Now I find out he was totally dodgy.
I’m not much of a conspiracy theory sort of person, but the sheer number of influential, wealthy and powerful people that Epstein had his tentacles (and sometimes testicles) around who would have been relieved to see the back of him makes me wonder about his “suicide”.
They should have had Copperfield just make him disappear.
The ante is upped 
The plonker formerly known as Prince won’t like this.
Bill and Hillary Clinton agreed on Monday to testify to a House oversight committee inquiry on Jeffrey Epstein, a spokesman for the former president confirmed in asocial media post.
Angel Ureña, the former president’s deputy chief of staff, responded to a post on X from the Republican-led House oversight committee, threatening to hold both Clintons in contempt, by writing:
They negotiated in good faith. You did not. They told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care. But the former President and former Secretary of State will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone.
Earlier on Monday, the Republican chair of the oversight committee, James Comer, rejected an offer from the former president to conduct a transcribed interview for the House committee’s investigation into Epstein.
A committee letter to the Clintons’ lawyers indicated the couple had offered for Bill Clinton to conduct a transcribed interview on “matters related to the investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein” and for Hillary Clinton to submit a sworn declaration.
The Republican-controlled oversight panel had advanced criminal contempt of Congress charges last month, if the Clintons refused to testify.
There’s an interview with him by Katy Balls in the Times that’s pretty nauseating - he seems to see himself as the victim. I hope they get him for misconduct in public office.
EDIT: I would post a link in case anyone wants to read it, but the web archive I used to use has disappeared. Does anyone know of a good one please?
You’re right, of course.
But how do you explain the fixed obsession of the Labour Party with him, the repeated cycle of appointment then resignation, which has stretched into Starmer’s leadership?
Innocent explanation: he’s a very well connected, very sharp operator and very useful to have on your side.
Less innocent hypothesis: he’s got the dirt on everyone and very good not to have as an enemy.
I can’t say I’ve really been a fan, he does seem to be the epitome of political sleaze and always has been.
Which I believe was the whole point of the Epstein setup.
I like archive.is
Edit: and here’s an article about how the FBI is trying to shut down these archive sites…
I always remember his ‘filthy rich’ remark, though searching for it exactly indicates he walked it back after 15 years. A prince of darkness, an acolyte of Machiavelli?
Quote from The Guardian 26/1/12.
Lord Mandelson has admitted he is no longer “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes”, given rising inequality and stagnating middle-class incomes brought about by the damaging downsides of globalisation.
Almost a decade and a half after making the remarks, which were seen as characterising the Labour government’s embrace of free markets and the City, Mandelson said he was “much more concerned” about inequality than when he made first made his comments to a US industrialist in California in 1998.
Describing his previous remarks as “spontaneous and unthoughtful”, Mandelson who has held a number of government posts during his long political career but was most recently business secretary in Gordon Brown’s government, said he would not repeat them today.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme after the publication in Davos on Wednesday of a thinktank report on the future of globalisation, Mandelson said: “I don’t think I would say that now. Why? Because amongst other things we’ve seen that globalisation has not generated the rising incomes for all.”
“The purpose of a system is what it does.” - Stafford Beer.
Thinking further (and having heard Wes Streeting this morning and realising that’s why the Party scotched Burnham: they prefer Streeting as Starmer’s successor), Mandelson’s appointment was yet another thing done without proper thought because of the poisoned chalice of a massive majority.
I’m just reading a George monbiot (Gaurdian) article on proportional representation and it reminded me of your quote
“In 2022, the Labour party conference voted in favour of proportional representation. At the end of 2024, so did a majority of MPs, including a majority of Labour MPs. Keir Starmer himself, while vying to become party leader, pointed out how unfair the current system is. But from the moment he was chosen, he refused to countenance any attempt to change it.
Why? For the very reason he highlighted: that the system is unfair. First past the post allows the two traditional parties of government to threaten and cajole us, warning that we’ll split the vote if we don’t support them. The splitting-the-vote argument is not a result of the system. It is the point of the system.”
I can see the rebellion in Labour growing. It’s a shame when Wes Streeting has announced today the new cancer care policy in the UK
in fact it makes it an inspired choice 
The fallacy is assuming that the two party hegemony will remain.
But in 2029 I think that it will be a three or four horse race and FPTP will hand a whopping majority to whichever party is just slightly more popular than the others.
And there is a high chance that will be Reform.
And Starmer will have thrown away the chance to rein them in.
I’m afraid so.
Is that the answer though? I just read an opinion piece in the FT that says Starmer is getting the international stuff right in the new geopolitical world. Maybe he should stick to that and let someone else run the country.
