How long can Starmer survive? Getting popcorn ready 🍿🍿

You won’t find a more squeaky clean MP than Starmer. Which is why the media have been desperate to find something to knock him down with What experience does Mahmoud have of dealing with international leaders? Or Trump? I think there’s always been a snobbery about Starmers accent. He’s never professed to being a great orator. Is that all that matters in politics these days? I wish he would walk away from politics to be honest because I think the workload he’s been under since taking office has been unprecedented.

I so agree MayBee

If squeaky clean now means appointing people who have friendships with prolific paedophiles and traffickers, then my definition of clean is out of date.

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.

I agree and have decided to simply wait and see on this matter.

I think there’s always been a snobbery about Starmers accent.
Accent? He seems to be accentless (if that is a word).

MayBee70

You won’t find a more squeaky clean MP than Starmer. Which is why the media have been desperate to find something to knock him down with What experience does Mahmoud have of dealing with international leaders? Or Trump? I think there’s always been a snobbery about Starmers accent. He’s never professed to being a great orator. Is that all that matters in politics these days? I wish he would walk away from politics to be honest because I think the workload he’s been under since taking office has been unprecedented.

Of course- people have been attacking him since he was elected. I'm not his biggest fan but the last thing we need is more political upheaval.

People crying for his resignation should be thinkibng about what the consequenes of his resignation would be.

I hope he stays and rides this out.

“After Keir Starmer apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for believing Mandelson’s “lies” and appointing him as the UK’s ambassador to the US, one survivor gave her reaction.
Speaking last night, Marina Lacerda told BBC’s Newsnight, “I have to commend him for going on national television and admitting he was wrong and apologising to us. I think that’s a huge step, right.

You have also people here in America that have not even tried to apologise to us. So I have to commend him for that”
Just read this on another forum. But I guess some people regard Keir’s ability to apologise as a sign of weakness .

Galaxy

If squeaky clean now means appointing people who have friendships with prolific paedophiles and traffickers, then my definition of clean is out of date.

Absolutely!

I also agree with Allira. Starmer has no accent that I recognise. His voice is just monotonous.

Dead man walking.

Not so much hollow as stuffed.

I recognise Starmer’s accent, it is definitely Southern English. Maybe you hear accents very different from your own more distinctly.

Galaxy

If squeaky clean now means appointing people who have friendships with prolific paedophiles and traffickers, then my definition of clean is out of date.

So that means Farage should step down as leader of Reform…

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Maybee 70
I agree

Well said DaisyAnneReturns

What Allira said nothing to do with the accent, non specific. It's the delivery, robotic and uninspiring. Squeaky clean debatable, given the Lord Ali freebies.

Casdon

I recognise Starmer’s accent, it is definitely Southern English. Maybe you hear accents very different from your own more distinctly.

To be accurate it is North-East Surrey, very close to the border with Kent. I grew up 10 minutes away from the Starmer's house.

I would be both sorry and worried if Starmer left soon. Despite all his errors of judgement I think he's the best person to deal with the world as it is at the moment. Blair and Brown were very lucky that nothing like this happened to them.

Dan Hodges in the Daily Mail 20 December 2024

Peter Mandelson is cynical, manipulative, ruthless, calculating, cunning and ambitious – and the perfect choice to be Britain’s new ambassador to Washington. … But howls of Leftist anguish simply serve to underline the wisdom of the decision. Mandelson has the experience for one of the most demanding briefs in British diplomacy – fostering an unlikely alliance between the socialist son of a toolmaker and the populist godfather of the global MAGA movement. … And while the Tories have opted not to comment formally on the appointment, one senior backbencher told me: ‘Peter’s a very smart guy, but completely the wrong fit for Washington. He’s pro-EU, pro-China, pro-Establishment.’ … To understand Mandelson’s appointment you have to look not to his virtues, but his vices. Ask any of his enemies, and they will cite the same flaws. ‘He’s Machiavellian.’ ‘He’s power hungry.’ ‘He’s arrogant.’ Maybe he is. But Downing Street’s calculation is that these are precisely the qualities Donald Trump respects.

Not a word about Epstein.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14215417/DAN-HODGES-Ruthless-cynical-cunning-Mandy-perfect-choice-ambassador.html

Farage I might disagree with Mandelson on his politics, but he's a very intelligent man and would be good choice for ambassador. (BBC 19 December 2024)

What a difference a year and some new dumps of Epstein files makes.

I agree with Fallingstar
This country does need a stable government but KS and his advisers are not that. It has been a disaster from the beginning and only gets worse.

I know I'll get roasted for this... But Starmer (et al) followed the routine process and advice. It is that 'process and advice' which is rubbish and also not properly implemented by those supposed to do the vetting. From top to bottom in recruitment, verbal assurances and lack of real evidence rule. Totally wrong. Of course Peter assured Keir he had nothing to concern himself over!

Popcorn? Cynical. Mandelson a wrong un but widely considered extremely clever and hard working and thought to me just the person to handle Trump and his appalling entourage - wily, unflappable, very knowledgeable about the US and resilient to attacks. Diplomats are chosen for their fit. It was of course an error. Starmer is a good man, maybe harder for him to see the dark, especially as he is a pragmatist. He is balancing the unbalanceable. I don’t see any asset in changing him except it scratches an itch. Ooh we do like to fell folk. Being PM of a small less relevant nation which is outside any major power group, at a time of omni crisis - who would do it? Some may sound better but in the end help the nation survive better? No, not popcorn. A sad time and it will be a sad day and good luck to the next incumbent. Anyone with any self preservation will be running in the opposite direction

Exactly

My local village used to be a thriving busy shopping area with busy restaurants but now businesses are closing down and going online. This is due to business rates increasing 3 fold, less customers/footfall because parking is no longer free, rises in national insurance payments and so on. I have to ask if local decline is across the UK? If so, what economic benefit has this given the government?
Even more alarming than the publicity surrounding Epstein and Mandelson is the social impact Rachel Reeves’ poor decisions are having on our daily lives. Life under Labour is not working is it?

I agree with you DaisyAnneReturns. It's becoming sensationalised, inviting a witch hunt rather than understanding how corruption can infiltrate our political systems. Personally I think we shouldn't get distracted from the actual criminal and immoral behaviour that went on - including the harm done to a lot of young women whose lives were damaged. We can't pretend that power is always innocent or ethical yet good politicians still have to deal with it as best they can. Epstein was a financial and social fixer, a useful person to know. I'm sure not all those he dealt with were criminals and shining a light into the cesspit shows how easy it is to be at the edge of a criminal underworld. From there so easy to become associated with it, mud sticks. Some were drawn into seriously nasty stuff - stupidly, innocently, inadvertantly, nieavely - a lot of people really should have known better, and some freely chosen to participate. As Graphite says, lots of wealthy and powerful people happily moved in that circle, it was treated as legitimate, acceptable. However, Starmer sacked Mandy as soon as evidence of bad behaviour came to light and if we can't support our politicians, and only try to tear them down, there'll be no good ones left to elect! I think we should still be supporting our PM as he is likely to be the best one we've had for years. Who stands to gain if we weaken our own government? That's a scary thought! Think, 'follow the money' ...
where did Epstein's wealth came from, how come he had so much spare cash to give away, how did he manage to draw so many (mostly men) into sordid situations where they could then be embarrassed, exposed etc - maybe he controlled them through threats and favours, blackmail, and so on, his reward, insider information, tips to share with the right people.... But, where did the money come from? Who gains if our government get taken down in the crossfire?

This is an open forum susieq, anyone can comment on anything. Saying someone from another country isn't entitled to a view is an interesting approach.