Labour's hypocrisy and indifference to female victims

You might have read beyond that sentence before you started spitting. I don't know what he's done to provoke you, but there's no need to take it out on me.

Anyway, instead of just appointing Antonia, we've now got three mandarins exercising the functions of Cab Sec on an interim basis, to go along with the two interim joint chiefs of staff, while Starmer dithers about who's going to replace the people he's thrown under the bus to protect himself. This may be the most Starmer thing ever.

That's appalling, no wonder they have no clue, they're not just in an echo chamber, they're in their own family silo in the chamber. All the insults they slung at the Tories about corruption, when they're much worse. 🤮

Juliet Samuel in the Times makes a useful point that may help explain why Labour's Westminster team are not very good at listening to voters:

The machine McSweeney did know how to get a grip of was the Labour Party, which is why Andy Burnham is still more than a hundred miles (plus ten billion brain cells) away from power. Unfortunately, the team he built to wield power in government was more like a Labour spousal commune, where the No 10 political secretary was married to the chief whip, the No 10 foreign policy adviser was with the chancellor’s political director, the No 10 political director was married to one Labour MP and sister to another, the chancellor was married to a senior civil servant and the most senior Cabinet Office minister was married to a special adviser, also in the Cabinet Office. McSweeney himself is married to a Scottish Labour MP. All of this might make for enjoyable away days but it’s not a formula for political entrepreneurialism.

This is a level of nepotism that even Newham Borough Council might think was pushing things a bit.

Labour’s humiliation is richly deserved

There's a thing about the Cab Sec appointment that tells you a lot about how inept this government is.

Gove has been saying from his experience of Wormald, he's a perfectly good public servant. I'd qualify that by saying, if the secretary of state or PM knows what they want to do, Chris Wormald is good at getting it done. That's basic civil service skills. But if he's serving a PM who doesn't really have an agenda, is allergic to taking decisions and you don't hear from him for days on end... it's no surprise if he reverted to Sir Humphrey factory settings.

Lots of briefing for and against Antonia Romeo right now. That reflects her reputation as a go getter and arse kicker, which are reflected in her very effective partnership with Shabana Mahmood.

(Personally I am sad that someone called Antonia Romeo is being promoted to the top of government and Jilly Cooper isn't around to write about it, but let's crack on.)

What I find interesting is that there's briefing from No10 that Antonia was the candidate Starmer really wanted in 2024. I don't think they know how pathetic this makes him look - that he had this outstanding candidate but someone (who? McSweeney?) talked him into appointing Wormald instead. It's pathetic on a level with him complaining that Peter Mandelson told him porky pies.

In any case I think it's an obvious lie. Starmer was given his shortlist of candidates, with the final decision resting with the PM, and he picked the most Starmer-like candidate in the frame. You can tell this by the fact that the McSweeney people were briefing against Wormald within days of him starting the job.

Personally I don't like this trend for PMs ousting the Cab Sec - Boris ousting Mark Sedwill and then Starmer ousting Simon Case - but if they must do it, you'd hope a PM would have the self-awareness to say, I want a leader who's going to make up for my weaknesses instead of amplifying them.

I suspect what's going to tip the scales is that Antonia is a huge Arsenal fan. It's notoriously difficult to interest Keir in anything other than the law and Arsenal.

Fixer as in Epstein fixed things or bob the builder?

There is another thread on here about the inaction over the rape gangs in Rotherham, Bradford and elsewhere, Governments have ignored the issue and failed to act - both Tory and Labour - but what I cannot forgive Labour for is how cynical they in not wanting to rock the boat of the Muslim block votes. These voters will not be challenged and neither will the rapists. So Labour is guilty on both counts - it has betrayed women and girls, and it has done so to preserve a completely undemocratic method of getting Labour votes. Completely disgusting on both counts. They care nothing for women, and never have.

That’s what I was thinking.

House of Cards Francis Urquhart (British not American one) style scheming that because Mandelson was friendly with Epstein, he’d be accepted by Trump to give the UK a FTA and labour would deliver growth. Shame about the girls but needs must.

That humble beginnings ‘son of a toolmaker’ spiel of Starmer’s cracks me up - his dad owned a factory that made tools, his dad didn’t make them by hand using a forge and anvil 🙄

If starmer goes over this it's because rivals spotted an opportunity, not because any of them suddenly give a fuck about women.

Agree 100%. Unforgivable and also cruel to the UK grooming gang survivors.

I must say it was galling to hear Starmer speak directly to, and apologise to, the women and girls who had been abused by organised rings of perpetrators in the US, when he has done nothing of the sort for the girls who suffered in even more horrific ways in this country. Unforgivable.

Unfortunately he failed to understand that the qualities needed to be a dedicated human rights lawyer are not the same as those needed for either the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Prime Minister.

The DPP needs to be capable of prosecuting people whether or not he thinks there’s a human rights element to the case - and not prosecuting minor or dubious cases even if he thinks there’s a human rights element to the case.

The Prime Minister needs to consider the good of the country as a whole. That involves balancing rights; I don’t think Starmer can. I think he’s always going to go all out for whichever side he thinks has the strongest case.

But if you’re always supporting one group against another, the wider society will break apart. The PM’s job is to bring it together…

Exibit D Radio silence from Parliament about the conviction of the killer of Rhiannon Whyte

And the only national media outlet that gave a voice to Siobhan Whyte was GB News.

Keir Starmer was a dedicated human rights lawyer. He worked hard for free in a number of important cases. Here are Helen Steel and David Morris talking about his help in the McLibel case.

https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/keir-took-mcdonalds

He is a disappointment as Labour leader. And either unable to admit that or feels there is no one who would do a better job.

What is it with Starmer and pedophiles? 🤔

Thanks for the link

"A New Labour veteran is put forward for a plum public role despite his known association with a paedophile. Keir Starmer is warned about it. Morgan McSweeney too. Despite a vetting process that raises red flags, No 10 decides to proceed anyway."

De-ja-Vu - director of communications, a posh version of press secretary, really is unbelievable.

Gabriel Pogrund in the Sunday Times on a Labour peer close to Starmer and McSweeney, who is coming under scrutiny for his friendship with a paedophile. Not Mandelson, though:
The other tarnished peer who spells trouble for Keir Starmer

I've come to expect government clusterfucks, but "the PM is in deep trouble because he failed to take David Lammy's sensible advice" is quite a thing.

I want the laugh emoji back. 😂

I think it's clear that the traditional and the 'New' left really do not give a shit about women. They never have and nothing has changed. Look at Scotland and the SNP - full-on self-identified 🙄 progressive politicians who are willing to sacrifice the rights of women and girls for every other 'vulnerable minority' that they can identify. Women and girls - the female sex - ARE the biggest 'vulnerable minority' across the entire fucking world, you smug tits!

On Peter Mandelson, he was known as the Prince of Darkness, which really should have been a clue. But the end justifies the means, over and over and over.

Jason Cowley in the Sunday Times:

"Yet Starmer has no one to blame but himself. I understand he was warned by David Lammy, the then foreign secretary, and Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, not to appoint Mandelson. Lammy favoured Dame Karen Pierce, who was well connected with President Trump’s people, extending her term as ambassador. Starmer listened instead to Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff, whose “singular purpose” was to have Mandelson in place in Washington when Trump returned to the White House. But the final decision was Starmer’s alone, and he must now endure the consequences as the government braces for further revelations as the Metropolitan Police continues its investigation into Mandelson."

I've come to expect government clusterfucks, but "the PM is in deep trouble because he failed to take David Lammy's sensible advice" is quite a thing.

No worries, thanks.