How long can Starmer survive? Getting popcorn ready 🍿🍿

In fact Netflix did a better job, years ago in their Epstein documentary.

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.

'Ignorance of the law is not a defence' and ignorance in this case is no defence either.

I'm afraid I find Starmer's apology to Epstein's victims lacking in sincerity, desperate and embarrassing.

I think the risk of lowering your standards to such a level where they are indistinguishable from those you are complaining about is not a rrisk worth taking.
What gain has the labour government achieved from this 'brave' risk taking.

Iam64

DaisyAnnReturns - interesting post

Thank you

I think there is something in what you say DaisyAnneReturns. Whether we like the methodology or not, the issues are being discussed in the public arena in the UK, which is healthy.

And Casdon 👍🏻.
Good to see so many considered posts here. No time for popcorn, far too serious

DaisyAnnReturns - interesting post

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’d have expected Starmer’s extensive knowledge of organised child sexual exploitation would have ensured he knew being gay was irrelevant when considering Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein.

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.

Casdon

It’s the dodgy connections we aren’t currently aware of that I’m talking about Doodledog, not professional relationships.

Yes, I get that. But Starmer hasn't (AFAWK) got 'dodgy' connections and people are baying for blood. Where is the line drawn?

I understand what you mean about being gay labradora but I think that underlines the importance of no protected groups when it comes to safeguarding.

GrannyGravy13

Doodledog I agree, it’s a worrying time for UK politics.

It really is a worrying time for our country.
I fear Starmer has lost the confidence of previously loyal supporters. Appointing Mandelson was always a risk but to do so in full knowledge he’d stayed in Epstein’s homes during and after his trial should have had Starmer and McSweeny asking Google - info on there would have confirmed Mandelson shouldn’t be appointed.

The last thing we need is a leadership challenge, worse a general election. Starmer was ok during his speech and response to journalists today. More damaging info on Mandelson seems inevitable , as does increasing lack of trust in Starmer’s judgement

It’s the dodgy connections we aren’t currently aware of that I’m talking about Doodledog, not professional relationships.

But how can someone with no international connections be a PM? It's not possible.

Starmer is "up to the job" and a safe pair of hands

He is so palpably not up to the job that his poll ratings are rock bottom, there has been no improvement in the economy, the NHS is on its knees, the Justice system is on the verge of breakdown and water companies are still not delivering. That's just a few bugbears...

I'll grant that he's been good on the international stage. He'd probably be a good Foreign Secretary.

I can only assume that anyone who wants Streeting for PM has good private health insurance...

I don’t see this as a time for popcorn. The country is in a very serious position, and anybody who thinks removing Starmer is going to solve anything is naive. My hope is that if he does go, the next PM is also somebody who has no connections at all to Epstein, Trump, Russia, China or any of the other malevolent forces affecting our political system.

Maremia

It may put Johnson's birthday cake shenanigans in the shade but not his lying to the Queen, illegal partying on the eve of Prince Philip's funeral, the VIP procurement fraud, and the illegal proroguing of Parliament.
People can have short memories.

Also the fact he stood by Pincher who had sexually harassed young men.

Palantir mention wasn't me, GG13, though I am totally against it and 'could' have mentioned it

Heads up to Graphite for that one.

I'll spend some time later reading some of the very well -informed posts on this subject.
My gut feeling is that the PM and his advisers were prepared to take a punt on Mandy ( as were several previous solid , senior, labour figures) notwithstanding his dodgy habits and past misdemeanours, because they thought him slippery enough to deal with Trump and his entourage and someone who can manage Trump in these times was worth a gamble. Also because Mandy is gay they thought him unlikely to have been sexually involved with underage girls so" not culpable of or complicit in ....."the Epstein crimes.
Don't ask the possible question; There's been no intimation of that.
Starmer is "up to the job" and a safe pair of hands and has been credible and steady on the international stage in my opinion and considering the lack of alternative talent the UK would be mistaken to ditch him.
I find Wes Streeting very impressive but would like to see him given more experience in some of the senior Offices of State before they offer him PM......if he wants it ??

I was so disappointed when I realised the connection between Wes Streeting and big pharmaceutical companies.

Never been in favour of Palantir (thanks for the heads up MaizieD)

Mandelson’s tentacles obviously very much embedded in the Labour Party.

I didn’t vote for them, but all,through their election campaign they said they were the party of anti sleeze and corruption …

MaizieD

kittylester

Wes Streeting promised to sort out the NHS and the things he said led us to believe that he would be quite radical. It turns out that he just meant that he knew where the biggest plasters were kept.

Wes Streeting is in receipt of £ks from private health companies. He's just thrown the NHS into disarray by abolishing NHS England.

I wouldn't trust him an inch.

Wes Streeting’s partner Joe Dancey, who was Labour Executive Director of Communications until recently was a Political Assistant to Mandelson between 2001 and 2004. He has now edited his LinkedIn CV to just say Political Assistant.

And people should be very worried about Palantir whose co-founder and chair Peter Thiel was very much part of Epstein's circle.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/04/peter-mandelson-palantir-jeffrey-epstein-government

goodlawproject.org/campaign/stop-palantir-in-the-nhs/

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?