The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

5 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Starmer’s position of “sharing your anger” about his mate is a bit much.

Also, what is the point of security vetting if a pretty blatant lie can make any findings irrelevant 

Agreed. I don't think there was much he could do to get out of this. Nevertheless, watching him deflect and squirm just loses him more points.

They sent out close ally, and sock puppet, Reed to front up for Starmer and take the headlines away from the anger. I can only conclude, that despite being giving amazing filing by SOG, Starmer was useless at the CPS. It seems that he shows no curiosity when given lies. CPS prosecutions must have been zero in his tenure. "Hang on teams. All the accused say they've done nothing wrong! Stop the cases!"

Mandelson wasn't on the initial candidate list under Sue Gray. As soon as she got bumped after internal warfare, McSweeney puts mentor, and close colleague in previous positions, Mandelson on the list.

They get the flags. Yet, are now blaming what they consider to be an established process, they just couldn't get out of, that from their 3 email questions. Not a chat. Not a moment to think of the implications. Reed says they might have to look at the vetting process. Duh. Perhaps not glossing over findings to appoint pals, over victims, would have been the better approach.

Just a formality. No doubt Mandelson didn't incriminate himself in the answers. Why would he do that, with McSweeney ushering him into post, and asking if could get another one to go with it.

The three questions were:

    Why has he continued contact with Epstein after he was convicted?
    Why was he reported to have stayed in one of Epstein's homes while the financier was in prison?
    And was he associated with a charity founded by Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell that the financier had backed? 

Since I'm sure we all stay at the luxury residences of convicted people we barely know, nothing Mandelson replied with raised any concerns.

Mandelson got the job because he was close to McSweeney. He got the job as a reward for working to undermine the left of his own party. He got the job due to his shared position in the party with McSweeney and his front man, Starmer. His final qualification was that they wanted a sleazy manipulator to get on well with Trump's regime. It was a plus point.

We'll see if he survives to the by-election. He's toast if that goes badly. And certainly come May, unless polls are very wrong.

[AlexLaw76]

6 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Agreed. I don't think there was much he could do to get out of this. Nevertheless, watching him deflect and squirm just loses him more points.

They sent out close ally, and sock puppet, Reed to front up for Starmer and take the headlines away from the anger. I can only conclude, that despite being giving amazing filing by SOG, Starmer was useless at the CPS. It seems that he shows no curiosity when given lies. CPS prosecutions must have been zero in his tenure. "Hang on teams. All the accused say they've done nothing wrong! Stop the cases!"

Mandelson wasn't on the initial candidate list under Sue Gray. As soon as she got bumped after internal warfare, McSweeney puts mentor, and close colleague in previous positions, Mandelson on the list.

They get the flags. Yet, are now blaming what they consider to be an established process, they just couldn't get out of, that from their 3 email questions. Not a chat. Not a moment to think of the implications. Reed says they might have to look at the vetting process. Duh. Perhaps not glossing over findings to appoint pals, over victims, would have been the better approach.

Just a formality. No doubt Mandelson didn't incriminate himself in the answers. Why would he do that, with McSweeney ushering him into post, and asking if could get another one to go with it.

The three questions were:

    Why has he continued contact with Epstein after he was convicted?
    Why was he reported to have stayed in one of Epstein's homes while the financier was in prison?
    And was he associated with a charity founded by Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell that the financier had backed? 

Since I'm sure we all stay at the luxury residences of convicted people we barely know, nothing Mandelson replied with raised any concerns.

Mandelson got the job because he was close to McSweeney. He got the job as a reward for working to undermine the left of his own party. He got the job due to his shared position in the party with McSweeney and his front man, Starmer. His final qualification was that they wanted a sleazy manipulator to get on well with Trump's regime. It was a plus point.

We'll see if he survives to the by-election. He's toast if that goes badly. And certainly come May, unless polls are very wrong.

In the meantime, old Pete Mandy has been going through his old records to make things disappear left right and centre.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

3 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

In the meantime, old Pete Mandy has been going through his old records to make things disappear left right and centre.

His diary is going to need some hasty revisions, if he can bring himself to do it. His  book The Third Man partly used diary notes. Funnily enough titled after a man who betrayed the interests of his country, facilitating untold harm indirectly on young victims. I'd be warning him not to go into the sewers, as it doesn't end well. But he's a politician, and sewers are where he's been spending a lot of his time.

[AlexLaw76]

7 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

His diary is going to need some hasty revisions, if he can bring himself to do it. His  book The Third Man partly used diary notes. Funnily enough titled after a man who betrayed the interests of his country, facilitating untold harm indirectly on young victims. I'd be warning him not to go into the sewers, as it doesn't end well. But he's a politician, and sewers are where he's been spending a lot of his time.

Could have been worse for Starmer, he could have eaten some cake with people he spent all day with.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Could have been worse for Starmer, he could have eaten some cake with people he spent all day with.

I dug out my Rainbow Laces for his Pride in Place programme, only to find it was for something else entirely. Starmer Out!

[sadoldgit]

8 hours ago, iansums said:

It's pathetic really isn't it. TDMickey getting all upset when Ralph simply answers his question telling him how he'd vote. Some (not all) of you on here need to show a bit more respect for people with a different opinion.

The Tories are the reason the country is in the state it is in. Reform UK would be even more of a nightmare. He wants both of them in power. Why respect that? We are currently living through the nightmare of Brexit that people like him and I expect you thought was a good idea. We really don’t need more of this shit. Do you think we should respect those who support MAGA? Perhaps you think some of that would be good here?