Starmer lost his chief of staff on Sunday and is rapidly shedding support from Labour legislators after revelations about the relationship between former British ambassador to Washington Peter Mandelson and the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Starmer is due to address Labour lawmakers behind closed doors later Monday in an attempt to rebuild some of his shattered authority.
The political storm stems from Starmer’s decision in 2024 to appoint Mandelson to Britain’s most important diplomatic post, despite knowing he had ties to Epstein.
Starmer fired Mandelson in September after emails were published showing that he maintained a friendship with Epstein after the late financier’s 2008 conviction for sex offenses involving a minor. Critics say Starmer should have known better than to appoint Mandelson, 72, a contentious figure whose career has been studded with scandals over money or ethics.
Starmer only sees rampant criminality among pensioners protesting war crimes.
This isn’t really about Epstein, at least not the trafficking part of Epstein.
It’s a separate but intertwined issue of appointing someone to the most visible ambassadorship who had been removed from government roles in disgrace on multiple occasions and had known ties to a convicted criminal. In no world is that a good choice, and it led to national secrets being leaked.
He appointed a traitor whilst having sufficient reason to doubt him.
He appointed someone who he knew was already in the Trumps inner-paedo circle in order to potentially guarantee a better UK/US trade deal. It backfired, and the insider-trading treason (which, let’s be honest, all politicians and their mates do) cemented his fate in the eyes of public/media.
If the conservatives did this, it would be business as usual.
I agree with all of this except that “all politicians and their mates do” it.
with the exception of Jez and Gordon maybe
Not sure about that actually, I can just imagine it now
“Jeremy, I’ll give you this big marrow from my allotment and a packet of sunflower seeds if you help the poor”
No man could resist that kind of temptation
That’s certainly the implication, but I don’t see how you prove that.
I’m somewhat surprised proof is needed. Corbyn was ousted on far less
Corbyn was ousted because he won’t play the game. For better or worse you can’t change the world by been a stick in the mud. Corbyn may be a good man (which itself is debatable) but he was a useless politician.
I would be happy to see the back of Starmer for reasons other than this. He’s been Blair 2.0 which isn’t something anyone was asking for.
That’s fair
Corbyn got the boot because he led the party to its worst electoral defeat in 90 years, refused this reality and claimed “we won the argument”.
He was a shit leader who wouldn’t budge on anything, but what they (the media/the public) got him on was supposed anti-semitism from a nothing remark about a graffiti post
