I am sure he is a capable political operator and has 40 years of experience. That said, it appears to have been an awful appointment by Starmer being made worse by his statements this week. It was just a ridiculous judgement to put him in post given the relationship with Epstein.
Mandelson is a known, brilliant networker and an exceptional organiser. Very handy talents to have available. But there is a lot of history that shows he is a terrible judge of people, and that is a serious flaw if you are an Ambassador. Everyone knew this, and for some political jobs that sort of trade off is acceptable and has always been made, but for that role, made in the teeth of much opposition, it was a very bad error. To ignore the flashing warnings about Mandelson is just the latest example of very poor political judgement from Starmer. He appears to have no political antennae at all. I'd say he could be gone inside a year. And I think he'll be relieved to be gone
Anybody supporting a designated terrorist group should absolutely be arrested. It’s called breaking the law, just because you don’t agree with it, it doesn’t mean the law shouldn’t be applied to these people.
Ideal scenario for me would be Mandelson McSweeney and probably Starmer gone. There’s a side of Starmer (foreign policy) done quite well (excluding Israel which is of course significant) that is done well and I think the operational/ service policy side that seems good. But he doesn’t lead by values. I’d love it to be Burnham but obviously he isn’t an MP. I could like them with him. Less robotic, more empathetic
like his Chagos deal or giving our fish away for 12 years for **** all, or sending 100 of his cohorts to America to help Biden, but Trump won, and he couldn't read the signs or smash the gangs to name but a few
I'm afraid you cannot find something that isn't there. The quality of MPs is now at the lowest it has ever been, for a number of reasons. Most are now in parliament because it is the best salary they can command, often wildly in excess of what they would get in a commercial environment. Then there are the expenses and huge pension contributions. And the golden goodbyes. So what you see is what they have got, there are no hidden intellectual giants waiting in the wings, or even many with experience of running businesses, which would be handy. Whatever anyone thinks of any of them, the likes of Benn, Healey, Shore, Crossland, Lawson, Thatcher, Ridley, Lilley among others who could be named, were all serious politicians with genuine intellectual grasp and significant extra-parliamentary hinterland among them. There are virtually no such figures in parliament today, and while it is common to look back on yesterday's men as "giants" and today's as minnows, there is no doubt that the intake at each parliament since the turn of the century has seen the quality fall. Not insignificant as a factor in this was membership of the EU, when law making became outsourced to the EU. Post Maastricht in 1992, more and more of the laws we lived under were written by the EU Commission and rubber stamped by statutory instrument in parliament . No vote, no debate. Roughly around 65%, of laws, some said more but certainly around that, were made that way by 2015. This made MPs lazy as there were fewer and fewer matters over which they had any real say. There were of course MEPs, but the EU parliament is a Potempkin construct, having members who cannot of their own volition instigate legislation, ammend it or repeal it. So they got lazy too. Now, we have MPs who are hopeless at drafting legislation because they are either new to parliament, or have been there for ages and have never had to do it before. We have forgotten how to govern properly, and so the task passes largely to unelected bureaucrats. It hardly encourages able and talented people into parliament, and for all that those who are there appear to be well paid according to their apparent talents, the money will mostly not attract the best people. These are the dog days of British politics.
My politician had been in post for 20 years or so until the last GE when she resigned. She never sat on the front bench and I doubt wanted to. But she was a real community leader and cared. I like to get involved locally and she always had time to listen and think. We didnt always see eye to eye, but I knew she was acting in a way she felt best. She was a conservative by the way. I wasnt. But it didnt matter. Now, we have a labour MP. He is frighteningly inexperienced. Labout declared us a non battle ground seat so thet showed little interest. We have someone who I can see nothing of his predecessor in. He didnt even live within the boundary when he won. Not sure if he does now. You are right we have no political heavyweights anymore. Starmer, Johnson, Truss etc must make some turn in their grave. Sadly, we dont even seem to have many local MPs to pick up the slack either. I find it sad. On the old Boris thread I said over and over Labiur and Tory are the same. I would have loved to be wrong, but everything Starmer touches goes sour it seems to me. Even when given a sensible choice he chooses poorly. When he goes I think it could be the chance for the Labour party to stand up and really put country first. Where the leader is though I dont know.
Just give Starmer another two years, he'll pull something out of the hat.... mind you, there's nothing else we can do until the next GE. I don't know what I'll do if Starmer goes before then, a frightening thought that I'm just going to ignore for now.
Hillary Benn? I admire his principles and as a speaker he is 1st class. At least I feel he is in it for the right reasons.
Nothing coming out of that hat mate. It emerges that Lord Ali, the man who has donated about £3/4m to Labour has had a family booted out of a property he owns, then upped the rent for the new tenant. All legal of course, at least until the new act is meant to come in force. It might be asked, and it will be again now, how else is he to get the money to lash out £2k for Starmer to buy some glasses, and a shed load of cash for Starmer's wife's "spending money"( and how the feck weird was THAT?). They are behaving like a one legged man holding a loaded gun pointed at the other foot.
Mind the Ali thing is an issue with politics. It’ll be 1000 times worse under reform this stuff but it exists everywhere. There have to be externally enforced rules for an independent body on the election processes and donations. It has to be made fair, so democracy. Isn’t bought and we the voters have power. Not defending Ali by the way.
Rowley, your post really got me thinking. Years & years & years ago, when I was 18, I did a ****ty journalism course, but decided that road wasn't for me. I became good mates with a lass and we're still close friends now. Unlike me she worked her way through hard work working for ****ty local papers up to being press spokesperson for the Ministry of Health during the Thatcher/Major times. She's very much on the left of politics - like me. I once asked her if the Tory ministers she worked with were liars just out to enrich themselves and their mates or if they really believed in their policies - and she said the latter. Being on the left she disagreed with them but said they were principled people. This lass is from East London and is a Spurs fan, but by a series of family coincidences & tragedies she's ended up living in ... Boldon Colliery! So she recently put me up when I was back for the Preston game and the Coventry play-off. She said she voted Labour but was regretting it - to which I said that I despise the Labour Party but have always thought of them as the best of a bad bunch. She then went on about the Tory ministers she'd had to work with and how she ridiculed them at the time, but that they are head & shoulders above the Boris/Liz/Sunak clowns and Starmer's lot. Anyway - I agree with you.
Talented political operator and if that was the only determinant then the right man for the job but being friends with Epstein would always raise questions and maintaining that relationship after conviction probably should have precluded his selection and does raise questions. Right decision to get rid I think.
Couldn't disagree more on Benn mind! The man has shown to have the kind of shifting principles so common these days, though he is clever enough to couch them in evasive language. If you asked me for a name for Labour, it would not be one of the names who tout themselves, such as Burnham, who it will most likely be. He is like so many of them. Never had a real job outside of politics, was pretty unimpressive when he had his chance in government, and has enjoyed the comfort zone of being mayor, swinging from the hip when he thought it would suit him. I'd say they should go for Peter Kyle. Little known he may be, but quietly impressive IMO. I wouldn't agree with everything he says or does, but he sees what the job is and does it, treats opponents as opponents rather than some incarnation of Satan and is a bloke without ego. So, it won't be him!
he’s a very good shout. Down to earth and smart is Burnham.my cousin worked with him and had a lot of great things to say about him. He also has a soft spot for us lot & takes the piss out the barcodes. Would get my vote.
