Bye bye Starmer

[Alex88]

Good timing that this all came out just after PMQ's!

[IanF]

Non-exec until 2017 of a Russian conglomerate which includes a major defence technology manufacturer with an ex-Ruskie PM as Chair (annexation of Crimea 2014) also highlights a questionable decision.. maybe no one at that level is “really” clean? What a sorry state of affairs.. OV9 political party can’t come soon enough!

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-lat ... eblog-body

[duncs500]

Not looking good for Starmer. At all.

He said he wasn't aware of the extent of Mandelson's relationship with Epstein, but it's increasingly looking like that wasn't true..

I dunno, so far the release doesn't really tell me much of anything. Starmer’s Director of Communications at the time said to Starmer something like he was satisfied with Peter Mandelson’s responses when questioned about his contact with Epstein.

If you're the PM (or indeed anyone in a senior leadership role) you've got enough on your plate that you have to take information from your advisors and make a call. I can well see how the decision making process might have happened in terms of the benefits of Madleson's links to big dogs in the US if he'd been told broadly that the Epstein links weren't significant. Starmer was foolish to take the risk given the potential dirt on him, but we already knew that.

I still don't see any evidence that Starmer acted in a dishonest way, or without integrity.

Maybe that will come out, but as far as I can tell so far, this is nothing new.

[Rich B]

There’s a fair amount being hung on someone being “friends with someone who broke the law*” that gets ignored in plenty of other situations.

(*yes, it was some pretty disgusting breaks.)

Everyone is being pretty coy about it - yes, there was a risk hiring Mandy, but we needed someone in the same billionaire pedo circles as the people he was dealing with, so we dragged him out of multiple sackings to do the dirty work.

The Russian Non-executive stuff and the sharing financial details with Epstein is obviously an issue.

[ZedLeg]

That “well he’s from the same cesspit as the people he’s going to be working with” argument always felt like justification after the fact tbh.

Also shines a big light on the truth that everyone knew he was a danger and gave him a high paying civil service job anyway.

[Rich B]

That “well he’s from the same cesspit as the people he’s going to be working with” argument always felt like justification after the fact tbh.

It was pretty front and centre throughout - He’d already been sacked twice before, everyone knew it was a serious risk, but all the opposition crying now are pretending they somehow didn’t realise at the time.

Grubby guy knows grubbier guy.

[ZedLeg]

My problem with that reasoning is all they gained was another Mandelson related embarrassment.

Personally I would rather no one in my government was close personal friends with a monstrous paedophile who ran social engineering experiments for his own gain.

[duncs500]

That “well he’s from the same cesspit as the people he’s going to be working with” argument always felt like justification after the fact tbh.

It was pretty front and centre throughout - He’d already been sacked twice before, everyone knew it was a serious risk, but all the opposition crying now are pretending they somehow didn’t realise at the time.

Grubby guy knows grubbier guy.

I'd have to look back at when he was appointed, but my recollection of the media reaction at the time was just that.

As much as I'm sure many in this country would happily completely set fire to our relationship with the US at this point, it isn't really a sensible option either politically or economically. We all hope that they will clean up their act post Trump, but we'd be better to be there when that happens rather than set fire to bridges that continue to burn after Trump is gone.

[jamcg]

He was Hartlepool MP for years, and most people I talk to in the area say the same thing- “who the fuck gave that man a job???”