Why should Starmer resign? I don’t get it

[working9]

I’m not a big fan, but I don’t understand why people believe he should go. Yes he appointed Mandelson as US ambassador when he knew about Epstein’s conviction and that Mandelson was still friends with him - which was wrong IMO.

BUT - people have known that was the case for over a year haven’t they? And Starmer got rid of him as ambassador as soon as he was first mentioned in the Epstein files last year.

Now all this extra stuff has come to light about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein in the last few days and of course it is dreadful, but how is that Starmer’s fault? Aren’t these disclosures (due to the release of further documents from the Epstein files) as much news to him as they are to everyone else? I don’t think anyone knew the extent of Epstein’s depravity until recently apart from those involved - I don’t see how Starmer could have been expected to know.

Can someone with more understanding of the situation please enlighten me?

No I don’t think he should resign either.

The Mandelson information is horrible, to be clear, and I find it extraordinary that such an obvious security risk ever got back on the slate after the first time he proved himself extremely susceptible to sucking up to and ‘solving problems’ for billionaires. That was a very long time ago.

Yes he's an eccentric clown. But it's astonishing how many things he's been right about. Do you ever reflect on who benefits from sneering at and maligning figures like Jones?

More right wing propaganda

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/04/labour-forced-into-humble-pie-address-over-mandelson-disclosures

They thought they ought to fight sleaze with sleaze in appointing Mandelson to stick his tongue up Trump's backside. The trouble with sleaze is...it's sleazy.

There were other higher calibre diplomats who could have done that job, with more decorum, grace and principles.

if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. Starmer's judgement is appalling. There were people from within Labour whose voices should have been heeded who were literally pleading with him not to make that appointment. Mandelson wasn't fit to be in government back in 1996. He's been grubbing around the corridors of power for 30 years. I'd be looking in detail at all those Palantir contracts for the NHS data next. He was advising them, ffs. Leopards don't change their spots.

That Peter Mandelson is about to bring down neo liberal New Labour is deliciously ironic.

I agree OP.

@FlyBy2026 I completely agree.

Isn’t Starmer the most unpopular prime minister ever? Maybe I’m wrong about that, but he certainly generally disliked for many valid reasons that many people on Mumsnet seem to have no idea about, maybe do some reading around the subject if that’s you, but honestly, it would be good to have someone who wasn’t such a catastrophic shit show when we go into the next general election, unless everyone is happy for reform to just waltz in.
he removed a perfectly competent woman to give mandleson the role, despite Mandelson, having lost previous roles in disgrace and having pursued a relationship with Epstein post conviction which was known about. Starmer is a terrible politician without a moral compass, I guess that’s a good reason for him to fuck off finally?

I'm not sure yet it's a resigning matter.

If he knew more sooner and it comes out that could rapidly change.

If Starmer was in a stronger poistion with fewer concerns about his judgement overall this could brushed away much more easily.

Mandelson twice before this lost high profile jobs due to poor judgement so was very surprised he picked by Starmer but I am surprisied how bad Mandelson seems to have fucked up this time.

That's the thing.

Given the fact that conspiracy therories are absolutely mainstream and the 1st thing that many people say when any high-profile person is accused of CSA or just SA is 'hmm, those people claiming to be victims are probably wanting money of their 5 minutes of fame or there's a conspiracy against them because they do X or Y so the authorities want to take them down'..

Even if you absolutely believed that your friend or even just a colleague or associate had been wrongly accused and convicted, if you're a public figure, surely you have to say 'sorry dude, I just can't be friends with you anymore because of my position'.

But the people that continued to be friends with him who were public figures either were doing similar things to him, or were so motivated by the financial and power benefits that came from associating with him, that they were willing to continue crawling up his arse assuming they'd never be found out.

Well put

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

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…

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

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

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.

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.

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