Is it possible that Mandelson might bring Starmer down?

[CurlewKate]

?

Fair enough, and I'm sure that you weren't the only one, but unless you are one of the leaders of the opposition parties, I wasn't actually talking about you!

Striking that there is no mention of Epstein.

Why look to others? It’s Starmer’s appointment. It’s infuriating from Labour.

Mandelson is entirely a Starmer / Labour problem.

Why are you trying to apportion blame for Mandelson's appointment to other party leaders?

I have been very clear that that's not what I'm doing. Starmer was 100% responsible for the decision.

That doesn't prevent me from observing that the opposition party leaders didn't seem to have raised concerns about the relationship with Epstein when he was appointed. Given that we have been reminded by many that it was apparently common knowledge at the time, this seems surprising.

What did Starmer do when he was warned by his own party and asked directly by the FT about the connection?

True but this isn't just about Epstein.

Personally I'm still of the opinion PM should never have got the DC job simply based on his previous....

The issue here for many, though I accept maybe not you, is about the PM's decision making in general....

No, thats exactly what you are doing. It's completely irrelevant what action other parties took at the time. The decision was not theirs, nor could they influence it. Mandelson should have never been on the short list in the first place.

I've just listened to Harriet Harman's comments and she is crystal clear about Starmer needing to accept full responsibility for his own actions, rather than trying to pin the blame elsewhere and claiming that he was lied to. Perhaps you should listen to her on Electoral Dysfunction.

Good interview with Andy McDonald MP about the ridiculousness of people pretending that everyone didn't know what Mandelson was like at the time of the appointment. Will you take the word of a Labour MP?

But anyone who remembers why he was sacked each time before would have thought it a mad appointment? And he was a known friend of Epstein and photographed consistently with him after his release from prison. What more does KS need? Does he need it spelled out and a lecture from other party leaders as to him exercising his powers? Would he listen? Hardly.

You're being really odd about this one.

Well, Mandelson is a known liar... so i assume no one would believe a word he says on oath? oh wait.....

However what most people on here are missing is the victims.. all this faux outrage at Mandelson passing on financial stuff 24hrs before announced etc etc and that he was associated with a known sex trafficker of and inc under age girls.

But the victims? no one gives a fuck about them.

Andrew MW who actually did abuse these girls, inc statutory rape & using trafficked women in the UK, protected by the Royals, the Police, Politicians... , given a luxurious home to live in, c/w with servants, none of you give a flying fuck about that..... no numerous threads on forcing him to actually be charged...

.... but get a sniff at bringing down Starmer and you re like a pack of Hyenas

No one is ignoring the victims, apart from those that refuse to take responsibility that they appointed someone who was a friend of a paedophile. And those that make excuses for him.

I wouldnt start getting holier than thou on the basis I cant see much chat about you re the victims.

He's failed the country abysmally, again.
Time after time he's delayed the promised rape gangs enquiry. Why? I don't think most people understand the scope and level of abuse these (predominantly) South Asian men are inflicting STILL on vulnerable girls and women. I don't suppose anyone will be interested to look but if you do care look at Rupert Lowe's Facebook pages. He's currently conducting an independent, self funded enquiry with the victims and their families. It's truly horrific and harrowing but needs to he heard.
This to me is by far the biggest and most urgent issue to address, not starmer and mandelson's problem

Everyone on this thread is ignoring the victims.

Its ALL about using trafficked girls and women to bring down Starmer, on this thread and many others, by the opposition, by Labour MPs, past and present...

Starmer has taken responsibility, i don't like the guy but he has been pretty unequivocal about this, its very rare to hear any politician apologise.... but until he is gone, you'll always go on about Mandelson etc etc and ignore the redacted faces of the women & girls.... that Royal protection officers ignored AMW travels etc etc.

I'd prefer that Starmer implements the findings of the previous national inquiry, launched by T.May, reported EIGHT years later in 2022 but totally ignored by the previous Govt.

As i said, victims always ignored if there is a political scalp to be gained and that happens on all sides.

If Lowe’s “inquiry” is self funded it can’t, by its very nature, be independent.

If Lowe’s “inquiry” is self funded it can’t, by its very nature, be independent.

@Blossomtoes who do you think should hold an enquiry into the rape gangs - if you think there should be an enquiry?

Well yes but the title of this thread is "Is it possible that Mandelson might bring Starmer down". Mandelson having given secrets to Epstein which seems to me his most egregious potential offence, being related to national security.

The AMW isnt really relevant to this thread but good attempt at a dead cat.

From recollection she disagreed with an enquiry taking place. Do correct me if Im wrong Blossom, or if you have changed your mind since agreeing with KS on this issue last time.

Thankyou backing up my argument, appreciate it, you've really made my point, you don't give a stuff.

Not so. Im just trying to keep answers relating to the thread rather than get side tracked to Epsteins crimes rather than concentrating on PM and the PM, which is presumably why you have (suddenly) decided to mention the victims.

That’s really not fair ( and you have lumped us all together ). This thread is not about that , not because the victims dont matter , but that there are so many strands to this story.

I haven’t seen that from you, but I have seen some posters blame women for caring about links to a paedophile or being ‘hysterical’.

Presumably because it’s Starmer and Labour in the spotlight and they’d prefer their male leaders left alone.

Exactly if PM's links to Epstein were so blindingly obvious (as some posters have said) then why no mention.

From my recollection the biggest issue at the time on his appointment was the nasty (probably accurate) things he had said about Trump and that he had to grovellingly retract from.

That really doesn’t excuse Starmer. This line of defence is bizarre. No wonder even his own party are feeling the same frustration.

Madness