How long can Starmer survive? Getting popcorn ready 🍿🍿

Ladyleftfieldlover

Come on people… do we really want to get into Tory territory with a new PM every few months, if not weeks? Starmer has had an incredibly difficult start to his tenure. Admit it, the Tories were absolutely appalling. Liz Truss! Johnson. Both dreadful in their own special way. Of course the world is in utter turmoil at the moment, mainly due to the actions of the mad man in the Oval Office, trump. IMO Starmer is currently the best person for the international part of the job and with any luck it would be long before we’re back in the EU.

Oh, and why are the BBC going on constantly about Starmer’s missteps when Farage has behaved so incredibly badly.

Farage is not in power.

That’s right, Farage is not ‘in power ‘
Thank goodness for that small mercy

Well said, Graphite, and Iam.

I'm reposting bits of a post that I out on the wrong thread.

"I totally disagree this has put people off Labour specifically as opposed to politics in general:

Something far bigger is happening than Starmer making a bad choice in Mandelson!

We are watching the spectacle of what was always "known" but is now piece by piece being uncovered -

the revelation of how these international webs of powerful -mostly men- operate over long time periods and threaten national and international security

The Mandelson issue is important in that there are lessons to be learnt clearly within the LP on appointments,

but considering the social and political impacts of the falling down of the whole Epstein empire with all its tentacles is far, far, more significant, as it wont be the only one.

And by the way, regarding this, at PMQ, Badenoch's repeated attempts to try and hang, draw and quarter Starmer over this, endlessly are pathetic

She should join the government in international concerns not only over the fall out from Epstein but the need to try and prevent similar things occurring again, especially in the hands of and the connections of her worst enemy, who is probably Farage.

I thought she was very good, she is improving.

I think that Starmer will throw his advisors, McSweeney, under the political bus wheels next week, despite him having ‘full confidence’. It’ll quiet down a little but the May elections will be dreadful and he’ll have to go then.

By dragging it out, he will further sully the Labour brand, making it very difficult for them to win at the next election. Leaving us vulnerable to Reform. A shocking consequence.

If he resigned now, a new leader could establish themselves and improve their election chances, giving the Labour government a rebrand and fresh start. He won’t though, he’ll hang on and on, taking the party down with him.

Iam64

foxie48

Did Starmer say he was badly advised? I didn't hear that. I thought he said that Mandelson had lied and lied and lied. I also thought that we paid solicitors to "advise " us on legal matters, sometimes they do give us "bad advice".

Starmer hasn’t blamed his advisors or himself. He’s stated, accurately I’m sure , that Mandelson lied and minimised. My continuing concern is that Keir Starmer allowed himself to be persuaded the liar Mandelson might just have had a personality transplant and become a (relatively) honest man

Maybe Mandelson is as manipulative as Epstein? I guess most of us can’t understand people like that. And ( going on about the documentary about coercive control that I watched) we can’t understand how people can be taken in by such people, even when we know about bad things that they have done in the past. The TRIP about it all is very interesting (of course Campbell knew Mandelson well and had briefly met Epstein). They, too, mentioned the relationship Johnson had with Lebedev. I hadn’t thought about how difficult it is for people trying to raise money for charities because they get drawn into social circles in which they can get introduced to potential benefactors. And once you’ve received money from someone they then have a hold over you. Eg Johnson and his No 10 refurbishment, Starmer and his glasses etc etc.

Interesting News Agents this week.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dem9oO_WkA0

Lewis Goodall:

(Excuse any typos, spacing and punctuation errors. I’ve copy pasted this from the YouTube transcript.)

But looking across the media, the Guardian Mandelson's China stance make him bad choice for US ambassador say critics. The Times Lord Mandelson to be confirmed as US ambassador despite China claims. The Telegraph Mandelson rowed back on China praise in attempt to woo Trump. GB news Farage snubbed as if that's the big story. Farage snubbed. It always is. As Starmer announces new UK ambassador to the US. And then in terms of some individual comment pieces as well, we see a piece from Michael Gove, why Peter Mandelson is the best choice to handle Trump. We see another piece in the Mail, ruthless, cynical and cunning, why Mandy is the perfect choice to be US ambassador.

So there's two kind of corollaries to that. One is is that 12 months ago apart from the Financial Times and a few other people MPs in particular, generally speaking the received Westminster consensus was that Mandelson was a good pick and in so far as he was a bad pick the problem wasn't about Epstein the problem was about his China and EU relations.

Indeed I would say that what is particularly grim about this is I think we all know why Starmer appointed Mandelson and it's the thing he can't say which is he didn't pick Mandelson in spite in a sense of his Epstein connections and of being a dark character. He picked him because of it because he was the perfect fit it seemed for Trump for the Trump era for the Trump court. And the perfect way of testing that is, would Starmer have picked Mandelson if Kamala Harris had become president? No way. Absolutely not. No way. For loads of reasons including the Epstein connections. But the truth is that the received wisdom and you can see why Starmer did it is because the sort of man that Mandelson everyone sort of thought he was this sort of dark arts character someone who could thrive in the court with Trump he was picked because he was the sort of person who had those Epstein connections. Grim reality.

I agree with that last chunk of text as to "why". I didnt like it but....

here is the "Safe" replacement - looks interesting, this is the best article I can find.

www.politico.eu/article/christian-turner-picked-as-new-uk-ambassador-to-washington/#:~:text=The%20same%20person%20highlighted%20one,than%20most%20Foreign%20Office%20characters.”

Yes I think people lose any sense of their own morality when dealing with Trump, it is one of the reasons he won. But people won't listen they just carry on.

Thanks for the link Graphite, I picked it up on line earlier.
It’s important to remember, no one was talk8ng about Mandelson - Epstein when PM was made US Ambassador. I was concerned but could see an ace manipulator might be useful with Trump
To my shame, I’d forgotten Mandelson’s support for Epstein at the time of his first conviction. In my defence, had I been considering offering a job on my team, I’d have googled Mandelson. Then not appointed him

Graphite

Do please list them surfsup, right back to 5 July 2024.

No, sorry I’m not your secretary but I’ll start you off with Lord Ali’s generous gifts of designer clothing for KS and his wife; even expensive designer spectacles for KS. Conveniently “forgot” to declare these items.

The “News Agents” are rarely straightforwardly pro-Starmer. (Graphite Thu 05-Feb-26 22:50:22) Their coverage often reflects a broader tendency in political commentary which frames leadership in terms of conflict and failure rather than continuity and gradual progress.

At present, the situation feels almost Romanesque: authority is provisional, and leadership is treated as contingent on constant demonstrations of strength. The most plausible rationale for removing Starmer would be an inability to sustain or advance the progress already made. Yet much of the criticism appears detached from that criterion.

There is limited acknowledgement that a gradual reclamation of social-democratic norms may be underway. For some, incremental change is insufficiently visible to be valued; for others - particularly on the right - such a trajectory is actively undesirable. In that context, Starmer’s position is structurally precarious, regardless of performance, placing him in a situation where satisfying all sides is effectively impossible.

I just hope every recognises that the outcomes of this attitude may well be as depressing as the outcome of Brexit!

Iam64

That’s right, Farage is not ‘in power ‘
Thank goodness for that small mercy

Yet 😲

Unless the other two main parties sort themselves out and stop the in-fighting, he well could be.

Then wait for the consequences!

And again that won't be the fault of the voters.

Iam64

Thanks for the link Graphite, I picked it up on line earlier.
It’s important to remember, no one was talk8ng about Mandelson - Epstein when PM was made US Ambassador. I was concerned but could see an ace manipulator might be useful with Trump
To my shame, I’d forgotten Mandelson’s support for Epstein at the time of his first conviction. In my defence, had I been considering offering a job on my team, I’d have googled Mandelson. Then not appointed him

To my shame, I’d forgotten Mandelson’s support for Epstein at the time of his first conviction. In my defence, had I been considering offering a job on my team, I’d have googled Mandelson. Then not appointed him

I had forgotten too, but I'm not the PM with all the resources available to find out everything about a prospective candidate for such a vitally important diplomatic post.

Galaxy

And again that won't be the fault of the voters.

We have to take responsibility for our own decisions.

Good post Graphite. Although we had all seen the ‘Madness of King Trump’ the first time around, I can’t think of any country that was truly prepared for the onslaught against those previously considered allies.

Starmer was buying time. Using Mandelson was a risky move, but he was advised it would be acceptable by those tasked with vetting him. They were wrong. Starmer should now be asking why, rather than expending energy fighting the power-hungry.

But perhaps this was inevitable. Sadly, politics has slipped so far back into the dark ages that it is not only slowing progress, many parts of the world are actively moving backwards.

Iam64

Thanks for the link Graphite, I picked it up on line earlier.
It’s important to remember, no one was talk8ng about Mandelson - Epstein when PM was made US Ambassador. I was concerned but could see an ace manipulator might be useful with Trump
To my shame, I’d forgotten Mandelson’s support for Epstein at the time of his first conviction. In my defence, had I been considering offering a job on my team, I’d have googled Mandelson. Then not appointed him

I posted about PM’s friendship with Epstein on the thread when he was appointed. As did other Gransnetters.

I also posted a photo of him shopping with Epstein trying on a belt.

If KS loses his role of PM it is nobody else’s fault, he should have questioned his advisors re the appointment of PM.

He also should have ensured that due diligence was done on the issues he has had to U turn on before they were announced and put to parliament.

Harriet Harman is the latest one to come down heavy on Starmer. Has she forgotten that she’s had a few scandals during her political career because I haven’t.

I take it that thinking Politics has slipped back to the dark ages is a way of saying Socialism is dead.
If not dead it is "resting" because Politics is slipping towards the Right on a constantly scandal greased slope.

The two Party system seems doomed.

We all know who will benefit from all this.

Boz

I take it that thinking Politics has slipped back to the dark ages is a way of saying Socialism is dead.
If not dead it is "resting" because Politics is slipping towards the Right on a constantly scandal greased slope.

The two Party system seems doomed.

We all know who will benefit from all this.

As I said "Politics has slipped back to the dark ages" perhaps I can clarify Boz.

No, it was nothing to do with "Socialism". It was the death of democracy I was commenting on. I sorry that wasn't clear.

It terrifies me…

I sometimes can't get over how awful Starmer's delivery is, right up there with adenoidal Rachel, whose voice is bloody awful, overly defensive under pressure often veering into screechy Estuary, I find listening to her for any length of time such as when she was delivering the Budget quite painful, compared to Kemi's well modulated vowels. Starmer on the other hand sounds like an automaton, so much so, I can't help pondering is he actually real? or a digital manifestation. He's certainly no orator. However, better the automaton you know than one that could be worse.

My choice for an alternative leader would be Shahbeena Mahmood who appears to have some grit and isn't mired, as far as we know, from tax evasion or any other scandal.

Quote MayBee70 Fri 06-Feb-26 11:57:29
Harriet Harman is the latest one to come down heavy on Starmer. Has she forgotten that she’s had a few scandals during her political career because I haven’t

Still angry about Burnham king of the north ,her words not mine, being refused his 3 attempt to be leader of Labour Party?