The Labour Government

Pretty much mirrored in here .... although Jimbo is at least admitting he was duped.

Rome wasn't built in a day ...

 
Well, now.
Did he lie or not ? If he (Mandelson) lied, then he'd have passed scrutiny, you'd think.
If he told the truth and failed scrutiny, then someone else must be lying... right?

1000019155.gif

Tune in next week for...
 
philfodenswristsock said:
The Mamdami figure is around and available for votes. Unfortunately for The "Labour" Party, when under the award winning direction of Blair acolytes... the message, very implicit went... if you're socialist you can Foxtrot Oscar... and 10s of thousands did... to The Greens. Never to return. So... Labour will require a huge kicking, a change of management, a de coupling from the class of wronguns who currently seem to be dictating international politics and some balls to stand for the working person again. The old song went "which side are you on" its going to be a very important question moving forward. We know who owns them... but for whom do they stand?

Click to expand...

I hear you.

But what I’m getting at is there’s no centrist leadership figure who can communicate to a wide population.

I meant Mamdani in terms of his remarkable communication skills.

Re UK politics, the last PM candidate I felt genuinely excited by was Tony Blair, and he’s the last PM I feel was genuinely a truly great leader for this country.

I know everyone on here hates him so I may as well be talking to myself.
 
metalblue said:
Now then…

In a letter to MPs last September, Sir Olly said the security vetting process for Lord Mandelson was carried out independently of ministers, who were not informed of any "any findings other than the final outcome".
Click to expand...
What was the "final outcome" though?
Was it that no actual details of the findings were given, and someone just decided everything was fine?
It's all very bloody murky.
 
We've got Guardiola said:
I don't understand the obsession that the PM had with Mandelson anyway. What did he have on anybody else that made him an ideal appointment?
Click to expand...
I assume the fact he spent time in the same social circles as Trump put him in a better position than others. The fact that this social circle was basically Epstein’s mates wasn’t ideal but I guess the full depravity of Epstein and his associates wasn’t fully understood yet.
 
BobKowalski said:
It was transparent. Mandelson knew the people in the WH, knew were all the bodies were buried so that is why he got the job and everyone knew that. Mandelson is a nasty shit and was sent to work with other nasty shits.

Then everyone jumped on their chairs, hitched their skirts and started screaming in horror.

So much for ‘realpolitik’ I guess :)
Click to expand...
The main point for me is that Mandelson, as Business Secretary up to 2010, passed on information to Epstein that he had purely because of his role.
The reference to jumping on chairs, hitching up skirts and screaming in horror is rather dismissive and completely underplaying something incredibly serious.
 
west didsblue said:
I assume the fact he spent time in the same social circles as Trump put him in a better position than others. The fact that this social circle was basically Epstein’s mates wasn’t ideal but I guess the full depravity of Epstein and his associates wasn’t fully understood yet.
Click to expand...
So how bad did the known depravity have to get?
Epstein was already a convicted criminal in 2009.
I understand why someone might have wanted Mandelson to be at the centre of US politics, but wanting and actually appointing are completely different.
 
mackenzie said:
What was the "final outcome" though?
Was it that no actual details of the findings were given, and someone just decided everything was fine?
It's all very bloody murky.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's "murky". It's transparently obvious that Starmer is a self-serving, lying piece of shit who will throw anyone under any bus in order to try to save his own sorry skin.

A man who said "I will always take responsibility for the mistakes of those I lead". A man who said (in terms), "honesty and decency matter, that not misleading parliament matters". A man who said he would always put the interests of the country ahead of that of the party, the party's interest ahead of his own.

What is transparent is that that was all lies. He lies habitually, and without conscience. He treats parliament, his colleagues, and the country with contempt.

Anyone in this situation, with an atom of scrupuls, would resign immediately. Since he has none, I imagine he will continue to try to worm out of this untenable position which is entirely of his own making.

I draw some small comfort from the fact that for this loathsome man, his "legacy", whatever his actions over the coming days, will be to be remembered as the most unpopular Prime Minister in our long history.
 
mackenzie said:
So how bad did the known depravity have to get?
Epstein was already a convicted criminal in 2009.
I understand why someone might have wanted Mandelson to be at the centre of US politics, but wanting and actually appointing are completely different.
Click to expand...
Starmer’s biggest mistake was thinking that pandering to Trump was a good strategy and would be beneficial to Britain. Plenty of other world leaders made the same mistake. It has become increasingly clear that distancing ourselves from the madness would have been the right thing to do and we have eventually come to that conclusion following the likes of Spain and France who gave up pandering to the orange slug long before we did.
 
mackenzie said:
What was the "final outcome" though?
Was it that no actual details of the findings were given, and someone just decided everything was fine?
It's all very bloody murky.
Click to expand...

The final outcome of the vetting process was surely “failed”. That that final outcome was overruled doesn’t change that I wouldn’t think.
 
west didsblue said:
I assume the fact he spent time in the same social circles as Trump put him in a better position than others. The fact that this social circle was basically Epstein’s mates wasn’t ideal but I guess the full depravity of Epstein and his associates wasn’t fully understood yet.
Click to expand...
Yeh. That'll be it. The Game of Thrones approach to national security, sort of thing.
Worth a punt, I suppose.
 
Just a strategic error bringing 'Petie' back in from the cold. Seemed like a plausible appointment at the time ... who could have known.
 
west didsblue said:
Starmer’s biggest mistake was thinking that pandering to Trump was a good strategy and would be beneficial to Britain. Plenty of other world leaders made the same mistake. It has become increasingly clear that distancing ourselves from the madness would have been the right thing to do and we have eventually come to that conclusion following the likes of Spain and France who gave up pandering to the orange slug long before we did.
Click to expand...
But "pandering to Trump" is one thing.
The fact his Govermnent allowed a man who passed on information to someone, a known criminal , back in is a completely different issue.
 
mackenzie said:
But "pandering to Trump" is one thing.
The fact his Govermnent allowed a man who passed on information to someone, a known criminal , back in is a completely different issue.
Click to expand...
It’s all part of the same picture. Agree it was a huge mistake whatever Starmer knew. After already being booted out of government for various indiscretions three times it’s bizarre he was even given a sniff of the job never mind actually given it.
 
mackenzie said:
The main point for me is that Mandelson, as Business Secretary up to 2010, passed on information to Epstein that he had purely because of his role.
The reference to jumping on chairs, hitching up skirts and screaming in horror is rather dismissive and completely underplaying something incredibly serious.
Click to expand...

That’s a fair point. The passing of information is a serious matter and one I had forgotten about.
 
mackenzie said:
But "pandering to Trump" is one thing.
The fact his Govermnent allowed a man who passed on information to someone, a known criminal , back in is a completely different issue.
Click to expand...
Was that a ‘known’ at the time? I seem to recollect that it didn’t come to light until after he was sacked.

What interests me here is why the US kept hold of this information and didn’t release it to UK Services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top