Mailwatch(ed) Forum

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Tue Feb 03, 2026 7:57 pm 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.

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.

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...

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.

Youngian wrote: ↑Wed Feb 04, 2026 11:03 am 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?

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.

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

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.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Feb 04, 2026 3:02 pm 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.