@EdKrassen · 2h BREAKING: Democrat Chasity Martinez just defeated her Republican opponent in the Louisiana State House 60 Special Election by about 23 points. It’s s district that Trump won in 2024 by 13 points. That’s a huge 36 point swing in favor of the Democrats.
18 point swing.
Why can't Americans do Maths?
Sure they can. It's a coincidence they also write polls like:
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
As I predicted, this is a bigger result for Liverpool, Arsenal have the title in the bag 6 points up with an easy run in now, but Liverpool need to pick themselves up and muscle past either Manchester Utd or Chelsea. Or no Champions League football. Tough season for Liverpool from here on now.
Arsenal still have to play City away. Lose that and Arsenal are totally capable of bottling it again.
Well no, I think that’s far too glib analysis. When that match finally comes about Arsenal could have a cushion of 7 or more points, making even a defeat in that one fixture immaterial - even if the strong and hungry Arsenal side do lose it, just a draw in that fixture would kill the title stone dead on the spot.
The only way to look at it, the over all run ins, computer dealt Arsenal a very very easy one, the points Arsenal will drop in their remaining fixtures still leaves them, in the eighties, Man City need to be nearly faultless from here just to get out the seventies. The trend is Man City capable of dropping points just about anywhere, there is something just not convincing about them, particularly defensively, far from the finished title winning article. Even today it’s not a splendid win at Liverpool, more a mugging from the couple of half chances they created in second half, and some Liverpool implosion.
Arsenal win this title by at least 9 points, likely a few more.
As I predicted, this is a bigger result for Liverpool, Arsenal have the title in the bag 6 points up with an easy run in now, but Liverpool need to pick themselves up and muscle past either Manchester Utd or Chelsea. Or no Champions League football. Tough season for Liverpool from here on now.
Arsenal still have to play City away. Lose that and Arsenal are totally capable of bottling it again.
Well no, I think that’s far too glib analysis. When that match finally comes about Arsenal could have a cushion of 7 or more points, making even a defeat in that one fixture immaterial - even if the strong and hungry Arsenal side do lose it, just a draw in that fixture would kill the title stone dead on the spot.
The only way to look at it, the over all run ins, computer dealt Arsenal a very very easy one, the points Arsenal will drop in their remaining fixtures still leaves them, in the eighties, Man City need to be nearly faultless from here just to get out the seventies. The trend is Man City capable of dropping points just about anywhere, there is something just not convincing about them, particularly defensively, far from the finished title winning article. Even today it’s not a splendid win at Liverpool, more a mugging from the couple of half chances they created in second half, and some Liverpool implosion.
Arsenal win this title by at least 9 points, likely a few more.
Some consolation for Starmer when he gets kicked out of number 10.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I gues you don't like truth when you see it.. you just send out chaff
From a Conservative Party of view, couldn’t number 10 be stronger now with a divisive figure no longer heading up the operation. Also could a change to a new PM prove to Labours advantage, there is danger the public start listening to Labour again with a new voice and personality at the top. I’m currently convinced an improving economy and cost of living in coming years won’t help Labour in the polls if it’s Starmer and Rachel to take credit for it, but voters might think the new people at top improved cost of living and the economy and give them the credit for it.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I gues you don't like truth when you see it.. you just send out chaff
From a Conservative Party of view, couldn’t number 10 be stronger now with a divisive figure no longer heading up the operation. Also could a change to a new PM prove to Labours advantage, there is danger the public start listening to Labour again with a new voice and personality at the top. I’m currently convinced an improving economy and cost of living in coming years won’t help Labour in the polls if it’s Starmer and Rachel to take credit for it, but voters might think the new people at top improved cost of living and the economy and give them the credit for it.
Spot in
All of the economic signs are good
The popular policies are starting to resonate
The deluded Tories seeing any quick route to number 10 from 18% on the Polls re utterly deluded.
If Labour can arrive in to 2027 with an improved economy, cost of living, NHS and a leader about whom the metrics are even just average there is no doubt a second term is infinitely probable.
The Tories have no policies. a rump of ministers tarnished by 14 years, very little credible new blood and who very few want near power any time soon.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I gues you don't like truth when you see it.. you just send out chaff
From a Conservative Party of view, couldn’t number 10 be stronger now with a divisive figure no longer heading up the operation. Also could a change to a new PM prove to Labours advantage, there is danger the public start listening to Labour again with a new voice and personality at the top. I’m currently convinced an improving economy and cost of living in coming years won’t help Labour in the polls if it’s Starmer and Rachel to take credit for it, but voters might think the new people at top improved cost of living and the economy and give them the credit for it.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I gues you don't like truth when you see it.. you just send out chaff
From a Conservative Party of view, couldn’t number 10 be stronger now with a divisive figure no longer heading up the operation. Also could a change to a new PM prove to Labours advantage, there is danger the public start listening to Labour again with a new voice and personality at the top. I’m currently convinced an improving economy and cost of living in coming years won’t help Labour in the polls if it’s Starmer and Rachel to take credit for it, but voters might think the new people at top improved cost of living and the economy and give them the credit for it.
Spot in
All of the economic signs are good
The popular policies are starting to resonate
The deluded Tories seeing any quick route to number 10 from 18% on the Polls re utterly deluded.
If Labour can arrive in to 2027 with an improved economy, cost of living, NHS and a leader about whom the metrics are even just average there is no doubt a second term is infinitely probable.
The Tories have no policies. a rump of ministers tarnished by 14 years, very little credible new blood and who very few want near power any time soon.
@EdKrassen · 2h BREAKING: Democrat Chasity Martinez just defeated her Republican opponent in the Louisiana State House 60 Special Election by about 23 points. It’s s district that Trump won in 2024 by 13 points. That’s a huge 36 point swing in favor of the Democrats.
18 point swing.
Why can't Americans do Maths?
American might legitimately ask "Why do you guys divide by two???"
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
She's right (for once). There are hundreds of fairly poor , vulnerable girls who were sexually abused by this monster and his "friends". That is the scandal of Epstein, so much more serious than his corruption, his use of private information given to him by the likes of Mandelson. These girls were destroyed. Those that played a part in that really need to be held to account. Mandelson should be too, don't get me wrong, but the real victims remain invisible here.
There is enough guilt to go round.
- Epstein - G. Maxwell - Their procurers - Those in their circle who.. partook - Those who sold/gave confidential information to Epstein to trade higher in his graces. Which he used to enable all of the above.
It was a system. Giving him financial information was fuel for the system - bartered into further favours, money and human misery.
They are all guilty. And there are enough prison cells for all of them.
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
She is too stupid to realise that betraying your country is a really serious scandal. In former times it would have been a hanging offence.
Can we try the trafficking and rape of minors. Allegations of snuff movies and allegations with evidence of some of the most important people doing disgusting things with young girls and boys, probably trumps * even passing off cabinet and national secrets to a convicted nonce.
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I've never until felt comments that there are some blessings to being poor were true, but given how many fail moral tests once they get taste of extreme wealth and influence, perhaps there is something in it.
Where are the top politicians and billionaires who still just enjoy playing boardgames with the family or watching TV, like regular boring people?
They exist. You just don’t hear about them because they are hanging out with friends and family rather than having their flunkies chase public exposure. When did you last read about the Rausings or Charlene de Carvalho for example?
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I've never until felt comments that there are some blessings to being poor were true, but given how many fail moral tests once they get taste of extreme wealth and influence, perhaps there is something in it.
Where are the top politicians and billionaires who still just enjoy playing boardgames with the family or watching TV, like regular boring people?
I was discussing this with a friend yesterday. I have grown up with and am surrounded by a lot of very wealthy people. Some inherited and some self-made.
There isn’t a pattern confirming which become more grasping for more money and those happy with their lot it’s just individual character. We see our circle as a concentric circle where some of us in my centre are happy and don’t feel the need to be flash and making more to have more things. Another ten million isn’t going to change what we do socially or day to day or even long term. We still want to meet up and have beers where we like to go and don’t want to be putting on socials pictures of us drinking vastly expensive drinks, in the most exclusive restaurants or in the most exclusive resorts. It might be a treat but generally it’s not something where we feel the need for MORE because we want a bigger boat or a villa in another place.
Then we have friends/acquaintances who are obsessed with the pursuit of MORE. Enough is never enough and frankly it’s more about what it projects to others than whether they truly enjoy it - they do enjoy the extras but I can’t see that they are happier because the efforts to get more add stress and take up time.
This is only anecdotal and might seem sexist but in a large number of the second grouping, especially the hedge fund guys, it’s very much competition amongst the wives. I say this as this is the world I know and I’m sure there will be people who can point to others where the man is avaricious and the women not but this is what I know and see. There is a competition of trinkets such as hugely expensive handbags where the chap doesn’t have an issue with his wife spending tens of k on a bag and you go to a party and they will be showing off the trinket and then next time another will suddenly modestly point out their toy.
So going back to the beginning I don’t find it’s about people with “wealth” but purely down to their individual characters. Some of the wealthiest people I know don’t need to bend the rules or risk other people’s happiness for more, some don’t even think about it.
Oh, it's definitely about the individual character, it's just that the wealth provides additional temptations to those with lesser character that those who are poor will not be tested by (though they will be other things).
Some years ago, there was a documentary on lottery winners.
- the quiet middle class couple who scaled up to the posher road - the Essex guy who tiled his winning numbers in the bottom of the swimming pool. In the mansion he lived in with his extended family. - The car thief who spent it all on expensive cars - The working class couple who went back to work in the same jobs, because that was their social lives. - The angry shit who divorced his wife and became a richer angry shit.
Wealth just seemed to increase the scale of who they were, anyway.
Andrew shared confidential information with Epstein as trade envoy, files suggest
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appears to have knowingly shared confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein from his official work as trade envoy in 2010 and 2011, according to material in the latest release of files in the US seen by the BBC.
Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show the former prince passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam and confidential details of investment opportunities. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99j01p1yjro
This Epstein chap was singularly unlucky in his choice of friends: wrong'uns, the lot of 'em.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I've never until felt comments that there are some blessings to being poor were true, but given how many fail moral tests once they get taste of extreme wealth and influence, perhaps there is something in it.
Where are the top politicians and billionaires who still just enjoy playing boardgames with the family or watching TV, like regular boring people?
Jimmy Carter. Jeremy Corbyn. Jesus christ. Maybe there's a pattern!
Keir needs an emergency Deputy PM who actually does the PM job while Keir just waves and stuff.
They don’t actually need to be in the Commons. Could be made Lord if needs be.
Thoughts anyone?
Too soon for a Mandy comeback?
The answer to Gardenwalker is not just yes, but already happened, when Starmer brought Jones in he told McGlumface to report to jones, but McGlumface refused. The two who now share McGlumfaces portfolio will report to Jones.
I don’t know, should opposition parties be celebrating when Labour’s number 10 operation is getting stronger not weaker?
Howard Lutnick looked straight into the camera and lied with the kind of confidence that only comes from years of getting away with it. He sold the public a fairy tale about “limited interactions” with Jeffrey Epstein while emails, contracts, and signatures quietly told a very different story.
Not only did he stay in touch—he went to the island, planned family visits, had lunch at Epstein’s home, shared drinks, and signed a business deal days after Epstein wrote “It was nice to see you.” This wasn’t some accidental brush with a social pariah. It was an ongoing, comfortable relationship that stretched years beyond the moment Lutnick claimed moral clarity.
The most grotesque part? Look how disgusting he laughs it off whenever Epstein’s name comes up, as if mockery might erase emails, contracts, or the fact that proximity to a predator was never a dealbreaker for him—until it became a PR liability.
In Europe, these Epstein connections are vanishing like dirty infected flies, scrubbed from websites, erased from guest lists, buried under legal threats and coordinated silence. But Lutnick’s receipts remain, a damning paper trail of a man who chose access over ethics, then lied about it with a straight face. Why is the U.S. helpless? https://x.com/Microinteracti1/status/2020483326390268161
There are a lot of names in the Epstein files. Many are only mentioned briefly. Many were, I'm sure, enitrely innocent, unaware of Epstein's depravity. But there are a few names where the level of contact and the nature of the evidence raises so many questions: like Glenn Dubin, Miroslav Lajčák, Steve Bannon, Ken Starr, Les Wexner and, yes, Howard Lutnick.
Andrew shared confidential information with Epstein as trade envoy, files suggest
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appears to have knowingly shared confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein from his official work as trade envoy in 2010 and 2011, according to material in the latest release of files in the US seen by the BBC.
Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show the former prince passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam and confidential details of investment opportunities. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99j01p1yjro
This Epstein chap was singularly unlucky in his choice of friends: wrong'uns, the lot of 'em.
If you run into a scumbag in the morning, you met a scumbag.
If you meet scumbags all day, everyday, maybe you are the scumbag?
Andrew shared confidential information with Epstein as trade envoy, files suggest
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appears to have knowingly shared confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein from his official work as trade envoy in 2010 and 2011, according to material in the latest release of files in the US seen by the BBC.
Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show the former prince passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam and confidential details of investment opportunities. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99j01p1yjro
This Epstein chap was singularly unlucky in his choice of friends: wrong'uns, the lot of 'em.
These people have never heard of the idea of not putting things down in writing it seems.
Or the stuff that was not in writing goes much further, which is probable.
@EdKrassen · 2h BREAKING: Democrat Chasity Martinez just defeated her Republican opponent in the Louisiana State House 60 Special Election by about 23 points. It’s s district that Trump won in 2024 by 13 points. That’s a huge 36 point swing in favor of the Democrats.
On the subject of John Healey (see previous thread), I agree with TSE that John Healey might be worth backing as a long shot. He's been shortening a bit today with some bookies.
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)
It would be quite something for a governing party to parachute into the PM role someone elected in 2024 whose only government experience is being a junior minister. Weirder things have happened, but I can’t see it myself.
Yes. You would also be asking many Labour members to vote in as PM someone who they had previously never heard of. Either that or it's just me.
If you're looking for some value in backing a long shot (I'm not but I can see the argument for doing so) then Cooper at best odds 20/1 looks much better value than Carns at 22/1. Beyond that John Healey at 66/1. I've had dealings with him in the past and he's widely regarded as someone who plays a straight bat, well respected across the party.
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
She's right (for once). There are hundreds of fairly poor , vulnerable girls who were sexually abused by this monster and his "friends". That is the scandal of Epstein, so much more serious than his corruption, his use of private information given to him by the likes of Mandelson. These girls were destroyed. Those that played a part in that really need to be held to account. Mandelson should be too, don't get me wrong, but the real victims remain invisible here.
Yes. This should be about the victims of Epstein's sexual abuse and trafficking but it isn't. Note how the Mandelson scandal has exploded to these levels only because of the 'info leaking' aspect. That is deemed more important.
@EdKrassen · 2h BREAKING: Democrat Chasity Martinez just defeated her Republican opponent in the Louisiana State House 60 Special Election by about 23 points. It’s s district that Trump won in 2024 by 13 points. That’s a huge 36 point swing in favor of the Democrats.
Apart from the incorrect swing figure (needs to be divided by 2, at least for a UK conception of swing), we should also note that this is comparing the 2024 Presidential vote to the State House by-election. You should really be comparing with the last State House election. This is actually a Democrat hold on that basis.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I gues you don't like truth when you see it.. you just send out chaff
From a Conservative Party of view, couldn’t number 10 be stronger now with a divisive figure no longer heading up the operation. Also could a change to a new PM prove to Labours advantage, there is danger the public start listening to Labour again with a new voice and personality at the top. I’m currently convinced an improving economy and cost of living in coming years won’t help Labour in the polls if it’s Starmer and Rachel to take credit for it, but voters might think the new people at top improved cost of living and the economy and give them the credit for it.
Tentative theory: Those whose politics is driven by Starmer Derangement Syndrome will see this as a big win. (I've got vague recollections of similar whoops of joy with some of the early New Labour resignations, possibly including Mandy 1.0).
Calmer heads, and those who want to see a return to some sort of sane right-of-centre government... less so. A fox has been shot, sure, and a wily one at that. But if you get rid of the object of all the hatred before the election, that doesn't entirely help.
Yes.
Inflation at 2% for a long time starting this summer quickly drags down interest rates, and growth at 2% a year from 2028 should make it hard work for opposition parties to unseat a government at the only elections which actually matter.
The voters have clearly made their mind up about Starmer, and Rachel from accounts too, so unlikely to give them all the credit for improving household income, their presence will be a drag on polling and seat winning, but a fresh change at top of Labour coinciding with nations finances on the up brings dangers for the opposition parties.
I definitely have a point. It starts with polling rise for Farage’s UKIP after the Pasty Tax budget, meaning it’s not Farage and his party that created the rise, but how voters instinctively react to economic news in their polling answers. What I am explaining here is something proven how it works.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I've never until felt comments that there are some blessings to being poor were true, but given how many fail moral tests once they get taste of extreme wealth and influence, perhaps there is something in it.
Where are the top politicians and billionaires who still just enjoy playing boardgames with the family or watching TV, like regular boring people?
They exist. You just don’t hear about them because they are hanging out with friends and family rather than having their flunkies chase public exposure. When did you last read about the Rausings or Charlene de Carvalho for example?
There’s a (female) billionaire who comes to my apartment some weekends to play board games with the family. She has a v modest public profile, and her money means I can’t really describe her as “down to earth”, but she presents v normally.
Andrew shared confidential information with Epstein as trade envoy, files suggest
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appears to have knowingly shared confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein from his official work as trade envoy in 2010 and 2011, according to material in the latest release of files in the US seen by the BBC.
Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show the former prince passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam and confidential details of investment opportunities. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99j01p1yjro
This Epstein chap was singularly unlucky in his choice of friends: wrong'uns, the lot of 'em.
If you run into a scumbag in the morning, you met a scumbag.
If you meet scumbags all day, everyday, maybe you are the scumbag?
Think Raylan Givens said it better.
I'm more interested in what sort of moron told Andrew anything of interest.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I gues you don't like truth when you see it.. you just send out chaff
From a Conservative Party of view, couldn’t number 10 be stronger now with a divisive figure no longer heading up the operation. Also could a change to a new PM prove to Labours advantage, there is danger the public start listening to Labour again with a new voice and personality at the top. I’m currently convinced an improving economy and cost of living in coming years won’t help Labour in the polls if it’s Starmer and Rachel to take credit for it, but voters might think the new people at top improved cost of living and the economy and give them the credit for it.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I gues you don't like truth when you see it.. you just send out chaff
From a Conservative Party of view, couldn’t number 10 be stronger now with a divisive figure no longer heading up the operation. Also could a change to a new PM prove to Labours advantage, there is danger the public start listening to Labour again with a new voice and personality at the top. I’m currently convinced an improving economy and cost of living in coming years won’t help Labour in the polls if it’s Starmer and Rachel to take credit for it, but voters might think the new people at top improved cost of living and the economy and give them the credit for it.
Spot in
All of the economic signs are good
The popular policies are starting to resonate
The deluded Tories seeing any quick route to number 10 from 18% on the Polls re utterly deluded.
If Labour can arrive in to 2027 with an improved economy, cost of living, NHS and a leader about whom the metrics are even just average there is no doubt a second term is infinitely probable.
The Tories have no policies. a rump of ministers tarnished by 14 years, very little credible new blood and who very few want near power any time soon.
You are the one who is deluded The Country is in the shit. Useless Ministers debt rising massively.. Not as bad as France but bloody awful nonetheless and we are all burdened with Labours taxes.. Economic sign are a burden on us all and ongoing.
@EdKrassen · 2h BREAKING: Democrat Chasity Martinez just defeated her Republican opponent in the Louisiana State House 60 Special Election by about 23 points. It’s s district that Trump won in 2024 by 13 points. That’s a huge 36 point swing in favor of the Democrats.
36 points. All 4 current Louisiana Congressmen would lose their seats on that turnaround.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I've never until felt comments that there are some blessings to being poor were true, but given how many fail moral tests once they get taste of extreme wealth and influence, perhaps there is something in it.
Where are the top politicians and billionaires who still just enjoy playing boardgames with the family or watching TV, like regular boring people?
They exist. You just don’t hear about them because they are hanging out with friends and family rather than having their flunkies chase public exposure. When did you last read about the Rausings or Charlene de Carvalho for example?
There’s a (female) billionaire who comes to my apartment some weekends to play board games with the family. She has a v modest public profile, and her money means I can’t really describe her as “down to earth”, but she presents v normally.
You've been.listening to too many AI you tube ronances. Is she as single lady helping a good looking single Dad who has a daughter called Lily by any chance?
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
She's right (for once). There are hundreds of fairly poor , vulnerable girls who were sexually abused by this monster and his "friends". That is the scandal of Epstein, so much more serious than his corruption, his use of private information given to him by the likes of Mandelson. These girls were destroyed. Those that played a part in that really need to be held to account. Mandelson should be too, don't get me wrong, but the real victims remain invisible here.
Yes. This should be about the victims of Epstein's sexual abuse and trafficking but it isn't. Note how the Mandelson scandal has exploded to these levels only because of the 'info leaking' aspect. That is deemed more important.
People can be outraged by more than one thing at the same time. There is more of a buzz about Mandelson here because we are about the politics and some weird train stuff. It doesn’t mean we don’t remotely care about the victims it’s just that the implications politically are what we are talking about here. If we were on maybe somewhere like mumsnet then there might be a greater focus on the victims.
There is very little we can do or add by discussing the victims. They are largely unknown to us and despite us thinking the perps were sick and twisted soulless monsters. Any punishment and retribution is outside of our abilities to debate. What we can debate is powerful people in this country and others and if those people can be rooted out the world is better.
I do not see the Epstein scandal as an issue of politicians being caught with their pants down (or up even) but as a disgusting crime foisted on vulnerable women but I have nothing to add on that and I think most of us chaps on here can’t add more than theor feelings of disgust.
So we focus on the political angle on Political Betting because, it’s politics.
Sir Keir Starmer will give an address to the nation as soon as tomorrow as he hopes to begin to move on from the worst week of his premiership.
McSweeney, hardly knew him....none of his work crossed my desk...failure of others who mispresented his abilities....my father was a toolmaker, i know what its like to be working class, pride in britain, patriotic renewal, further and faster, 24 years of tory misrule.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I've never until felt comments that there are some blessings to being poor were true, but given how many fail moral tests once they get taste of extreme wealth and influence, perhaps there is something in it.
Where are the top politicians and billionaires who still just enjoy playing boardgames with the family or watching TV, like regular boring people?
They exist. You just don’t hear about them because they are hanging out with friends and family rather than having their flunkies chase public exposure. When did you last read about the Rausings or Charlene de Carvalho for example?
There’s a (female) billionaire who comes to my apartment some weekends to play board games with the family. She has a v modest public profile, and her money means I can’t really describe her as “down to earth”, but she presents v normally.
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
She's right (for once). There are hundreds of fairly poor , vulnerable girls who were sexually abused by this monster and his "friends". That is the scandal of Epstein, so much more serious than his corruption, his use of private information given to him by the likes of Mandelson. These girls were destroyed. Those that played a part in that really need to be held to account. Mandelson should be too, don't get me wrong, but the real victims remain invisible here.
Yes. This should be about the victims of Epstein's sexual abuse and trafficking but it isn't. Note how the Mandelson scandal has exploded to these levels only because of the 'info leaking' aspect. That is deemed more important.
I don't think that the lobbying and insider trading aspect is considered more important, it is more that it is the new issue.
The abuse and trafficking of girls and women has been known about for years.
Quite why there hasn't been a systematic investigation and series of interviews with these women is a question for the American authorities. While the Epstein files corroborate, and case against the perpatrators surely requires witnesses.
Andrew shared confidential information with Epstein as trade envoy, files suggest
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appears to have knowingly shared confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein from his official work as trade envoy in 2010 and 2011, according to material in the latest release of files in the US seen by the BBC.
Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show the former prince passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam and confidential details of investment opportunities. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99j01p1yjro
This Epstein chap was singularly unlucky in his choice of friends: wrong'uns, the lot of 'em.
If you run into a scumbag in the morning, you met a scumbag.
If you meet scumbags all day, everyday, maybe you are the scumbag?
Think Raylan Givens said it better.
I'm more interested in what sort of moron told Andrew anything of interest.
I’m sure, although maybe naive, to think that AMW wouldn’t have been told or understood much of the detail but there to be a draw to certain people who like to gladhand the nobility (ironic title).
What he disclosed would likely be low level info, not to excuse it but it’s not the biggest sin compared to Mandy passing on anything that would be market sensitive.
Sir Keir Starmer will give an address to the nation as soon as tomorrow as he hopes to begin to move on from the worst week of his premiership.
McSweeney, hardly knew him....none of his work crossed my desk...failure of others who mispresented his abilities....my father was a toolmaker, i know what its like to be working class, pride in britain, patriotic renewal, further and faster, 24 years of tory misrule.
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
She's right (for once). There are hundreds of fairly poor , vulnerable girls who were sexually abused by this monster and his "friends". That is the scandal of Epstein, so much more serious than his corruption, his use of private information given to him by the likes of Mandelson. These girls were destroyed. Those that played a part in that really need to be held to account. Mandelson should be too, don't get me wrong, but the real victims remain invisible here.
Yes. This should be about the victims of Epstein's sexual abuse and trafficking but it isn't. Note how the Mandelson scandal has exploded to these levels only because of the 'info leaking' aspect. That is deemed more important.
I really dislike this way of thinking, or the use of it as a gotcha. An overiding concern about Mandelson does not mean you do not care about the trafficked girls.
The latter concern is 1) a given, and goes without saying - you'd have to be a really creepy bastard not to care about that 2) not news, we've known for ages this was going on and the latest files are just a confirmation 3) an important reason why Mandelson and Andrew are in such deep shit, because they continued cavorting with this nonce even after his conviction 4) also why Starmer is in deep shit, because the expectation is former DPP and all-round decent guy should not be appointing people who did said cavorting.
I don't think we should round up all PBers/commentators/politicians and ensure, via a statement, that they think the trafficking of young girls is a bad thing. It's a redundant exercise.
Keep trying and never give up, one day you might come up with a decent nickname for a politician.
The other day, the pedant in me had to heroically and selflessly correct some guy who wrote a PB article claiming that SKS had been PM for only 18 months instead of 19 months. Deary, deary me!
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I've never until felt comments that there are some blessings to being poor were true, but given how many fail moral tests once they get taste of extreme wealth and influence, perhaps there is something in it.
Where are the top politicians and billionaires who still just enjoy playing boardgames with the family or watching TV, like regular boring people?
They exist. You just don’t hear about them because they are hanging out with friends and family rather than having their flunkies chase public exposure. When did you last read about the Rausings or Charlene de Carvalho for example?
There’s a (female) billionaire who comes to my apartment some weekends to play board games with the family. She has a v modest public profile, and her money means I can’t really describe her as “down to earth”, but she presents v normally.
What a great line. Pure poetry. Opening line for a novel. A modern Chandler.
When you play Monopoly with a billionaire, do they start with a hotel on Park Lane? When you play Cluedo, does their house become the board?
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
She's right (for once). There are hundreds of fairly poor , vulnerable girls who were sexually abused by this monster and his "friends". That is the scandal of Epstein, so much more serious than his corruption, his use of private information given to him by the likes of Mandelson. These girls were destroyed. Those that played a part in that really need to be held to account. Mandelson should be too, don't get me wrong, but the real victims remain invisible here.
Yes. This should be about the victims of Epstein's sexual abuse and trafficking but it isn't. Note how the Mandelson scandal has exploded to these levels only because of the 'info leaking' aspect. That is deemed more important.
They are also two different things as far as Starmer is concerned.
Everyone knew about Mandelson having a relationship with the paedophile Epstein. And Starmer can be rightly judged on that.
Until now, Mandelson leaking Brown's cabinet secrets in real time wasn't known by anyone in government apart from Mandelson.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I gues you don't like truth when you see it.. you just send out chaff
From a Conservative Party of view, couldn’t number 10 be stronger now with a divisive figure no longer heading up the operation. Also could a change to a new PM prove to Labours advantage, there is danger the public start listening to Labour again with a new voice and personality at the top. I’m currently convinced an improving economy and cost of living in coming years won’t help Labour in the polls if it’s Starmer and Rachel to take credit for it, but voters might think the new people at top improved cost of living and the economy and give them the credit for it.
Tentative theory: Those whose politics is driven by Starmer Derangement Syndrome will see this as a big win. (I've got vague recollections of similar whoops of joy with some of the early New Labour resignations, possibly including Mandy 1.0).
Calmer heads, and those who want to see a return to some sort of sane right-of-centre government... less so. A fox has been shot, sure, and a wily one at that. But if you get rid of the object of all the hatred before the election, that doesn't entirely help.
Yes.
Inflation at 2% for a long time starting this summer quickly drags down interest rates, and growth at 2% a year from 2028 should make it hard work for opposition parties to unseat a government at the only elections which actually matter.
The voters have clearly made their mind up about Starmer, and Rachel from accounts too, so unlikely to give them all the credit for improving household income, their presence will be a drag on polling and seat winning, but a fresh change at top of Labour coinciding with nations finances on the up brings dangers for the opposition parties.
I definitely have a point. It starts with polling rise for Farage’s UKIP after the Pasty Tax budget, meaning it’s not Farage and his party that created the rise, but how voters instinctively react to economic news in their polling answers. What I am explaining here is something proven how it works.
Inflation will, I am confident, still be around 2.75% - 3% by the year end. It’s sticky and the govt will be giving inflationary pay awards to its client vote in the public sector.
@EdKrassen · 2h BREAKING: Democrat Chasity Martinez just defeated her Republican opponent in the Louisiana State House 60 Special Election by about 23 points. It’s s district that Trump won in 2024 by 13 points. That’s a huge 36 point swing in favor of the Democrats.
18 point swing.
Why can't Americans do Maths?
American might legitimately ask "Why do you guys divide by two???"
Because if 1% of the population has swung from Republicans to Democrats, or Labour to Tories, or whatever, then that sums up to 2% as there are 1% fewer voting their old party and 1% more voting the new one.
If you don't divide by 2, you are double-counting the swing.
@EdKrassen · 2h BREAKING: Democrat Chasity Martinez just defeated her Republican opponent in the Louisiana State House 60 Special Election by about 23 points. It’s s district that Trump won in 2024 by 13 points. That’s a huge 36 point swing in favor of the Democrats.
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
She's right (for once). There are hundreds of fairly poor , vulnerable girls who were sexually abused by this monster and his "friends". That is the scandal of Epstein, so much more serious than his corruption, his use of private information given to him by the likes of Mandelson. These girls were destroyed. Those that played a part in that really need to be held to account. Mandelson should be too, don't get me wrong, but the real victims remain invisible here.
Yes. This should be about the victims of Epstein's sexual abuse and trafficking but it isn't. Note how the Mandelson scandal has exploded to these levels only because of the 'info leaking' aspect. That is deemed more important.
I really dislike this way of thinking, or the use of it as a gotcha. An overiding concern about Mandelson does not mean you do not care about the trafficked girls.
The latter concern is 1) a given, and goes without saying - you'd have to be a really creepy bastard not to care about that 2) not news, we've known for ages this was going on and the latest files are just a confirmation 3) an important reason why Mandelson and Andrew are in such deep shit, because they continued cavorting with this nonce even after his conviction 4) also why Starmer is in deep shit, because the expectation is former DPP and all-round decent guy should not be appointing people who did said cavorting.
I don't think we should round up all PBers/commentators/politicians and ensure, via a statement, that they think the trafficking of young girls is a bad thing. It's a redundant exercise.
As long as people do not forget the events at the core of it all (scandal feels like too light a word), then I think anything that focuses attention on people involved, tangentially or otherwise, is to be welcomed. None of them with friendships which continued after things were known, or who implausibly claim to have known nothing, or who leaked secrets for clout or money, etc, deserve to have it be let go.
Peter Mandelson getting shit for leaking governments to a man he remained friends with despite him being a paedophile simply reminds everyone that this paedophile was well connected and most people who knew him have faced no consequences at all.
It's like going after Capone for tax crimes, there are people who were part of the Epstein network who may never face consequences for the worst crimes, but if they can be shamed and punished in other ways for either their complicity or willful ignorance, that's something at least.
Sir Keir Starmer will give an address to the nation as soon as tomorrow as he hopes to begin to move on from the worst week of his premiership.
McSweeney, hardly knew him....none of his work crossed my desk...failure of others who mispresented his abilities....my father was a toolmaker, i know what its like to be working class, pride in britain, patriotic renewal, further and faster, 24 years of tory misrule.
Keir Starmer, 2020: "When they made mistakes, I carried the can. I never turn on my staff and you should never turn on your staff."
Keir Starmer still hasn’t resigned over appointing Peter Mandelson but his chief of staff has resigned.
There seems to be a perception abroad that Wes Streeting is tied to Mandelson. I'm not sure that is the case.
I've seen it written that he was a protege of Mandelson. That might be exagerration or total fabrication for all I know, but someone has it out for him if that is being bandied about.
@EdKrassen · 2h BREAKING: Democrat Chasity Martinez just defeated her Republican opponent in the Louisiana State House 60 Special Election by about 23 points. It’s s district that Trump won in 2024 by 13 points. That’s a huge 36 point swing in favor of the Democrats.
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
She's right (for once). There are hundreds of fairly poor , vulnerable girls who were sexually abused by this monster and his "friends". That is the scandal of Epstein, so much more serious than his corruption, his use of private information given to him by the likes of Mandelson. These girls were destroyed. Those that played a part in that really need to be held to account. Mandelson should be too, don't get me wrong, but the real victims remain invisible here.
Yes. This should be about the victims of Epstein's sexual abuse and trafficking but it isn't. Note how the Mandelson scandal has exploded to these levels only because of the 'info leaking' aspect. That is deemed more important.
I don't think that the lobbying and insider trading aspect is considered more important, it is more that it is the new issue.
The abuse and trafficking of girls and women has been known about for years. Quite why there hasn't been a systematic investigation and series of interviews with these women is a question for the American authorities. While the Epstein files corroborate, and case against the perpatrators surely requires witnesses.
As far as the current administration is concerned, that's very clear indeed.
Why Biden's DOJ didn't pursue it with more urgency is a question I don't know the answer to.
Sure, the Maxwell appeal gave rise to some sub judice issues - and there exist non prosecution deals from earlier which would have added to the difficulty. It's clear there'd also been efforts over the years to discredit victims and witnesses.
But none of those things were sufficient reason not to do anything.
Mind you, I didn't get round to entering. Buddy start to the year has meant less PB time and while I did mean to enter I didn't get round to it.
On the competition-only posters, are these fingers for other entrants, trying to maximise their chances? Or TSE in stealth mode, legendary modesty preventing a direct entry?
@EdKrassen · 2h BREAKING: Democrat Chasity Martinez just defeated her Republican opponent in the Louisiana State House 60 Special Election by about 23 points. It’s s district that Trump won in 2024 by 13 points. That’s a huge 36 point swing in favor of the Democrats.
While Trump won the district in 2024, the two previous house members were Democrats, so it's a good result but not as crazy one like Texas.
Sir Keir Starmer will give an address to the nation as soon as tomorrow as he hopes to begin to move on from the worst week of his premiership.
McSweeney, hardly knew him....none of his work crossed my desk...failure of others who mispresented his abilities....my father was a toolmaker, i know what its like to be working class, pride in britain, patriotic renewal, further and faster, 24 years of tory misrule.
There seems to be a perception abroad that Wes Streeting is tied to Mandelson. I'm not sure that is the case.
Starmer won't resign either if he thinks Rayner or Ed Miliband would replace him. Of those 2 only Rayner would likely challenge him direct for which she needs 81 MPs.
Longer term I suspect Starmer will try and prepare Streeting to be his heir apparent before the next GE if he doesn't think he can win it
Add Keir Starmer's newfound concern for victims of Peter Mandelson's bestie to his backflip on whether women can have penises and his U-turn on the Rotherham grooming gangs enquiry. Starmer is indifferent to harm done to girls and women unless it threatens his career. #StarmerOut
Keir needs an emergency Deputy PM who actually does the PM job while Keir just waves and stuff.
They don’t actually need to be in the Commons. Could be made Lord if needs be.
Thoughts anyone?
Too soon for a Mandy comeback?
The answer to Gardenwalker is not just yes, but already happened, when Starmer brought Jones in he told McGlumface to report to jones, but McGlumface refused. The two who now share McGlumfaces portfolio will report to Jones.
I don’t know, should opposition parties be celebrating when Labour’s number 10 operation is getting stronger not weaker?
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I gues you don't like truth when you see it.. you just send out chaff
From a Conservative Party of view, couldn’t number 10 be stronger now with a divisive figure no longer heading up the operation. Also could a change to a new PM prove to Labours advantage, there is danger the public start listening to Labour again with a new voice and personality at the top. I’m currently convinced an improving economy and cost of living in coming years won’t help Labour in the polls if it’s Starmer and Rachel to take credit for it, but voters might think the new people at top improved cost of living and the economy and give them the credit for it.
Tentative theory: Those whose politics is driven by Starmer Derangement Syndrome will see this as a big win. (I've got vague recollections of similar whoops of joy with some of the early New Labour resignations, possibly including Mandy 1.0).
Calmer heads, and those who want to see a return to some sort of sane right-of-centre government... less so. A fox has been shot, sure, and a wily one at that. But if you get rid of the object of all the hatred before the election, that doesn't entirely help.
Yes.
Inflation at 2% for a long time starting this summer quickly drags down interest rates, and growth at 2% a year from 2028 should make it hard work for opposition parties to unseat a government at the only elections which actually matter.
The voters have clearly made their mind up about Starmer, and Rachel from accounts too, so unlikely to give them all the credit for improving household income, their presence will be a drag on polling and seat winning, but a fresh change at top of Labour coinciding with nations finances on the up brings dangers for the opposition parties.
I definitely have a point. It starts with polling rise for Farage’s UKIP after the Pasty Tax budget, meaning it’s not Farage and his party that created the rise, but how voters instinctively react to economic news in their polling answers. What I am explaining here is something proven how it works.
I go see Dad for the afternoon and miss all the drama! Gotta be drama central tomorrow, especially with Farage having another rally with 'special guests' (lol) after we find out what Keir does next
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I gues you don't like truth when you see it.. you just send out chaff
From a Conservative Party of view, couldn’t number 10 be stronger now with a divisive figure no longer heading up the operation. Also could a change to a new PM prove to Labours advantage, there is danger the public start listening to Labour again with a new voice and personality at the top. I’m currently convinced an improving economy and cost of living in coming years won’t help Labour in the polls if it’s Starmer and Rachel to take credit for it, but voters might think the new people at top improved cost of living and the economy and give them the credit for it.
Tentative theory: Those whose politics is driven by Starmer Derangement Syndrome will see this as a big win. (I've got vague recollections of similar whoops of joy with some of the early New Labour resignations, possibly including Mandy 1.0).
Calmer heads, and those who want to see a return to some sort of sane right-of-centre government... less so. A fox has been shot, sure, and a wily one at that. But if you get rid of the object of all the hatred before the election, that doesn't entirely help.
Yes.
Inflation at 2% for a long time starting this summer quickly drags down interest rates, and growth at 2% a year from 2028 should make it hard work for opposition parties to unseat a government at the only elections which actually matter.
The voters have clearly made their mind up about Starmer, and Rachel from accounts too, so unlikely to give them all the credit for improving household income, their presence will be a drag on polling and seat winning, but a fresh change at top of Labour coinciding with nations finances on the up brings dangers for the opposition parties.
I definitely have a point. It starts with polling rise for Farage’s UKIP after the Pasty Tax budget, meaning it’s not Farage and his party that created the rise, but how voters instinctively react to economic news in their polling answers. What I am explaining here is something proven how it works.
Inflation will, I am confident, still be around 2.75% - 3% by the year end. It’s sticky and the govt will be giving inflationary pay awards to its client vote in the public sector.
BOE assessment from last week can join yours, can’t have too many assessments to cross refer 🙂
BOE had it more likely to dip below 2% by June, than be above 2%. In one of the question answers at the news conference, when pointed out by the telegraph journalist I think, who raised that the failure to cut interest rates last week against backdrop of decreasing inflationary pressure especially underlying inflation will cost people jobs, businesses and livelihoods, the answer was greater confidence in 2% or less by the summer because of the lack of movement on interest rates.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
It only returned to that culture after social democrat Ed Miliband and socialist Corbyn lost 3 general elections between them
Tory HQ is rejoicing. They think Labour will not recover from Starmer’s downfall, that whoever comes next will bring chaos and that the public won’t forgive them. They now see a route back to government in one term, a thought that would have been ridiculous only a few weeks ago.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I gues you don't like truth when you see it.. you just send out chaff
From a Conservative Party of view, couldn’t number 10 be stronger now with a divisive figure no longer heading up the operation. Also could a change to a new PM prove to Labours advantage, there is danger the public start listening to Labour again with a new voice and personality at the top. I’m currently convinced an improving economy and cost of living in coming years won’t help Labour in the polls if it’s Starmer and Rachel to take credit for it, but voters might think the new people at top improved cost of living and the economy and give them the credit for it.
Tentative theory: Those whose politics is driven by Starmer Derangement Syndrome will see this as a big win. (I've got vague recollections of similar whoops of joy with some of the early New Labour resignations, possibly including Mandy 1.0).
Calmer heads, and those who want to see a return to some sort of sane right-of-centre government... less so. A fox has been shot, sure, and a wily one at that. But if you get rid of the object of all the hatred before the election, that doesn't entirely help.
Yes.
Inflation at 2% for a long time starting this summer quickly drags down interest rates, and growth at 2% a year from 2028 should make it hard work for opposition parties to unseat a government at the only elections which actually matter.
The voters have clearly made their mind up about Starmer, and Rachel from accounts too, so unlikely to give them all the credit for improving household income, their presence will be a drag on polling and seat winning, but a fresh change at top of Labour coinciding with nations finances on the up brings dangers for the opposition parties.
I definitely have a point. It starts with polling rise for Farage’s UKIP after the Pasty Tax budget, meaning it’s not Farage and his party that created the rise, but how voters instinctively react to economic news in their polling answers. What I am explaining here is something proven how it works.
Labour should see if Michael Carrick is free.
No. I see it as different than a new manager bounce in football. It is a real thing in football, but internal - Man Utd had the whole mood, morale and confidence reset when the nasty weirdo the playing group hated, left the building. That might work internally where team in number 10 work better with McSweeny going. But change of Party leader only works in UK politics if it has an external affect on voters. Last Conservative government tried it twice had no bounce of any lasting merit, but change Starmer and Reeves will get a huge bounce for Labour from the electorate, that could be cemented if the good economic news keeps on coming in coming years.
Gossip and hearsay, however Charlie is the chap who broke the Rosindell defection before it happened (getting furious denials from his team 48 hours before he jumped) and the Jamie Evans one a week or so before it happened, so linking for the interest of those who like a bit of gossip from a source with at least some track record.
(In other words if you only like cold hard facts, move along, ive caveated as much as i'm gonna, dyor etc)
There seems to be a perception abroad that Wes Streeting is tied to Mandelson. I'm not sure that is the case.
Maybe not "tied" to him, but certainly prepared to go in and bat for him.
eg. From The National, September 2025 "WES Streeting has defended Lord Peter Mandelson’s relationship with the late Jeffrey Epstein after it was revealed the Labour peer called the convicted paedophile his “best pal”.
Their political closeness means that there's also a very real risk for Streeting that somewhere in the yet-to-be-revealed but copious correspondence around Mandelson's appointment there is something from Streeting weighing in on Mandelson's behalf.
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
She's right (for once). There are hundreds of fairly poor , vulnerable girls who were sexually abused by this monster and his "friends". That is the scandal of Epstein, so much more serious than his corruption, his use of private information given to him by the likes of Mandelson. These girls were destroyed. Those that played a part in that really need to be held to account. Mandelson should be too, don't get me wrong, but the real victims remain invisible here.
Yes. This should be about the victims of Epstein's sexual abuse and trafficking but it isn't. Note how the Mandelson scandal has exploded to these levels only because of the 'info leaking' aspect. That is deemed more important.
People can be outraged by more than one thing at the same time. There is more of a buzz about Mandelson here because we are about the politics and some weird train stuff. It doesn’t mean we don’t remotely care about the victims it’s just that the implications politically are what we are talking about here. If we were on maybe somewhere like mumsnet then there might be a greater focus on the victims.
There is very little we can do or add by discussing the victims. They are largely unknown to us and despite us thinking the perps were sick and twisted soulless monsters. Any punishment and retribution is outside of our abilities to debate. What we can debate is powerful people in this country and others and if those people can be rooted out the world is better.
I do not see the Epstein scandal as an issue of politicians being caught with their pants down (or up even) but as a disgusting crime foisted on vulnerable women but I have nothing to add on that and I think most of us chaps on here can’t add more than theor feelings of disgust.
So we focus on the political angle on Political Betting because, it’s politics.
I wasn't directing that at PB. I meant it more generally. The Mandelson scandal has exploded due to the leaking not the close Epstein friendship. The latter was why he was sacked and that did not bring the roof down. QED. Sad but true.
Tory HQ is rejoicing. They think Labour will not recover from Starmer’s downfall, that whoever comes next will bring chaos and that the public won’t forgive them. They now see a route back to government in one term, a thought that would have been ridiculous only a few weeks ago.
If the Tories were leading the latest polls they might have a point...but they are third!!!
They should also not be gleeful because this isn’t a game. The country doesn’t need more chaos because of political factionalism. If the country goes to shit under a replacement then a next administration, Tory or other will be clearing up mess so looking backwards rather than forwards.
I can’t stand Labour but I love the UK and would rather govs change due to small differences than because the previous incumbents have fucked the place up.
As useless as Starmer is I would rather someone in power who does nothing than who implements damaging policies, which from my perspective would be the UK under Rayner or Miliband (other opinions are available) which take decades to undo.
I go see Dad for the afternoon and miss all the drama! Gotta be drama central tomorrow, especially with Farage having another rally with 'special guests' (lol) after we find out what Keir does next
Reform had a Labour MP lined up after Jenrick. But they backed away for some reason - Reform had some bad publicity of the back of Jenrick and Labour seemed to gain some in the polls. I suppose that it might be back on now.
Gossip and hearsay, however Charlie is the chap who broke the Rosindell defection before it happened (getting furious denials from his team 48 hours before he jumped) and the Jamie Evans one a week or so before it happened, so linking for the interest of those who like a bit of gossip from a source with at least some track record.
That sounds highly implausible. In fact, and of course I may be wrong, I'm calling it bollocks.
I go see Dad for the afternoon and miss all the drama! Gotta be drama central tomorrow, especially with Farage having another rally with 'special guests' (lol) after we find out what Keir does next
Reform had a Labour MP lined up after Jenrick. But they backed away for some reason - Reform had some bad publicity of the back of Jenrick and Labour seemed to gain some in the polls. I suppose that it might be back on now.
Tory HQ is rejoicing. They think Labour will not recover from Starmer’s downfall, that whoever comes next will bring chaos and that the public won’t forgive them. They now see a route back to government in one term, a thought that would have been ridiculous only a few weeks ago.
If the Tories were leading the latest polls they might have a point...but they are third!!!
I agree with you here HYUFD. The Tories arent winning a GE as things stand. A total Labour implosion might save their status as a triple figure seat opposition though. A very immediate GE might be entertaining chaos though. Reform havent even started candidate selection and have no policy documents worked up. The Tories are probably in slightly better shape to jump into an immediate battle (but hardly 'prepared'!)
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
She's right (for once). There are hundreds of fairly poor , vulnerable girls who were sexually abused by this monster and his "friends". That is the scandal of Epstein, so much more serious than his corruption, his use of private information given to him by the likes of Mandelson. These girls were destroyed. Those that played a part in that really need to be held to account. Mandelson should be too, don't get me wrong, but the real victims remain invisible here.
Yes. This should be about the victims of Epstein's sexual abuse and trafficking but it isn't. Note how the Mandelson scandal has exploded to these levels only because of the 'info leaking' aspect. That is deemed more important.
They are also two different things as far as Starmer is concerned.
Everyone knew about Mandelson having a relationship with the paedophile Epstein. And Starmer can be rightly judged on that.
Until now, Mandelson leaking Brown's cabinet secrets in real time wasn't known by anyone in government apart from Mandelson.
Exactly. That's the info that is driving the scandal into major league. Just the friendship wasn't enough.
I go see Dad for the afternoon and miss all the drama! Gotta be drama central tomorrow, especially with Farage having another rally with 'special guests' (lol) after we find out what Keir does next
Reform had a Labour MP lined up after Jenrick. But they backed away for some reason - Reform had some bad publicity of the back of Jenrick and Labour seemed to gain some in the polls. I suppose that it might be back on now.
Gossip and hearsay, however Charlie is the chap who broke the Rosindell defection before it happened (getting furious denials from his team 48 hours before he jumped) and the Jamie Evans one a week or so before it happened, so linking for the interest of those who like a bit of gossip from a source with at least some track record.
That sounds highly implausible. In fact, and of course I may be wrong, I'm calling it bollocks.
It could well be. But i have been following this chap and he's been getting some good info from somewhere so i found it interesting without putting my shirt or pants on it
"I had a mirthless laugh at the New Statesman’s cover this week, which characterised the Mandelson affair as “the scandal of the century”. Guys, it’s not even the biggest scandal of the scandal."
She's right (for once). There are hundreds of fairly poor , vulnerable girls who were sexually abused by this monster and his "friends". That is the scandal of Epstein, so much more serious than his corruption, his use of private information given to him by the likes of Mandelson. These girls were destroyed. Those that played a part in that really need to be held to account. Mandelson should be too, don't get me wrong, but the real victims remain invisible here.
Yes. This should be about the victims of Epstein's sexual abuse and trafficking but it isn't. Note how the Mandelson scandal has exploded to these levels only because of the 'info leaking' aspect. That is deemed more important.
I really dislike this way of thinking, or the use of it as a gotcha. An overiding concern about Mandelson does not mean you do not care about the trafficked girls.
The latter concern is 1) a given, and goes without saying - you'd have to be a really creepy bastard not to care about that 2) not news, we've known for ages this was going on and the latest files are just a confirmation 3) an important reason why Mandelson and Andrew are in such deep shit, because they continued cavorting with this nonce even after his conviction 4) also why Starmer is in deep shit, because the expectation is former DPP and all-round decent guy should not be appointing people who did said cavorting.
I don't think we should round up all PBers/commentators/politicians and ensure, via a statement, that they think the trafficking of young girls is a bad thing. It's a redundant exercise.
I wasn't offering it in 'gotcha' spirit. It's just an observation of what's driving the scandal to these heights.
Clive Lewis: McSweeney “was not an aberration”, but “the tip of an iceberg. What he represents is a political culture that has dominated Labour for a generation. A culture forged under Blair and Mandelson that taught the party to be relaxed about extreme wealth, comfortable in the orbit of billionaires, lobbyists and corporate power, and increasingly detached from the lives of the people it was created to represent. The Mandelson scandal matters because it exposes that culture in its rawest form. Proximity to wealth and power was not a by-product. It was the point.”
I gues you don't like truth when you see it.. you just send out chaff
From a Conservative Party of view, couldn’t number 10 be stronger now with a divisive figure no longer heading up the operation. Also could a change to a new PM prove to Labours advantage, there is danger the public start listening to Labour again with a new voice and personality at the top. I’m currently convinced an improving economy and cost of living in coming years won’t help Labour in the polls if it’s Starmer and Rachel to take credit for it, but voters might think the new people at top improved cost of living and the economy and give them the credit for it.
Tentative theory: Those whose politics is driven by Starmer Derangement Syndrome will see this as a big win. (I've got vague recollections of similar whoops of joy with some of the early New Labour resignations, possibly including Mandy 1.0).
Calmer heads, and those who want to see a return to some sort of sane right-of-centre government... less so. A fox has been shot, sure, and a wily one at that. But if you get rid of the object of all the hatred before the election, that doesn't entirely help.
Yes.
Inflation at 2% for a long time starting this summer quickly drags down interest rates, and growth at 2% a year from 2028 should make it hard work for opposition parties to unseat a government at the only elections which actually matter.
The voters have clearly made their mind up about Starmer, and Rachel from accounts too, so unlikely to give them all the credit for improving household income, their presence will be a drag on polling and seat winning, but a fresh change at top of Labour coinciding with nations finances on the up brings dangers for the opposition parties.
I definitely have a point. It starts with polling rise for Farage’s UKIP after the Pasty Tax budget, meaning it’s not Farage and his party that created the rise, but how voters instinctively react to economic news in their polling answers. What I am explaining here is something proven how it works.
Labour should see if Michael Carrick is free.
As said earlier
Very real chance 2% inflation 2.5% base rate mortgage rates starting with a 2 by early 2027.
Comments
Trump 51 (+2)
Harris 49
The only way to look at it, the over all run ins, computer dealt Arsenal a very very easy one, the points Arsenal will drop in their remaining fixtures still leaves them, in the eighties, Man City need to be nearly faultless from here just to get out the seventies. The trend is Man City capable of dropping points just about anywhere, there is something just not convincing about them, particularly defensively, far from the finished title winning article. Even today it’s not a splendid win at Liverpool, more a mugging from the couple of half chances they created in second half, and some Liverpool implosion.
Arsenal win this title by at least 9 points, likely a few more.
How many titles did they cheat their way to ?
All of the economic signs are good
The popular policies are starting to resonate
The deluded Tories seeing any quick route to number 10 from 18% on the Polls re utterly deluded.
If Labour can arrive in to 2027 with an improved economy, cost of living, NHS and a leader about whom the metrics are even just average there is no doubt a second term is infinitely probable.
The Tories have no policies. a rump of ministers tarnished by 14 years, very little credible new blood and who very few want near power any time soon.
All of the economic signs are good
The popular policies are starting to resonate
The deluded Tories seeing any quick route to number 10 from 18% on the Polls re utterly deluded.
If Labour can arrive in to 2027 with an improved economy, cost of living, NHS and a leader about whom the metrics are even just average there is no doubt a second term is infinitely probable.
The Tories have no policies. a rump of ministers tarnished by 14 years, very little credible new blood and who very few want near power any time soon.
- Epstein
- G. Maxwell
- Their procurers
- Those in their circle who.. partook
- Those who sold/gave confidential information to Epstein to trade higher in his graces. Which he used to enable all of the above.
It was a system. Giving him financial information was fuel for the system - bartered into further favours, money and human misery.
They are all guilty. And there are enough prison cells for all of them.
* Geddit?
There was no collusion.
- the quiet middle class couple who scaled up to the posher road
- the Essex guy who tiled his winning numbers in the bottom of the swimming pool. In the mansion he lived in with his extended family.
- The car thief who spent it all on expensive cars
- The working class couple who went back to work in the same jobs, because that was their social lives.
- The angry shit who divorced his wife and became a richer angry shit.
Wealth just seemed to increase the scale of who they were, anyway.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appears to have knowingly shared confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein from his official work as trade envoy in 2010 and 2011, according to material in the latest release of files in the US seen by the BBC.
Emails from the recently-released batch of Epstein files show the former prince passing on reports of visits to Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam and confidential details of investment opportunities.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99j01p1yjro
This Epstein chap was singularly unlucky in his choice of friends: wrong'uns, the lot of 'em.
I don’t know, should opposition parties be celebrating when Labour’s number 10 operation is getting stronger not weaker?
If you meet scumbags all day, everyday, maybe you are the scumbag?
Or the stuff that was not in writing goes much further, which is probable.
Come up with an original political pun nickname for someone in the news
If you can beat Pants Peer, I’ll applaud
As posted early Saturday morning, below:
But, yes, a very good result for the Democrats.
Inflation at 2% for a long time starting this summer quickly drags down interest rates, and growth at 2% a year from 2028 should make it hard work for opposition parties to unseat a government at the only elections which actually matter.
The voters have clearly made their mind up about Starmer, and Rachel from accounts too, so unlikely to give them all the credit for improving household income, their presence will be a drag on polling and seat winning, but a fresh change at top of Labour coinciding with nations finances on the up brings dangers for the opposition parties.
I definitely have a point. It starts with polling rise for Farage’s UKIP after the Pasty Tax budget, meaning it’s not Farage and his party that created the rise, but how voters instinctively react to economic news in their polling answers. What I am explaining here is something proven how it works.
She has a v modest public profile, and her money means I can’t really describe her as “down to earth”, but she presents v normally.
I'm more interested in what sort of moron told Andrew anything of interest.
Ed Miliband now 2nd favourite to be next PM:
Rayner 3.65
Miliband 8.4
Streeting 9
Mahmood 11.5
(Farage 16)
Carns 17
Cooper 19
The Country is in the shit. Useless Ministers debt rising massively.. Not as bad as France but bloody awful nonetheless and we are all burdened with Labours taxes.. Economic sign are a burden on us all and ongoing.
Including Speaker Mike Johnson.
Why would that be?
There is very little we can do or add by discussing the victims. They are largely unknown to us and despite us thinking the perps were sick and twisted soulless monsters. Any punishment and retribution is outside of our abilities to debate. What we can debate is powerful people in this country and others and if those people can be rooted out the world is better.
I do not see the Epstein scandal as an issue of politicians being caught with their pants down (or up even) but as a disgusting crime foisted on vulnerable women but I have nothing to add on that and I think most of us chaps on here can’t add more than theor feelings of disgust.
So we focus on the political angle on Political Betting because, it’s politics.
McSweeney, hardly knew him....none of his work crossed my desk...failure of others who mispresented his abilities....my father was a toolmaker, i know what its like to be working class, pride in britain, patriotic renewal, further and faster, 24 years of tory misrule.
The abuse and trafficking of girls and women has been known about for years.
Quite why there hasn't been a systematic investigation and series of interviews with these women is a question for the American authorities. While the Epstein files corroborate, and case against the perpatrators surely requires witnesses.
What he disclosed would likely be low level info, not to excuse it but it’s not the biggest sin compared to Mandy passing on anything that would be market sensitive.
The latter concern is 1) a given, and goes without saying - you'd have to be a really creepy bastard not to care about that 2) not news, we've known for ages this was going on and the latest files are just a confirmation 3) an important reason why Mandelson and Andrew are in such deep shit, because they continued cavorting with this nonce even after his conviction 4) also why Starmer is in deep shit, because the expectation is former DPP and all-round decent guy should not be appointing people who did said cavorting.
I don't think we should round up all PBers/commentators/politicians and ensure, via a statement, that they think the trafficking of young girls is a bad thing. It's a redundant exercise.
When you play Monopoly with a billionaire, do they start with a hotel on Park Lane?
When you play Cluedo, does their house become the board?
Everyone knew about Mandelson having a relationship with the paedophile Epstein.
And Starmer can be rightly judged on that.
Until now, Mandelson leaking Brown's cabinet secrets in real time wasn't known by anyone in government apart from Mandelson.
If you don't divide by 2, you are double-counting the swing.
Just like I done in sussing out the truth behind the Chagos story, I have sussed out the amazing truth behind Mandelson getting the Ambassador job.
Peter Mandelson getting shit for leaking governments to a man he remained friends with despite him being a paedophile simply reminds everyone that this paedophile was well connected and most people who knew him have faced no consequences at all.
It's like going after Capone for tax crimes, there are people who were part of the Epstein network who may never face consequences for the worst crimes, but if they can be shamed and punished in other ways for either their complicity or willful ignorance, that's something at least.
Attacked by Pete and Eagles for my shit nicknames
Neither of them can even come up with an original, shit, topical, political pun nickname for anyone
I think that they may also be pants peers
Keir Starmer still hasn’t resigned over appointing Peter Mandelson but his chief of staff has resigned.
He never lives by his own standards.
https://x.com/archrose90/status/2020581651408097303?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Fortunately political punters can be very wrong. Remember the EU Referendum.
Why Biden's DOJ didn't pursue it with more urgency is a question I don't know the answer to.
Sure, the Maxwell appeal gave rise to some sub judice issues - and there exist non prosecution deals from earlier which would have added to the difficulty.
It's clear there'd also been efforts over the years to discredit victims and witnesses.
But none of those things were sufficient reason not to do anything.
Was it just not seen as important ?
Mind you, I didn't get round to entering. Buddy start to the year has meant less PB time and while I did mean to enter I didn't get round to it.
On the competition-only posters, are these fingers for other entrants, trying to maximise their chances? Or TSE in stealth mode, legendary modesty preventing a direct entry?
Longer term I suspect Starmer will try and prepare Streeting to be his heir apparent before the next GE if he doesn't think he can win it
Add Keir Starmer's newfound concern for victims of Peter Mandelson's bestie to his backflip on whether women can have penises and his U-turn on the Rotherham grooming gangs enquiry. Starmer is indifferent to harm done to girls and women unless it threatens his career. #StarmerOut
Gotta be drama central tomorrow, especially with Farage having another rally with 'special guests' (lol) after we find out what Keir does next
BOE had it more likely to dip below 2% by June, than be above 2%. In one of the question answers at the news conference, when pointed out by the telegraph journalist I think, who raised that the failure to cut interest rates last week against backdrop of decreasing inflationary pressure especially underlying inflation will cost people jobs, businesses and livelihoods, the answer was greater confidence in 2% or less by the summer because of the lack of movement on interest rates.
Got it now. I suspect I am closer to the age of someone requiring Tena pants than TSE, but I'm not there yet.
I’m not surprised, given that you claim not to understand “Slalom Sir Keir” as a clever, descriptive pun nickname. Even if you don’t find it funny
Gossip and hearsay, however Charlie is the chap who broke the Rosindell defection before it happened (getting furious denials from his team 48 hours before he jumped) and the Jamie Evans one a week or so before it happened, so linking for the interest of those who like a bit of gossip from a source with at least some track record.
(In other words if you only like cold hard facts, move along, ive caveated as much as i'm gonna, dyor etc)
eg. From The National, September 2025
"WES Streeting has defended Lord Peter Mandelson’s relationship with the late Jeffrey Epstein after it was revealed the Labour peer called the convicted paedophile his “best pal”.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25451640.streeting-defends-peter-mandelsons-relationship-jeffrey-epstein/
Also this:
https://x.com/owenjonesjourno/status/2018970294397071569
Their political closeness means that there's also a very real risk for Streeting that somewhere in the yet-to-be-revealed but copious correspondence around Mandelson's appointment there is something from Streeting weighing in on Mandelson's behalf.
I can’t stand Labour but I love the UK and would rather govs change due to small differences than because the previous incumbents have fucked the place up.
As useless as Starmer is I would rather someone in power who does nothing than who implements damaging policies, which from my perspective would be the UK under Rayner or Miliband (other opinions are available) which take decades to undo.
The whole site awaits an original, topical, political pun nickname from anyone but Blanche
Come on Eagles; you’re nearly there
Absolute dinosaurs of a decade ago
Brother of Julian IIRC.
A very immediate GE might be entertaining chaos though. Reform havent even started candidate selection and have no policy documents worked up. The Tories are probably in slightly better shape to jump into an immediate battle (but hardly 'prepared'!)
Very real chance 2% inflation 2.5% base rate mortgage rates starting with a 2 by early 2027.
Debt under strict control
If RR goes replacement must be Darren Jones