Starmer's vision quest

[briantrumpet]

Mandleson's track record showed he used his manipulative/deceptive skills to further his personal gain, everything else irrelevant. Did something convince Starmer that Mandleson was a reformed character?

I don't think he wanted a reformed character, he wanted someone who could play Trump. But, as I say, I don't think it was a totally unreasonable assumption that Mandelson wouldn't shaft Starmer (and thus the Labour Party) and the UK.

I don't know what sort of person you would have appointed to play Trump at his own game, but there were lots of commentators, from left and right, who thought that Mandelson was a good choice *despite* his known behaviour.

 

[CXRAndy]

Judgement doesn't even come into the equation with this government and the British public


View: https://x.com/i/status/2019363420357939607

 

[CXRAndy]

Same leftist playbook


View: https://x.com/i/status/2019327599382794332

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2019378541750628706

 

[Dorset Boy]

When Starmer sacked Mandelson in September, was it reported at that time that Starmer knew, when he appointed Mandelson, that Mandelson had maintained contact and friendship with Epstein whilst Epstein was in prison?
Starmer knew that, and yet still appointed him - that beggars belief.
Starmer;s apology yesterday was weasel words given he knew of the continued connections and friendship between Mandelson and Epstein even when Epstein had been convicted and was in prison.

I'll accept Starmer may not have known that Mandelson was trying to commit treason when previously in Government.

 

[CXRAndy]

Also his cabinet are supporting his current apology

 

[First Aspect]

When Starmer sacked Mandelson in September, was it reported at that time that Starmer knew, when he appointed Mandelson, that Mandelson had maintained contact and friendship with Epstein whilst Epstein was in prison?
Starmer knew that, and yet still appointed him - that beggars belief.
Starmer;s apology yesterday was weasel words given he knew of the continued connections and friendship between Mandelson and Epstein even when Epstein had been convicted and was in prison.

I'll accept Starmer may not have known that Mandelson was trying to commit treason when previously in Government.

Not quite. He said he knew there was still some contact between them.

My take on this is that he will survive the incompetence part of it - by which I mean "vetting" being asking a shady fukcer whether or not he is shady and taking his word for it. But if there is a trickle of additional things he or the government knew and that he has not yet admitted to, he will face a vote of no confidence, or be otherwise pressured to resign.

Morgan McBoatface will survive as long as Starmer, but surely even Stsrmer needs to keep him out of the public eye and off the radio etc.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Judgement doesn't even come into the equation with this government and the British public


View: https://x.com/i/status/2019363420357939607

I normally refrain from replying to your stream of twatter shoot but will bite on this one.

Councils are acting as agents to procure/refurbish homes so as to move migrants from hotels.

But you knew that.

 

[icowden]

I normally refrain from replying to your stream of twatter shoot but will bite on this one.
Councils are acting as agents to procure/refurbish homes so as to move migrants from hotels.
But you knew that.

Also worth noting that the scheme is also to help the homeless.

 

[C R]

You two seem to be under the illusion that facts matter.

 

[Psamathe]

To me Starmer is looking like the driver of a car with bald tyres he's just crashed causing a serious accident.

"I was warned the tyres were bald, I could see the tyres were bald but the lying car salesman lied and told me that bald tyres really don't matter. It's all the fault of the lying car salesman, Oh, sorry about the victims for what the lying car salesman caused" and all whilst the Police investigate the driver losing his license even though driver blaming everybody else for his decision to knowingly drive on bald tyres.

 

[secretsqirrel]

When Starmer sacked Mandelson in September, was it reported at that time that Starmer knew, when he appointed Mandelson, that Mandelson had maintained contact and friendship with Epstein whilst Epstein was in prison?
Starmer knew that, and yet still appointed him - that beggars belief.
Starmer;s apology yesterday was weasel words given he knew of the continued connections and friendship between Mandelson and Epstein even when Epstein had been convicted and was in prison.

I'll accept Starmer may not have known that Mandelson was trying to commit treason when previously in Government.

Re: your 1st point about the appointment, yes that was common knowledge, and sure ‘beggars belief’ from the best if us, but at the time there was not universal condemnation in political circles as the appointment was largely viewed as risky but pragmatic.

The sacking, was brought about by new emails where it emerged Mandelstein were more than just an acquaintance. This info was not available the time of the appointment, as far as we know. If it turns out it was then that is serious.

Political apologies are always ‘weasel words’, that is a common response. The apology was made towards the victims, would it have been better if he had not bothered?

I support your final sentence.

 

[briantrumpet]

This is an extremely good piece by Lewis Goodall on Starmer/Mandelson, with a hefty mea culpa. It's worth reading the whole thing, but the quote below is at the heart of it.

https://goodallandgoodluck.substack...&shareImageVariant=overlay&triedRedirect=true

"I recount this not because the decision was especially important, but because it reveals something I cannot ignore but which many are: how distant the Epstein story felt then. That makes it harder for me to judge Starmer — unless he knew something I did not. Like me, he made the wrong judgment in light of what we now know. But I also know this: if those now shouting loudest had been shouting then, the question would have been harder to avoid — and the appointment less likely to be made. Because of this episode reveals anything it is the power of the old media to dictate the terms.

None of this is intended to excuse Starmer. Labour MPs were right about one thing: he was visibly strangulated at the dispatch box. His hand trembled. He seemed to shrink as the minutes passed. Perhaps it will yet emerge that he was hiding something — something he knows, deep in his lawyer’s bones, will destroy him. A Prime Minister of probity ejected from Downing Street in the worst ethics scandal since the last one.

But perhaps it was something else. Deep down, in those same lawyer’s bones, he knows and we know, the real reason he appointed Mandelson, another truth from which we still look away: he appointed him not in spite of his relationship with Epstein, but because of his relationship with Epstein.

That does not mean Starmer regarded it as an asset. But it did signify something: Mandelson’s ease in the world of the wealthy and the lawless, the lurid and the powerful, the beautiful and the damned. He was at home among global elites for whom scandal is survivable. In other words, he would be entirely at home in the court of Trump. Many of the same columnists now condemning Starmer praised him at the time for appointing a “master of the dark arts”, for taking a gamble. Starmer was no natural admirer of Mandelson, but came to believe that the jeopardy of the US-UK relationship under Trump justified the risk."

 

[secretsqirrel]

This is an extremely good piece by Lewis Goodall on Starmer/Mandelson, with a hefty mea culpa. It's worth reading the whole thing, but the quote below is at the heart of it.

https://goodallandgoodluck.substack...&shareImageVariant=overlay&triedRedirect=true

"I recount this not because the decision was especially important, but because it reveals something I cannot ignore but which many are: how distant the Epstein story felt then. That makes it harder for me to judge Starmer — unless he knew something I did not. Like me, he made the wrong judgment in light of what we now know. But I also know this: if those now shouting loudest had been shouting then, the question would have been harder to avoid — and the appointment less likely to be made. Because of this episode reveals anything it is the power of the old media to dictate the terms.

None of this is intended to excuse Starmer. Labour MPs were right about one thing: he was visibly strangulated at the dispatch box. His hand trembled. He seemed to shrink as the minutes passed. Perhaps it will yet emerge that he was hiding something — something he knows, deep in his lawyer’s bones, will destroy him. A Prime Minister of probity ejected from Downing Street in the worst ethics scandal since the last one.

But perhaps it was something else. Deep down, in those same lawyer’s bones, he knows and we know, the real reason he appointed Mandelson, another truth from which we still look away: he appointed him not in spite of his relationship with Epstein, but because of his relationship with Epstein.

That does not mean Starmer regarded it as an asset. But it did signify something: Mandelson’s ease in the world of the wealthy and the lawless, the lurid and the powerful, the beautiful and the damned. He was at home among global elites for whom scandal is survivable. In other words, he would be entirely at home in the court of Trump. Many of the same columnists now condemning Starmer praised him at the time for appointing a “master of the dark arts”, for taking a gamble. Starmer was no natural admirer of Mandelson, but came to believe that the jeopardy of the US-UK relationship under Trump justified the risk."

That is a sound analysis.

This Newscast from 4th Feb with Chris Mason () was also a good listen in the aftermath of the humble address.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0mz4434?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

 

[icowden]

To me Starmer is looking like the driver of a car with bald tyres he's just crashed causing a serious accident.

"I was warned the tyres were bald, I could see the tyres were bald but the lying car salesman lied and told me that bald tyres really don't matter. It's all the fault of the lying car salesman, Oh, sorry about the victims for what the lying car salesman caused" and all whilst the Police investigate the driver losing his license even though driver blaming everybody else for his decision to knowingly drive on bald tyres.

I think this is wrong.

It should be "I was told the car was roadworthy but had been in previous collisions. At the time that I drove off I had not been made aware that the car had twice been written off and the tyres painted black with playdoh used to create the tyre ridges. Had I known then when we all know now, obviously I would never have accepted the vehicle.