How long can Starmer survive? Getting popcorn ready 🍿🍿

Well said, DAR.

Sorry! My post in reply to the OP.

This feels much more like political theatre than analysis.

On the facts: Starmer has acknowledged that he knew Mandelson had some contact with Epstein after 2008, but has said he did not know the extent of that relationship. When further information came to light, Mandelson was removed from his role and there is now cross-party pressure to release relevant files through proper parliamentary processes. That’s not stonewalling; it’s corrective action under scrutiny.

As for “he has to release everything he knows”, no Prime Minister can unilaterally dump intelligence or diplomatic material without legal and security constraints. That applies regardless of party.

The idea that Badenoch “roasted” him or that ministers “couldn’t look at him” is subjective performance commentary, not evidence of political collapse. PMQs is designed to generate clips, not sober judgment. Leaders have looked far worse in that chamber and survived far longer.

On Angela Rayner, again, there’s a lot of mind-reading going on. She dealt with her tax issue by referring herself to the appropriate processes and stepping back from roles, which is precisely what critics usually demand. There’s no evidence she’s “waiting to stab him in the back” beyond forum fantasy.

If you can criticise Starmer’s judgment on Mandelson without turning it into a soap opera about imminent coups and personal betrayal it might be worth discussing. However, thd truth is that politics is messy, but not every controversy is a death spiral.

So should he still be the one doing it. But who would be caoable out of his probable successors?

Swayed by his advisors, who haven’t done a great job so far🙈

This isn’t the time for an election within the Labour Party, too much going on in the wider world and the U.K. needs a steady hand on the tiller.

Saying that the Mandelson issue is not going anywhere soon, it’s obvious that he was appointed as ambassador despite KS being informed by a FT journalist about his close links with Epstein.

Either KS is being swayed by someone else, or he is not good a making judgements in the UK’s best interests.

It seems unbelievable that a supposedly intelligent man would appoint someone with Mandelson's reputation. It seems silly to say Mandelson lied - what else would you expect him to do?