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.

Go for it.

Haha. We established long ago that Happy Joe is the type of person for whom if Mandelson has been going to a devil worshipping cult, eating babies, he would merely considered a bit of cheeky chappy,.

"A big boy did it and ran away"

There was at least one precedent for a Washington Ambassador who was not a professional diplomat.

Jim Callaghan appointed Peter Jay, a journalist, to the role in 1977.

Jay was married to Callaghan's Daughter.

Not being Boris myself that would be tricky...

Just pointing out if you are going to spread shit around you should have some evidence to back it up. Otherwise its just hot air.

Nothing like defending someone who hangs out with convicted paedos.

Yep it was woeful. His habit of blaming everyone else isn’t going to wash.

Mandelson was a very odd appointment. Karen Pierce was an excellent ambassador and Trump had a lot of respect for her. Furthermore, Trump was openly extremely unhappy with Mandelson replacing her due to Mandelson's links with China and was considering blocking him. So the speculation upthread that there might have been genuine belief Mandelson would work well simply can't be true. Why then? I'd very much like that to be revealed but we'll never find out.

This is the question I want asked of Starmer and answered truthfully (some hope) by him. Why did Starmer dump a well respected, well vetted, very competent and qualified, woman ambassador, someone who has never been sacked, let alone twice from a job, who had absolutley no connection to a notorious paedophile, a woman with integrity and experience in favour of Peter Mandelson?

It stinks. It smacks of misogyny and worse, a woman head and shoulders above Peter Mandelson in all respects was not considered good enough, why?

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court failed to get Bridget Philippson’s permission before publishing their eminently sensible judgment, and it’s the mad old bag’s - the Minister for Women, no less - sacred duty to delay, prevaricate and gerrymander the watchdog’s guidance because of its “trans-exclusive” nature. But hey, at least tractor production is up. 🙄

I'm making no assumptions at all. You do seem determined to prove that Labour are not continuing a long tradition of enriching those who are already rich, I have no idea about your motives for doing that.

I don't think they have a policy on enriching billionaires by pandering to multinational corporations, it wouldn't go down well with voters but the wealth transfer continues anyway so clearly they don't need a policy to rob the country blind.

You asked me for something the government has done to specifically to benefit the wealthy, I explained that it's not quite that simple but you keep insisting that if posters can't name a policy then the point about wealth transfer isn't valid. To cap it all you seem offended to have your level of understanding questioned. I don't think I can help you if you choose to remain wilfully ignorant about the nature of power and influence in politics.

Slow handclap. How clever you think you are. The rest of us have longer memories. He was finally toppled when all his Cabinet quit due to him harbouring a sex pest.
He didn't eat any of the cake by the way....

Because I don't agree with everything you write? Ah, ok. You're one of those types of people!!

Yes, agree. Again, I wrote what I wrote initially because someone said Labour's stance is pro trans rights.
I merely explained that they have now changed their views, at least Starmer did in a statement, saying he welcomed the judgement and the clear laws.

The mad old bag dragging her feet, (as to which she has put a statement out saying she needs to make sure it's all correct as part of the delay), may not be reflective of Labours stance now. I tend to wait until we hear/read everything we need before judging on what they will do as a party. She does need to get on with it though!

If you can find a post where I defended anyone doing that, please show me.
Otherwise you're making shit up again. Cheers!

Labour MPs are privately urging Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting to launch a leadership challenge against Sir Keir Starmer over the Lord Mandelson scandal, The Telegraph can reveal.
One minister said the situation had become “existential” for Sir Keir, claiming that “basically everyone is urging a leadership challenge” in private.
The conversations about the Prime Minister’s future are understood to have happened amongst MPs in person on Thursday and on Labour WhatsApp groups.
The minister told The Telegraph that it is a widespread view amongst MPs and ministers that a leadership challenge should be started, adding that the plotters were now “too many to name”.

It’s not very private if they’ve told The Telegraph.

adding that the plotters were now “too many to name”.

That probably means two plotters.

Things going on in the Tory party often get leaked to the Telegraph first.

Burnham got more and that was before this latest Epstein Mandelson Starmer issue.

You only need one assassin, and remember, the DT has been bang on the money on some of its reporting and scoops.

You have spent the whole thread defending appointing someone who is mates with a paedophile for monetary gain. I think we would agree on very very little

Bloss who do u fancy to replace Starmer?

Indeed, sorted since April 16 2025. Sadly the "real clarity" has not reached Labour yet. Sure Starmer says he will abide by the ruling, but he hasn't, yet.

It has almost been a year but we've had Sandie Peggie v NHS, the Darlington Nurses v NHS, and many others since April 16 2025 fighting this out in the courts. All women fighting for single sex spaces to change at work, not a lot to ask I think.

And this very day the Scottish Ministers are arguing in court that male prisoners who claim to be women should be housed in women's prisons despite the SC ruling.

I hope people aren't just sitting back and thinking it has all been sorted. It has not. Nothing has changed and women are still losing their jobs and having to take employers to court because they do not want to change in front of a colleague of the opposite sex. Women in prison should not have to cope with being locked up with men who say they are women. FFS.

Starmer saying "he didn't know" is pathetic. He should have known. It's his job to know. If the Prime Minister doesn't know, who does?

What policies have Labour introduced that benefit big business and billionaires?

The IHT changes for privately owned business mean the slow death of the SMEs that make up the foundation of our economy (and employ c. 50% of private sector employees). On death / sale those businesses will either fold or be acquired by big business or PE. Either way, over time the profits will leave the UK and the tax take to HMRC will fall, from Corporation Tax, NI, PAYE, VAT etc etc. Big business benefit, at the expense of small businesses and owners.

The changes to business rates move cost away from big business to small businesses - same pattern, same story - closure of micro and small businesses reducing choice for consumers and concentrating retail / hospitality / services in the hands of big business. Big business benefit, at the expense of small businesses and owners.

The changes to taxation on income, dividends, employers NI and capital gains tax all disproportionally impact the owners of small businesses compared to multi nationals based off shore. Big business benefit, at the expense of small businesses and owners.