Keir Starmer's authority collapsed in the House of Commons this week, and it will not recover. This video explains why his judgment failed, why sacking aides will not save him, and why Labour is now a hollowed-out party with no credible future leadership.
But this crisis goes much further than Starmer. It exposes systemic failure in Labour, growing paralysis in government, and deeper institutional rot that threatens the Union and the monarchy itself.
This is not a scandal. It is an executive collapse in slow motion.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Keir Starmer is finished. Let's be honest. His time as Prime Minister is over after the events of this week, but there's something more important than that.
The whole of the Labour Party is rotten to its core; that's what we've seen, and stick around to later in this video because I think the consequences spread well beyond the future of one political party in this country.
Keir Starmer suffered a day of mayhem in the Commons on Wednesday. The Tories had him over a barrel over his appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to Washington in 2025. And the mood changed when Starmer admitted that he knew of Mandelson's continuing links with Epstein when he appointed him. His own backbenchers and Angela Rayner, quite significantly, turned on him.
The question is: can Starmer survive this, and who else might fall? There are others in the firing line. We are heading into an era of unknowns in British politics, and the ramifications are big.
What we know is that Keir Starmer made clear his lack of judgment when standing before the House of Commons on Wednesday. He said he knew how flawed Peter Mandelson was when appointing him as ambassador to the USA, and he carried on anyway. He did not act in ignorance; he lacked judgment. He thought a fixer, like Mandelson, who'd known a fixer, like Jeffrey Epstein, would deal with a fixer, like Donald Trump, and his judgment failed him as a consequence, and judgment is at the very core of leadership.
The consequence was very clear. It was obvious that Starmer had lost all his authority in the Commons. He stood there, quite literally shaking at the Despatch Box because he could not handle the stress that he was under. A debate that should have been routine collapsed into chaos, so bad was his mismanagement of the day. He looked, quite literally, overwhelmed, and that is fatal for any Prime Minister.
And after all this, the Labour machinery moved into action. The defence is being offered that it wasn't Starmer's decision to appoint Mandelson, but that Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff in Downing Street, persuaded him to do so. But that is no defence. Starmer appointed McSweeney. Responsibility cannot be delegated. Judgment still rests with Starmer, and McSweeney was Starmer's choice and as bad a choice as Mandelson.
All the commentary made one thing clear: McSweeney's departure will not save Starmer. There are cabinet ministers telling political commentators that this is the case. There are MPs standing in front of television cameras saying that this is the case, and we have seen this before. Liz Truss sacked Kwasi Kwarteng in 2022. It was a desperate attempt on her part to blame her Chancellor for the problems that she had created in a matter of weeks. It did not save her. Sacking an aide does not fix terminal leadership failure, and that's what Truss suffered, and that's what Starmer is suffering.
The result is obvious: Starmer is now living on borrowed time. Whatever credibility he had has gone; it cannot be recovered. This story is not going away. The media is going to keep on about it until Starmer has left. There is no other opportunity for him now; he will have to leave.
And there are immediate political consequences. Labour does, of course, now need to look at who its new leader might be. Andy Burnham must be annoyed at being kept out of the prospects, but there is, in fact, no obvious successor for Starmer, who could do better. That's the sad state that the Labour Party has reached. Just as the Tories have denuded themselves of talent by throwing out anybody who was any good during the Johnson era, now Labour is in the same position. Starmer has depleted the ranks of anybody who is able, and there is no successor in sight. This is systemic failure and not personal misfortune that we are witnessing with regard to the future of the Labour Party. It has been hollowed out; there is nothing else.
And, of course, we should note that Reform UK will seek to exploit this crisis. But there is a question to ask: why wasn't there a single Reform MP in the House of Commons to witness this yesterday? That absence matters. What have they got to hide about all this? Because remember, Farage was close to Trump, was close to Steve Bannon, and Steve Bannon most definitely appears in the Epstein papers. What's going on? Why are they so frightened of exploiting a situation that looks like a gift to them?
The reality is that we face a government in paralysis. This is what is going to happen for the next three and a half years. There is no reason for Labour to leave office. We have got used to having lame duck prime ministers sitting around appointed mid-term who can deliver very little. Remember Gordon Brown? Remember Rishi Sunak? Now we're going to have a new one. The point is Labour has time, but no capacity to act. A massive majority has now become meaningless. This is executive collapse in slow motion that we are witnessing here, and that's because there is collateral damage within Labour.
This issue does not stop with Starmer. Wes Streeting is vulnerable because he was so closely associated with Peter Mandelson, whom he called his champion. Peter Kyle is a close friend of Peter Mandelson, as is Steve Reed of Morgan McSweeney. All are associated with the key players in this move. They are now toxic as well, but are leading ministers in the government. They probably can't serve in a future administration, but in that case, Labour looks as though it really is bereft of people who can lead the government of the future.
And there is, and let's be clear about this, worse to come, as yet. There is bound to be more material coming out into the public domain soon from the Epstein papers. That's going to happen here in the UK because of the inquiry now set up in Parliament, but also in the United States, and none of that is going to help Labour at all, whilst Starmer's situation can only deteriorate politically.
The Gorton and Denton by-election will be another nail in his coffin. There is not a hope that Labour will now win that, and come May, there are council elections in England and Senedd elections in Wales, and Holyrood elections in Scotland. Labour is going to be hammered in all of them. It will be enough to consign Labour to history. In Wales, for the first time in a century, Labour will not be holding a majority of seats. This is quite extraordinary.
So, what happens next? In the short term? I suspect that Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's chief of staff, will be sacked within days. I cannot see how he cannot be sacrificed, although, as I've already noted, that will not save Starmer.
Will Starmer go in the next few days? I very much doubt it. I'm hoping he doesn't because I want this video to go out, and you never know, everything could change between the time I'm literally talking into the camera and the moment we put it into the public domain. But the fact is, nobody really thinks Starmer is going in the next few weeks. He will survive until May, but then his day will be over. The electoral losses will be the excuse for Labour MPs to be rid of him, and be rid of him they will be.
What happens next? I haven't a clue who will lead the Labour Party next. They have loads of people who fancy the post, from Yvette Cooper onwards, but all of them look like a disaster in the making. And I'm not sure it frankly matters who they choose because Labour is sinking fast. A party hollowed out by neoliberalism cannot recover, and all the prospective leaders, except one that I've heard of, and that is Clive Lewis, who I think is such an outsider he hasn't got a hope, are neoliberal to their core.
There will then have to be a political realignment in this country. We know that the Tories are fading away; their MPs are haemorrhaging to Reform already.
The left will now leave Labour as well. The obvious beneficiary of all of this is the Greens, but there are problems there as well, and I'm going to make another video on that very soon, because let's be clear, as even they admit, they have a structure set up to be a small party, and they might become a big one very quickly, and whether they can make that transition is, again, open to question. And all the while, the parliamentary map is shifting faster than expected: the old certainties are gone.
But, and I said I would get to this, there are two deeper questions to ask as well. This crisis is not just about Labour.
The first question that has to be asked is: can the UK survive this? Labour once held the Union together. Scotland and Wales trusted it. They always returned a vast majority of Labour MPs in both countries, and that trust has now gone. It's very clear; it has dissipated. The opinion polls make it obvious. Labour is running at around 10% support in Wales, and no more than 15% in Scotland. In that case, has the glue that held together the Union departed with the Labour Party? Because the replacements are parties supporting independence. Plaid Cymru in Wales, the SNP in Scotland. How long can the Union last now? It's a question that has to be asked. I think Labour and the Union have been absolutely intimately linked, and without Labour, I'm not sure how this thing holds together.
But just as importantly, the monarchy is also in the frame, as is its future. This crisis does not stop with Labour. The Epstein scandal raises wider questions, including whether the monarchy can continue, because the issue here is exactly the same as it is with Keir Starmer; it is a question of judgment and accountability, and it is clear that the monarchy has failed.
We've learned a lot about the Royal Family in the last few days.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, whatever he's now called, had to be removed from Windsor on Tuesday night under pressure because of the disclosures being made. He also had to be removed because he remained arrogantly displaying his presence. Further revelations about his behaviour are bound to emerge, and all the royals are doing at present is damage limitation. There is no hint of leadership coming from them. They are floundering, just like Keir Starmer.
The King's failure is of many errors of judgment. Allowing Andrew to remain at Windsor; moving him to Sandringham because that changes nothing; he gets protection and income and is still in the firm as a result. There is no distancing.
But worse still, there's also no evidence that the Royal Family realise that they have to be accountable for what has happened.
Why aren't they investigating all the information that was available that persuaded the late Queen to make a £12 million settlement on behalf of Andrew?
Why aren't they putting information into the public domain?
Why aren't they explaining their current position?
Why aren't they explaining what they know about Andrew?
All of this suggests evasion, and an absence of curiosity and accountability, or just a desire to protect the institution using a mechanism that was once available to them of "offer no explanations", but which no longer holds true.
What's been exposed are the facts, and the facts are that the monarchy is an institution without legitimacy. It is eugenic by design. You can't argue with that. It's a hereditary principle, and that must mean that it is assumed they have superior genes and therefore this is eugenic, and that assumption breeds entitlement and unaccountability. Andrew is the consequence of that. The idea that ordinary people are somehow disposable and beneath them is built into the system, and that matters politically and morally.
What do we have to conclude from all this? Two institutions have failed.
One is the Labour Party; it is rotten to the core.
The monarchy is rotten to the core.
Neither now serves the public interest.
Neither is now fit for purpose.
Labour is failing, and the monarchy still could.
But let's be clear, a third institution is at risk as well, and that is the Union itself. The UK as a whole could fail as a consequence of this. It is also at peril because there is no reason why the people of Wales, and Scotland, and Northern Ireland should now want to owe their allegiance to an English crown based in London alongside an English parliament that is clearly not delivering justice for them.
We need a new direction of travel.
We need democratic accountability.
We need institutions based on care and not privilege.
We need an economy and politics that values people.
We must stop pretending that broken systems can be patched because they can't.
We have to reform, or the cancerous prejudice at the heart of the UK will continue, and that is the real crisis that we face, which Epstein has uncovered.
We have a system that is rotten. He was. Our system is. The consequences are going to flow for some time to come.
What do you think? There's a poll down below.
Poll
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Let’s take stock. Chaos in Parliament, hopeless and corrupt Government, Monarchy in crisis, collapsing public services, failure of the neoliberal economic order here and globally, growing calls for independence in Scotland, Wales and even Cornwall, likelihood of a border poll in Northern Ireland soon, collapse of the post WW2 world order, unpredictability of Trump, war in Europe, increasing diversion of human and industrial resources into improving our defence capability. And on and on.
And we’ve got Starmer in charge. We can’t wait till May.
I think that the worst thing I heard all day was Badenoch – of all people – phlegmatically telling the country how bad Starmer was given that her party had initiated most of the filth we are now living in. That was the low point for me. Starmer has given an open goal to the most loathsome bunch of scumbags in British politics.
One of your key points – the absence and quietness of Reform – is also very telling but also the media’s quietness on Reform’s Epstein links is very suspicious to me. It is as though they are trying to help disassociate Reform from events – the ‘party in waiting’ as I think some outlets are portraying them as.
But I think I need some help here. I fail to understand why Starmer would launch into an apology to Epstein’s victims? It felt odd, unnecessary, out of step and rather false. He was using the recognition of the pain of the victims to re-establish his moral standing in some way. It looked – frankly – desperate. The only thing that will satiate the victims is justice and getting to the root of what looked like a bunch of rich people sexually exploiting young people for favours. And that is still not done.
We need to concentrate on the fellow perpetrators of Epstein’s crimes – not those guilty by remote association like Starmer. Those at the periphery are not our concern for now. We also know that people like Mandelson have no moral compass at all – why expect more from a Third Way acolyte? Epstein was money. What else do you need to know? Done.
And this moves me onto Randy Andy Windsor. Because here is someone right at the heart of events. Maybe here is someone the Knight of Realm that is Starmer is really protecting, taking one for Team Windsor? Squirreled away in the middle of the night apparently, with rumours of even royal staff wanting him out.
Why not have done with it and bring the arrogant bastard to a court of law? Who the hell do these people think they are?
I know who they are.
They rule over us and think that rules are for lesser people – like us.
Starmer is trying to portray himself as a victim, and so seeks association.
It is bollocks. He is no victim. He was an enabler. His pretence of “poor little me, misled by nasty Peter” is total sham. He knew what Mandelson was. He appointed him because of what he was. It has backfired. He should pay the price.
I asked for some help and thank you. But I have to say that I’ve heard that before and to me it is not plausible that a PM was not advised about Mandelson and his links to Epstein and even Epstein himself. Starmer is a sacrificial lamb. His apology was pure theatre. To our elite, a politician is politician – ‘find us another one, this one is done’.
Starmer – an enabler? This all kicked off before Starmer. I think it’s worse than that. The British state has become the enabler. British politicians – from the PM downwards – are disposable and well rewarded for taking one for who really rules. Principles are thrown out of the window – when the state wants to sell itself off – no price is too high. Starmer appointed Mandelson because of his established links with America as we prepare to sell ourselves wholesale to them. The fact that Mandelson associated with an infamous character is just collateral risk that could be born by trying to please Trump who also knew Epstein. ‘Taking care of business’.
As I said, Andrew should be in court now. Elizabeth should never have been allowed to buy silence. All I see is a democracy that fails to protect us being used to protect the unconscionable behaviour of a perma elite who have clawed their way back into our lives and rendered democracy and justice useless to us. Thus our state has become accountable to no-one, because it is not owned by the ‘demos’. It is owned by a few at the top here and foreigners. Starmer’s fate is another just tit-bit, a bone thrown from the top table none of us sit at. Big deal. Chew on it if you want to. I’m not. That is my position and it is heartfelt at least, if nothing more.
He has been sacked before for dishonesty, so should have never been near government jobs or the HOL
I am afraid I haven’t paid much attention to the detail of Andrew M-W’s misconduct. All that I am aware of is that he was alleged to have had (apparently consensual) sex with a 17 year old. That is not a crime in the UK. The victim stated certain things against Epstein and Maxwell which are crimes in the USA, possibly Andrew committed crimes in the USA but, even if he paid for sex, that is not a crime.
I am not attempting to excuse Andrew’s behaviour which appears to have been appalling, entitled and very stupid. He deserves all that comes to him, but can he be tried for a crime in this country over anything we currently know about?
She was trafficked.
He deboned having sex with her.
That is not true.
Ironic isnt it, the greatest threat to the UK is our Managerial and Political class
Hear hear, it has been the same for decades. Back in the 1970s during my apprenticeship at an aircraft factory, the lack of investment and modernisation was stark. So much so that an American delegation with a view to buying our product were agahst at the ancient machinery we were using.
The story of the UK all my working life has been one of lack of investment, innovation, long term strategy, political leadership for the “Country” and a general decrepitude of the infrastructure.
Now all this Epstein scandal has shown our leaders up for what they really are, a bunch of flies buzzing around a dog turd. It makes me sick.
Keep up the good work Richard and please speak to Zac Polanski whenever possible.
You’re right that Labour has no evident talent to replace Starmer as PM, nor, let’s face it: enough un-tainted talent to populate a new, credible, Cabinet. It’s poor leadership, of course, not just on Starmer’s part but on the entire leadership of Labour over the last few decades. Labour has not come to terms with the loss of its raison d’être. It came into being over a century ago in order to represent, support and defend a working class rooted in large scale, dirty and dangerous industries. Society has changed profoundly since then. Some of that class still exist, but the class structure that existed a century ago has become diffused and people in hardship and poverty now are locked in for entirely different reasons. But Labour has not evolved to reflect that; it’s lost its visceral connection with the poor to concentrate on generalised economic growth (with more or, usually, less success). In the last couple of decades it’s positioned itself far away from it’s historical base.
Labour is going to shrink to a handful of MPs, and follow the path taken by the Liberals over the last century or more. If there is one action they could take to make the most of the situation for themselves, and coincidentally do the UK a massive favour, it is to change the voting system to reflect the much greater diversity of today’s population: introduce a proportional representation system before it’s too late.
Yes, but WHAT is the alternative to Starmer’s Labour? Most of the other options are far worse.
Try the Greens. There are caveats. But what else do you suggest?
I think its even worse than you say.
– our civil service seem ineffective (legislation seema badly drafted, delivery of policy seems poor, oversight/accountability of BoE, police, ministers, fraud, tax, justice, security services), management of government subcontracts, rules formed by and for use of the Home Office, welfare …).
– it seems that Mandelson was forwarding v sensitive emails within seconds to Epstein. Was that not monitored? Were security aware. Were they not aware of AMW’s whereabouts/behaviour?
So its not just the main appointees. Seems corrupt or ineffective from top to bottom. Perhaps Farage has got his heart’s desire earlier than he hoped?
I think that we have had an aristocrat/elite minority, corrupt, and treating the majority as disposable, for a very long time. Perhaps it started with the Norman Conquest? What’s different now is the spread and availibility of information about this. It’s not true transparency, it’s not reliable, but we do at last get to know something of the contempt and corruption in the English elite. And the answer has to be more transparency, more accountability, and a general belief in the value of truth.
In south-west Sheffield, we have 3 female MPs who seem worthy of respect. Louise Haigh, Olivia Blake, Abtisam Mohammed. So far they have mostly restricted themselves to local issues; Haigh was trolled over an early mistake when she seemed likely to move up a level. I don’t know enough about other MPs, but I think it’s likely there’s a good few backbench MPs who have potential, and may even resist corruption for some time. Let’s not lok just at the (male) people who are prominent now.
I most definityely do not look only at men.
In the history of my firm of accountants I was the only male partner, and I can assure ypou the others were there on merit, and my equals.
I want to know is who and where is the current Epstein … a new fixer for the global elite to preserve their power and wealth. The trilateral commission and others such, have always been explicit that there is too much democracy.
The exploitation of young and very young women is horrific but they were essentially kompromat. The real business was another aspect of ‘secrecy jurisdictions’ in which politicians, banks, corporations, celebrities, royalty could communicate and set up deals to evade laws enabling individuals and corporations to hide assets, avoid taxes, conceal financial ownership from authorities and to distort/undermine inconvenient political decisions of governments.
The UK is hardly the only country to be exposed. For example, Craig Mokhiber exposes that
‘Mona Juul and Terje Roed Larsen, the Norwegian husband and wife team that were the architects of the disastrous Oslo process (which side-stepped international law, devastated Palestinian rights for three decades, and consolidated the Israel regime’s unlawful position in Palestine), are revealed in the Epstein files as having close relations with (Mossad-adjacent Israel regime operative) Jeffrey Epstein, and taking personal loans from him, and their children were reportedly left $10 Million in Epstein’s will.’
Meanwhile, our media is focused on the sexual exploitation and outrage that Mandelson could have continued to be in touch with a paedophile. Horrific though that is, it is much more significant that Mandelson was selling us down the river to the likes of Palantir, Oracle etc … to global surveillance and authoritarianism; to inaction on climate breakdown and genocides.
The collapse of Labour under Starmer, is more sinister than collapse of Tories after 14 years.
Governments get stale and corrupt during their 3rd term, Johnson the trolley was the worst man at the worst time (Covid).
But years before, something far more sinister was going on, more intentional and organised, to make sure that Labour, when it became the government, would not change course from the Tories, on all the key issues. Paul Holden (“Fraud”) and Peter Oborne (“Complicit”) tell the story, and the MSM remain silent on HOW and WHY, even if, now, they have to admit the WHAT.
Today’s Jewish Chronicle was interesting. Expect to hear a lot more of the phrase “Jew hate”. It’s going to be thrown at anyone publicly criticising Israel or calling for justice in Israel/Palestine.
The conflation of antisemitism and criticism of Israel is now complete, and “antisemiitism” is now deemed too benign a word for use tn the smears. Critics of Israel will be accused of “Jew hatred”.
This is bad news for critics of Israel and terrible news for diaspora Jews everywhere who are being dragged (often by non-Jewish Israel lobbyists like Lords Mann & Walney or MacSweeney/Starmer) into the Israel-Palestine conflict. REAL antisemitism is on the increase, but will not be dealt with. Diaspora Jews will suffer, but Israel’s lobbyists will not be there to help.
The muddy waters of this torrent are rapidly becoming a stinking sludge as a sewage-rich flood of Epstein revelations are suddenly released into the mainstream.
I cannot see the establishment “Thames Barrier” managing to save our corrupt institutions this time. I’m pleased to see it all collapsing, but on the OTOH, a lot of innocent, vulnerable people will suffer.
This is is what apocalyptic scripture is about. Powerful visionary language about corruption and collapse of empires and institutions, Babylon, Rome, Jerusalem. We like to think it is about a literal description of end times and get out our calendars and calculators, but it is far MORE true, but in another way. It was an attempt by prophetic visionaries to describe the reality of their “now” and to offer hope to those living through the storm.
Corrupt empires DO fall.
Bad people DO eventually destroy themselves and we shouldn’t wish it otherwise, even though it will be painful.
We can do much much better than this.
KUTGW!
Thanks for this.
Questioning Zionism is now essential. But it is about politics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism, let alone hating Jews. It is about questioning what now looks like a fascist, apartheid embracing, philosophy.