Politics doesn’t need saints, or sinners, it needs more ‘honest’ and ‘normal’
Notice what's missing.
It’s not often you write something about a politician and a party where you are confidant, yourself, it’s correct, and then the Prime Minister gives you, publicly and gratis, every proof it was.
Starmer’s dogged refusal to answer a single question on fuel duty at PMQs but to keep trying to paint Badenoch and Farage as – and he actually used the word – ‘war mongers’ was the clearest sign of the very co-ordinated narrative he and his party want to spin to discredit his opponents and buy himself back some badly needed credibility
The House of Commons has long had a proscription about using the term ‘liar’ towards another member of the house, so it takes some anger for a Tory front bencher to shout the term at the PM. The Speaker rebuked them for it, as they always have, but there was a real anger on Tory benches at the corkscrew logic Starmer applied – whilst dodging the question – to make him look sensible and statesman-like whilst covering up his flatfooted response, diplomatic fence sitting, and the fact his decision making has been largely guided by domestic political considerations including his own survival.
His one time image of being an unlikely but seemingly effective ‘bridge to Trump’ is in tatters. And 24 hours after his weekly – weakly – PMQs exchange it was his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as his official ‘bridge to Trump’ that he was having to answer for.
His answer given to reporters was that the decision was his ‘mistake’, and again apologised to the victims of the world’s most infamous paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein.
It is in keeping with previous problems the PM has faced, that: on Iran Number 10 briefed against the Chief of the Defence staff that a ‘lack of planning’ was more his fault and on Mandelson the minister sent out to ‘defend the indefensible’ on the media yesterday said the topic of Mandelson should really be dropped as raking over it was re-traumatising Eptein’s victims.
Hiding behind, has become a habit. A Chief of Staff, a deputy National Security Advisor, the Head of the Defence staff, it’s a bad pattern but hiding behind trafficked victims of a paedophile is a real low.
The Times reports that Mandelson brokered a meeting in Downing street for Tony Blair and Jeffrey Epstein where they ‘discussed religion and world conflicts’ in 2002, that’s of course 23 years before Mandelson was appointed UK Ambassador to Washington. The general media response to the first file release of what the PM knew before he appointed Mandelson was that they were very awkward for Starmer but no ‘smoking gun’. It is however very clear that he knew enough, for the man who made such play of his moral compass before he was PM to reconsider the appointment as the PM.
The release also shows his claim, to the House of Commons, that a full …
Notice what's missing.
It’s not often you write something about a politician and a party where you are confidant, yourself, it’s correct, and then the Prime Minister gives you, publicly and gratis, every proof it was.
Starmer’s dogged refusal to answer a single question on fuel duty at PMQs but to keep trying to paint Badenoch and Farage as – and he actually used the word – ‘war mongers’ was the clearest sign of the very co-ordinated narrative he and his party want to spin to discredit his opponents and buy himself back some badly needed credibility
The House of Commons has long had a proscription about using the term ‘liar’ towards another member of the house, so it takes some anger for a Tory front bencher to shout the term at the PM. The Speaker rebuked them for it, as they always have, but there was a real anger on Tory benches at the corkscrew logic Starmer applied – whilst dodging the question – to make him look sensible and statesman-like whilst covering up his flatfooted response, diplomatic fence sitting, and the fact his decision making has been largely guided by domestic political considerations including his own survival.
His one time image of being an unlikely but seemingly effective ‘bridge to Trump’ is in tatters. And 24 hours after his weekly – weakly – PMQs exchange it was his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as his official ‘bridge to Trump’ that he was having to answer for.
His answer given to reporters was that the decision was his ‘mistake’, and again apologised to the victims of the world’s most infamous paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein.
It is in keeping with previous problems the PM has faced, that: on Iran Number 10 briefed against the Chief of the Defence staff that a ‘lack of planning’ was more his fault and on Mandelson the minister sent out to ‘defend the indefensible’ on the media yesterday said the topic of Mandelson should really be dropped as raking over it was re-traumatising Eptein’s victims.
Hiding behind, has become a habit. A Chief of Staff, a deputy National Security Advisor, the Head of the Defence staff, it’s a bad pattern but hiding behind trafficked victims of a paedophile is a real low.
The Times reports that Mandelson brokered a meeting in Downing street for Tony Blair and Jeffrey Epstein where they ‘discussed religion and world conflicts’ in 2002, that’s of course 23 years before Mandelson was appointed UK Ambassador to Washington. The general media response to the first file release of what the PM knew before he appointed Mandelson was that they were very awkward for Starmer but no ‘smoking gun’. It is however very clear that he knew enough, for the man who made such play of his moral compass before he was PM to reconsider the appointment as the PM.
The release also shows his claim, to the House of Commons, that a full …
Politics doesn’t need saints, or sinners, it needs more ‘honest’ and ‘normal’
Notice what's missing.
It’s not often you write something about a politician and a party where you are confidant, yourself, it’s correct, and then the Prime Minister gives you, publicly and gratis, every proof it was.
Starmer’s dogged refusal to answer a single question on fuel duty at PMQs but to keep trying to paint Badenoch and Farage as – and he actually used the word – ‘war mongers’ was the clearest sign of the very co-ordinated narrative he and his party want to spin to discredit his opponents and buy himself back some badly needed credibility
The House of Commons has long had a proscription about using the term ‘liar’ towards another member of the house, so it takes some anger for a Tory front bencher to shout the term at the PM. The Speaker rebuked them for it, as they always have, but there was a real anger on Tory benches at the corkscrew logic Starmer applied – whilst dodging the question – to make him look sensible and statesman-like whilst covering up his flatfooted response, diplomatic fence sitting, and the fact his decision making has been largely guided by domestic political considerations including his own survival.
His one time image of being an unlikely but seemingly effective ‘bridge to Trump’ is in tatters. And 24 hours after his weekly – weakly – PMQs exchange it was his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as his official ‘bridge to Trump’ that he was having to answer for.
His answer given to reporters was that the decision was his ‘mistake’, and again apologised to the victims of the world’s most infamous paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein.
It is in keeping with previous problems the PM has faced, that: on Iran Number 10 briefed against the Chief of the Defence staff that a ‘lack of planning’ was more his fault and on Mandelson the minister sent out to ‘defend the indefensible’ on the media yesterday said the topic of Mandelson should really be dropped as raking over it was re-traumatising Eptein’s victims.
Hiding behind, has become a habit. A Chief of Staff, a deputy National Security Advisor, the Head of the Defence staff, it’s a bad pattern but hiding behind trafficked victims of a paedophile is a real low.
The Times reports that Mandelson brokered a meeting in Downing street for Tony Blair and Jeffrey Epstein where they ‘discussed religion and world conflicts’ in 2002, that’s of course 23 years before Mandelson was appointed UK Ambassador to Washington. The general media response to the first file release of what the PM knew before he appointed Mandelson was that they were very awkward for Starmer but no ‘smoking gun’. It is however very clear that he knew enough, for the man who made such play of his moral compass before he was PM to reconsider the appointment as the PM.
The release also shows his claim, to the House of Commons, that a full …
