Forum menu
Mandelson also had a go at peddling the line of reasoning that states he couldn't be implicated in anything sexual with regards to Epstein because his homosexuality was a kind of shield.
Yeah, because obviously Epstein would have been doctrinally incapable of procuring underage males as well as females, right?
I'm not saying he did, but his line of 'reasoning' is utterly laughable.
I imagine Trump is going to keep quiet (relatively speaking) on the Mandleson sacking/removal till he is safely on Airforce One on the way back to states after the state visit next week, sacking Mandleson for his ties to Epstein does not look good for Trumps ties to Epstein so expect to see Trump go all out on “Freedom of Speech” issues in this country and we’ll pay the price
Why Ukrainian? That alone should make you more cynical and avoid spreading such nonsense.
It's based on the thing about his house being attacked by Ukrainians. I am cynical, hence the 'it's probably bollocks', doesn't mean we can't ask the question though. As the Mandelson thing proves, there is so much mirky sordid stuff going on under the surface of politics and 'high society' that it wouldn't be a massive surprise if Starmer himself is mixed up in dodgy stuff.
The Mandelson thing is all about the media revelling in their success getting rid of Rayner and saying "Right, who next".
No, the Mandelson thing is all about him being a deeply terrible person with awful judgement and a track record of brokering deals with bad people. He should never have been appointed Ambassador and I'm happy that Starmer fired him instead of allowing him to resign. But I would have been happier if he had never been hired in the first place.
Has anyone heard the rumours about [username] and the Ukrainian rent boys? Probably bollocks but would explain a lot! 🫨🫨🫨
Right, who next?
Well I would like any politician who is mired in a sex trafficking scandal to be removed, you seem to think its ok though. why is that?
The knives will be out for Starmer now. He's clearly bowed to the will of Labour MPs. If he no longer has them behind him he's finished.
Lmfao. He's hardly got a great track record across the board.
Scandal prone politician sacked over a scandal. There was always a good chance of it ending this way.
the starmer stuff is very obvious BS thats been amplified heavily by pro russian Putin/farage fans, with a bit of homophobia thrown in
as for mandelson...
this is what he was currently negotiating for the UK and looks like he has failed, US pharma is currently (at the behest of Trump ) putting the screws on the NHS to make us pay more for drugs , the consequences are immediate job losses (i know some of the people and they were notified hours before it hit the press) and a huge funding gap in a critical UK industry as well as job losses on the new building over the road
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgzyxjr0lzo
That's a strange spin to put on it, the companies clearly state it is because of a lack of investment in the sector, just another victim of the continued austerity, nothing to do with Mandelson.
This labour governments continued acceptance of the right wing framing of the economy is at fault, and Mandelson was not the solution to that.
That's a strange spin to put on it
From that article...
"Pharmaceutical companies have been refocusing on investing in the US following pressure from President Donald Trump, including threats of sky-high tariffs on drug imports."
The UK, well the NHS, hasn't seen its drugs bill increase as fast as other countries' healthcare systems. POTUS has explicitly said that he's not happy with that, and that it must change. "Under investing" here means that the NHS has successfully kept the cost of drugs down, and now the USA have a president using his powers (and leveraged some some powers that traditionally haven't been the remit of the president) to push companies to increase costs to the UK, and to leave the UK sites to focus on USA research and production. All this is doubly damaging, because a reduction in joint UK/USA collaboration in this area is on top of the UK making more it more difficult for those cited here to collaborate with other countries in Europe.
the drug company said the decision "reflects the challenges of the UK not making meaningful progress towards addressing the lack of investment in the life science industry and the overall undervaluation of innovative medicines and vaccines by successive UK governments".
"Lack of investment and undervaluation" here means low prices... as per the POTUS complaints about the UK health "market".
In 2018, for example, the UK spent just 9% of its total health spending on medicines. This is a remarkably low proportion of the budget compared to France, which spent 15% of its health budget on medicine; Germany, Japan, and Italy, which all spent 17%; or Spain, which spent 18% of its health budget on medicines. This lower level of spending may be partially accounted for by the rebates paid to government by industry, together with NICE’s evaluation of cost effectiveness and NHS England’s commercial negotiation approach, which are putting increasing downward pressure on prices.
There is also a reduction in R&D in life sciences in the UK more generally since Brexit, because, well... but UK Government expenditure in R&D has remained high. It is planned to stay high:
Over the Spending Review period, 2026/27 to 2029/30, investment in R&D will be £86 billion overall, rising from £20.4 billion in 2025/26 to £22.6 billion in 2029/30.
That's a strange spin to put on it, the companies clearly state it is because of a lack of investment in the sector, just another victim of the continued austerity
its not spin, i work in the building, everyone knows (including the MSD staff losing their jobs) that this is about access to the NHS, and that the trump admin has put this pressure on , we also have the World Influenza Centre here and its buts what Trump has done to them.
reflects the challenges of the UK not making meaningful progress towards addressing the lack of investment in the life science industry and the overall undervaluation of innovative medicines and vaccines by successive UK governments".
as Kelvin points out the UK is only really behind USA & China in government investment in life sciences so the first point is false, the second 'undervaluation' part is key -we pay a lot less for drugs than almost all other countries and Trump really doesn't like that , the NHS is also quite good at using expired patent drugs that cost a lot less, Trump has vowed to change that.
Starmer called SEP 1st - phase 2 of the government.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1962514623921263061?t=b--FqMAT-SIYYc7_5wL1nA&s=19
1) Rayner
2) Mandelson
3) Zero-growth in July for the hell of it.
In 12 days.
Starmer's judgment over Mandelson was bizarrely stupid. There's more to come from this I reckon - with Labour MPs not impressed at all.
If Labour want to even begin to survive - he needs to go. Time to admit he's not very good. Get your head out of the sand.
Starmer's judgment over Mandelson was bizarrely stupid.
Now we know that Mandleson’s continued contact with Epstein came up when he was appointed… I have to agree with that point.
If Labour want to even begin to survive - he needs to go. Time to admit he's not very good. Get your head out of the sand.
Yep, replace him now and still have 4 years left but who would they replace him with?
Any comments from the people who were supportive of Starmer and happy when he won election or still deadly quiet?
If Labour want to even begin to survive - he needs to go. Time to admit he's not very good. Get your head out of the sand.
Yep, replace him now and still have 4 years left but who would they replace him with?
Any comments from the people who were supportive of Starmer and happy when he won election or still deadly quiet?
I've no idea but surely they can't be worse?
The Labour right are a seriously misjudged and badly executed plan that won't recalibrate and keeping Starmer is dragging the whole Labour brand into oblivion.
I'd sooner Labour have a proper reset (in terms of ideology as much as leader) than just going in the direction they're going.
There is absolutely nothing to lose.
I've got a bet on with my Dad. I think Starmer will be gone by Xmas and he reckons he will hang on.
One more big cock up and he's done. (The budget is likely to be economically unsound.)
(In many ways I don't care for Labour now as I'm a green member but we're talking damage limitation currently. )
Writing's on the wall for Starmer now.
Re support - I'm not 'team Starmer' or team anyone, if that's you're your fishing for a fight with. I voted for him (yes, I know, shut up) because a Labour govt was by far the best option from what was available and I certainly thought he could be good. Turns out he isn't, at least not visibly. Clearly there are some massive issues to solve that were always going to be unpopular, but he's not that great at politics. I feel like the plan was always get him and his team to start fixing the huge amount of shit that was backed up waiting to hit the fan, become unpopular, then leave. That time might be coming soon.
There are clearly many issues. But they could have done popular things too.
It's not a bad thing to get the country that is falling apart on side with good politics or fiscal support. There was none of that. All dropped to claim daft 'savings' of 2.5bn here and there which on a 1.2bn budget is neither here nor there. (Government can't save irrespective.)
They came to power with the tough choices bullshit which we didn't want and in many cases was perfunctory. Many have suffered enough. They didn't seem to realise we've had years of tough choices. We wanted a plan and improvements.
This wasn't factored in.
Each Labour government clearly gets more right-wing and we've had enough of it. It's like a repetitive strain injury.
I've got a bet on with my Dad. I think Starmer will be gone by Xmas and he reckons he will hang on
I agree with your father. Starmer will hang on but if things do not improve with cost of living, no matter how good a person he can be he will be gone because the PM role is simply too big for him to shoulder.
The scary part is that I cannot see any capable leadership from left, right or centre in the current crop of politicians.
Any comments from the people who were supportive of Starmer and happy when he won election or still deadly quiet?
Pretty much what Kimbers said, hes definitely cocked up the presentation, never going to be popular at a policy level, the country has been screwed by the Tories and world instability isnt helping. I spoke to my now Labour MP when he was campaigning (known him for a long time through voluntary activity) and said they expected they needed 2 terms to fix stuff.
My biggest disappointment is his reluctantance to tackle the MAGA culture growing in country, he's never going to win over those ig grant idiots so why pander to them, hes just increasing their ranks by making it OK to have 'legitimate concerns about immigration'. I have legitimate concerns about immigration but recognise its historic, complicated and not a major issue unless we make it one. None of my concerns justify going on a racist rampage like Reform are encouraging.
My biggest disappointment is his reluctantance to tackle the MAGA culture growing in country, he's never going to win over those ig grant idiots
Genuine question - if the Instagram idiots will never be won over, is there any point in plunging into the culture wars? They can take up an infinite amount of time, and every minute you fight a culture war is a minute you're not spending fixing hospitals or whatever.
I spoke to my now Labour MP when he was campaigning (known him for a long time through voluntary activity) and said they expected they needed 2 terms to fix stuff.
I think even that may be optimistic. However they need to do enough in this term to get a second one.
and every minute you fight a culture war is a minute you're not spending fixing hospitals or whatever.
It's worse than that, the more time you spend stoking a culture war the deeper it becomes and the more resources it takes to get out of it
I was hoping Starmer was going to be a grown up, boring, long term politician who would do the unpopular things needed to get us back to where we need to be. At best he's coming across as amateur, at worst he seems to be aping the school yard politics of the right. I'm still hoping the behind scenes work is being done but won't know that for years by which time it's too late. What other options do we have? The whole of the right is dominated by complete self serving loons, the left, Corbyn, Polanski? Fringe politicians at best and even if their policies were workable and deliverable (I don't believe either of those are true) they will never get enough support to be elected.
Hopefully McSweeney Mc****face will get his marching orders this week as he was the primary instrumental driver of reintroducing Mandleson into the party and perhaps that’ll signify a positive change in direction, otherwise Starmer will be out very soon after the piss poor showing they’ll no doubt receive in elections next year
long term politician who would do the unpopular things needed to get us back to where we need to be
He has done unpopular things. Trouble is being unpopular is not an automatic route to fixing things. Neither is being boring.
In fact he's entwined unpopular things with awful outcomes.
With a totally ridiculous Chancellor - there is no chance of anything ever getting any better. Neither of them (and many others) appear to have a grasp on the economy and how to fix it, nor the direction that is needed.
We actually need radical improvement and we need asap.
Writing's on the wall for Starmer now.
Burnham on manoeuvres apparently, with a rumoured policy manifesto of wealth taxes, nationalised utilities and an end to the two-child benefit cap. If true that surprises me, but is very welcome. Wonder if he'll be tempted to revert back to his failed anti-immigration position he had during the last leadership election?
He's going to have to go big on a leadership challenge as he has to be an MP first, and Starmer's acolytes are not going to let him waltz back into parliament without a fight. He's not going to get away with standing for parliament whilst claiming he has no leadership ambitions.
Burnham on manoeuvres apparently
He had an open goal last time and still managed to miss. Maybe he has learnt from the experience.
Maybe he has learnt from the experience.
Lets hope so. He's probably Labour's last chance to stop Reform.
Neither of them (and many others) appear to have a grasp on the economy and how to fix it,
I don't normally respond to your posts about the economy @rone, it's drum you beat with such metronomic repetitiveness that I normally skip past them with barely a nod. But here you are still banging on about Fiscal rules. 1, Reeves does this because it's a manifesto pledge, here's a page of how unpopular the Govt is and you (and others) want them to now change course on this as well. 2. Despite what the Chancellor says [for effect] our fiscal rules are already loose enough to be coming apart at the seams, we're (as a country) already near the limits of our borrowing - our rates are 2% more than Germany and other comparable countries, and higher already than Italy and Greece (for goodness sake) we have a massive debt that's not coming down. They constrain the government's ability to manoeuvre because even now this country is not facing the challenges that it needs to. The welfare bill is massive, and its unaffordable. That (most) benefits are already staggeringly ungenerous isn't a reason not to address the fact that Incapacity and Disability benefits rates have risen and are still rising faster than we can manage them and our economy can cope with. And yet any attempts to reform Govt spending is met with Labours own MPs becoming frothy at the mouth. They insist on policies straight out of the six-form like wealth taxes, or the other day some rent a mouth on Today insisting on a "penny or two on petrol" and the Tories call for exactly the opposite (like 2022 never happened). It's difficult not to conclude that our politicians are still mostly as unserious as they seem to have been from the last decade and Brexit
In these circumstances it’s not so hard to see why the markets (yes, those again) wobble at the slightest indication that the chancellor, and her fiscal rules, might be under threat. It does look as though she and the Treasury are the last bulwark against chaos.
Reeves will undoubtedly need to raise taxes in the Autumn, The only thing she needs is a narrative explaining in simple terms why it needs doing - perhaps it'll be enough to knock some sense into Labour's own unserious (and beyond) MPs
How is putting any taxes up going to increase growth? Reeves has created her own problems with reliance on growth (yet doing absolutely nothing to increase the chances of it, other than maybe crossing her fingers) and then sticking to ridiculous fiscal rules of her own making which are making it harder for her to do anything to increase growth even if she had any ideas to do so.
So basically another 4 years of hoping that growth will magically happen and then losing the next election while only achieving some stuff that the tories would have probably also done had they won the election. Such a frustrating wasted opportunity after 14 years made even worse that they are likely to lose to Reform as whatever they do they are not as good at stoking up racists and easily led people as Reform are.
In July this government decided against Zonal Pricing for electrical energy, a scheme used in other OECD countries that could save £5bn in bills per year, in favour of Reformed National Pricing which is a scheme that doesn't exist beyond those three words https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/publications/energy-uk-explains-the-review-of-electricity-market-arrangements/
What did they spend four years in opposition doing? It's no wonder that they're struggling to contain household expenditure and retain voters
Fourteen months and they've done nothing to reduce energy bills, although they have managed to hammer pensioners with their botched Winter Fuel Payment
Peter Kyle SoS for business/trade said of yesterday's 'march.'
"It doesn’t disturb me, because it’s actually proof that we live in a country where free speech, free association, is alive and well."
Sky News to Trevor Phillips.
It's proof of lots of other things too.
Lol if this is the official statement from the UK Government on yesterday's mess.
Fourteen months and they've done nothing to reduce energy bills, although they have managed to hammer pensioners with their botched Winter Fuel Payment
This.
You know what - doing something like that might be a good thing, and popular rather than the tough choices that they love battering people with.
They did promise to reduce people's bills too.
Subservience to markets is a huge mistake. Markets do not 'know' best and tend to organise capital towards people with capital.
Lol if this is the official statement from the UK Government on yesterday's mess.
What do you predict will be the significance of yesterday's march will be in 3 months? In 3 years?
What do you predict will be the significance of yesterday's march will be in 3 months? In 3 years?
Hard to attribute anything to this one event, but it's a further step in the normalisation of racist thuggery that continues apace under our Labour overlords.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1967589687578730614
Phase 2 is turning into an absolute belter.
How hard is it for an aide to NOT do these things?
That said VAT removed from fuel bills is being 'considered.' No brainer at the absolute least. Dropping standing charges would be great too. All tinkering - but we have to start somewhere.
So there is clearly a leak somewhere in Government - so Starmer's days are numbered.
Will he or Amorin be gone first?
although they have managed to hammer pensioners with their botched Winter Fuel Payment
Reeves should've stuck to her guns. Winter Fuel Allowance was introduced by Brown decades ago as a way of topping up pensioners income before the introduction of the triple-lock secured their annual increases. It's never been adjusted since. It's not inflation matched, it doesn't have to be spent on fuel, and it's not means tested. It's literally a bung. Meanwhile the 2 child-cap hits low income families more. I know which group I'd spend the money on.
So there is clearly a leak somewhere in Government - so Starmer's days are numbered.
Will he or Amorin be gone first?
Leaked just in time for Trumps arrival
Apparently it’s old news that was selectively unreported on
https://twitter.com/mish_rahman/status/1967596721246204366
So there is clearly a leak somewhere in Government - so Starmer's days are numbered.
lol! The people who sent the messages to the media could be anyone who was on the WhatsApp group 8 years ago or anyone who heard about it since then - not necessarily in the government.
And the idea that a leak dooms a PM - has there ever been a PM who didn't have leaks? Thatcher had leaks in 1980. When did she leave office again?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/30/national-archives-1980-margaret-thatcher
Reeves should've stuck to her guns. Winter Fuel Allowance was introduced by Brown decades ago as a way of topping up pensioners income before the introduction of the triple-lock secured their annual increases. It's never been adjusted since. It's not inflation matched, it doesn't have to be spent on fuel, and it's not means tested. It's literally a bung. Meanwhile the 2 child-cap hits low income families more. I know which group I'd spend the money on.
It's was utterly pointless socially and economically.
In terms of the scale of fixing the country it did more harm than good.
The optics were terrible and economically makes no sense to withdraw money that people will spend into an economy when you want it to grow!
It was expected to save 1.5bn in classical macro terms (governments can't save and don't have the capacity to save.) Literally just over 1% if you go along with the household bullshit.
It should have never been a priority and was an extremely mean spirited thing to come into government with, besides we have a tax system if we need to remove money from a particular group of people.
It also set the stall out for Labour not planning an economy very well at all which is why we are here with an utter mess of an economic system.
Note to Labour: if you want to grow an economy you can't do it by removing money from government spending.
We could argue all day about where that spending should go but - I would not as a progressive government have started with this nonsense.
Meanwhile the 2 child-cap hits low income familiesmore. I know which group I'd spend the money on.
Agree here but it's really not either or.