Is it possible that Mandelson might bring Starmer down?

[CurlewKate]

?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Keir Starmer has done anything illegal. Or Nigel Farage. Theres no evidence of either. Think your "spy links to Russia " indicate a little too much John Le C...?

I am not convinced that the PP reads the kind of fiction written by the late David Cornwell, ahem….

Are you saying other people involved in Epstein should be ignored, not investigated to the same rigor?

Worrying!

Well she talks about him enough. Although I can't see Smiley in those tight little white underpants really.

😁

Oh Alex, let’s you and I look forward, not back.

So, who are you rooting for the replace Starmer?

Farage also, at the time, approved of Mandelson as US ambassador but now says "it was a grave error of judgement..."

Revisionism at its finest.

This being Nigel Farage the Prime Minister at the time and who approved and appointed Peter Mandelson with full access to the security file on him? Or Nigel Farage who did not appoint him and was not in government and has never been in government so has never had access to the security file on Peter Mandelson and so who wouldnt have known what was in it.

Oh? i thought Mandelson and the Epstein links were all public knowledge? or are you suggesting Farage backed Mandelson without knowing the full facts?

Though to be fair to Farage, the full extent of the Epstein/Mandelson friendship weren't known to anyone, inc Starmer.....

Glad to too see you've stopped with your wild conspiracy theories, stated as "Facts" 😂

Farage, the PM, whoever, didn't need access to MI6,MI6, SIS reports etc to see that Mandleson's appointment was dodgy as hell..to paraphrase John Grace (Guardian) it was obvious from what was in the public domain that Mandelson was a "wrong 'un"..

Putting it bluntly I think KS has demonstrated he's keen to suck up to Trump - extreme examples being the proffering of the Royal visit envelope, picking up POTUS's papers...toe curling performances at times

I suspect despite the warning signs and probably calls of "do you think that's wise Prime Minister?" KS couldn't resist putting someone Into Washington who POTUS might really approve of as a individual..

It's that spectacular lack of judgement that's probably going to finish KS off, not something we've yet to hear about from the spooks or the police

I don't understand this argument.... for 2 reasons:

Mandelson "may" have had intel on Trump and links to Epstein...

He had to issue a grovelling apology, after he said "Trump is reckless and danger to to the world"

If the info was indeed out there for all to see, why did Farage back the appointment?

Of course people play up to Trump, failure to do so could mean Tariffs etc.... the "sucking up" to Trump stopped the USA launching at attack against Greenland, i'm surprised you cannot see that.... well, i'm not actually.

His appointment was clearly unwise to the general public without the benefit of the security vetting file. But we trust(ed) our leaders to make wise decisions, as they are the ones responsible. So we could reasonably assume that Keir Starmer would have had that wisdom and knew something we didnt that meant that the appintment was a wise decision.

The fact he did know something we didnt is true. Its the wise decision making that isnt. Yes PM told KS that he wasnt hanging out with Epstein. But I bet that was in the file. And what about Palantir? That meeting was in 2024. PMs links to Palantir would have been known. But NF wouldnt have known that as the meeting was secret.

Nigel Farage isnt in government. I think you're giving him more power and attributing more influence on Labour appointments than he has?

Farage is living rent-free in the PP’s head, evidently.

Speaking of rent-free, doubtless that’s Labour’s next hair-brained policy.

The issue isn’t influence, it’s approval.

Yep Mandelson is Starmer’s and Labour’s problem.

Always the comment when you run out of argument.... nice name change by the way!

Is it? I don’t recall using it before.

Accurate, though.

Your alter ego does. Name changers never fail to give themselves away.

Now then.

Who do we fancy to replace Starmer, and why?

Don’t let the cat get your tongue - genuinely keen to hear your thoughts.

I wasn't being prescriptive, I just think that in a polarised political world that stating facts and demolishing conspiracy theories is important. Otherwise what people feel becomes more important than facts, for example a person may feel that they are a male in a female body but the biological fact is that they are female.

On the topic of conspiracy theories, there is no factual evidence at all of Farage being linked to Russian spy rings.
Equally I strongly believe in cock up over conspiracy, the vetting on PM by the Civil Service was inadequate and didn't uncover anything that would have recommended against his appointment as Ambassador. I agree that the appointment of PM as ambassador was an unwise decision but only based on his previous public criticism of Trump. Starmer chose PM because he wanted a higher profile ambassador when imo he would have been better off with an experienced civil servant.

So Starmer was given a shit brief and was lied to by PM, and whilst I disagree with his decision to appoint PM, I can see the reasons why he did.

So I don't see why Starmer would need to resign over this (he didn't have any links to Epstein!). And if he is replaced then it is highly likely that the Labour politician that replaces him will be a lot worse.

So you don’t think it’s a problem that PM was chummy with the head of a pedophile ring?

Yes he didnt approve it either.

@peanutbuttertoasty And your evidence is?

I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence at least!

A man is judged by the company he keeps etc