia recently. People out there cant believe how far the west has fallen. People were actually saying to me so your govt is run by pedophiles then. Unbelievable.
I agree with you, that does sound unbelievable.
Not really. In my gym steam room a guy mentioned the uk govt is run by pedophiles. Of the ten there not one dissented. Times truly are changing.
There was a woman on the radio in the morning in tears about the state of this country. This stuff is badly affecting people now the chaos and drift.
Welcome to PB, Mr. Lawson.
Having reached the History of Byzantium episode in which Constantinople falls forever, I think it's fair to say that things could be worse.
I’m off to do a bit of doorstep research in Gorton tomorrow. I’m quite looking forward to it.
I’m also expecting it to be more positive than today on PB.
I actually think Kier is doing okay and while I’ll be canvassing for t”Greens I’ll be listening carefully for this scary cut through destined to overturn those evil centrist scumbags in power.
Thank the Lord, Milliband is currently an also ran and Burnham isn't an MP. Too late for Cooper, too early for Mahmood. Rayner is in Zahawi- legal jeopardy which leaves Streeting.
I'd roll the dice on Rayner. It could go all Liz Truss, but it could work. Streeting is most likely continuity Sunak-Starmer.
I still favour Streeting as we speak but Rayner is in with a chance with me. Maybe it's time to bring the curtain down (and this time for good) on the Blair New Labour project. If that sort of politics, even well delivered, can't now beat Farage then we might have to look at something different.
That is my feeling. Mandelson has soiled New Labour to the point of extinction. He's Johnsoned the brand.
Ratner would be a better comparison.
The problem with the Mandelson scandal is that it reveals an essential truth about the New Labour project which there was previously a polite refusal to confront.
So how does Labour detoxify it. Simply throwing Mandelson to the Wolves and making out it’s just him won’t work.
I was very specific. The long term toxicity is in the New Labour brand.
Of course in the medium term Mandelson trashes Labour but by jettisoning the entire project they have a chance of repatriating the lefty vote. A tall order but possible. Remember Mandelson's treachery was aimed as much at his own Labour Government in Office as discrediting the nation.
You were very specific, but what if you're wrong? What if it's the Labiur brand rather than the new Labour brand he's trashed? Ask 100 people in the street for thoughta about Mandelson, I bet it's no more than 10 who identify him specifically with 'new labour' rather than just 'labour'. I'm certainly not hearing anyone say 'that new labour lot, they're dodgy as fuck, but the rest of the party is mustard'.
Some of you have your blue scarves tied so tightly around your necks it is cutting off the blood supply to your heads.
I have been remarkably circumspect. Of course Labour could be finished forever, a narrative which you are rooting for. I am suggesting that if they have any hope of survival they tack to the left.
Why do you assume anyone who doesn't support the Labour Party is a partisan Tory? Is it because you can't imagine any other reason for not being left wing but tribalism? I find this particularly strange for someone who I believe vites Lib Dem.
I only voted Lib Dem to mitigate Tory votes. Much the same as voting Labour, which I do here in the Vale. I will be voting Plaid in May to ensure Reform don't win in Wales. My scarf is anything but blue.
Well that is just as daftly tribal as what you are accusing others of. Most of us vote for whomever we perceive to be the beat option for each election.
And the best option in my opinion has always been to defeat the right wing candidate ( Jeremy Corbyn aside).
If you vote Conservative in a no hope seat when by voting Lib Dem to defeat Labour you could have ensured one less Labour MP you are not as bright as I assumed you were.
But you're assuming I'm as tribally anti-Labour aa you are anti-Conservative. (My view, FWIW, was that a solid Lab majority led by the moderate wing of the party was a better outcome for the country than a precarious one or a coalition). And anyway LD have less chance than Con around here.
I was travelling out in asia recently. People out there cant believe how far the west has fallen. People were actually saying to me so your govt is run by pedophiles then. Unbelievable.
I agree with you, that does sound unbelievable.
Not really. In my gym steam room a guy mentioned the uk govt is run by pedophiles. Of the ten there not one dissented. Times truly are changing.
The implosion of the Labour right will accelerate the realignment of two-party politics around the contest between Reform and the Tories. Maybe Labour can survive as a minor party and aim to play kingmaker.
Is it Saturday already? What's the weather like in St Petersburg this morning?
The implosion of the Labour right will accelerate the realignment of two-party politics around the contest between Reform and the Tories. Maybe Labour can survive as a minor party and aim to play kingmaker.
Is it Saturday already? What's the weather like in St Petersburg this morning?
Your paranoia strikes again.
You've fucked this one, mate. But surely there's still time to regenerate and come back as someone new today?
I could come back as you and spout midwit nonsense all day.
Dan Hodhes has totally lost it saying Epstein is a Russian asset when he clearly worked for the israelis. So wrong its laughable
Can we just reflect on the fact that you are doing such a poor job of this that people are calling you out on a criticism of... Dan Hodges. I mean, Dan Hodges FFS !
There was a woman on the radio in the morning in tears about the state of this country. This stuff is badly affecting people now the chaos and drift.
It's good to hear that Ukraine are wearing you all down. Although I doubt whether such a woman would have been allowed anywhere near the radio with those views.
You must be well into the afternoon or possibly evening shift by now.
I was travelling out in asia recently. People out there cant believe how far the west has fallen. People were actually saying to me so your govt is run by pedophiles then. Unbelievable.
I agree with you, that does sound unbelievable.
Not really. In my gym steam room a guy mentioned the uk govt is run by pedophiles. Of the ten there not one dissented. Times truly are changing.
Oh dear! According to the memoirs of former Stalybridge MP Tom Pendry, the selection of current Government Chief Whip Jonathan Reynolds as subsequent Labour candidate for the Stalybridge seat (and MP from 2010) was fixed by a chap called Peter Mandelson.
And so it begins
Not really.
Political fixes are commonplace irrespective of party. It is unfortunate for Reynolds was that his political fixer was quite possibly a traitor to both his party and his country.
I think its more the point that Mandelson is a proper wrong 'un and it will become more and more evident that he IS the Labour Party. They cannot escape his poison and will go down electorally and in public perception with him (albeit his travails are more literally legal problems)
What he has already f##ked up again today? I thought he didn't work Saturdays.
Starmer works 7 days a week
Don't believe the daily mail and telegraph crap, derived only from a throw away comment that he spent times with his kids on Friday6 nights when loto
Isn't it that his wife is Jewish and he likes the idea of 'family Friday nights'? What will happen when his son wants to go out on the pull (or something) on Friday nights I don't know. Although in my youth Friday night was, allegedly anyway, hair washing night.
It was one of the unfair lies told about Starmer from an innocent throw away comment. Mind you an element of laziness does enter the picture. Starmer took full delegation to the extreme. He was a "democratic style manager" who delegated away his authority. He should have held Reeves on a tight leash and realised he was McSweeney's boss and not the other way around.
The Mandelson business is what it is, but the overarching weak management is why his Prime Ministership has ultimately failed. The failure is very basic.
Ultimately, it’s about being in office and not in power.
Thatcher, Blair, Brown and Cameron were both in office and in power. No one doubted they ran the government. So when they delegated they were lending power *they* possessed.
Starmer delegated by allowing others to take the power that he himself didn’t have.
It’s hard to imagine any of the PMs on that list publicly complaining about being unable to do things.
That's not quite true. It was already becoming apparent in Cameron’s era that he did not hold all the power. There was a regularly commented on phenomenon of Cameron doing speeches summing up the zeitgeist and 'calling for' things. Yet he was Prime Minister, so was presumably in a position to implement policies, not call for them. This wasn't a coalition thing - it became particularly notable in the second term.
It was the result of a series of legislative changes implemented by Blair and Brown. Cameron, May and Boris made successively more. Each one has literally had less power than the last, so whilst we can point to how the character and qualities have declined, the role and its powers have also declined.
nah it been a failure across the political class for a few decades that they equate giving a speech to implementing changes. The lack of power is simply a skill issue.
The implosion of the Labour right will accelerate the realignment of two-party politics around the contest between Reform and the Tories. Maybe Labour can survive as a minor party and aim to play kingmaker.
Is it Saturday already? What's the weather like in St Petersburg this morning?
Your paranoia strikes again.
What is your view on the work of RFK Jnr?
Epstein and Bill Gates were collaborating on the pandemic as far back as 2015. Gates obviously has questions to answer. We live in such corrupt times in the west.
The implosion of the Labour right will accelerate the realignment of two-party politics around the contest between Reform and the Tories. Maybe Labour can survive as a minor party and aim to play kingmaker.
Is it Saturday already? What's the weather like in St Petersburg this morning?
Your paranoia strikes again.
You've fucked this one, mate. But surely there's still time to regenerate and come back as someone new today?
I could come back as you and spout midwit nonsense all day.
Starmer's main threat is now Rayner after he managed to block a Burnham return to Parliament before the next general election. Clearly on the Survation poll Rayner would now beat Starmer in a vote of Labour members.
So Starmer will be focused on ensuring she cannot get the 81 Labour MPs she requires to nominate her to challenge him for the leadership. Given most new Labour MPs elected in 2024 had to be Starmer loyalists to get past the NEC that should not be impossible. Starmer will then hope Streeting can be prepared longer term to be his heir apparent given Streeting is second favourite amongst Labour members on first preferences to be next Labour leader after Burnham and as Starmer still beats Streeting with members not a threat to him unlike Rayner
There was a woman on the radio in the morning in tears about the state of this country. This stuff is badly affecting people now the chaos and drift.
It's good to hear that Ukraine are wearing you all down. Although I doubt whether such a woman would have been allowed anywhere near the radio with those views.
You must be well into the afternoon or possibly evening shift by now.
Feel sorry for the poor people of ukraine freezing to death this winter. They badly need peace.
The implosion of the Labour right will accelerate the realignment of two-party politics around the contest between Reform and the Tories. Maybe Labour can survive as a minor party and aim to play kingmaker.
Is it Saturday already? What's the weather like in St Petersburg this morning?
Your paranoia strikes again.
You've fucked this one, mate. But surely there's still time to regenerate and come back as someone new today?
I could come back as you and spout midwit nonsense all day.
Oh dear! According to the memoirs of former Stalybridge MP Tom Pendry, the selection of current Government Chief Whip Jonathan Reynolds as subsequent Labour candidate for the Stalybridge seat (and MP from 2010) was fixed by a chap called Peter Mandelson.
And so it begins
Not really.
Political fixes are commonplace irrespective of party. It is unfortunate for Reynolds was that his political fixer was quite possibly a traitor to both his party and his country.
I think its more the point that Mandelson is a proper wrong 'un and it will become more and more evident that he IS the Labour Party. They cannot escape his poison and will go down electorally and in public perception with him (albeit his travails are more literally legal problems)
On a Profumo related note.
Thank you Lord Astor.
Occasionally the very obvious thing to say also happens to be correct.
Comments
Active on X, where he's relentlessly positive in a hearty but bland manner.
Otherwise there's absolutely nothing to suggest any ability to make a decent PM.
The assumption that military leadership is a template for political leadership is hardly infallible.
Two points. Mandelson's continued friendship with a vile criminal rapist and pervert puts him in the same line as a whole bunch of other mover and shaker perverts. That is not to defend him but contextualise his personal potential criminality that I will suggest in my second point.
As serving Business Secretary he provided sensitive insider information regarding Cabinet policy to a foreign financier. This is the hanging offence.
The key thing to remember, as an absent friend has said,
For those considering Sir Keir Starmer's potential replacement, NB since 1902 every Prime Minister who has ascended to that position, as opposed to being elected, has in the past been Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary or Chancellor of the Exchequer.
If that rule were followed here, that means we consider Reeves, Lammy, Cooper and Mahmood. That's a short list.
I'd also consider Miliband, as a former leader, and Rayner and Powell by virtue of their party role.
You'll note even Streeting is lightweight on this test.
https://bsky.app/profile/alastairmeeks.bsky.social/post/3me43zgithc2q
None of them look like an obvious upgrade for even a significantly damaged Starmer. So we wait for someone to develop sufficient political heft.
Mandelson hung out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker, took money from them, and appears* to have shared state secrets with Epstein.
* the only evidence that I am aware of is emails from the Epstein release. Those can be doctored but it’s most likely that Mandelson did leak sensitive information.
For the moment, however, we can perhaps wait for Starmer. If he delays (either selfishly clinging to office or nobly to take the flak for the locals in May) that might be time for Rayner's tax issue to go away.
Take my case. I'm Lab/LibDem, definitely not, and never have been, a Conservative supporter. I've voted at every election...... Council, County, National ..... since May 1959, and only once have I voted Conservative; when my father stood for the county council in the v. early 60's.
But, as things stand, at the next General Election, in this area it could well be Priti Patel or Reform, with Labour LibDem and Green very much also rans. Given that situation I might well feel it my duty to vote for Patel to try to stop Reform.
https://x.com/jdpoc/status/2019889507999367649?s=20
I thought you were a big fan of Leon's insightful posts. Often Avec capital letters and sans punctuation.
Profumo was not helped by this being the umpteenth in a series of spy scandals undermining the Conservative government: Burgess & Maclean; the Portland spy ring; George Blake; Vassall, the Admiralty spy; the defection of Kim Philby, the third man, who had previously been cleared by the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan.
Yes, I know the prevailing sentiment on here has been a mixture of anti-Labour and anti-politician for a while but I remember Starmer being attacked while his car was still on the way back from the Palace.
MY view on him is more one of disappointment than anger - large majorities often encourage radical thinking - Attlee and Thatcher's second term being good examples (and indeed you can even be radical with a small majority) but, as with Blair after 1997, Starner has been over cautious.
The truth is there were probably no radical ideas out there - the centre left as a whole has failed to come up with a coherent socio-economic policy since 2008 and the centre Right has run out of road with "austerity" so we drift with no one able or willing to come up with the ideas to promote growth in a demographically and technologically evolving society.
I'm convinced the ideas of the 20th century won't work in the 21st and we need some new thinking around wealth, the environment and the kind of society that works for us all, both young and old, both those who were born here and those who have chosen to make the UK their home.
There's little sign of that thinking in Reform, Conservative, LDs and Greens if I'm being truthful and Badenoch as Prime Minister would simply move some different chairs around but I don't accept the notion of managed decline. This is still a wonderful country and a good time to be alive for many but too many fall through the cracks and we need to address those issues of child poverty, housing poverty and the technological challenges to existing forms of work and education rather than simply cheering their demise.
There's also something about the nature of power the Mandelson saga has uncovered - the "powerful" have always had influence through networking and that's as true in a democracy as it is a dictatorship. I sense though just as there was a revulsion to Truss's economic policies on the notion of "fairness", many feel Epstein, Mandelson and those like them (and this reverberates through other scandals such as the Post Office) are somehow able to circumvent the notions of accountability and responsibility by which most of us have to live (or choose to live).
There's a growing desire for an Augean-style cleansing of the stables though that often masquerades as a new "elite" replacing the old (that is the truth of Communism, Fascism and Populism).
He was a bit like Massive in that respect, whom Hyufd has conveniently forgotten would have been expelled from the Commons if he hadn't resigned.
Apparently this has cut through to 95% of the public which is astonishing and had this been a conservative PM then Starmer would have gone for the jugular, as he did
It doesnt matter how tribal, or how bad the spelling, or shouting in capitals, the public will deliver their verdict in the ballot box in the next few months especially here in Wales
To be fair @Mexicanpete and @BatteryCorrectHorse have been realistic and realise Starmer has erred on this
The difference between Profumo and Mandelson is Profumo was a junior minister whereas Mandelson was Deputy Prime Minister. Mandelson's misdeeds probably extend into his days at the European Commission. From that point of view the Mandelson scandal is far, far worse. It's a sort of John Stonehouse on steroids. Profumo saw his days out as a charitable benefactor. I don't see Mandelson retrieving his reputation through good deeds.
I do hope if we see a Reform government I am still alive to see how that foreign espionage scandal pans out.
But yes, you are right that Profumo did lie to the Commons.
The electorate made the right decision then, and they'd make it again today.
Consensus seems to be forming within the Cabinet and PLP. Starmer cannot continue. But it is too soon for an immediate leadership contest. Suspect the resolution of the crisis rests in aligning these two realities.
The power of inertia is strong. If they delay, he may remain.
Perhaps the May locals will be the deciding factor and again I'd be looking at Labour's performance in London in particular as a guide to how party sentiment might move.
IF Labour loses a swathe of councils, that could be the tipping point.
That’s very kind.
Oh dear! According to the memoirs of former Stalybridge MP Tom Pendry, the selection of current Government Chief Whip Jonathan Reynolds as subsequent Labour candidate for the Stalybridge seat (and MP from 2010) was fixed by a chap called Peter Mandelson.
So we may get a few 'lose 10 but hold' (noting i havent checked what majorities they have)
*That is not a sleight on the PB commentariat.
It was the result of a series of legislative changes implemented by Blair and Brown. Cameron, May and Boris made successively more. Each one has literally had less power than the last, so whilst we can point to how the character and qualities have declined, the role and its powers have also declined.
Trebles all round
Political fixes are commonplace irrespective of party. It is unfortunate for Reynolds was that his political fixer was quite possibly a traitor to both his party and his country.
Non London Councils - losing more than half of the 33 they control
Scotland - i think third is priced in and cant see any lower but fourth is game over but Scotand likely least damaging deep wound
Wales - behind Tories on votes or seats
London - not first on votes, lose swathes of councils
I think the political reality is the contest to replace Starmer has to include Burnham. The polls clearly show he's most popular amongst Labour members and the public. Any new leader elected without him on the ballot will just have him looming over their shoulder from Day 1.
Starmer has to go a) because he is not up to the job rather than b) he made a particularly unwise appointment. When the two combine there is no alternative but to fall on his sword. I would hope Starmer realises this and is engaged this weekend with smoothing out his managed transition from the role of Prime Minister.
This emergent dewy eyed reverence for martial prowess by our political class is misplaced and essentially quite stupid.
Having reached the History of Byzantium episode in which Constantinople falls forever, I think it's fair to say that things could be worse.
I've voted Tory more often than anyone else, but not because they are my team or because I identify with that party - but because historically of all the parties with a relaistic chance of winning they most accord with how I want to see the country run. But I voted for an 'other' in 2024, and in any forthcoming GM mayoral election I'd be voting Labour - and if there was a by-election in ky constituency tomorrow I'd probably vote Labour because my perception is that that would lead to a better outcome than a Reform MP. But again, that's nota tribal rejection of Reform - just a preference for Lab over Ref at the moment. And of courae, that coule change if Lab selected someone Corbyn-adjacent.
Hodges has been waving his fist in the air and saying "I'll get you, Penelope Pitstop Keir Starmer" ever since.
Hence Osborne not knowing about (and refusing to fund) IDS's welfare reforms; the whole Cabinet denying knowledge of Lansley's NHS reforms which were subsequently stepped back, at least in part; and even if the Cabinet agreed with Gove at education, it is unlikely they approved the means to the end (and Gove was relieved of his duties).
I’m also expecting it to be more positive than today on PB.
I actually think Kier is doing okay and while I’ll be canvassing for t”Greens I’ll be listening carefully for this scary cut through destined to overturn those evil centrist scumbags in power.
And anyway LD have less chance than Con around here.
You must be well into the afternoon or possibly evening shift by now.
Thank you Lord Astor.
So Starmer will be focused on ensuring she cannot get the 81 Labour MPs she requires to nominate her to challenge him for the leadership. Given most new Labour MPs elected in 2024 had to be Starmer loyalists to get past the NEC that should not be impossible. Starmer will then hope Streeting can be prepared longer term to be his heir apparent given Streeting is second favourite amongst
Labour members on first preferences to be next Labour
leader after Burnham and as Starmer still beats Streeting with members not a threat to him unlike Rayner
Sometimes i'm always right