If Starmer is the man who faces consequences over the Epstein files and not the actual ones in the files I give up. How utterly ridiculous. None of this pantomime has anything at all to do with the victims.
I agree, but I think the point is not whether Starmer is morally repugnant or not, but whether he has political and moral judgement. And it seems he doesn't.
Super refreshing take on the elephant in the room: Mandelson was allowed to be a regular panelist on the Time's politics podcast, among many other, similarly high-peofile gigs. Nobody bat eyelid then.
The one thing this saga has made be ponder though is whether I should read the FT more often.
Cracking observations. So many congratulated Starmer on a wise and thoughtful choice. But such is the febrile and binary nature of modern politics, it can now be considered a decision deserving of bringing Starmer down. Unfairly, IMO.
Unfairly? You're talking about a man who has spent years working hard to prevent any kind of accounting for the mass rape of working class children in this country because it might compromise his sordid political alliances; a man who, as opposition leader, was willing to resort to every kind of anti-democratic lawfare in the pursuit of his globalist ambitions, who lied systematically in order to get elected and subsequently pursued an agenda for which he has no mandate whatsoever. He deserves every humiliation he is about to suffer.
Excellent writing Lewis. On the subject of hypocrisy, how many of the people complaining about this now - MPs of all parties, media commentators and others - are doing so on a website/app which has generated countless thousands of images of child porn and non-consensual sexualised images of women over recent weeks. So many, like Starmer, have put Mandelson's friendship with a convicted paedophile to one side, as if it doesn't matter; and so many of those same people continue to spend hours of their day happily tweeting to an audience of paedophiles, Nazis and bots, and facilitating the monetisation of CSAM.
We all knew he was appointed precisely because he fitted in with Trump and now people are aghast - hypocrisy. The issue is Mandelson's conniving and deception rather than his relationship. Was anyone aware of that?
I am frustrated that no one appears to be looking into the power aspect of the files - that's what the whole thing is about.
Poor judge of character is not a resigning issue particularly when there are no obviously better options at the moment. Stick it out for 6 months and see how things go in May.
This is excellent, Lewis. I wish more journalists had this level of honesty. But don't you think that your decision at the time might also have been because, however unconscious, you have absorbed the patriarchy and how it works?
On another forum I visit (one for knitters, who can be very political) there's a lot of support for the idea that Starmer should NOT be forced out over this.
Well said - it is not just Starmer who needs to take a good look in the mirror. At least in UK failings are being looked at, contrast with the US, the perpetrators walk away.
Absolutely brilliant article, which manages to explain even to me what is wrong with Starmer & why he can’t last. He’s just a utilitarian - even if he’s a good person, seeking to achieve good things, he just doesn’t have any convictions flowing in his veins. He isn’t a politician & he can’t do politics.
If Starmer is the man who faces consequences over the Epstein files and not the actual ones in the files I give up. How utterly ridiculous. None of this pantomime has anything at all to do with the victims.
It seems that there is a pattern:
Maxwell
Windsor Mountbatten
Mandelson
Starmer
All face consequences. All British.
Three of those people are morally repugnant. One is not.
I agree, but I think the point is not whether Starmer is morally repugnant or not, but whether he has political and moral judgement. And it seems he doesn't.
The point is that we’re not talking about the people who trafficked those women and girls.
"he appointed him not in spite of his relationship with Epstein, but because of his relationship with Epstein."
This is the unspoken truth. Britain sent a bad man to work with a bad man.
Super refreshing take on the elephant in the room: Mandelson was allowed to be a regular panelist on the Time's politics podcast, among many other, similarly high-peofile gigs. Nobody bat eyelid then.
The one thing this saga has made be ponder though is whether I should read the FT more often.
I read the FT all the time. It has been wise to Mandelson for years unlike most of the British media. Mandelson has a long record as a sleaze ball.
Cracking observations. So many congratulated Starmer on a wise and thoughtful choice. But such is the febrile and binary nature of modern politics, it can now be considered a decision deserving of bringing Starmer down. Unfairly, IMO.
Unfairly? You're talking about a man who has spent years working hard to prevent any kind of accounting for the mass rape of working class children in this country because it might compromise his sordid political alliances; a man who, as opposition leader, was willing to resort to every kind of anti-democratic lawfare in the pursuit of his globalist ambitions, who lied systematically in order to get elected and subsequently pursued an agenda for which he has no mandate whatsoever. He deserves every humiliation he is about to suffer.
Excellent writing Lewis. On the subject of hypocrisy, how many of the people complaining about this now - MPs of all parties, media commentators and others - are doing so on a website/app which has generated countless thousands of images of child porn and non-consensual sexualised images of women over recent weeks. So many, like Starmer, have put Mandelson's friendship with a convicted paedophile to one side, as if it doesn't matter; and so many of those same people continue to spend hours of their day happily tweeting to an audience of paedophiles, Nazis and bots, and facilitating the monetisation of CSAM.
We all knew he was appointed precisely because he fitted in with Trump and now people are aghast - hypocrisy. The issue is Mandelson's conniving and deception rather than his relationship. Was anyone aware of that?
I am frustrated that no one appears to be looking into the power aspect of the files - that's what the whole thing is about.
Thanks Lewis that is by far the best piece of writing and analysis of this sorry saga.
In the event that Starmer may end up losing his position whilst Trump (& others) remain untouched will be a bitter irony
Poor judge of character is not a resigning issue particularly when there are no obviously better options at the moment. Stick it out for 6 months and see how things go in May.
Admirable frankness and good insight as ever Lewis, thank you.
This is excellent, Lewis. I wish more journalists had this level of honesty. But don't you think that your decision at the time might also have been because, however unconscious, you have absorbed the patriarchy and how it works?
He can’t say he needed an ambassador who was able to be a friend to a peadophile to be his conduit to a president who is a peadophile and a rapist.
On another forum I visit (one for knitters, who can be very political) there's a lot of support for the idea that Starmer should NOT be forced out over this.
Lewis nails it again
Good on you for sharing some self reflection and looking at the wider problem
Well said - it is not just Starmer who needs to take a good look in the mirror. At least in UK failings are being looked at, contrast with the US, the perpetrators walk away.
Well done. Yes, this is the point. And given the Trump setting - which changed everything - was it the wrong call?
Oh. Well having read this (https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/keir-starmers-hollowness-is-clear-for-all-to-see-znr66b2zt) - yes it was the wrong call.
Absolutely brilliant article, which manages to explain even to me what is wrong with Starmer & why he can’t last. He’s just a utilitarian - even if he’s a good person, seeking to achieve good things, he just doesn’t have any convictions flowing in his veins. He isn’t a politician & he can’t do politics.
Oh dear.
“he can’t do politics.” Ignoring Mandelson, Epstein and the rest, this isthe key point