Is it possible that Mandelson might bring Starmer down?

[CurlewKate]

?

Yes! let’s hope!!

Yes i don't recall his friendship with Epstein being of any issue at all.

It was all about what he and other Labour figures had said about Trump.... many people are being wise after the event.

Whether posters like it or not (Given what we know atm) Starmer staying is best for the country, there isn't going to be a GE until 2029, so its surprising so many people who claim to back UK Plc, want him gone... wonder why?

Perhaps they can, genuinely say, who would do a better job?

Who can do a better job? My 2 year old grandson at this rate!

But seriously, it’s perfectly acceptable.. indeed democratically necessary.. to scrutinise the decisions of a sitting Prime Minister, regardless of where we are in the election cycle.

All members of the electorate are free to make up their own minds about what they will tolerate and they will vote accordingly. There’s not necessarily any big underlying reason to why they conclude what they do. They might just decide they’ve had enough

Starmer made a huge error of judgement. Mandleson is bin juice.

But am I alone in calling out the breathtaking hypocrisy of those in the Labour Party now baying for Starmers blood?

Where are they on the grooming gangs in the Northern Mill towns? Vulnerable young girls being systematically violated by gangs of men in a country over which they actually have some influence? Deafening silence there.

I can assure you that if Starmer were to go then whoever in the Labour Party replaces him would do a much worse job.

It reminds me of election time when people say I'm going to vote for Party X (the opposition) because they can't do a worse job than Party Y (the Government) and invariably they do.

My focus is on the UK economy and UK quality of life. Quite simply keeping Sunak as PM rather than Starmer would have been the sensible decision. Keeping Starmer as PM rather than Angela Rayner or David Lammy is the sensible decision.

Agree, you've explained a lot better than me! Though i disagree on Sunak, simply because he gave us a 6month recession in the back end of 2023 and refused to increase defence spend...

I don't see anyone doing a better job, even though i'm sure the pp Grandson would try his best....

Starmer and Reeves have avoided the doomsters with predictions of hyper borrowing rates, the IMF, inflation is predicted to fall back again and Gilts continue their downward path.... good for our borrowing...

I dont want Rayner or Lammy either. But the “lets keep this dishonest person cos he’s better than that dishonest person’ is a pretty low standard of politics in my opinion.

Well firstly for all his faults I don't think that Starmer is dishonest (but maybe out of his depth).

But taking your post, even if we were to agree that he is dishonest then yes it's better to keep him as PM rather than have someone more dishonest- it's called realpolitik.

Besides voters would never vote someone in as a politician if they were honest, they would forever remain a losing candidate.

Dont blame the politicians for lying, blame the voters for wanting lying politicians.

Did Trump post that racist image of the Obamas to distract from Epstein related Matter?

Don’t blame the politicians for lying?! I think I will

No I just think he’s a stupid racist. Sometimes it really is that straightforward

So let's say we have two political candidates:
A) promises higher spending (or lower taxes) funded by getting rid of Government waste, closing tax loopholes and generating economic growth
B) promises higher spending (or lower taxes) funded by tax rises (or cuts in spending)

Guess which gets elected and guess which one lied.

Plenty here:

December 2024
MPs question Lord Mandelson’s suitability as US ambassador over Epstein links

Speaking about Lord Mandelson’s appointment, Dame Caroline Dinenage, a former Conservative minister for women and equalities said:

“... Mandelson’s previous links to Epstein not only raise questions about his suitability but Starmer’s judgement. Does the PM have a blind spot where his mates are concerned?”

Rosie Duffield, who resigned from the Labour Party earlier this year over the freebies scandal, described Lord Mandelson’s appointment as “uncomfortable” and “inappropriate”.

She said: “I am sure many women are as uncomfortable as I am that someone who appeared to be very closely connected to convicted criminal Jeffrey Epstein has been given such a prestigious job. There must have been other contenders who had no such association.

“I am not the only MP who is less than happy about this. It feels completely inappropriate that he has been given such a role, given his links to Epstein.”

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who was leader of the Conservative Party and the Opposition from 2001 to 2003, said that he was calling for an inquiry into Lord Mandelson’s appointment and his links to Epstein were “a good example” of why one was needed.

He said: “The fact is that his global company did business with huge numbers of people in very dodgy arenas... and the truth is that because he’s a political appointee and has not had the scrutiny that would be the case for a diplomat, it is more important than ever that he faces scrutiny for his background.

“This is essentially the most important diplomatic post in the world for Washington. I’ve called on the intelligence committee to carry out an inquiry into Mandelson’s appointment.

“If Mandelson has been involved with Epstein, that is yet another reason we should have an inquiry into his connections, his contacts and his business links.

“It boils down to one simple fact: appointing him is fraught with issues and we need to be able to judge it properly. But if he’s pictured with Epstein that’s a very good example as to why we need this inquiry - he comes with some very large baggage.”

Zarah Sultana, the Independent MP for Coventry South, tweeted the picture of Lord Mandelson and Epstein together...

She said: “The British public expect high-quality candidates for such a position, and due diligence must be carried out. They deserve to know the nature of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with the notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, and what he knew about Epstein’s activities.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/20/mps-question-lord-mandelsons-role-ambassador-epstein-links/

This answers the calls for info pretty well.

I think the recommendations of the inquiry that’s already taken place should be implemented. I see no point in spending millions on another one, especially when the victims are squabbling about how it should be set up. Why would I have changed my mind?

All this inquiry will do is lead to even more inaction, will take years to report, by which time we'll probably have a far right Govt that wont act on any findings.

We know the issues, we know the lack of accountability of the Police etc, the lack of funding in child services.

I think a Reform government (centre right not "far right") will act on the findings as they won't be hamstrung by their voting base.

And they might also address the issue that nobody wants to talk about: that of an overwhelming majority of the offenders coming from the Mirpuri Pakistani community and being sheltered by that community. Somebody needs to.

I am not a Reform supporter btw. But Labour‘s refusal to address this is exactly the reason that the white working class vote will shift to Reform.

The problem with the police’s weakness is underfunding and poor direction and that the results of these means the institution is effectively biased.

Institutional reform of the police is needed - they need very clear priorities, and frankly a bit more muscle - more staff, better internet tech to investigate terrorism and financial crime, support from the courts who need the same direction.

We know the issues, we know the lack of accountability of the Police etc, the lack of funding in child services.

Nothing to do with the authorities all terrified of being accused of racism?

@Pineneedlesincarpet if you look at some of the messages referencing Brexit and Farage, there appears to be some evidence of foreign interference in Brexit. Not being widely reported. Yes, Farage hasn't been caught with his pants down, but that doesn't mean he isn't being implicated in wrongdoing.

Please can you tell us what that evidence is by quoting the messages? Because Im pretty sure if Farage committed a criminal offence the Guardian for one would be all over it.

@Pineneedlesincarpet I never said there is proof of anything illegal. But some of the world's most powerful and wealthy men discussing Brexit like they are playing chess with the UK economy. And there have long been calls to do a full investigation into Russian interference.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeffrey-epstein-brexit-peter-thiel-b2912853.html?test_group=lighteradlayout

@Pineneedlesincarpet and let's not forget about this. Do you think of Farage as squeaky clean?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8vnv3dk0vo

I think you're clutching at straws. And trying to liken NF to PM. The fact NFs name is mentioned is irrelevant without any proof he actually did something illegal. Let's try and get back to basics (ahem) on this sort of thing.

Of course appointing dodgy people doesnt seemed to have stopped Labour...