It’s looking increasingly like Morgan McSweeney has done the same sort of stuff for Starmer as Cummings did for Johnson.
History repeats itself.
Has to.
No one listens.
(Steve Turner)
1 Like
I’ve thought that for a while.
Me too, there are times when your own opinion is the right one. 
1 Like
Half-listening to Gordon Brown on Today just now, it occurred to me that when you have made such an egregious error as Starmer did with Mandelson, it’s not enough to blame the person you made the error about (especially if you ignored advice eg about his background): you need a resignation.
If you don’t mark these transgressions - whether by Mandelson or Rayner - with a real punishment, your reason for being in government has gone. You’re no better than the last lot.
And, most importantly, you’re handing weapons to Reform. You may as well contribute directly to their campaign fund.
It will be interesting to see how thorough the vetting process was for Mandelson given his relationship with Epstein was common knowledge. Allegedly, Mandelson was asked three specific questions about Epstein (by McSweeney) and based on his answers his appointment was pretty much assured.
It’s like the old Python (?) sketch about recruiting for MI5.
« Can you keep a secret ? »
« Yes. »
« Well, you’re in then. »
The one straight answer that Starmer could give that would save him would be “I considered Mandelson an ideal person to blow smoke up Trumps arse”
1 Like
The problem being that in these situations resigning and not resigining hand weapons to your enemies in equal measure.
The only defense is not to make the gaff in the first place.
We do not want to go back to revolving door PMs
1 Like
Only if you don’t want to distinguish yourselves from the last lot. Labour gained office largely because they were not-the-Tories, but they also promised change.
No-one is remotely surprised that Mandelson was a bad 'un. The only surprise is the extent of his wrongdoing. His appointment was a grave error of judgment and, I’m afraid, someone’s head needs to roll.
I see you forgot about my earlier comment where this was shown to be untrue,
Sorry, I can’t see any such comment.
Meanwhile, a quick quiz.
What do phrases like “change begins now”, “national renewal”, “demonstrating we are fit for public service”, “the British people have voted to turn the page on 14 years” have in common?
Here’s a clue: Keir Starmer's speech to supporters in full - BBC News
I am honestly not sure how much Labour promised to change Tory policy - some of it, certainly, but there was a good bit of “we won’t rock the boat, unlike the Tories we will keep a steady tiller” - after all they did not want to spook the markets, especially after lettuce-head.
That was about changing Labour, after the Corbyn years.
Some of it was, which is why the bits I quoted were not about changing Labour!
Trust and transparency, and behaving honourably, matter.
Agree. Starmer, for all his faults is head and shoulders above any recent PM.
And, for that matter, above any of the obvious candidates.
5 Likes
We agree on that … but I fear that his integrity is being (and may have been) compromised by contact with people like McSweeney. At some time very soon, whatever the consequences, he needs to make a stand for his principles.
A different thread, same claim.
You’ve set a very very low bar. I cannot emphasize enough how low.
You don’t like Starmer, that is clear.
Do you deny that he is a better PM than any of the last 5 idiots fielded by the Tories?
Who do you think is preferable?
I suspect that Cameron and Sunak were both better PMs, one pulled down by the brexiteers in his own party, the other scuppered by being the next leader after Boris and Lettuce.
1 Like