[Youngian]

Meanwhile, in other news.

Probably best not to shout about that one. Those in desperate need of help will receive it. Those who can't afford children get very angry about their taxes going to Vicky Pollard to pop out more kids.

[Boiler]

Whilst the majority of Guardian BTLers are frothing at a gash in hope that Starmer is going to follow the towel-folding CUNT out of the door, a sane comment appeared.

Screenshot 2026-02-04 at 13-30-22 (1) Mandelson ‘lied repeatedly’ over Epstein links and betrayed Britain Starmer says – UK politics live.png (51.87 KiB) Viewed 264 times

And now I shall go and brave the cold and change the defective ignition coil on my car, which is causing a misfire (assuming the diagnostics aren't lying). It will be a better use of my time...

[Abernathy]

It has briefly crossed my mind that maybe - just maybe- it may be better for Labour if Keir Starmer decides to make a clean breast of things, follow in the (almost forgotten) footsteps of Peter Carrington and announce his resignation as PM and Labour leader on really, a point of honour (a real rarity these days). He would, I think, accrue some considerable credit in doing so , leave the party with the opportunity to elect a new leader (Streeting or Rayner, one presumes) and address the supposed issue of the party’s and his leadership’s personal polling popularity - or the lack of it - and perhaps go forward in a new, more positive direction of continuing recovery for the UK (and for Labour). The Mandelson debacle is, I think, possibly of sufficient magnitude and seriousness as to perhaps warrant such a course of action.

On the other hand, a change of the UK’s Prime Minister at the present time, given the parlous state of the world on several fronts - Ukraine, the UK’s necessary reconstruction of its relations with the EU, Putin, Trump, Israel/Gaza - would seem like madness. Starmer has in fact done a fantastic job of navigating all of these fronts to date.

Also, having watched today’s PMQs, where Badenoch used all six of her questions on Mandelson in a failed attempt to skewer Starmer, I don’t think he is about to do that (though he may well have considered it). If it were done, to quote MacBeth, then ‘t’were best done quickly, and I sense the moment has passed.

Anyway, as I say, it has crossed my mind, but that’s all.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Those in desperate need of help will receive it. Those who can't afford children get very angry about their taxes going to Vicky Pollard to pop out more kids.

That's an incredibly negative point of view and no reason not to help those in need. In fact, I think that may be the whole point of the welfare state, and the many ways people are helped...
Do we allow healthy people to abstain from paying in to the NHS, or childless people stop contributing to education?

[Tubby Isaacs]

He’s saying you do help those in need, but you don’t particularly campaign on it because it’s unpopular (including with lots of Labour voters). To use the phrase current in the noughties, do good by stealth.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I wouldn’t change the PM now. Nobody would believe it was a resignation on principle anyway.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Everyone wants Mandelson prosecuted. He's being investigated. So you have to worry about prejudicing trials. That seems to have been what the Met have contacted the Government about.

Yet every gobshite, including loads in Labour, have rushed in to call it a cover up. Silly comparisons with Owen Paterson and Chris Pincher affairs, where there wasn't going to be a trial.

Rayner in particular is behaving very badly towards Starmer.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

He’s saying you do help those in need, but you don’t particularly campaign on it because it’s unpopular (including with lots of Labour voters). To use the phrase current in the noughties, do good by stealth.

Yes. And I am saying that is a very negative point of view.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The negative view of the public is well justified on this score.

I see we're now on to the Intelligence Committee reviewing the Mandelson documents. While there are some heavyweights on that, one of them is John Hayes, He was the MP Braverman was proving privileged information to when she resigned. I'm sure we can trust that he'll be entirely honorable.

The Labour MPs forcing this on the Government are a disgrace. Same as the ones who've gobshited about the Hillsborough Bill on similar grounds. There can be justified reasons for things not be released. Because of the antics of these Labour MPs, the Government, having gone further in openness than any one else, is being portrayed as dodgy and secretive. I thought losing the Jez tendency might leave us with a reasonably grown up PLP, but I'm afraid that seems to be too much to expect.

[Tubby Isaacs]

So Starmer's agreed. Probably had no choice.

In John Hayes we trust, I guess.

[Abernathy]

Everyone wants Mandelson prosecuted. He's being investigated. So you have to worry about prejudicing trials. That seems to have been what the Met have contacted the Government about.

Yet every gobshite, including loads in Labour, have rushed in to call it a cover up. Silly comparisons with Owen Paterson and Chris Pincher affairs, where there wasn't going to be a trial.

Rayner in particular is behaving very badly towards Starmer.

Well, I don’t doubt that Mandy will be prosecuted. The evidence is right there. The “public interest” criterion is probably fully met. But he hasn’t even been charged yet, so it’s somewhat premature to be worrying about prejudicing trials .

I do agree that accusations of “cover-ups” are wildly misplaced. Covering up anything is in nobody’s interests.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Someone made an interesting point BTL elsewhere.

How do you deal with someone as corrupt and powerful as Trump? If you're not a liberal democracy, it's a lot easier. You do whatever it takes- you pay the bribe, you let him build his towers wherever he wants, or move the big golf tournament to his course. Without getting too starry eyed about the UK's probity, we can't really do that stuff.

So how do you manage this situation? Enter Mandelson.

So understandable in that respect. But still a mistake, something I for once called right.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Well, I don’t doubt that Mandy will be prosecuted. The evidence is right there. The “public interest” criterion is probably fully met. But he hasn’t even been charged yet, so it’s somewhat premature to be worrying about prejudicing trials .

I do agree that accusations of “cover-ups” are wildly misplaced. Covering up anything is in nobody’s interests.

I'm not confident he'll be prosecuted successfully. I can't see how anyone will prove he got the information about the Euro from the Cabinet. He just says "sources". He would have had plenty of those outside the Government, not least in the European Commission.

I'm no lawyer, but I know that contempt of court applies from the time of charge. So no issue on that. But not hard to imagine that he'll have a good go at claiming prejudice and the more that's released, the better his prospects, so you'd think. I can see the need to be very careful.

[kreuzberger]

So how do you manage this situation? Enter Mandelson.

That might well be behind the "international relations" caveat which Starmer wants to apply. You can just imagine what some of the less-than-ministerial communications could have contained;

Sure, Mandy is a nonce-felating wrong 'un, but he knows where the bodies are buried, so he is our only chance of keeping that mad, orange cunt in check.

Or words to that effect.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I think this is probably exactly right. But it's apparently beyond a lot of MPs to understand that.

See also this question from the Commons.

The Conservative MP Bradley Thomas asks Thomas-Symonds to explain why “paedophile-adjacent” Peter Mandelson was appointed as an ambassador.

Yeah, Bradley. Why wouldn't the Minister answer come right and say why?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Whilst the majority of Guardian BTLers are frothing at a gash in hope that Starmer is going to follow the towel-folding CUNT out of the door, a sane comment appeared.

She's a good commentator, a rare one.

Someone else made the point that Starmer is being held to standards that haven't previously applied. Previously it was "you found out, you sacked them, that's fine". Not this time, apparently.

[The Weeping Angel]

Bluesky is convinced this is the end of Starmer.

[Tubby Isaacs]

How was he supposed to know this stuff? He'd already sacked him before it came out.

[Abernathy]

Bluesky is convinced this is the end of Starmer.

Well, let’s see. How exactly is that going to come about?

1. Starmer acts honourably (see my previous post today), and in the circumstances, voluntarily resigns as PM and Labour leader. Lammy is interim PM until a new leader can be elected/installed. Unlikely. I think.

2. Pressure from within the PLP grows, to the point that a succession of cabinet ministers, possibly led by Pat McFadden, visits Starmer, Thatcher fashion, to tell him he cannot continue and he must resign. Again, unlikely, I think.

3. Somebody (Rayner, Streeting, Miliband ?) fancies making a formal challenge to Starmer and has the 80 Labour MPs with them needed in order to do so. A leadership election ensues, which Starmer is likely to defend. Starmer loses to the challenger, and is gone. Again, unlikely right now, I think, though perhaps not after the anticipated very bad results in Gorton & Denton and the May local elections and devolved parliament elections.

4. Badenoch tables a motion of no confidence and Labour’s own MPs vote with the Tories to bring their own government down and end Starmer’s leadership. Not happening. Never in a million years.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I think the danger is that the PM can't control the party and he's forced out. Rayner seems to have joined Burnham in this tomfoolery. Like the public didn't have enough of that stuff under the Tories.