Why should Starmer resign? I don’t get it

While the extent of Epstein's relationshio with Mandy probably wasnt clear, it was known by many that Mandy was a somewhat dodgy character so I think people are right to question Starmer's judgement.

From the FT 2023 article I linked to upthread:
The internal JPMorgan report from 2019, filed to a New York court on Tuesday, found that “Jeffrey Epstein appears to maintain a particularly close relationship with Prince Andrew the Duke of York and Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior member of the British government”.

This is in the public domain; Starmer had access to non-public domain information.

He is unbelievably unpopular

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/30/uk/keir-starmer-labour-party-conference-intl

The main point to investigate is the sharing of sensitive government information when in a position of power. The full extent of that needs investigating and guidance drawn up. Nobody in Government or privy to sensitive inside information should ever share it in an inappropriate way and if they do, they are criminals. I think this needs to apply to all politicians. And just finger pointing at Mandelson is not good enough. How many others may have done similar? That is what I would like to know.
Who is constantly vetting all these people supposedly running us and making decisions on the behalf of millions? I do not think the court of press is enough. Clearly there need to be sophisticated departments checking on all these clowns constantly so they fall in line.

Yep

Politicians are lying grifters. I'm shocked.

People have got addicted to the drama, and the turnover. Prior to this gov, we had 5 Tory PM's in less than10 years, with endless gossip, crimial cases etc, which destabilised us further after Brexit. Someone is benefitiing from whipping up more destabilisation - Reform Ltd and Mr Putin, and Trump.

@Summerhillsquare
If Reform, Putin and Trump are responsible for whipping up more gossip and destabilisation, who was responsible for whipping up the endless gossip during the Tory government ?

What's he been right about? Let me guess Jessie smollet?

Which he was right about because he essentially claims all black people who are victims of crime are lying. Every shooting is a false flag.

He's been right about fuck all.

It's basically like me claiming every single rape is the woman lying and then jumping up and down claiming victory if I'm right one time out of a thousand.

So he is being investigated by the police for disclosing sensitive market info to epstein. I believe in part this has just come out. Using private emails to discuss government business. Such as Gordon Brown being forced to step down, he leaked that to someone who could directly impact financial markets from having that info so basically insider trading

No, I didn't.

Because either:

He was not properly vetted (which Starmer/McSweeny should have known).

Or

He was vetted and the findings ignored.

My own security vetting was massively intrusive and covered my family and social circle and all my bank accounts.

Quite simply, Mandelson has form for being dodgy about money since 1998. Within the Labour Party, far more is known than we mere mortals have.

They may have chosen him as ambassador for sensible reasons (given the nature of Trump). Thats not really the issue.

It's that they keep giving extra chances to known grifters when they know their character. Brown, despite hating him, brought him back from the EU where hed been banished because he was failing in the polls.

Basically, its about retaining power rather than being ethical.and honest.
If you lay with dogs you get fleas.

I thought you commented earlier that you didn't see the fuss

Actually it doesn’t matter whether any one of us thinks he should or shouldn’t resign, his fate will be decided by his own Labour MPs. And if various journalists’ reports of those MPs, going both on and off record, to say exactly what they think should happen now, is correct, it seems there’s plenty of them queuing up to ‘Et Tu, Brutus?’ him now.

He sacked Mandelson when the information apparently first came to light. Now he has admitted that he already knew the information when he appointed Mandelson. So if the ongoing close connection with Epstein was bad enough to sack him when it became public, why was it not a block to appointing him in the first place?

Classic case of what did you know and when did you know it.

Misleading (lying), hypocrisy, extremely bad judgment.

And now it turns out that Mandelson was more than just friendly with Epstein, he provided him (a financier) with market moving information (insider trading) from the heart of government at the height of the global financial crisis. This is criminal at the highest level.

So not only has Starmer been utterly incompetent, he has allegedly misled parliament. If proven, he will have to go. If Labour MPs think it likely it will be proven it will be better for the party that he goes quickly.

Eh? Who has said that they are relaxed about this?

Put in a good word for me with the Lizard Overlords please 🙏

The Labour Party has always had a real issue with women in senior positions, and so I imagine that was part of it. And Mandelson has been instrumental in the Starmer project, so ‘needed’ to be rewarded. Given the history, Starmer seems to have recklessly ignored the advice of the security services, and by getting another crony to ask Mandelson the follow-up questions tried to distance himself from blame if it went wrong. Thus indicating that he thought it might backfire. But, the public is not as stupid as he constantly assumes they are…

The 'decent and reasonable' people who are relaxed about giving friends who have a known track record for being compromised and associating closely with a known trafficker and pedophile jobs in high office.

Different ideas on decency and reason clearly

I dont think he's generally disliked but I do think he's regarded as disappointing.

Surely everyone can agree that Liz Truss was a thousand times worse hence only lasted what was it, 40 days?

i do agree with you but he's on very thin ice with the labour MPs as it is.

It is all very reminiscent of the Chris Pincher thing which brought down Boris i.e. not such much about what he actually did ; rather what he did/did not know when he appointed someone in a job.

While the extent of Epstein's relationshio with Mandy probably wasnt clear, it was known by many that Mandy was a somewhat dodgy character so I think people are right to question Starmer's judgement. You'd have to think that there was a question put to mandy with words to the effect of "is there any chance that you will be incriminated in any way when the remaning Epstein files are released" and he said no. If that question wasn't asked the clearly the vetting system is a joke. Its quite incredible that M. didnt consider that all this would eventually seee the light of day, given that its been pretty clear thes files would eventually be released.

what is in question is Starmer’s judgment in appointing him. That judgment, I think you’ll find, was not made very long ago at all

Peters principle. And I think people just wanted rid of him. Bit like Lammy.

Which all sounds a bit incredible considering he was an experienced criminal barrister, DPP and head of the CPS

Yes, I do reflect on that, and my conclusion is that all decent and reasonable people would benefit enormously if gullible idiots would only stop listening to the likes of people like Alex Jones.

You don't have to. He has a big enough audience. Every time he's found to be ahead of the story like this it grows.

He's a right wing conspiracy theorist with a screw loose and a dangerous agenda. Beyond knowing all this, I don't give a toss about him.