Keir starmer is dead in the water

[Bertiebiscuit]

The UK cannot have a prime minister who gave a plum job to a man when all the time he knew that Mandelson was still close friends with an ex-con who was convicted for trafficking children for sexual abuse. Starmer is destroying the reputation of the UK, he is an embarrassment and shoukd resign, if not the Labour party should demand his resignation.

Very Trumpian statement there.

Well it has been the left campaigning heavily for the release of the JE files in the hope to topple Trump. How is that going? 😂

John McDonnell is nowhere near a position of authority in the plp.

But he is Mandelson’s man and always has been

There's also his bizarre total lack of vision for the country. Before Starmer, I'd have said Cameron was the worst PM I'd known but even with him there was an overarching plan whether I liked it or not. The same with Blair, Brown, May, Truss, Sunak and even Johnson. Maybe not a clue, but still a unifying idea.

Agree with this - he’s been a poor leader.

The Mandelson affair certainly shows bad judgment, but Mandelson’s links to Epstein have been known for months, leading to his sacking last year. For those baying for Starmer’s blood, why didn’t they do so back then? It seems people are just jumping on the bandwagon and using it as an excuse to try and oust him.

I don’t like Labour or Starmer, but this is being contrived by disgruntled Labour MPs to get someone they prefer as PM. If they were genuinely appalled by this, they’d have acted months ago when Mandelson was sacked for his Epstein links.

Yes, I agree. Unless it emerges from the documentation that Starmer knew a lot more at the time he appointed PM than he let on, or that he blatantly disregarded security warnings, then I don't see what has suddenly changed.

Who could forget Andrew Marr's eulogy on Question Time?

As a regular NS subscriber, I find it bleakly comic that Marr (now Political Editor) is still blowing the trumpet for Starmer. I've always liked to think (and I could be quite wrong) that the sudden departure of the previous PE, Stephen Bush, was because he tied his flag to Starmer's mast early doors, and soon came to regret it.

That's what I thought but after the Boris and Truss faragoes there had been talk of a more limited franchise if the party was in power.

This government following on from policies of previous governments:

Public services and building being outsourced - infrastructure, supplying children's homes, schools, meaning that the private sector benefits to the detriment of society as a whole. The services and provision of infrastructure could be done at a fraction of the cost if commissioned competently by the government, and with far greater accountability to and benefit for the public. So why don't we do that?

Foreign policy - from war involvement to regime changes, look at who benefits.

There is significant investment in activism in the UK and other countries in relation to numerous societal issues from immigration, education, opportunity for women and minorities - though it is not always immediately clear what the end game is, if you look into all funding streams relating to all "causes" you will see patterns.

Some global wealthy lobby backers have been interviewed and confirmed how much control they have - though again, although it is not always immediately obvious where things are going, the end game appears to be financial and geopolitical dominance? Presumably?

None of this is helping society at large so it is clearly not being done for that reason. There is significiant poverty, rising fuel and food cost, small businesses being squeezed to the point of extinction.

Financiers and asset management groups and billionaires active in or showing interest in the UK are active in relation to Greenland too, will this affect foreign policy there? In Ukraine and you will find significant activity for decades related to western financiers influencing geopolitics - this has influenced UK policy and spending, hasn't it? As Boris said "if we win, we will financially benefit" - except the "we" bit may not have referred to your average joe bloggs on the street.

At least one prominent politician has highlighted how much influence by a certain financier there is in relation to the EU, presumably to the benefit of the financier as opposed to the public good (food and fuel costs in the EU are making life very difficult for many normal people), EU policies impact on the UK, clearly, despite Brexit.

I didn't say I liked the idea.

Unless those ordinary people are women who don't want men in their changing rooms, their hospital wards, their girls scholarships, their rape support groups, their breastfeeding groups, their stillborn support groups, their prisons, their daughters sports teams, etc., etc.

He's no better than any of the others, making a calculation about the value of loud activists vs women's rights and deciding to fuck over women. Every. Single. Time.

No, it's not.
Trump would say he himself would bring about world peace because he's full of shit and always says he is better than he is.

Starmer would say no such thing, but how people perceive him (inc the press) even if he did manage to do such a thing.

I dont think Trump would say that about himself actually.

I thought all that has now been sorted?
The Supreme Courts have ruled, Starmer etc said they now had 'real clarity' and the ruling welcomed.

Thank god for the courts, though it shouldn't have even been needed.

That's the funniest comment I've read in ages!! I take it you never watch the news?!

And you still misunderstood the comment made.

Yeh you might need to look into that. The guidance is stalling.

I just thought it was a ridiculous comment in the first place so deserved a ridiculous answer.

The point made was against Labour and their original stance on Transgender.
That stance has now changed because of the court ruling.

Stalling, yes, but it doesn't mean Labour are not going to obey the ruling. There's nothing to say that women's spaces are not going to be protected as yet.

You surpassed yourself.

A bit like Starmer’s ‘I have complete faith in Mandelson’ statement. They’re all over the place.

Given all the peccadillos of Mandelson in his past, I'm sure MI5 would have a file on him as thick as a brick, and I'm sure they would have passed that on to KS. I just do not believe he was merely deceived.
probably had one, or several, on Epstein too.

I'd not be shocked in senior members of M15 went to Epstein's Island tbh.
He did seem to like those people in high places..

I rather suspect that, once the Mandy files begin to be released, some very incriminating information will come to light, and which will deliver the coup de grace for our calamitous PM.

In Starmer, yes you can. He is a man who sees paedophile rings, rape gangs, men who say they are women, and women's very words from a man's perspective. One of those men who have no room in their heads to consider the viewpoint of women. It's all rolled in together.

The reason he doesn't say "single sex spaces" and instead says "safe spaces", is specifically because he wants to undermine those spaces being seen as women's spaces. To please certain voters and Union supporters.

He called a journalist a right wing bigot for asking about grooming gangs. Thousands of raped women and girls do not matter to him (under pressure he spoke of an inquiry <tumbleweeds> ). He needed to punch down and shut the question down because he was too frit of upsetting the rapists. And women and girls? He's not bothered.

He said it is wrong to claim only women have a cervix, not because he believed it but because he is frit of upsetting the true believers. And because he is the type of man who does not care enough about women to see this from a woman's perspective.

Before the election he told a LGBT group that if elected he would back self ID, without taking into consideration any of the objections from concerned voters. He changed his tune when he realised self ID wouldn't float but he was in front of a receptive audience at the time and does like to say things that will get him votes. Doing what he says he'll do has never been his strength (how many u-turns?).

Which leads us right to him saying, as PM, that he would fully support the SC ruling on FWS, which says women have the right to single sex spaces in law. His "full support" means fuck all as long as Phillipson sits on the guidance. And she would not be doing that without his, ahem, full support.

So yes, Starmer disregarding Mandleson's connections to Epstein is all rolled up in Starmer's blatant misogyny which is illustrated repeatedly-- including his embrace of TWAW.

It looks like it’s going to be the dying throes of a fly type exit.