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?

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.

No, I didn't.

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

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.

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 ?

Politicians are lying grifters. I'm shocked.

Yep

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.

He is unbelievably unpopular

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

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.

Ah well.

Soon Rayner will be back in power.
That bastion of ethics and propriety.

And the game goes on....

Are people really so naive that they genuinely don’t realise that of course many of our elite politicians/ police / secret services knew about the extent of Epstein’s operations?

He procured young girls (and boys ) for the pleasure of depraved elite men who were then easy to control by whoever bought the blackmail evidence from Epstein . Epstein was made very wealthy and at the end almost certainly ‘disposed of ‘in prison .

In 1991 when I was a young hospital clinician very distressed because I had just treated a 10 year old girl (from an Islington care home )physically damaged by SA enacted by Savile and others my boss said ‘ Be kind to her whilst she’s here and forget her when she’s gone . You can do nothing to help her .Paedophile networks run this country ‘
I did try and played a v v small part in setting up the Parliamentary Enquiry into Elite paedophile rings 10 years ago .
The enquiry was very effectively neutered when public interest moved elsewhere after the initial shock of the Savile disclosures wore off .
I’m one of many ‘nobodies ‘ who understand how deeply depraved the world of the ‘ elites’ is and how this impacts the lives of regular people . We will never have the power to change it .

No. I don't think Starmer is dodgy. I think he has a weak political nose because he's not a political animal

He trusted McSweeney's advice and Mc's advice was based on him being in thrall to Mandelson. Starmer should have understood this but he didn't.

Starmer isn't politically savvy enough to be PM. But he's not a bad man nor a dark evil man, like many in the game

Agreed. I think he was seen as "safe", but weakness creates its own chaos.

There were publicly available photos of Mandelson hanging out with Epstein after he was first convicted of child rape. That was years ago, and it would have come up during his security checks that he was associating with somebody who committed sex crimes against children. Really poor judgment.

Starmer wanted to release the papers only after number 10 checked what could and couldn't be released (for 'national security'). In the Commons debate afterwards, he clearly lost the confidence of his own backbenchers who did not agree with this and preferred Kemi Badenoch's suggestion that an independent committee should do this initial review.

Later on the police asked for papers not to be released.

Yes. Although I don't believe Starmer is a weak man. He's weak politically because he simply isn't political (which is utterly weird for a PM, but I believe it to be true)

He should get out and leave them to it. He just doesn't have what it takes for the job.

But I like him, as a human being, which is more than I'd say for most of them

Although whoever takes over the Leadership of the party simply can't have any connection to Peter Mandelson. Treason isn't good to cosy up to 🤡🙄

Imo that stops Wes from getting the job

He makes poor decisions about the people around him. His Cab Sec, Chris Wormald, is widely reputed to be pretty ineffective yet Starmer wanted him for the job.

Morgan McSweeney was Peter Mandelson's protege and is thought to have been the key architect behind his ambassadorial appointment. McSweeney needs to go even if Starmer stays (until May).

Trouble is the public are caught between a rock and a hard place . There are no mechanisms for ordinary people to learn the truth as all conventional news outlets will not expose this stuff . I’m not a conspiracy nut I’m a medical professional ,with first hand evidence who tried to whistle blow on Savile for over 30 years . To the BBC & the police .
Far from being a lone wolf who ‘groomed the nation ‘ Savile was a highly protected procurer ,
Anyone ‘who tries to expose elite paedophile rings is shut up or killed .
A prominent example - the v brave Stuart Syvret was once the Father of the House of the Jersey Senate. Because he wouldn’t be quiet about the organised CSA rings he discovered he went to prison twice on trumped up charges and now lives in a safe house in the States .

Oh yes! McSweeney should have gone yesterday. Trouble is, everyone is expecting McS to go to save Starmer. So Starmer sacking McS will just look like self preservation

Honestly, Starmers only real option is to resign, because he won't survive the May elections (the few that there are!)

Sometimes we simply have to say "I'm not very good at this job, but I'm bloody good at X job. Therefore I'll do X"

I don’t believe in lizard overlords but I know that I , together with many other health professionals, good police & social workers , for over 30 years ,tried to get our institutions to investigate the trafficking of children in care to places like Elm Guest House to be ‘allegedly’ abused by senior establishment figures ( who were then ripe for blackmail ) .
There are thousands of us , without power , but with first hand experience of the victims , who understand how utterly corrupt the systems in which we place our faith are .

I mean yeah Johnson did much worse and lived to tell the tale. Issue is though, why would Labour MPs want him to stay on?

He became leader as he was sold as articulate. Reality is he was decent on the opposition benches at PMQs but he’s an absolutely awful communicator as PM.

He was meant to bring Labour together. He didn’t, he booted loads of the left of the party out.

He was meant to be Mr Competent and good on details. Clearly not the case.

And he was meant to be sleaze free. That’s already highly questionable.

The electorate hate him - if Labour had any sense they’d get Burnham in, but they burnt that bridge a few days ago (which I saw described as like a dying man refusing an ambulance). Bring back Ed? Who knows.

I don't doubt that, and I'm in complete agreement with you. I was simply ridiculing a previous poster's citing of right-wing conspiracy theorist (and utter fruitcake) Alex Jones as some kind of evidence to be taken seriously.
I agree with you, but I think Alex Jones is a dangerous idiot.

This. Peter Mandelson has already resigned multiple times for financial irregularities and for being caught lying over the years

The whole political establishment knew PM was an inveterate liar, it's been going on since the 90s.

They knew he was financially unreliable, had inappropriate financial relationships and was a security risk. The security services confirmed this.

Plus he wasn't a professional diplomat so why did KS appoint him as Ambassador to the US? It was an astonishing failure of judgement.

Which is an establishment mechanism for ensuring the public don’t get to see them .
( See ‘Partygate ‘ for example ).