When Will Starmer Go?
- Thread starter The Penguin
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Never, if he did not do it after Mandleson he'll never walk.
A bit like that c*** Khan.
Strait of Hormuz open to commercial ships for remainder of ceasefire, Iran says - follow live
Meanwhile, the US president says Iran has agreed to turn over its enriched uranium, but Tehran has not commented on the claim.
www.bbc.co.uk
The strait is now fully open. And where is Starmer ?
In Paris trying to get the strait open
.Still, nothing going on at home is there ?
My vote is for Ivir
The only thing open with him is theStrait of Hormuz open to commercial ships for remainder of ceasefire, Iran says - follow live
Meanwhile, the US president says Iran has agreed to turn over its enriched uranium, but Tehran has not commented on the claim.
The strait is now fully open. And where is Starmer ?
In Paris trying to get the strait open
Still, nothing going on at home is there ?
Biggun, the Engine, Novello?
The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
He might get away with it if he hadn't presented himself as Mr Stability after all the Tory chaos. This is only the last straw in a series of errors of judgment. Add to that the silly promises he made at the GE, and there's no chance of the electorate trusting him again. It looks like his defense is he wasn't told, maybe so, but there must have been intense pressure from no.10 to appoint Mandy, an appointment which was widely lauded at the time by the same people who are now attacking it. Private Eye has recorded all the hypocrisy of it. Sir Olly must be called to give his side of the story too.
I must admit I was totally amazed when Mandleson was appointed, regardless of whether he failed the security vetting or not. I think most people knew he was a chancer a long time ago. He'd already been sacked from the government twice for misdemeanours. I suspect Starmer didn't know about the failed vetting, but he should have know about his previous history. It's not been a good week for the Prime Minister what with this and the row with the speaker.
Is it just me or shouldn’t an appointment be made only after security screening is completed? Just in case there is a problem found?
As mentioned above it was always going to be a risky appointment
As mentioned above it was always going to be a risky appointment
He shouldn’t have appointed him to the post if he hadn’t confirmed that he was suitable, ie that he had passed the vetting. What’s the basic principal of law ? - ignorance is no defence - is Starmer really claiming ignorance as his only defence ? Not even remotely credible to anyone outside his inner circle.
The Trump Effect 
Before the Iran War forced Keir Starmer to come off the fence and openly oppose the madman in the Whitehouse, KS was obsessed with walking the tightrope of appeasing the Orange One. That all-consuming desire had Starmer determined to appoint the odious and entirely unsuitable Mandelson to the post of US Ambassador - purely for Mandy's apparent skills as a "Trump Whisperer".
Insanely risky politics, from a man who is not a politician by nature.
Donald Trump cannot be reasoned with. He turns on allies in an instant, regardless of how much they have sucked up to him in the past.
Still our PM hopes to curry some fleeting favour with The Donald by dint of the King's visit to America.
Supposedly to 'celebrate' events of 250 years ago. When another King (George III) wrote in his diary that "nothing important happened today".
Before the Iran War forced Keir Starmer to come off the fence and openly oppose the madman in the Whitehouse, KS was obsessed with walking the tightrope of appeasing the Orange One. That all-consuming desire had Starmer determined to appoint the odious and entirely unsuitable Mandelson to the post of US Ambassador - purely for Mandy's apparent skills as a "Trump Whisperer".
Insanely risky politics, from a man who is not a politician by nature.
Donald Trump cannot be reasoned with. He turns on allies in an instant, regardless of how much they have sucked up to him in the past.
Still our PM hopes to curry some fleeting favour with The Donald by dint of the King's visit to America.
Supposedly to 'celebrate' events of 250 years ago. When another King (George III) wrote in his diary that "nothing important happened today".
Last edited:
Watching LK Today on BBC1.
On 5th February the Prime Minister told Parliament that Peter Mandelson had been cleared by the vetting process.
That was simply not true.
Either
A) Starmer had not been told Mandy had failed the vetting (as he claims)
B) Starmer knew that Mandy had failed the vetting.
Either way, the Prime Minister's statement was dishonest.
If he really did not know about the failed vetting, why did he say Mandelson had passed all vetting?
He should have admitted that he did not know.
I think millions of people are sick to death of the weasel words and technical defences.
We had all this stuff for years under the Tories. Starmer said things would be different under this Government.
Instead we're just hearing more of the same.
On 5th February the Prime Minister told Parliament that Peter Mandelson had been cleared by the vetting process.
That was simply not true.
Either
A) Starmer had not been told Mandy had failed the vetting (as he claims)
B) Starmer knew that Mandy had failed the vetting.
Either way, the Prime Minister's statement was dishonest.
If he really did not know about the failed vetting, why did he say Mandelson had passed all vetting?
He should have admitted that he did not know.
I think millions of people are sick to death of the weasel words and technical defences.
We had all this stuff for years under the Tories. Starmer said things would be different under this Government.
Instead we're just hearing more of the same.
Last edited:
He’s a lawyer. Technical defences are bread and butter to him.
He’s a lawyer. He has no concept of right and wrong.
He’s a lawyer. He won’t have any understanding of what the above sentence even means.
KS is a lawyer by nature - but his self-chosen vocation is being Prime Minister.
If he cannot grow beyond behaving like a lawyer, then he is not fit to be Prime Minister.
I'm an engineer by nature.
In order to be a factory manager (my job for 30 years or so) I have had to learn & behave beyond my nature sometimes.
Not claiming to be great at it, but I would like to think I can get by and earn my salary.
Starmer is obviously a lot more intelligent and skilled than I am. He's part of the Elite class, not a 'mormal bloke' like you or me.
He should be capable of operating beyond what he used to be when he was a young man.
If he cannot, then his ambition has outstripped his ability. Something I don't believe most of us are guilty of.
If he cannot grow beyond behaving like a lawyer, then he is not fit to be Prime Minister.
I'm an engineer by nature.
In order to be a factory manager (my job for 30 years or so) I have had to learn & behave beyond my nature sometimes.
Not claiming to be great at it, but I would like to think I can get by and earn my salary.
Starmer is obviously a lot more intelligent and skilled than I am. He's part of the Elite class, not a 'mormal bloke' like you or me.
He should be capable of operating beyond what he used to be when he was a young man.
If he cannot, then his ambition has outstripped his ability. Something I don't believe most of us are guilty of.
His ambition has indeed outstripped his ability (to be Prime Minister) but he’s a lawyer so that is irrelevant.
A good lawyer would have checked all the facts before making important claims and decisions. "Absolutely furious" my arse. Yet again it's the fault of everyone else except him. It's becoming an excruciating watch. His "Full transparency" statement to Parliament will be anything but, and will ask more questions than it answers.
Earlier this year at PMQ's Kemi Badenoch asked the PM if the security vetting had mentioned Mandy's relationship with Epstein, and he replied "Yes it did". So he did know about the vetting. How can he talk his way out of this? Looks like a smoking gun to me.