How long can Starmer survive? Getting popcorn ready 🍿🍿

I don't want to see KS replaced at this time. He's a steady pair of hands on the international stage at a time when we, and the world, need that. As FM he would not have the same authority. I'm not entirely happy with his domestic programme but it is early days in this tenure of office.
I'd like to see him set up an all-Party Committee to begin the process of reforming the Second Chamber into an elected one. I'd also like to see him include the sorts of misdemeanour that would exclude you from ever being offered a peerage or High Office. Reforms and restrictions of this nature don't happen overnight.

Anniebach

a photograph of PM in his underpants talking to a woman , yes, no he is in a same sex marriage, solved - there was possibly boys involved, sorted,

We don't know that and no-one has suggested it......

KC’s in my experience have the capacity to absorb and forensically analyse huge amounts of complex information in a short period of time. The can start reading files at 3am and be functioning and all over the case by 8am. Starmer was an excellent barrister and KC. I’m disappointed he doesn’t seem to have transferred the skills into his role as PM.

I don’t agree with the view he’s the worst PM ever, he inherited a nightmare and there are positives. His international work seems. Very good. I’m sorry that I feel his days as PM are numbered but hey maybe we will have a miracle

Don;t forget Reform in this. Farage may not have entered the Epstein web but he would have been seen as pretty irrelevant to Epstein. However, Steve Bannon, who Farage appointed as an advisor to Reform in 2018 was heavily involved with Epstein. Bannon also acted as an advisor to Matteo Salvini, Italy's interior minister at the time, the Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) in Germany and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. All are supportive of Putin and lead far right parties. Anyone see a connection?

I think this is going to work out well for our four nations,
if better scrutiny evolves to eliminate foreign interference in our politics. (Who was Epstein involved with? Israel and Russia have been suggested.)
If it stops Musk, an Epstein associate, being allowed to pump millions into any of our political parties.
If Palantir, and its spying technology, is rooted out of our facilities especially the NHS.

Freya5

Luckygirl3

He is so palpably not up to the job that his poll ratings are rock bottom

At this stage in a parliament this is simply par for the course. Every PM goes through this. It relates to the politically naive who expect perfection and instant results. This is the basic flaw in our democracy.

I've never known a PM polling so low. He'll never get back up either. The most disliked PM ever.

I don't think so, Freya

Unless by PM you meant Peter Mandelson, although I can't think of anyone else with that name offhand.

I am disappointed that someone with Starmer's experience did not have a more forensic eye for the truth.

I’m no sure I understand you. Do you mean the humble address to release all the documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment?

commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/102201/Html?subType=Standard#anchor-3

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10484/

Labour have used the device themselves in the past, indeed Starmer did in 2017 when Shadow Brexit Secretary, calling for economic impact assessments. He told the HoC: “We believe this is a binding motion.”

He used one again in 2022 to force the publication of security advice relating to Evgeny Lebedev’s peerage.

Lawyer David Allen Green says that the fact that the government was defeated in the debate on the disclosure of the vetting documents has caused a constitutional crisis from which it would be very hard to recover. The crisis arises from Parliament overriding a decision of the government.

Can Starmer sit this one out?

TerriBull

I honestly thought his performance would be better, adults in the room and all that crap misplaced projection of faith in how they were going to perform. He doesn't seem to be able to read the room, which I find extraordinary. Right from the start with Lord Ali and the freebie spectacles and suits. Surely someone of his gravitas could see that would put him in a compromising position quite apart from the optics of how all that highly questionable benevolence would and was perceived by a strapped cash electorate.

I know Mandelson had some grandfather or other who was a prominent member in the Labour party of yesteryear, but I could never get my head round why he didn't just go off and join the Tories and have done with it. His whole raison d'etre gives off the air of following the money at any cost not to mention the social millieu he appears to immerse himself with. Often knocking around with his mate 10 jobs Osborne who doesn't even have an indoor lav it would seem, forcing poor old Mandleson to piss up against the outside wall of Osborne's Notting Hill home, or maybe that was just his way of telling him he didn't like the guacamole more commonly known as mushy peas served up at supper. Both photographed schmoozing on a yacht with oligarchs. Really there were no surprises as to his nefarious associations with Epstein. Of course Starmer knew about it, much of it was in the public domain anyway.

The implosion has been quite spectacular, the umpteen U turns, the lack of any business acumen from a completely incompetent Chancellor who seems hell bent on crippling businesses and increasing unemployment. The minister appointed with something to do with housing who ejected her tenants so she could get more money, the MP who has a multitude of uninhabitable filthy flat he lets out, quite contrary as to a basic level that would be acceptable apropos of their tenants' rights bill, Angela Rayner and her bad advice regarding what she should have paid in stamp duty. Bridget Phillipson's shilly shallying around fully adopting the court ruling around Women Only Spaces even though the interminable message from Starmer is "we must obey the letter of the law" Oh yes Grooming Gangs Enquiry kicked into the long grass just wondering if I've forgotten anything!

Yep right up there with the Boris' shit show who'd have thought!

Best post on the thread 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Reading through this thread has been quite depressing. What are these money and power grabbing, duplicitous, dishonourable men doing to our country - to our world.

Political Theatre? Yes.
Much needed catharsis which may purge some of the strong emotions and genuine anger on display in the House yesterday.
"PMQs is designed to generate clips, not sober judgment." No it was not, but that is the way Starmer uses it, having reduced the amount of time available and usually answering in curt monosyllables
Kemi Badenoch eviscerated him yesterday, then Angela Rayner stabbed him in the back. Lack of loyalty again. Her premier ship would be an even greater disaster than Starmer's.
According to the DT he has no political antennae, is a human rights barrister following a process-driven path, and motivated by calculation and devoid of principle.
His mea culpa speech today actually expressed his sorrow 'for those in power who have failed you'. Was it intentional that he gave his speech next to a plaque proclaiming Pride in Place?
Starmer's behaviour over Mandelson is exactly the stuff of soap operas; not a Greek tragedy but rather two distinctly seedy men living a life removed from reality.

Freya5

Luckygirl3

He is so palpably not up to the job that his poll ratings are rock bottom

At this stage in a parliament this is simply par for the course. Every PM goes through this. It relates to the politically naive who expect perfection and instant results. This is the basic flaw in our democracy.

I've never known a PM polling so low. He'll never get back up either. The most disliked PM ever.

Who would you recommend for the job please?

Well despite all the baying and popping of champagne corks, we are still waiting to know what Starmer actually knew about Mandelson's relationship with Epstein opposed to what people "think" he knew. I'm prepared to wait.

The most disliked PM ever. - I don't think so!!!

a photograph of PM in his underpants talking to a woman , yes, no he is in a same sex marriage, solved - there was possibly boys involved, sorted,

But, why on earth even consider a man with Mandelson's history and reputation in the first place.

Luckygirl3

*He is so palpably not up to the job that his poll ratings are rock bottom*

At this stage in a parliament this is simply par for the course. Every PM goes through this. It relates to the politically naive who expect perfection and instant results. This is the basic flaw in our democracy.

I've never known a PM polling so low. He'll never get back up either. The most disliked PM ever.

MayBee70

Primrose53

Puts Boris Johnson’s birthday cake incident well in the shade though! Just remembering the pages and pages of comments about that on here and we all know how that ended.

Birthday cake? What about him illegally trying to prorogue parliament? Being photographed hung over returning from a party with Lebedev ( who then got a knighthood). Please don’t try to make people think that partygate was his only transgression. And there are also links with Bannon and Epstein regarding Brexit ( that is mentioned in the files).

Why defend Starmer. He's lied throughout his premiership, been humiliated on the world stage, and always puts foreign interests before our own.
Boris has gone, if there is proof of wrong doing, that warrants investigation, then I'm sure it will be.
What Starmer has done was to put in place a known, to him, "friend" of Epstein, a man who should never have been even considered the post, knowing his past corruption.

Morally bankrupt. Politicians, the Royals. People freezing and hungry. Racism on the rise.

I don't see how any of this can be deemed a cause for popcorn.

Casdon

I think it’s prudent to stand back for a couple of weeks, because I think there’s a lot more to come on this scandal Doodledog, not just Mandelson. Every day there are additional ‘revelations’. I think Starmer will go, but I think a considered process once the fallout over Epstein is better understood would be the best outcome we can hope for at this moment.

I agree - in fact I said as much upthread . All I am saying now is that hoping for someone to take over who has no involvement with any of this is pointless. Whatever is going on has been going on for a long time, and involves too many people. Anyone with the experience and ability to lead the country will have at least some 'involvement', if 'involvement' now means knowledge of someone else being involved.

None of us here knows what actually happened. Yes, we know that there were trafficked women and girls (and possibly men and boys too), and that there were 'parties'. We also know that Epstein gave large sums of money to influential people. But more than that is still unknown.

fancythat

Whitewavemark2

I don’t quite understand what our intelligence services were doing. I would have thought that part of their remit was to ensure and monitor the risk attached to members working for the government, MPS etc.

If that is the case they have failed spectacularly.

Very good point.

I agree, that’s really important. A system which allows any party to vet its own MPs, let alone ministers, is seriously flawed. Surely one good thing that could come out of this debacle is a much better vetting system and enhanced intelligence gathering. There are so many loopholes it’s like a colander.

He is so palpably not up to the job that his poll ratings are rock bottom

At this stage in a parliament this is simply par for the course. Every PM goes through this. It relates to the politically naive who expect perfection and instant results. This is the basic flaw in our democracy.

DaisyAnneReturns

Could this parliamentary drama actually be a good thing?

At first glance, the current dispute in Parliament over Peter Mandelson’s appointment looks like yet another messy political scandal. But there is a credible argument that what we’re seeing may actually be a sign of the system working as it should.

Start with the context. At the time of Mandelson’s appointment, the UK faced a serious external risk: the return of Donald Trump and the prospect of renewed tariffs that could have cost British jobs. In that environment, appointing someone with deep experience, strong US connections, and an ability to deal with Trump personally was not obviously reckless. Mandelson’s reputation as a “Trump whisperer” was arguably the point of the appointment.

None of this required anyone to be naïve about Mandelson himself. His past was well known. He had been sacked twice before, had long carried a reputation for being overly close to powerful figures, and his association with Jeffrey Epstein, while not then alleged to be illegal, was already regarded by many as unwise and troubling. He was, in other words, a calculated risk. But politics often involves choosing between imperfect options, and no actual damage occurred as a result of his brief tenure as Ambassador.

When further information emerged from the Epstein files and public concern intensified, Labour acted. Mandelson was dismissed. That matters. It demonstrates that the appointment was not treated as untouchable or above scrutiny.

What followed is arguably even more important. The Conservatives have demanded access to the full set of files to reassure themselves - and the public - that the original decision was made for the right reasons. That demand is, in principle, fair. The Government, for its part, has not objected to scrutiny, subject only to national security constraints. Where the dispute arose was over how that scrutiny should occur, with the Government proposing an amendment to the Humble Address rather than granting unrestricted access.

Crucially, the Government was not automatically backed by its own side. This is not a Parliament of “nodding dogs.” With a large majority, it is often government backbenchers—not the opposition—who end up moderating executive power. That appears to be happening here.

Seen this way, the episode looks less like institutional failure and more like institutional resilience. A risky appointment was made for defensible reasons, reversed when circumstances changed, and is now being examined through parliamentary mechanisms that include internal dissent as well as opposition pressure.

It may be uncomfortable and noisy, but that is what accountability often looks like in practice.

Well quite. The press love a good scandal and would never take such a balanced view but go into full Rottweiler mode, spattering blame and stirring up controversy.

henetha

It doesn't do the country any good to keep changing prime ministers. Keir Starmer should stay. He's far from perfect but at least does seem to be an ethical man.
Who on earth would replace him anyway, and how would they do any better?

What does ethical even mean?
It doesnt even mean noral, does it.

fwiw, I dont agree with any of your points in this post.

Whitewavemark2

I don’t quite understand what our intelligence services were doing. I would have thought that part of their remit was to ensure and monitor the risk attached to members working for the government, MPS etc.

If that is the case they have failed spectacularly.

Very good point.