There are four things to say about the the Mandelson papers:
- Starmer knew about Epstein, as did McSweeney.
- They appointed him anyway.
- They did not care about the risks, the victims, or the truth.
- All that mattered to them was creeping to a fascist.
McSweeney has gone.
Now Starmer should go.
And Labour too, because it has wholly embraced this logic.
There is not a lot more to say, except to note that fascism always corrupts. That is why it must be opposed.
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!
This is about the arrogance of power and we know best even if it’s clear that the decision is wrong.
Plus it does prove the concept, incompetence rises to the top.
The Peter Principle.
I know that politics is a cynical business, but even allowing for that, I’m finding it increasingly difficult to understand why Starmer and those around him can possibly think he should stay in office.
My theory is that they’re happy for him to limp on until the Holyrood, Senedd and English council elections rather than have a new or interim leader take the blame for the hammering. It’s near identical to the theory I have about Kemi Badenoch, although I anticipate the men in grey suits having to drag her kicking and screaming away from the dispatch box.
Agreed
I accept that does seem to be what’s happening. But surely there comes a point when a leader’s unfitness for office is so overwhelmingly apparent and damaging that keeping him on, for whatever reason, is just plain bonkers, even if replacing him is a bit tricky. I submit we’re well past that point. Politics is a completely separate reality now, isn’t it. Untouched by normal human considerations. It’s hard to take it in.
They think he can stay in office only because they can’t agree who should replace him.
My guess is that Starmer will tough it out until May when Labour will need a scapegoat for appalling election results (and others should, but won’t, shoulder some of the blame). Then he will go.
Who would they replace him with? All their preferred options are tarnished and no one more left wing stands a chance. We are likely to get one if the lacklustre cabinet members like Brigitte Philipson. New face but no better.
Right field candidates – Steve Reed, a like-for-like plotter and Zionist. Any other candidate will be a Zionist BTW. Labour has been fully captured. A true change would leave the cabinet with about 3 members.
P. S. Apologies!
The actual amount is reported to be £75, 000.
The Mandelson event has been useful since it weakened Starmer. The coup de grace will come in May.
This leaves the open question: what is happening behind the scenes in LINO.
I am confident that there is within LINO ABR (anybody but rayner) activity.
The problem for LINO is the rest of the line up is horrible. Lammy? Many villages have more intelligent idiots. Reeves? snort of derision. etc.
If the McSweeney project was to destroy Labour, he has suceeded. Oh & his wife is a LINO MP (suggestion: get on the jobs market now – cos it will be crowded with ex-LINO types in 2029).
How did we get here?
a good question
It is only Labour’s big donors keeping Starmer in power and that has to be contended with in my view before anything changes.
Stymied is a Knight of the Realm and he is fulfilling his knightly duties. And those duties are not to me and thee.
No more knights then in the post of Prime Minister, going forward. They cannot be so compromised.
Starmer is certainly not free of blame.
The element that strikes me the most is the sense of entitlement – particularly Mandelson. Fails in his job, thinks he should be paid over £500k (based on what he would have been paid), gets £75k (including notice pay – which I don’t think should apply in this case since there has been gross misconduct) and seems to think the most important aspect after being sacked is that it is played-down / played-positively in his favour so that he can return head held high and carry-on from where he left off. Arrogance, self-interest, narcissism and entitlement all wrapped-up in one very questionable individual.
Starmer’s greatest failing is that he is not decisive and, worse, seems incapable of making the right decisions and recognising that – as in most facets of life – it is all about people. 2 simple examples: 1. when Milligan’s didn’t want to move from Energy, Starmer should have thanked him for his services and let him leave the cabinet; and, 2) when Reeves argued against Starmer and insisted on winter fuel cuts, etc., (which Starmer didn’t support) or she would leave, he should have gotten her coat and escorted her to the door. The latter would have been the best decision of his premiership…and in the best interests of the country.
Labour – with or without Starmer as PM – need to get back to their roots and create a compelling narrative that is Keynesian / MMT in spirit / focused on the people in this country. Otherwise, they will – like the Tories – become irrelevant and are unlikely to ever lead the country again.
Allegedly Mandelson wanted a payoff or he would go to the Employment Tribunal. That is weird.
Unfair dismissal cannot be claimed until the employee has been continuously employed for 2 years. I don’t think he was a government employee before the ambassador role, so no claim.
I cannot see any kind of equality act claim, unless he wanted to claim that being a friend of Epstein was a religion or belief. That’s going nowhere.
That really leaves wrongful dismissal. That is if a dismissal occurs that is not within contractual or statutory rights. If the government was stupid enough to fail to include a termination clause in his contract, then he would have a potential claim. But were thy really that stupid? Otherwise, he should get paid notice and untaken holiday entitlement. That could well be £75,000.
Paid notice would not be an entitlement if he were dismissed for gross misconduct, so, if he lied at interview and during the process. But the papers released make it clear that his employer knew of his relationship with Epstein and didn’t care. So gross misconduct may be difficult to uphold.
The undemocratic influence of ex Labour Party leaders is a real worry. Apparently Blair had already had his say with the current leadership in respect to supporting the US’s illegal war against Iran, before issuing his public support for Trumps hysterical intervention. Surely he should be thrown out of the Labour Party having accepted a leading role on Trumps Bored of Peace? Now I hear that his “think” tank is proposing that the NHS in Scotland should be privatised “post-haste”. Then of course their are other LINO’s brought into government from the Lords. If there is one thing LINO is good at its Nepotism and Corruption.
Scotland will tell him whwre he can get off
Hi Richard,
Strangely none of this was either reported or referred to on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 this morning ( I listened for 30 minutes until 8.30). This was despite the fact that the previous evening on ITN News at Ten it had led the bulletin for more than 10 minutes and Tom Bradby said we all should Google the document release as it was an eye opener.
Strange that.
I see Mandelson now as a sideshow- a stick the right can use to beat Starmer with, even though he is almost one of them. The story is bound to run for at least a week in the Express, Mail, and Telegraph. The object is to bring Starmer down as soon as possible and restore the rightful right-wing to power where they can bring in more austerity while looking after their supporters in the City.
I’m keen to say farewell to Starmer, but not to let these peoe take over and take us further i to the mire and away from the gov of care that we crave. The Greens are not yet ready in England to take over from Labour, but SNP are in Scotland. I don’t know about Plaid in Wales.