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
Oh good grief, what is it with certain lefties that are so conspiratorial and obsessed the media is out to get them?
Yes the media is negative against Starmer and you do not like that.
However the media was negative against Sunak, and Truss, and Boris, and May, and Cameron.
When the media is attacking Starmer its an outrage, but when the media is making lettuce comparisons you love it.
The media is negative against whoever is in power. It goes with the territory. Suck it up, buttercup.
lol - glossing over the entire tory press ejacualting over the whole 'finally a conservative budget' with Truss aren't we.
While the anti-Tory press hammered her.
Swings and roundabouts.
Whoever is in power always has people gunning after them. Especially the papers backed by their ideological opponents.
You can't legitimately complain about the Sun, Telegraph, Mail and Express going after Starmer if you were happy to see the Mirror, Guardian, Independent and Star going after Truss et al.
You can, though, when it's the same journalists who praised Mandelson's appointment as "brilliant".
The buck stops in Downing Street, not Fleet Street.
The Press has always been happy to build people up, then knock them down.
The occasional Russian troll does make you appreciate how corrupted many other more mainstream platforms must be where they are targeted more and are happy not to bother banning.
Not to mention I don't think they're sending us their best.
PB must be the North Face Of The Eiger for aspiring trolls.
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
Oh good grief, what is it with certain lefties that are so conspiratorial and obsessed the media is out to get them?
Yes the media is negative against Starmer and you do not like that.
However the media was negative against Sunak, and Truss, and Boris, and May, and Cameron.
When the media is attacking Starmer its an outrage, but when the media is making lettuce comparisons you love it.
The media is negative against whoever is in power. It goes with the territory. Suck it up, buttercup.
lol - glossing over the entire tory press ejacualting over the whole 'finally a conservative budget' with Truss aren't we.
While the anti-Tory press hammered her.
Swings and roundabouts.
Whoever is in power always has people gunning after them. Especially the papers backed by their ideological opponents.
You can't legitimately complain about the Sun, Telegraph, Mail and Express going after Starmer if you were happy to see the Mirror, Guardian, Independent and Star going after Truss et al.
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
Oh good grief, what is it with certain lefties that are so conspiratorial and obsessed the media is out to get them?
Yes the media is negative against Starmer and you do not like that.
However the media was negative against Sunak, and Truss, and Boris, and May, and Cameron.
When the media is attacking Starmer its an outrage, but when the media is making lettuce comparisons you love it.
The media is negative against whoever is in power. It goes with the territory. Suck it up, buttercup.
lol - glossing over the entire tory press ejacualting over the whole 'finally a conservative budget' with Truss aren't we.
While the anti-Tory press hammered her.
Swings and roundabouts.
Whoever is in power always has people gunning after them. Especially the papers backed by their ideological opponents.
You can't legitimately complain about the Sun, Telegraph, Mail and Express going after Starmer if you were happy to see the Mirror, Guardian, Independent and Star going after Truss et al.
At the risk of being seen to defend Sir Keir, this Mandelson thing is being a bit overblown isn't it? Yes, he appointed a friend of a paedophile to a prominent position, but he didn't appoint A PAEDOPHILE, the friend's job was nothing to do with access to young children, and Epstein was long dead anyway... Politics is a dirty game and Starmer played it by sending someone he knew was a bit crooked to deal with someone he thinks of as a bit crooked. If he'd sent the equivalent of Lisa Nandy and she had been chewed up and spat out by Trump and his team, we would be saying the PM had been naive, hence so many commentators saying Mandy was an inspired choice to deal with a unique case
The error of judgement from the governing point of view was appointing a serial resigner on ethics grounds (with multiple other scandals) without a full financial and contact background check.
Each of his assertions about length of contact etc should have been tested.
This would have discovered the fact that the appointee was a massive security problem and fundamentally disloyal to multiple PMs, the Labour Party and the country.
From the political point of view the failure to dig into the background left uncovered the fact that the “I didn’t know because I am gay” excuse is up there with sweating in a Pizza Express
I remember when that bloke George Osborne got booed at the Olymipics. Whatever happened to him?
He was bullied out of politics by a woman with a personality problem and is no longer around when we need a competent PM to deal with our serious problems. Which, is unfortunate.
I don't think Osborne was particularly competent by most standards - he only seems like a Titan compared to the current incumbents of Nos 10 and 11. Adopting Blairite policies was politically expedient in the short term, but it has sentenced the country to twenty years of weak or no growth, and a doom loop of ever rising taxes and crumbling public services.
Fiscal usterity was almost certainly too tight, based on an overestimate of the Keynesian multiplier, and relieved by an unsustainable monetary policy.
The Northern Powerhouse initiative, aimed at throwing yet further cash to regions drowning in government subsidies was completely misconceived.
His interventions in the housing market were disastrous and perverse, aimed at boosting and redistributing demand, rather than increasing supply.
He didn't oppose the hugely damaging green agenda, which has, amongst other things, given us the most expensive electricity in the world.
He wasn't a complete failure or disaster, unlike the current incumbents - cutting business taxes was a good idea for instance. But, overall, I'd say he's a prime exhibit of the failed centrist political class.
President Trump's former chief of staff @MickMulvaney tells me this just cost the GOP the midterms in the House.
"I talked to several House members that are just besides themselves and they don't know how they're going to handle it on the road," @MickMulvaney told me moments ago.
He said the post could have been done by a staffer, but it was done at nearly midnight and there's only two other people that Mulvaney knows of that have access to that account.
Mulvaney said if I'm the chief of staff, I got to the President, I say it was such and such staffer, it's this person he's been fired, he's no longer working for the trump administration and Mulvaney says he would offer his resignation as chief of staff.
Sienna Rodgers @siennamarla NEW: Where potential successors stand at the end of a torrid week for PM
— Burnham supporters given up on him getting a seat under this leadership despite another GM one rumoured to become vacant soon — Some still on the Wes train & insist he understands deep rethink required – but others say Streeting too damaged by Mandelson scandal — There’s ‘Al-mentum’ behind Carns – but total lack of experience. He “would be a more right-wing PM than Thatcher” reckons one MP — Rayner still in lead but frozen by HMRC & some supporters worry about her “credibility” even after it wraps up — other options floated by soft left include Lucy Powell, Ed Miliband — surprise idea: John Healey as a “unifying figure” post-May
The holders of the Great Offices of State don't even get a mention.
I think Mahmood would be more than capable, but too many of the membership would have palpitations.
I think Mahmood might be very good. In betting terms, not WRT my own views, when you consider how it has given problems to a quite mainstream moderate evangelical like Tim Farron, occupying a small party leader position, is the party/country yet ready for a very committed Muslim PM? Do we have depth insight into exactly where she is on a few issues where mainstream Islamic opinion and majority UK opinion (ignoring all extremes) come into a degree of conflict?
President Trump's former chief of staff @MickMulvaney tells me this just cost the GOP the midterms in the House.
"I talked to several House members that are just besides themselves and they don't know how they're going to handle it on the road," @MickMulvaney told me moments ago.
He said the post could have been done by a staffer, but it was done at nearly midnight and there's only two other people that Mulvaney knows of that have access to that account.
Mulvaney said if I'm the chief of staff, I got to the President, I say it was such and such staffer, it's this person he's been fired, he's no longer working for the trump administration and Mulvaney says he would offer his resignation as chief of staff.
In a normal country having a staffer who did this whether accidentally or not, would be a major crisis right to the very top level: How is it possible that a person who can imagine and create this gets employed? The reputational damage would last years.
In a related matter, it seems clear that in the USA currently Mandelson's misdeeds if done by a Trump trusty wouldn't really be registering.
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!
President Trump's former chief of staff @MickMulvaney tells me this just cost the GOP the midterms in the House.
"I talked to several House members that are just besides themselves and they don't know how they're going to handle it on the road," @MickMulvaney told me moments ago.
He said the post could have been done by a staffer, but it was done at nearly midnight and there's only two other people that Mulvaney knows of that have access to that account.
Mulvaney said if I'm the chief of staff, I got to the President, I say it was such and such staffer, it's this person he's been fired, he's no longer working for the trump administration and Mulvaney says he would offer his resignation as chief of staff.
In a normal country having a staffer who did this whether accidentally or not, would be a major crisis right to the very top level: How is it possible that a person who can imagine and create this gets employed? The reputational damage would last years.
In a related matter, it seems clear that in the USA currently Mandelson's misdeeds if done by a Trump trusty wouldn't really be registering.
Wasn’t it an auto play at the end of a different video?
Ticking off PMs in my head, and I'm down to a shortlist of two.
Hmm.
I wandered into Balliol JCR one day in search of its subsidised breakfast granola-and-Nescafé offering and found a shiny glamazon with naughty eyes holding court astride a table, a high-heeled boot resting on my brother Boris’s thigh.
President Trump's former chief of staff @MickMulvaney tells me this just cost the GOP the midterms in the House.
"I talked to several House members that are just besides themselves and they don't know how they're going to handle it on the road," @MickMulvaney told me moments ago.
He said the post could have been done by a staffer, but it was done at nearly midnight and there's only two other people that Mulvaney knows of that have access to that account.
Mulvaney said if I'm the chief of staff, I got to the President, I say it was such and such staffer, it's this person he's been fired, he's no longer working for the trump administration and Mulvaney says he would offer his resignation as chief of staff.
In a normal country having a staffer who did this whether accidentally or not, would be a major crisis right to the very top level: How is it possible that a person who can imagine and create this gets employed? The reputational damage would last years.
In a related matter, it seems clear that in the USA currently Mandelson's misdeeds if done by a Trump trusty wouldn't really be registering.
It would depend on the staffer - if this was a one off for the staffer, no previous, then I could see the staffer binned, fulsome apology from the PM, case closed.
Otherwise it would blow up.
And rightly. There is no excuse or need for this shit.
Just like zero tolerance on those who abuse women is the way to stamp it out.
At the risk of being seen to defend Sir Keir, this Mandelson thing is being a bit overblown isn't it? Yes, he appointed a friend of a paedophile to a prominent position, but he didn't appoint A PAEDOPHILE, the friend's job was nothing to do with access to young children, and Epstein was long dead anyway... Politics is a dirty game and Starmer played it by sending someone he knew was a bit crooked to deal with someone he thinks of as a bit crooked. If he'd sent the equivalent of Lisa Nandy and she had been chewed up and spat out by Trump and his team, we would be saying the PM had been naive, hence so many commentators saying Mandy was an inspired choice to deal with a unique case
Though there is a point here, there are two difficulties. Firsltly, goose and gander. Do you really think that if Sunak had been PM in this position that Starmer would have taken Isam's nuanced position, or would he have gone for the self righteous jugular? Take a guess.
Secondly, the model to follow in appointing people to deal with the USA under Trump is not dark arts people, or indeed nice and ineffective people, but Mark Carney. Names come to mind - Miliband D, Cameron, Osborne, and no doubt lots of less well known diplomats and career civil servants or CEOs.
President Trump's former chief of staff @MickMulvaney tells me this just cost the GOP the midterms in the House.
"I talked to several House members that are just besides themselves and they don't know how they're going to handle it on the road," @MickMulvaney told me moments ago.
He said the post could have been done by a staffer, but it was done at nearly midnight and there's only two other people that Mulvaney knows of that have access to that account.
Mulvaney said if I'm the chief of staff, I got to the President, I say it was such and such staffer, it's this person he's been fired, he's no longer working for the trump administration and Mulvaney says he would offer his resignation as chief of staff.
In a normal country having a staffer who did this whether accidentally or not, would be a major crisis right to the very top level: How is it possible that a person who can imagine and create this gets employed? The reputational damage would last years.
In a related matter, it seems clear that in the USA currently Mandelson's misdeeds if done by a Trump trusty wouldn't really be registering.
Yeah, this post was made before Trump spoke to reporters last night and said he told them to post it and has no regrets...
President Trump's former chief of staff @MickMulvaney tells me this just cost the GOP the midterms in the House.
"I talked to several House members that are just besides themselves and they don't know how they're going to handle it on the road," @MickMulvaney told me moments ago.
He said the post could have been done by a staffer, but it was done at nearly midnight and there's only two other people that Mulvaney knows of that have access to that account.
Mulvaney said if I'm the chief of staff, I got to the President, I say it was such and such staffer, it's this person he's been fired, he's no longer working for the trump administration and Mulvaney says he would offer his resignation as chief of staff.
In a normal country having a staffer who did this whether accidentally or not, would be a major crisis right to the very top level: How is it possible that a person who can imagine and create this gets employed? The reputational damage would last years.
In a related matter, it seems clear that in the USA currently Mandelson's misdeeds if done by a Trump trusty wouldn't really be registering.
Wasn’t it an auto play at the end of a different video?
It was a stupid, vulgar video. What a ridiculous palaver
Ticking off PMs in my head, and I'm down to a shortlist of two.
Unlikely, I would thought, to be May!
Who knows, one night you are running with abandon through wheatfields and before you know it you are in wild chemsex parties with Ghislaine Maxwell and a dwarf hung like a donkey.
President Trump's former chief of staff @MickMulvaney tells me this just cost the GOP the midterms in the House.
"I talked to several House members that are just besides themselves and they don't know how they're going to handle it on the road," @MickMulvaney told me moments ago.
He said the post could have been done by a staffer, but it was done at nearly midnight and there's only two other people that Mulvaney knows of that have access to that account.
Mulvaney said if I'm the chief of staff, I got to the President, I say it was such and such staffer, it's this person he's been fired, he's no longer working for the trump administration and Mulvaney says he would offer his resignation as chief of staff.
In a normal country having a staffer who did this whether accidentally or not, would be a major crisis right to the very top level: How is it possible that a person who can imagine and create this gets employed? The reputational damage would last years.
In a related matter, it seems clear that in the USA currently Mandelson's misdeeds if done by a Trump trusty wouldn't really be registering.
It would depend on the staffer - if this was a one off for the staffer, no previous, then I could see the staffer binned, fulsome apology from the PM, case closed.
Otherwise it would blow up.
And rightly. There is no excuse or need for this shit.
Just like zero tolerance on those who abuse women is the way to stamp it out.
A staffer with the power to put up a social media post to an audience of 8 billion can't be allowed a social media mistake of the sort which goes to basic character and elementary morals of the sort that would probably be understood by Mandelson and Maxwell.
Ticking off PMs in my head, and I'm down to a shortlist of two.
Andrew Lownie has been good on the grifting and Epstein links of Prince Andrew. He could have owned this story but whenever he is on, instead of the scandals, he ends up whining about the FoI Act.
Ticking off PMs in my head, and I'm down to a shortlist of two.
Unlikely, I would thought, to be May!
Who knows, one night you are running with abandon through wheatfields and before you know it you are in wild chemsex parties with Ghislaine Maxwell and a dwarf hung like a donkey.
Ticking off PMs in my head, and I'm down to a shortlist of two.
Unlikely, I would thought, to be May!
Who knows, one night you are running with abandon through wheatfields and before you know it you are in wild chemsex parties with Ghislaine Maxwell and a dwarf hung like a donkey.
You might be right, I suppose.
I can’t recall ever being wrong about anything, ever.
Let's hope the first post is true and this is the last panicky gasp of a collapsing empire.
But, targeting systems that are nuclear powered? That could easily be catastrophic. Putin backed off from that when Biden was in the White House, of course, after Biden and Xi made threats. But with Trump?
If you look at the premiership table and rival form in the last few fixtures at this very moment, (half time, 1-0) I think it justifies my view that ManU for the title are value at about 50/1.
Ticking off PMs in my head, and I'm down to a shortlist of two.
Unlikely, I would thought, to be May!
Who knows, one night you are running with abandon through wheatfields and before you know it you are in wild chemsex parties with Ghislaine Maxwell and a dwarf hung like a donkey.
You might be right, I suppose.
I can’t recall ever being wrong about anything, ever.
Ticking off PMs in my head, and I'm down to a shortlist of two.
Unlikely, I would thought, to be May!
Who knows, one night you are running with abandon through wheatfields and before you know it you are in wild chemsex parties with Ghislaine Maxwell and a dwarf hung like a donkey.
You might be right, I suppose.
I can’t recall ever being wrong about anything, ever.
You obviously cannot be married.
Boulay could be the female of the species, then it fits.
President Trump's former chief of staff @MickMulvaney tells me this just cost the GOP the midterms in the House.
"I talked to several House members that are just besides themselves and they don't know how they're going to handle it on the road," @MickMulvaney told me moments ago.
He said the post could have been done by a staffer, but it was done at nearly midnight and there's only two other people that Mulvaney knows of that have access to that account.
Mulvaney said if I'm the chief of staff, I got to the President, I say it was such and such staffer, it's this person he's been fired, he's no longer working for the trump administration and Mulvaney says he would offer his resignation as chief of staff.
In a normal country having a staffer who did this whether accidentally or not, would be a major crisis right to the very top level: How is it possible that a person who can imagine and create this gets employed? The reputational damage would last years.
In a related matter, it seems clear that in the USA currently Mandelson's misdeeds if done by a Trump trusty wouldn't really be registering.
It would depend on the staffer - if this was a one off for the staffer, no previous, then I could see the staffer binned, fulsome apology from the PM, case closed.
Otherwise it would blow up.
And rightly. There is no excuse or need for this shit.
Just like zero tolerance on those who abuse women is the way to stamp it out.
But it wasn't a staffer, was it? It was Trump, scrolling through his feed late at night and hitting the wrong button because he's old and doddery and his finger slipped. Or, alternatively, because with his drugs wearing off he thought it was really funny and everyone would agree.
But that can't be said out loud because everyone is scared shitless of the Fascist paedo protector.*
President Trump's former chief of staff @MickMulvaney tells me this just cost the GOP the midterms in the House.
"I talked to several House members that are just besides themselves and they don't know how they're going to handle it on the road," @MickMulvaney told me moments ago.
He said the post could have been done by a staffer, but it was done at nearly midnight and there's only two other people that Mulvaney knows of that have access to that account.
Mulvaney said if I'm the chief of staff, I got to the President, I say it was such and such staffer, it's this person he's been fired, he's no longer working for the trump administration and Mulvaney says he would offer his resignation as chief of staff.
In a normal country having a staffer who did this whether accidentally or not, would be a major crisis right to the very top level: How is it possible that a person who can imagine and create this gets employed? The reputational damage would last years.
In a related matter, it seems clear that in the USA currently Mandelson's misdeeds if done by a Trump trusty wouldn't really be registering.
It would depend on the staffer - if this was a one off for the staffer, no previous, then I could see the staffer binned, fulsome apology from the PM, case closed.
Otherwise it would blow up.
And rightly. There is no excuse or need for this shit.
Just like zero tolerance on those who abuse women is the way to stamp it out.
A staffer with the power to put up a social media post to an audience of 8 billion can't be allowed a social media mistake of the sort which goes to basic character and elementary morals of the sort that would probably be understood by Mandelson and Maxwell.
My guess is it was passed to Trump who posted it himself without watching it all the way through. The Obamas appear right at the end of a dull explanation of vote machine fraud, and there is no obvious connection. I could even be convinced whoever created the clip did not notice the Obamas.
We've had similar scandals here when politicians forward or like tweets but then get skewered because there's a bad comment somewhere in the chain. Even on pb, the late lamented Plato would regularly post links she'd clearly not followed herself and was mindless pasting from alt-right sources, and she was not alone in that.
If you look at the premiership table and rival form in the last few fixtures at this very moment, (half time, 1-0) I think it justifies my view that ManU for the title are value at about 50/1.
Why so? They are (as things stand right now) 9 points behind arsenal having played a game more. They would need Arsenal to lose four of their last 12 games to draw level with them presuming Man Utd keep winning all their games which is neither a given nor likely.
They have a new manager bounce and set-up which other managers will be starting to be able to properly analyse which will have an effect.
Their rivals might also hit a run of form and go on winning runs which isn’t unlikely with Man City or Liverpool and possibly even Chelsea.
I think even at 50/1 you would be throwing your money away.
President Trump's former chief of staff @MickMulvaney tells me this just cost the GOP the midterms in the House.
"I talked to several House members that are just besides themselves and they don't know how they're going to handle it on the road," @MickMulvaney told me moments ago.
He said the post could have been done by a staffer, but it was done at nearly midnight and there's only two other people that Mulvaney knows of that have access to that account.
Mulvaney said if I'm the chief of staff, I got to the President, I say it was such and such staffer, it's this person he's been fired, he's no longer working for the trump administration and Mulvaney says he would offer his resignation as chief of staff.
In a normal country having a staffer who did this whether accidentally or not, would be a major crisis right to the very top level: How is it possible that a person who can imagine and create this gets employed? The reputational damage would last years.
In a related matter, it seems clear that in the USA currently Mandelson's misdeeds if done by a Trump trusty wouldn't really be registering.
It would depend on the staffer - if this was a one off for the staffer, no previous, then I could see the staffer binned, fulsome apology from the PM, case closed.
Otherwise it would blow up.
And rightly. There is no excuse or need for this shit.
Just like zero tolerance on those who abuse women is the way to stamp it out.
A staffer with the power to put up a social media post to an audience of 8 billion can't be allowed a social media mistake of the sort which goes to basic character and elementary morals of the sort that would probably be understood by Mandelson and Maxwell.
Well, if it was me as PM, I’d mandate a special interface for the No.10 social media accounts - need approvals from x number of people to post.
But if someone does crazy shit out of the blue, first time ever, that’s a one day news story.
President Trump's former chief of staff @MickMulvaney tells me this just cost the GOP the midterms in the House.
"I talked to several House members that are just besides themselves and they don't know how they're going to handle it on the road," @MickMulvaney told me moments ago.
He said the post could have been done by a staffer, but it was done at nearly midnight and there's only two other people that Mulvaney knows of that have access to that account.
Mulvaney said if I'm the chief of staff, I got to the President, I say it was such and such staffer, it's this person he's been fired, he's no longer working for the trump administration and Mulvaney says he would offer his resignation as chief of staff.
In a normal country having a staffer who did this whether accidentally or not, would be a major crisis right to the very top level: How is it possible that a person who can imagine and create this gets employed? The reputational damage would last years.
In a related matter, it seems clear that in the USA currently Mandelson's misdeeds if done by a Trump trusty wouldn't really be registering.
It would depend on the staffer - if this was a one off for the staffer, no previous, then I could see the staffer binned, fulsome apology from the PM, case closed.
Otherwise it would blow up.
And rightly. There is no excuse or need for this shit.
Just like zero tolerance on those who abuse women is the way to stamp it out.
A staffer with the power to put up a social media post to an audience of 8 billion can't be allowed a social media mistake of the sort which goes to basic character and elementary morals of the sort that would probably be understood by Mandelson and Maxwell.
Well, if it was me as PM, I’d mandate a special interface for the No.10 social media accounts - need approvals from x number of people to post.
But if someone does crazy shit out of the blue, first time ever, that’s a one day news story.
If it was at Oxford in student days and consensual and pre Epstein, who cares other than gossips?
You will if it turns out to be a Labour PM.
I wouldn't then either provided it was consensual, in any case it wouldn't as Blair was at Oxford well before Maxwell was and Starmer did a one year postgrad there the year after she graduated
Some classic BBC equivocation on Vance getting booed at the Olympic opening ceremony:
‘Some of the audience applauded the vice president’
His ICE security detail?
Didn't Osborne get booed at the London Olympics? Seems to be fair enough when a politician is out and about.
I think that the UK political audience is typically less respectful than the US. So it was unusual for Osborne but all part of the rough & tumble. But - assuming the boo-ers were US - then it’s more significant for Vance.
If the boo-ers were non American then it’s basically rude and disrespectful to a representative of a foreign country. They don’t have a dog in the hunt (although where Noem is concerned that may be a good thing!)
Reform in trouble for anonymous election leaflets in Gorton. The old lady who lent her name to the letter wasn't shoen what they'd written. Reform campaign run by people who take advantage of old people, huge shock. I hope someone's checked that she hasn't put all her savings in Farage gold bonds or agreed to a new roof after they cleared her gutters for her.
I wonder whether they've picked up on this as a tactic and are, or maybe were, planning to, send out a selection of these, purporting to come from 'someone' nearby.
story says they had the legal imprint but then the printer screwed up tbf still if any other party did this farage wouldn't just shrug his shoulders
There no “tbf”. They were responsible for the printer’s work
Some classic BBC equivocation on Vance getting booed at the Olympic opening ceremony:
‘Some of the audience applauded the vice president’
His ICE security detail?
Didn't Osborne get booed at the London Olympics? Seems to be fair enough when a politician is out and about.
I think that the UK political audience is typically less respectful than the US. So it was unusual for Osborne but all part of the rough & tumble. But - assuming the boo-ers were US - then it’s more significant for Vance.
If the boo-ers were non American then it’s basically rude and disrespectful to a representative of a foreign country. They don’t have a dog in the hunt (although where Noem is concerned that may be a good thing!)
rude and disrespectful cuts both ways, and america has established the tone
If it was at Oxford in student days and consensual and pre Epstein, who cares other than gossips?
You will if it turns out to be a Labour PM.
Boris and Ghislaine were at Balliol (Oxford) at the same time, and have long been linked. Whether there was actually a threesome, who knows? We're into Cameron's initiation level speculation.
If it was at Oxford in student days and consensual and pre Epstein, who cares other than gossips?
This is a game for any number of players. Here's someone wondering why children can be killed with impunity in Gaza by the same people who are now trying to distance themselves from Epstein, An interesting look at Palantir might be next on the list as might a look at Ehud Barack who features strongly in Virginia Guffre's book
President Trump's former chief of staff @MickMulvaney tells me this just cost the GOP the midterms in the House.
"I talked to several House members that are just besides themselves and they don't know how they're going to handle it on the road," @MickMulvaney told me moments ago.
He said the post could have been done by a staffer, but it was done at nearly midnight and there's only two other people that Mulvaney knows of that have access to that account.
Mulvaney said if I'm the chief of staff, I got to the President, I say it was such and such staffer, it's this person he's been fired, he's no longer working for the trump administration and Mulvaney says he would offer his resignation as chief of staff.
In a normal country having a staffer who did this whether accidentally or not, would be a major crisis right to the very top level: How is it possible that a person who can imagine and create this gets employed? The reputational damage would last years.
In a related matter, it seems clear that in the USA currently Mandelson's misdeeds if done by a Trump trusty wouldn't really be registering.
It would depend on the staffer - if this was a one off for the staffer, no previous, then I could see the staffer binned, fulsome apology from the PM, case closed.
Otherwise it would blow up.
And rightly. There is no excuse or need for this shit.
Just like zero tolerance on those who abuse women is the way to stamp it out.
A staffer with the power to put up a social media post to an audience of 8 billion can't be allowed a social media mistake of the sort which goes to basic character and elementary morals of the sort that would probably be understood by Mandelson and Maxwell.
Well, if it was me as PM, I’d mandate a special interface for the No.10 social media accounts - need approvals from x number of people to post.
But if someone does crazy shit out of the blue, first time ever, that’s a one day news story.
If it's Trump that objection doesn't apply.
Exactly - one staffer going nuts vs Trump doing racist, stupid shit every fucking day.
An interesting link, thank you for posting. However, he made one error:
The prospect of another change in PM looms, the seventh new face in No 10 in ten years: if the scandal doesn’t directly bring down Sir Keir Starmer, it is likely to contribute significantly to his eclipse. This rate of churn is unknown in British history.
The period 1827-1837 saw Liverpool, Canning, Goderich, Wellington, Grey, Melbourne, Peel, Melbourne as PM. That's not counting two occasions Wellington was offered and declined the chance to form an administration.
The period 1850-1860 saw Russell, Derby, Aberdeen, Palmerston, Derby, Palmerston again.
The period from 1756 to 1766 saw Devonshire, Newcastle, Devonshire, Bute, Grenville and Rockingham - one year more adds Grafton to that list.
The period 1916 to 1926 saw Asquith, Lloyd George, Bonar Law, Baldwin, Macdonald and Baldwin.
Even 1963-74 comes close, with Macmillan, Home, Wilson, Heath and Home again - add two years and we get Callaghan.
So we have had periods of chronic political instability in the past, some even worse than this (in 1800 and 1916 we were at war)!
This feels worse because with Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron we had three people who were at the top for a considerable length of time so Brown felt like an aberration not the start of a trend.
Apart from the poor optics, it is a legal requirement that a Senedd candidate resides in Wales......
This could be awkward!!
Just catching up on the story about Martin Shipton the new Ref UK leader in Wales who has his house in Bath. He's been spinning yarns about moving to "Wales" for months and months.
Is there a single senior Reform figure with even a shred of self-respect?
OT I've accidentally put my weight on my elbow and rolled over it last night, which was very, very painful with a loud click. But afterwards I can now straighten my arm for the first time in years since catching a server falling from a datacentre rack. Does that make me an osteopath? Where is the free sex?
President Trump's former chief of staff @MickMulvaney tells me this just cost the GOP the midterms in the House.
"I talked to several House members that are just besides themselves and they don't know how they're going to handle it on the road," @MickMulvaney told me moments ago.
He said the post could have been done by a staffer, but it was done at nearly midnight and there's only two other people that Mulvaney knows of that have access to that account.
Mulvaney said if I'm the chief of staff, I got to the President, I say it was such and such staffer, it's this person he's been fired, he's no longer working for the trump administration and Mulvaney says he would offer his resignation as chief of staff.
In a normal country having a staffer who did this whether accidentally or not, would be a major crisis right to the very top level: How is it possible that a person who can imagine and create this gets employed? The reputational damage would last years.
In a related matter, it seems clear that in the USA currently Mandelson's misdeeds if done by a Trump trusty wouldn't really be registering.
It would depend on the staffer - if this was a one off for the staffer, no previous, then I could see the staffer binned, fulsome apology from the PM, case closed.
Otherwise it would blow up.
And rightly. There is no excuse or need for this shit.
Just like zero tolerance on those who abuse women is the way to stamp it out.
A staffer with the power to put up a social media post to an audience of 8 billion can't be allowed a social media mistake of the sort which goes to basic character and elementary morals of the sort that would probably be understood by Mandelson and Maxwell.
My guess is it was passed to Trump who posted it himself without watching it all the way through. The Obamas appear right at the end of a dull explanation of vote machine fraud, and there is no obvious connection. I could even be convinced whoever created the clip did not notice the Obamas.
We've had similar scandals here when politicians forward or like tweets but then get skewered because there's a bad comment somewhere in the chain. Even on pb, the late lamented Plato would regularly post links she'd clearly not followed herself and was mindless pasting from alt-right sources, and she was not alone in that.
Dull and entirely fictitious explanation of made-up vote machine fraud.
If it was at Oxford in student days and consensual and pre Epstein, who cares other than gossips?
You will if it turns out to be a Labour PM.
Boris and Ghislaine were at Balliol (Oxford) at the same time, and have long been linked. Whether there was actually a threesome, who knows? We're into Cameron's initiation level speculation.
An interesting link, thank you for posting. However, he made one error:
The prospect of another change in PM looms, the seventh new face in No 10 in ten years: if the scandal doesn’t directly bring down Sir Keir Starmer, it is likely to contribute significantly to his eclipse. This rate of churn is unknown in British history.
The period 1827-1837 saw Liverpool, Canning, Goderich, Wellington, Grey, Melbourne, Peel, Melbourne as PM. That's not counting two occasions Wellington was offered and declined the chance to form an administration.
The period 1850-1860 saw Russell, Derby, Aberdeen, Palmerston, Derby, Palmerston again.
The period from 1756 to 1766 saw Devonshire, Newcastle, Devonshire, Bute, Grenville and Rockingham - one year more adds Grafton to that list.
The period 1916 to 1926 saw Asquith, Lloyd George, Bonar Law, Baldwin, Macdonald and Baldwin.
Even 1963-74 comes close, with Macmillan, Home, Wilson, Heath and Home again - add two years and we get Callaghan.
So we have had periods of chronic political instability in the past, some even worse than this (in 1800 and 1916 we were at war)!
This feels worse because with Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron we had three people who were at the top for a considerable length of time so Brown felt like an aberration not the start of a trend.
Maybe that period 1979-2016 was the aberration? Perhaps disguised by Attlee, Churchill, Wilson and Heath being the leaders of their Parties for so long before that?
Were a contest to occur due to a challenge (or a candidate accepting an "unsolicited" nomination), I think the precedent is that he NEC would open a window for others to achieve the nomination threshold and so we could end up with a Keir Vs Angela Vs Wes election. Iirc, and I don't recall with certainty, it was done during the Corbyn Vs Smith contest but no further candidates emerged.
The danger for Keir here could be that the people who prefer Angela over him may not be the same people who prefer Wes over him, so he get squeezed from both sides and eliminated before the head to head.
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.
I am sure it has, but the diminution of Prime Ministerial power is a matter of historical record.
If it was at Oxford in student days and consensual and pre Epstein, who cares other than gossips?
You will if it turns out to be a Labour PM.
Boris and Ghislaine were at Balliol (Oxford) at the same time, and have long been linked. Whether there was actually a threesome, who knows? We're into Cameron's initiation level speculation.
Boris and Ghislaine initiated Cameron?
It'll be either Cameron or Boris
Links to Oxfordshire
Honestly I think David Cameron is a very decent man.
Fascinating in retrospect to see Mandelson warn in 1998 that cancelling the flawed Horizon system would threaten the credibility of Labour's Private Finance Initiative (PFI) - one of New Labour's greatest giveaways to big business/banks, and ruinously expensive for the taxpayer.
What's missing from the coverage of the Mandelson scandal this week is any real analysis of how such an avaricious and dishonest person could possibly be at the heart of the Labour party for the past thirty years. That's the question that almost no one in the media is asking.
Fascinating in retrospect to see Mandelson warn in 1998 that cancelling the flawed Horizon system would threaten the credibility of Labour's Private Finance Initiative (PFI) - one of New Labour's greatest giveaways to big business/banks, and ruinously expensive for the taxpayer.
What's missing from the coverage of the Mandelson scandal this week is any real analysis of how such an avaricious and dishonest person could possibly be at the heart of the Labour party for the past thirty years. That's the question that almost no one in the media is asking.
Perhaps he wasn't as avaricious and/or dishonest at first; it was just when he realised the opportunities.
Some classic BBC equivocation on Vance getting booed at the Olympic opening ceremony:
‘Some of the audience applauded the vice president’
His ICE security detail?
Didn't Osborne get booed at the London Olympics? Seems to be fair enough when a politician is out and about.
I think that the UK political audience is typically less respectful than the US. So it was unusual for Osborne but all part of the rough & tumble. But - assuming the boo-ers were US - then it’s more significant for Vance.
If the boo-ers were non American then it’s basically rude and disrespectful to a representative of a foreign country. They don’t have a dog in the hunt (although where Noem is concerned that may be a good thing!)
rude and disrespectful cuts both ways, and america has established the tone
An interesting link, thank you for posting. However, he made one error:
The prospect of another change in PM looms, the seventh new face in No 10 in ten years: if the scandal doesn’t directly bring down Sir Keir Starmer, it is likely to contribute significantly to his eclipse. This rate of churn is unknown in British history.
The period 1827-1837 saw Liverpool, Canning, Goderich, Wellington, Grey, Melbourne, Peel, Melbourne as PM. That's not counting two occasions Wellington was offered and declined the chance to form an administration.
The period 1850-1860 saw Russell, Derby, Aberdeen, Palmerston, Derby, Palmerston again.
The period from 1756 to 1766 saw Devonshire, Newcastle, Devonshire, Bute, Grenville and Rockingham - one year more adds Grafton to that list.
The period 1916 to 1926 saw Asquith, Lloyd George, Bonar Law, Baldwin, Macdonald and Baldwin.
Even 1963-74 comes close, with Macmillan, Home, Wilson, Heath and Home again - add two years and we get Callaghan.
So we have had periods of chronic political instability in the past, some even worse than this (in 1800 and 1916 we were at war)!
This feels worse because with Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron we had three people who were at the top for a considerable length of time so Brown felt like an aberration not the start of a trend.
And Brown was arguably as in charge as Blair on domestic matters since 1997 anyway.
Some classic BBC equivocation on Vance getting booed at the Olympic opening ceremony:
‘Some of the audience applauded the vice president’
His ICE security detail?
Didn't Osborne get booed at the London Olympics? Seems to be fair enough when a politician is out and about.
I think that the UK political audience is typically less respectful than the US. So it was unusual for Osborne but all part of the rough & tumble. But - assuming the boo-ers were US - then it’s more significant for Vance.
If the boo-ers were non American then it’s basically rude and disrespectful to a representative of a foreign country. They don’t have a dog in the hunt (although where Noem is concerned that may be a good thing!)
rude and disrespectful cuts both ways, and america has established the tone
The disrespect began with Harold Wilson I think
Macmillan was famously the brunt of satire outside Parliament, and I think held in some derision for his cuckoldry within those who knew?
Tatcher and Major were too old. We can discount Sunak and Brown and May straight away. That leaves us with, what? Blair? Cameron? Truss?
thinks for a minute...
Oh goodness, it's Boris isn't it?
Ghislaine Maxwell & Johnson attended the same Oxford college (Balliol) at the same time. It’s most likely to be Johnson out of the available candidates.
Not sure a threesome involving Johnson is going to raise many eyebrows though. “Boris Johnson likes sex” is not exactly news is it?
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.
I am sure it has, but the diminution of Prime Ministerial power is a matter of historical record.
If it was at Oxford in student days and consensual and pre Epstein, who cares other than gossips?
You will if it turns out to be a Labour PM.
I wouldn't then either provided it was consensual, in any case it wouldn't as Blair was at Oxford well before Maxwell was and Starmer did a one year postgrad there the year after she graduated
You were bewailing the modern world's tolerance of pre-marital sex two days ago.
Tim Shipman absolutely nails it in this response to this David Yelland's criticism of him.
X David Yelland@davidyelland I admire Tim Shipman as a journalist but I really think those in the (very male) cabal that hounded Sue Gray out of No10 - I mean men in suits in Downing Street and outside - forced out the one person who would never, ever have allowed Mandelson to go to DC. https://x.com/davidyelland/status/2020105780863672736
Tim Shipman@ShippersUnbound Don’t take my word for it David, speak to the prime minister, who removed her because she had not done what he wanted. Should he have delegated a core responsibility like this? No, but he did and it didn’t work. McSweeney also deserves criticism for barely paying attention to policy or how you enact it before they entered No10, but don’t forget it wasn’t clear until a couple of months before the election that he would even be going to No10 and he was never intended to be chief of staff until he had to be. Absolutely vital time was lost, pretty well everyone agrees. The ultimate problem, of course, is that Starmer has no instincts, plan or political antennae and he had to delegate. He knew enough to know that he didn’t know how to run a govt but picking someone who had never even run a department and spent a lot of time blocking and troubleshooting rather than driving change was a huge mistake. He made another when he appointed Wormald, the most pedestrian of the 4 finalists available as cabinet secretary https://x.com/ShippersUnbound/status/2020125731540423097
Tim Shipman absolutely nails it in this response to this David Yelland's criticism of him.
X David Yelland@davidyelland I admire Tim Shipman as a journalist but I really think those in the (very male) cabal that hounded Sue Gray out of No10 - I mean men in suits in Downing Street and outside - forced out the one person who would never, ever have allowed Mandelson to go to DC. https://x.com/davidyelland/status/2020105780863672736
Tim Shipman@ShippersUnbound Don’t take my word for it David, speak to the prime minister, who removed her because she had not done what he wanted. Should he have delegated a core responsibility like this? No, but he did and it didn’t work. McSweeney also deserves criticism for barely paying attention to policy or how you enact it before they entered No10, but don’t forget it wasn’t clear until a couple of months before the election that he would even be going to No10 and he was never intended to be chief of staff until he had to be. Absolutely vital time was lost, pretty well everyone agrees. The ultimate problem, of course, is that Starmer has no instincts, plan or political antennae and he had to delegate. He knew enough to know that he didn’t know how to run a govt but picking someone who had never even run a department and spent a lot of time blocking and troubleshooting rather than driving change was a huge mistake. He made another when he appointed Wormald, the most pedestrian of the 4 finalists available as cabinet secretary https://x.com/ShippersUnbound/status/2020125731540423097
It has been fascinating to see some Lobby journalists finally coming out with their honest and brutal assessments of Keir Starmer in the last 48 hours, where were they over the last eight years?! Starmer was a complete wooden dud as a politician back when he was in Jeremy Corybyn's Shadow Cabinet during Theresa May's premiership and clearly even then lacked the skills or political astuteness to lead a party never mind run a country. I have said it more than once before on this site, how on earth did the Labour party manage to still chose the only grey man in a suit so lacking in charisma or ability to think on his feet over the other female candidates in that Leadership contest?!
And even when he was elected Labour leader of the Opposition after the 2019 GE the most redeeming quality that was constantly offered up from the political classes was that he was the polar opposite of Boris Johnson which is cold comfort to the Labour party and the country today. I am reminded of that old saying in politics that even a donkey wearing the right tribal political rosette could get elected in some constituencies. Well we did just that at the 2024 GE, and not to sit in a glass house, I still cannot believe the Conservative party elected Liz Truss as leader and PM when she was clearly as unsuited to being a party leader or PM despite cynically wearing a blue suit. Truss and Starmer have now become the two worst main party leaders and PMs in my lifetime following politics, and both elected by their now hollowed out party grassroot memberships compared to the decades gone past. And there might be a lesson in that fact when it comes to who is offered up to the electorate as potential PMs at GE's these days, and the irony is that the party currently leading the polls has a leader that even his own party membership never got the chance to elect even.
If it was at Oxford in student days and consensual and pre Epstein, who cares other than gossips?
You will if it turns out to be a Labour PM.
Boris and Ghislaine were at Balliol (Oxford) at the same time, and have long been linked. Whether there was actually a threesome, who knows? We're into Cameron's initiation level speculation.
Boris and Ghislaine initiated Cameron?
It'll be either Cameron or Boris
Links to Oxfordshire
Honestly I think David Cameron is a very decent man.
Tatcher and Major were too old. We can discount Sunak and Brown and May straight away. That leaves us with, what? Blair? Cameron? Truss?
thinks for a minute...
Oh goodness, it's Boris isn't it?
Ghislaine Maxwell & Johnson attended the same Oxford college (Balliol) at the same time. It’s most likely to be Johnson out of the available candidates.
Not sure a threesome involving Johnson is going to raise many eyebrows though. “Boris Johnson likes sex” is not exactly news is it?
One other former PM has close links to the Maxwells through his cabinet ministers etc without insinuating that PM is the bounder in question
Apart from the poor optics, it is a legal requirement that a Senedd candidate resides in Wales......
This could be awkward!!
Just catching up on the story about Martin Shipton the new Ref UK leader in Wales who has his house in Bath. He's been spinning yarns about moving to "Wales" for months and months.
Is there a single senior Reform figure with even a shred of self-respect?
Everything about Reform reeks of deceit and opportunism. I really can't remember a more loathesome British political party since Enoch Powel got himself some followers. Maybe the DUP
Tim Shipman absolutely nails it in this response to this David Yelland's criticism of him.
X David Yelland@davidyelland I admire Tim Shipman as a journalist but I really think those in the (very male) cabal that hounded Sue Gray out of No10 - I mean men in suits in Downing Street and outside - forced out the one person who would never, ever have allowed Mandelson to go to DC. https://x.com/davidyelland/status/2020105780863672736
Tim Shipman@ShippersUnbound Don’t take my word for it David, speak to the prime minister, who removed her because she had not done what he wanted. Should he have delegated a core responsibility like this? No, but he did and it didn’t work. McSweeney also deserves criticism for barely paying attention to policy or how you enact it before they entered No10, but don’t forget it wasn’t clear until a couple of months before the election that he would even be going to No10 and he was never intended to be chief of staff until he had to be. Absolutely vital time was lost, pretty well everyone agrees. The ultimate problem, of course, is that Starmer has no instincts, plan or political antennae and he had to delegate. He knew enough to know that he didn’t know how to run a govt but picking someone who had never even run a department and spent a lot of time blocking and troubleshooting rather than driving change was a huge mistake. He made another when he appointed Wormald, the most pedestrian of the 4 finalists available as cabinet secretary https://x.com/ShippersUnbound/status/2020125731540423097
It has been fascinating to see some Lobby journalists finally coming out with their honest and brutal assessments of Keir Starmer in the last 48 hours, where were they over the last eight years?! Starmer was a complete wooden dud as a politician back when he was in Jeremy Corybyn's Shadow Cabinet during Theresa May's premiership and clearly even then lacked the skills or political astuteness to lead a party never mind run a country. I have said it more than once before on this site, how on earth did the Labour party manage to still chose the only grey man in a suit so lacking in charisma or ability to think on his feet over the other female candidates in that Leadership contest?!
And even when he was elected Labour leader of the Opposition after the 2019 GE the most redeeming quality that was constantly offered up from the political classes was that he was the polar opposite of Boris Johnson which is cold comfort to the Labour party and the country today. I am reminded of that old saying in politics that even a donkey wearing the right tribal political rosette could get elected in some constituencies. Well we did just that at the 2024 GE, and not to sit in a glass house, I still cannot believe the Conservative party elected Liz Truss as leader and PM when she was clearly as unsuited to being a party leader or PM despite cynically wearing a blue suit. Truss and Starmer have now become the two worst main party leaders and PMs in my lifetime following politics, and both elected by their now hollowed out party grassroot memberships compared to the decades gone past. And there might be a lesson in that fact when it comes to who is offered up to the electorate as potential PMs at GE's these days, and the irony is that the party currently leading the polls has a leader that even his own party membership never got the chance to elect even.
Why did the Labour Party elect SKS over the female candidates? Because the female candidates were Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long-Bailey.
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.
If it was at Oxford in student days and consensual and pre Epstein, who cares other than gossips?
You will if it turns out to be a Labour PM.
Boris and Ghislaine were at Balliol (Oxford) at the same time, and have long been linked. Whether there was actually a threesome, who knows? We're into Cameron's initiation level speculation.
Boris and Ghislaine initiated Cameron?
It'll be either Cameron or Boris
Links to Oxfordshire
Honestly I think David Cameron is a very decent man.
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.
The political zeitgeist in this country is probably driving us more to Reform v Greens.
Fundamentally, middle-class centrist parties (be they of the Left or Right) won't have the numbers to frame it, but be supplicant influencers.
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.
Yes, it's probably a three way marginal.
I thought you were still talking about Ghislaine for a moment.
Comments
The Press has always been happy to build people up, then knock them down.
Each of his assertions about length of contact etc should have been tested.
This would have discovered the fact that the appointee was a massive security problem and fundamentally disloyal to multiple PMs, the Labour Party and the country.
From the political point of view the failure to dig into the background left uncovered the fact that the “I didn’t know because I am gay” excuse is up there with sweating in a Pizza Express
Fiscal usterity was almost certainly too tight, based on an overestimate of the Keynesian multiplier, and relieved by an unsustainable monetary policy.
The Northern Powerhouse initiative, aimed at throwing yet further cash to regions drowning in government subsidies was completely misconceived.
His interventions in the housing market were disastrous and perverse, aimed at boosting and redistributing demand, rather than increasing supply.
He didn't oppose the hugely damaging green agenda, which has, amongst other things, given us the most expensive electricity in the world.
He wasn't a complete failure or disaster, unlike the current incumbents - cutting business taxes was a good idea for instance. But, overall, I'd say he's a prime exhibit of the failed centrist political class.
THE FALLOUT FROM TRUMP'S TRUTH SOCIAL.
President Trump's former chief of staff @MickMulvaney tells me this just cost the GOP the midterms in the House.
"I talked to several House members that are just besides themselves and they don't know how they're going to handle it on the road," @MickMulvaney told me moments ago.
He spoke with our @connellmcshane about this earlier on @NewsNation
Mulvaney broke it down this way:
He said the post could have been done by a staffer, but it was done at nearly midnight and there's only two other people that Mulvaney knows of that have access to that account.
Mulvaney said if I'm the chief of staff, I got to the President, I say it was such and such staffer, it's this person he's been fired, he's no longer working for the trump administration and Mulvaney says he would offer his resignation as chief of staff.
https://x.com/KellieMeyerNews/status/2019897936004673667?s=20
In a related matter, it seems clear that in the USA currently Mandelson's misdeeds if done by a Trump trusty wouldn't really be registering.
I wandered into Balliol JCR one day in search of its subsidised breakfast granola-and-Nescafé offering and found a shiny glamazon with naughty eyes holding court astride a table, a high-heeled boot resting on my brother Boris’s thigh.
https://spectator.com/article/it-s-hard-not-to-pity-ghislaine-maxwell/
Otherwise it would blow up.
And rightly. There is no excuse or need for this shit.
Just like zero tolerance on those who abuse women is the way to stamp it out.
Secondly, the model to follow in appointing people to deal with the USA under Trump is not dark arts people, or indeed nice and ineffective people, but Mark Carney. Names come to mind - Miliband D, Cameron, Osborne, and no doubt lots of less well known diplomats and career civil servants or CEOs.
But, targeting systems that are nuclear powered? That could easily be catastrophic. Putin backed off from that when Biden was in the White House, of course, after Biden and Xi made threats. But with Trump?
*runs away*
But that can't be said out loud because everyone is scared shitless of the Fascist paedo protector.*
*There may be a superfluous word there.
We've had similar scandals here when politicians forward or like tweets but then get skewered because there's a bad comment somewhere in the chain. Even on pb, the late lamented Plato would regularly post links she'd clearly not followed herself and was mindless pasting from alt-right sources, and she was not alone in that.
They have a new manager bounce and set-up which other managers will be starting to be able to properly analyse which will have an effect.
Their rivals might also hit a run of form and go on winning runs which isn’t unlikely with Man City or Liverpool and possibly even Chelsea.
I think even at 50/1 you would be throwing your money away.
But if someone does crazy shit out of the blue, first time ever, that’s a one day news story.
Anthony Seldon in the Times
If the boo-ers were non American then it’s basically rude and disrespectful to a representative of a foreign country. They don’t have a dog in the hunt (although where Noem is concerned that may be a good thing!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3eNMPe1yAM
I missed our visitor from St Petersburg.
The prospect of another change in PM looms, the seventh new face in No 10 in ten years: if the scandal doesn’t directly bring down Sir Keir Starmer, it is likely to contribute significantly to his eclipse. This rate of churn is unknown in British history.
The period 1827-1837 saw Liverpool, Canning, Goderich, Wellington, Grey, Melbourne, Peel, Melbourne as PM. That's not counting two occasions Wellington was offered and declined the chance to form an administration.
1801 - 1812 saw Pitt, Addington, Pitt, Grenville, Portland, Perceval and Liverpool.
The period 1850-1860 saw Russell, Derby, Aberdeen, Palmerston, Derby, Palmerston again.
The period from 1756 to 1766 saw Devonshire, Newcastle, Devonshire, Bute, Grenville and Rockingham - one year more adds Grafton to that list.
The period 1916 to 1926 saw Asquith, Lloyd George, Bonar Law, Baldwin, Macdonald and Baldwin.
Even 1963-74 comes close, with Macmillan, Home, Wilson, Heath and Home again - add two years and we get Callaghan.
So we have had periods of chronic political instability in the past, some even worse than this (in 1800 and 1916 we were at war)!
This feels worse because with Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron we had three people who were at the top for a considerable length of time so Brown felt like an aberration not the start of a trend.
Is there a single senior Reform figure with even a shred of self-respect?
Perhaps disguised by Attlee, Churchill, Wilson and Heath being the leaders of their Parties for so long before that?
The danger for Keir here could be that the people who prefer Angela over him may not be the same people who prefer Wes over him, so he get squeezed from both sides and eliminated before the head to head.
I'll try to list the laws a bit later.
Links to Oxfordshire
Honestly I think David Cameron is a very decent man.
Boris on the other hand a serial shagger.
Matt cartoons – February 2026 https://share.google/epQemJtBaJQesWCiv
Fascinating in retrospect to see Mandelson warn in 1998 that cancelling the flawed Horizon system would threaten the credibility of Labour's Private Finance Initiative (PFI) - one of New Labour's greatest giveaways to big business/banks, and ruinously expensive for the taxpayer.
What's missing from the coverage of the Mandelson scandal this week is any real analysis of how such an avaricious and dishonest person could possibly be at the heart of the Labour party for the past thirty years. That's the question that almost no one in the media is asking.
thinks for a minute...
Oh goodness, it's Boris isn't it?
Maxwell: Modern History with Languages, Balliol College, Oxford, 1985
Proximity, if nothing else.
Not sure a threesome involving Johnson is going to raise many eyebrows though. “Boris Johnson likes sex” is not exactly news is it?
X
David Yelland@davidyelland
I admire Tim Shipman as a journalist but I really think those in the (very male) cabal that hounded Sue Gray out of No10 - I mean men in suits in Downing Street and outside - forced out the one person who would never, ever have allowed Mandelson to go to DC.
https://x.com/davidyelland/status/2020105780863672736
Tim Shipman@ShippersUnbound
Don’t take my word for it David, speak to the prime minister, who removed her because she had not done what he wanted. Should he have delegated a core responsibility like this? No, but he did and it didn’t work. McSweeney also deserves criticism for barely paying attention to policy or how you enact it before they entered No10, but don’t forget it wasn’t clear until a couple of months before the election that he would even be going to No10 and he was never intended to be chief of staff until he had to be. Absolutely vital time was lost, pretty well everyone agrees. The ultimate problem, of course, is that Starmer has no instincts, plan or political antennae and he had to delegate. He knew enough to know that he didn’t know how to run a govt but picking someone who had never even run a department and spent a lot of time blocking and troubleshooting rather than driving change was a huge mistake. He made another when he appointed Wormald, the most pedestrian of the 4 finalists available as cabinet secretary
https://x.com/ShippersUnbound/status/2020125731540423097
And even when he was elected Labour leader of the Opposition after the 2019 GE the most redeeming quality that was constantly offered up from the political classes was that he was the polar opposite of Boris Johnson which is cold comfort to the Labour party and the country today. I am reminded of that old saying in politics that even a donkey wearing the right tribal political rosette could get elected in some constituencies. Well we did just that at the 2024 GE, and not to sit in a glass house, I still cannot believe the Conservative party elected Liz Truss as leader and PM when she was clearly as unsuited to being a party leader or PM despite cynically wearing a blue suit. Truss and Starmer have now become the two worst main party leaders and PMs in my lifetime following politics, and both elected by their now hollowed out party grassroot memberships compared to the decades gone past. And there might be a lesson in that fact when it comes to who is offered up to the electorate as potential PMs at GE's these days, and the irony is that the party currently leading the polls has a leader that even his own party membership never got the chance to elect even.
Dressed like plums, playing like plums.
https://x.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/2020141094336434272
This is the worst performance against a side from Rome sine the Battle of Zama.
Must be a cracker!
Fundamentally, middle-class centrist parties (be they of the Left or Right) won't have the numbers to frame it, but be supplicant influencers.