How long can Starmer survive? Getting popcorn ready 🍿🍿

Really good interview with Gordon Brown on "Today". I hope Starmer reaches out to him.

Completely agree ...well said

Gordon Brown. A PM who got us through the financial crisis but, at the time, everyone thought was a bit dull, boring and talked in a monotonous way. And yet now, in retrospect, most people can see was a safe steady pair of hands at a time of crisis and is a thoroughly decent man. And yes, he did get some things wrong, but then so do most people. Similarities anyone?

With Trump in the White House we need a stable government so I hope Starmer gets through this. The shambolic leadership crises of the Tories was damaging to this country and we don't need another one. Farage is very quiet ATM, keeping his head down no doubt because of his behaviour at school, his closeness to Trump politics and potential fallout from the Epstein files. I'm beginning to wonder if he has "peaked" too soon??

If Starmer has to step down over Mandelson does the King have to abdicate because he knew about Andrew? Does Farage have to stand down over his close association with Nathan Gill? Or his close ties to rapist Donald Trump or convicted felon Bannon? If we’re going to take scalps, let’s have consistency.

If Starmer has to step down over Mandelson does the King have to abdicate because he knew about Andrew? Does Farage have to stand down over his close association with Nathan Gill? Or his close ties to rapist Donald Trump or convicted felon Bannon? If we’re going to take scalps, let’s have consistency.

Fair point, Dressagediva23

Dressagediva123

If Starmer has to step down over Mandelson does the King have to abdicate because he knew about Andrew? Does Farage have to stand down over his close association with Nathan Gill? Or his close ties to rapist Donald Trump or convicted felon Bannon? If we’re going to take scalps, let’s have consistency.

Of course not. Because the news media doesn’t have it in for Farage in the way they have it in for Starmer. And how weird that the only politician under threat from the Epstein files is the one who isn’t mentioned in it .

And how weird that the only politician under threat from the Epstein files is the one who isn’t mentioned in it

Good point.

The other point is that someone like a Prime Minister has to rely on advisers and researchers to provide him/her with the information he/she needs before making decisions. It would be impossible to do so him or herself.
They failed or covered up for whatever reasons.

Perhaps Starmer thought like many of us; that Mandelson was wily, devious and cunning and a good choice to deal with a wily, devious and cunning President, especially as he was far more intelligent than that President. However, not so clever that he didn't stay clear of Epstein.

How many times has this happened with previous Governments too?

DaisyAnneReturns

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.

What will it actually do to make some people realise Starmer, Rayner and Lammy are destroying our country.

Three lame ducks aren’t they? Rayner on the back benches but not for long if she and the far left have their way.

Oreo

Three lame ducks aren’t they? Rayner on the back benches but not for long if she and the far left have their way.

I noticed AR was on the front page of The Telegraph today with the headline I told Starmer not to appoint PM as ambassador (not sure if they were her exact words, but you get the drift)

The vultures are definitely circling…

What will it actually do to make some people realise Starmer, Rayner and Lammy are destroying our country.

Production of some objective data driven evidence?

The destruction of the UK started in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher became prime minister and has continued, with a brief pause, for the last 46 years. What we're experiencing is the end time...

MaizieD

^What will it actually do to make some people realise Starmer, Rayner and Lammy are destroying our country.^

Production of some objective data driven evidence?

The destruction of the UK started in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher became prime minister and has continued, with a brief pause, for the last 46 years. What we're experiencing is the end time...

Yes. Successive governments have over time brought us to this point.

Allira

^And how weird that the only politician under threat from the Epstein files is the one who isn’t mentioned in it^

Good point.

The other point is that someone like a Prime Minister has to rely on advisers and researchers to provide him/her with the information he/she needs before making decisions. It would be impossible to do so him or herself.
They failed or covered up for whatever reasons.

Perhaps Starmer thought like many of us; that Mandelson was wily, devious and cunning and a good choice to deal with a wily, devious and cunning President, especially as he was far more intelligent than that President. However, not so clever that he didn't stay clear of Epstein.

How many times has this happened with previous Governments too?

Well, if I was PM I think I would have been prepared to use Mandelson. Most other people would have been like lambs to the slaughter. Fight fire with fire…Trump changes all the political rules at the moment. We live in unusual political times.

"What will it actually do to make some people realise Starmer, Rayner and Lammy are destroying our country."

Don't forget Reeves who is destroying businesses with her ill thought out budgets

Well this country was on the decline since M Thatcher destroyed our manufacturing industries and sold off the utilities to all and sundry. There was a brief hiatus under T Blair when he put a lot of dosh into education and social services and the UK was part of a thriving common market, but all downhill again with austerity and the big con that was Brexit which is the real elephant in the room when it comes to damaging the economy.

I think the rot set in, or the country was destroyed, as stated upthread, not by Keir Starmer but by the previous 14 Tory years and the scandals we all know about, not forgetting constant changes of 4 or 5 different Prime ministers and heaven knows the rest.

Keir Starmer seems to be a decent man is being ripped apart by media and uncle tom cobbely politicians about a mistake he made in appointing someone who turned out to be a ‘wrong n’. He has not committed any crime and apologised, unlike others previously mentioned above who lied and cheated.
People need to think on, about the future of this country if as us likely, Farage and his ilk get in at the next election.

sundowngirl

"What will it actually do to make some people realise Starmer, Rayner and Lammy are destroying our country."

Don't forget Reeves who is destroying businesses with her ill thought out budgets

Reeves is only continuing with the same economic beliefs and strategy which have been destroying the UK since they were adopted by Thatcher in 1979. The US adopted the same beliefs and strategies at the same time (Thatcher was inspired by Reagan) and has gone down just the same path.

Industries destroyed in the name of globalisation, private businesses prioritising profits and dividends over investment and fair pay for the workforce. State spending has been slashed in the ludicrous belief that private business can/will supply the same services more effectively and cheaply (look at the privatised water 'industry'. is it more efficient and cheaper?) with no understanding of how cutting jobs and services would an adverse economic effect on employment and private enterprises which supplied state enterprises.

The acquisition of wealth has been applauded and subsidised by low taxation, not only on the means of acquiring wealth but also on the wealth once it has been acquired, It is no coincidence that the inequality gap has been widening and we now have some 14 million people living in poverty, 4 million of which are now experiencing actual destitution.

Until the economic 'orthodoxy' which has driven this is overturned we will continue to decline. Pointing the finger of blame at Labour is, to a certain extent pointless. They 'could' have been bold and changed direction but they are in the grip of the same same 'orthodoxy' and voters are highly suspicious of any policies which deviate from it.

The destruction of the UK started in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher became prime minister and has continued, with a brief pause, for the last 46 years. What we're experiencing is the end time...

I disagree. 1997 and the arrival of Blair was the beginning of the destruction of the UK.

Apparently there’s no mention of a former British Prime Minister being involved in a threesome with Ghislaine Maxwell! The mind boggles.

surfsup

^The destruction of the UK started in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher became prime minister and has continued, with a brief pause, for the last 46 years. What we're experiencing is the end time...^

I disagree. 1997 and the arrival of Blair was the beginning of the destruction of the UK.

Why do you think that? surfsup

Further to my post regarding former prime minister, that should read “There IS mention”.

Ilovecheese

I truly believe Blair has an awful lot to answer for and he’s still behind the scenes pulling strings with his institute and yes, I did vote for him.

MaizieD

sundowngirl

"What will it actually do to make some people realise Starmer, Rayner and Lammy are destroying our country."

Don't forget Reeves who is destroying businesses with her ill thought out budgets

Reeves is only continuing with the same economic beliefs and strategy which have been destroying the UK since they were adopted by Thatcher in 1979. The US adopted the same beliefs and strategies at the same time (Thatcher was inspired by Reagan) and has gone down just the same path.

Industries destroyed in the name of globalisation, private businesses prioritising profits and dividends over investment and fair pay for the workforce. State spending has been slashed in the ludicrous belief that private business can/will supply the same services more effectively and cheaply (look at the privatised water 'industry'. is it more efficient and cheaper?) with no understanding of how cutting jobs and services would an adverse economic effect on employment and private enterprises which supplied state enterprises.

The acquisition of wealth has been applauded and subsidised by low taxation, not only on the means of acquiring wealth but also on the wealth once it has been acquired, It is no coincidence that the inequality gap has been widening and we now have some 14 million people living in poverty, 4 million of which are now experiencing actual destitution.

Until the economic 'orthodoxy' which has driven this is overturned we will continue to decline. Pointing the finger of blame at Labour is, to a certain extent pointless. They 'could' have been bold and changed direction but they are in the grip of the same same 'orthodoxy' and voters are highly suspicious of any policies which deviate from it.

MaizieD: I definitely agree with everything you've said here, I'm not sure I'd be lined up with you politically all of the time, frankly I've no idea where my loyalties in that respect lie these days they tend to be all over the place. Nevertheless, I'm quite in awe of your knowledge by the way, absolutely no sarcasm intended.