Starmer only sees rampant criminality among pensioners protesting war crimes.
UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
I can think of at least one country leader who should step down due to their involvement in the Epstein files, and it isn't Starmer.
If Starmer stands down because of Mandelson's historical links to Epstein (the full extent of which is only now becoming apparent) it would be ridiculous. People with actual connections to Epstein are not standing down, so why should Starmer?
Everyone in politics knows about Mandelson being a paedo-adjacent/paedo-apologist right wing freak at best, he never should have been put in the post and at the time he was left wing groups and media were actively calling out the decision. The depths dredged by the paedophile Centre and right of the labour party makes them clearly unfit to lead.
Utterly absurd position IMO, and I don't believe that it can honestly be held by any rational person. But you are welcome to it
Touched a nerve did I?
This isn't really about Epstein, at least not the trafficking part of Epstein.
It's a separate but intertwined issue of appointing someone to the most visible ambassadorship who had been removed from government roles in disgrace on multiple occasions and had known ties to a convicted criminal. In no world is that a good choice, and it led to national secrets being leaked.
He appointed a traitor whilst having sufficient reason to doubt him.
He appointed someone who he knew was already in the Trumps inner-paedo circle in order to potentially guarantee a better UK/US trade deal. It backfired, and the insider-trading treason (which, let's be honest, all politicians and their mates do) cemented his fate in the eyes of public/media.
If the conservatives did this, it would be business as usual.
I agree with all of this except that "all politicians and their mates do" it.
with the exception of Jez and Gordon maybe
Not sure about that actually, I can just imagine it now
"Jeremy, I'll give you this big marrow from my allotment and a packet of sunflower seeds if you help the poor"
No man could resist that kind of temptation
He does have his weaknesses for manholes
Is that a thing? Haha
Some of those are pretty cool...
New hobby unlocked!
That's certainly the implication, but I don't see how you prove that.
I'm somewhat surprised proof is needed. Corbyn was ousted on far less
Corbyn was ousted because he won't play the game. For better or worse you can't change the world by been a stick in the mud. Corbyn may be a good man (which itself is debatable) but he was a useless politician.
I would be happy to see the back of Starmer for reasons other than this. He's been Blair 2.0 which isn't something anyone was asking for.
That's fair
Corbyn got the boot because he led the party to its worst electoral defeat in 90 years, refused this reality and claimed “we won the argument”.
He was a shit leader who wouldn't budge on anything, but what they (the media/the public) got him on was supposed anti-semitism from a nothing remark about a graffiti post
From where I was standing, the consensus on that always felt very manufactured.