Psamathe
Guru
C4 news reporting how in Parliament today no Labour backbenchers supporting Starmer.
Mandy
- Thread starter Ian H
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
Oh, I suspect the plotting has already started, knives will be being sharpened
briantrumpet
Timewaster
This.
It's a pity that they didn't realise that Mandelson was even more dodgy than he already had on his CV.
It's a pity that they didn't realise that Mandelson was even more dodgy than he already had on his CV.
secretsqirrel
Senior Member
It was a risk giving him the job, but at stake was a relationship with a powerful but unstable headcase. I think last February things looked quite different.
briantrumpet
Timewaster
The difficulty for Starmer is, of course, that he can't admit that Mandelson was appointed in the hope that he, as a master of dark arts, could bamboozle Trump enough not to treat the UK badly or blow up the world, given that Trump is still Mad King POTUS.
midlandsgrimpeur
Well-Known Member
Apologies if someone has highlighted this already but it seems the man behind the man was (surprise, surprise) Morgan McSweeney. The Observer alleging that he was the one that pushed for Mandelson to become Ambassador. Apparently the other name in the running was..... George Osborne!
Dorset Boy
Well-Known Member
There was a third contender too for the post, name hasn't been revealled zs it made the Mandy decision seem almost sane!
briantrumpet
Timewaster
Hence the calls for him to go, and would be a slightly plausible "It was his fault!" excuse for Starmer to use. But it depends how 'captured' Starmer is by McSweeney. From the amount of Reformy stuff that Starmer has incorporated into the Labour messaging, I doubt that Starmer will have the guts, but it'll be an indicator of how desperate Starmer is to hold out as to whether he gets rid of his apparent svengali or not. It would make a lot of Labour MPs very happy if he did go, as long as he's not replaced by Chris Mason.
midlandsgrimpeur
Well-Known Member
At this stage it seems that Starmer pretty much relies on him for every call, and I suspect McSweeney is also responsible for subterfuge that even Starmer is unaware of. If he is ever going to get rid of him, now would appear to be that perfect opportunity. I suspect that Starmer will remain committed but hope to b proved wrong. I also believe that getting shot of him would be the single best decision Starmer would ever make in his political career.
briantrumpet
Timewaster
Yeah, it does feel like Starmer is under McSweeney's spell, having convinced himself that it was McSweeney's brilliance that won him the election rather than the electorate's willingness to vote simply to GTTO, and then to allow himself to be persuaded to replace Sue Gray with McSweeney as his Chief of Staff. The desperate political situation Starmer finds himself in now might be the prompt for him to find a bus whose brakes have failed...
CXRAndy
Epic Member
Remember how sanctimonious starmer was over Boris partygate
Karma's a bitch
View: https://x.com/i/status/2019147904259137777
Karma's a bitch
View: https://x.com/i/status/2019147904259137777
laurentian
Regular
I don't know whether this episode will see the downfall of Starmer. In many ways I hope not to be honest (least shoot option and all that)
One thing I would say in Starmer's defence is that when asked in PMQs yesterday "did you know that Mandleson was staying in the apartment of convicted Epstein?", Starmer, straight away, answered "yes".
I'm pretty sure none of the past three Tory PMs would not have given such a direct and honest answer. Imagine Johnson in the same situation.
Of course, this doesn't excuse his judgement or even competence but it does perhaps show that, when faced with a very uncomfortable question, he has displayed a level of honesty in a PM that I believe has been sadly lacking of late.
One thing I would say in Starmer's defence is that when asked in PMQs yesterday "did you know that Mandleson was staying in the apartment of convicted Epstein?", Starmer, straight away, answered "yes".
I'm pretty sure none of the past three Tory PMs would not have given such a direct and honest answer. Imagine Johnson in the same situation.
Of course, this doesn't excuse his judgement or even competence but it does perhaps show that, when faced with a very uncomfortable question, he has displayed a level of honesty in a PM that I believe has been sadly lacking of late.
CXRAndy
Epic Member
His back bench all gasped in shock.
Not the tories or other opposition.- they already knew
There are so many speeches about being honorable, trustworthy from starmer, he is the biggest hypocrite of them all.
Some have said, on years to come starmer will be remembered for his covering of mandleson and links to epstein whilst destroying British way of life, free speech, farmers, miltary men careers, giving away strategic land and doing absolutely nothing to stop illegal or legal immigrants
laurentian
Regular
Yeah, they're not used to honesty from a PM.
Give me a two examples of hypocrisy vs his claims of being "honorable (sic) and trustworty" (note the specificity of this question)
How has the British way of life and free speech been destroyed?
You clearly don't understand the Chagos situation so I'll not ask you anything about that.
Starmer has no links to Epstein of which I am aware, could you elaborate?
Net migration was 204,000 in the year ending June 2025, similar to the levels seen during the 2010s, but a sharp decline from the unusually high levels in 2022 and 2023. (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....rnational-migration-flows-to-and-from-the-uk/)