Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Even with the firing apparently because "extent of friendship not disclosed". He failed to follow proper procedure - not a failure of judgement or morality (admittedly political strategy here too as that would mean Starmer would be more on the hook, as opposed to the real crime being Mandy not fully filling out the right form).

[Sheilbh]

Thought this piece was very strong on Mandelson:

Peter Mandelson embodied this muddled project
Keir Starmer's handling of the sacked ambassador in and out of office is testament to the government's abject incoherence
Patrick Maguire
Thursday September 11 2025, 8.03pm, The Times

Last Friday, as Sir Keir Starmer conducted a hasty reshuffle of his cabinet, Lord Mandelson cast his familiar shadow through the corridors of No 10. The US ambassador had come to talk through a lecture on the special relationship he was due to give the next day. But the high politics of the Labour Party is Mandelson's lifeblood — he, grandson of the great Herbert Morrison, might call it his birthright — and he could not resist lingering to watch the machinations take their course. Not without affection, one aide joked to me that afternoon: "He is refusing to leave."

If there were concerns about Mandelson in No 10 at that moment, they were limited to his speech. He was never afraid to venture beyond the government line. A week on, those worries seem quaint. Despite the anguished statements of regret over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, Mandelson was not permitted to leave government with the small consoling dignity of resignation, as he was by Tony Blair after his loan from Geoffrey Robinson in 1998 or the Hinduja passport affair in 2001. This third cloud is the darkest of the lot.

The damage to Starmer will be profound. He once claimed sole custody of what few ethics were left in Westminster. But in six days he has lost two of his government's household names to scandals whose details might have been designed to vindicate the public's disappearing trust in the political mainstream.

It is, of course, an almost comically appalling prelude to the state visit of a US president with even bigger questions to answer about his own friendship with Epstein. Awkward questions for Starmer and his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, flow all too readily: who knew what when, and why did the prime minister burn through his overdraft of political capital defending Mandelson just hours before sacking him?

Westminster groupthink has shamelessly overcorrected to a new consensus: that Starmer was mad to appoint Mandelson in the first place. We heard rather less of this unconvincing prescience when President Trump was praising his work on trade. Until this week it was uncontroversial to say that Mandelson was doing a good job. Replacing him will be difficult. Don't forget that George Osborne, the former Tory chancellor and bosom buddy of JD Vance, was Starmer's second choice. Is the prime minister strong enough to make that kind of appointment now?

Yet Mandelson means much more to this government and this Labour Party. In opposition, he was often described as an "adviser" to Starmer — the much-caricatured Machiavel of old. Good, but not quite right. Mandelson's proximity to those around Starmer, cultivated over several years at dinners hosted by his old friend Lord Liddle, the New Labour pamphleteer, is insufficiently understood.

To McSweeney specifically he has been a near-constant source of political and personal counsel. When Sue Gray was running No 10, Mandelson was not on the ambassadorial shortlist. When she was replaced by McSweeney, he became the frontrunner. To cabinet ministers such as Wes Streeting and Peter Kyle, he has been an encouraging, avuncular champion. But Starmer?

Though the prime minister was among the tiny handful of serving politicians to attend Mandelson's wedding in 2023 — another was Pat McFadden — the two have never been intimates. However close their working relationship became during his seven-month ambassadorship, nobody calls it a friendship or meeting of political soulmates.

And yet Mandelson was hugely influential as Labour made its bumpy course to government. What does that tell us about the Starmer project, if such a thing can still be said to exist? The myth of the Prince of Darkness is all about low cunning: spin, triangulation and factional knifework. His skill in all three has been well documented. New Labour, his proudest creation, is thus portrayed as something rootless. The memoirs of Bryan Gould, the cerebral Kiwi who briefly looked like the party's future, cast the young Mandelson as a duplicitous adman who did little more than rebrand the British centre-left into emptiness. It is a popular line of attack, now a cornerstone of Labour legend, and one bitterly resented by its target.

To Mandelson, New Labour was first and foremost about policy. The ruthless clarity of its communication was only possible because the leadership had rethought its consistently unpopular offer to the country from first principles — just as his grandfather, deputy to Clement Attlee, had urged the party to abandon wholesale pledges of public ownership after its poor performance in the 1950 general election. The advice he dispensed to Starmer and Rachel Reeves before Labour entered government was always a variation on this essential theme. It was not always taken graciously. Examine the party's calamitous start to life in government and one can't help but wonder, even allowing for the polarising messenger, whether it was such a bad idea.

Starmer's time in opposition was defined by two missions. The first was to wrest back control of the machine from the left. This brought together the two conflicting factions of the party's right: Blairite modernisers and the trade union patriots of the old right, united in horror by their marginalisation. In the dog days of Corbyn's leadership, Mandelson entertained at his home Brownites who had been on the other side of the trenches in New Labour's civil war, such as Gordon's enforcer Ian Austin. He even grew close to Tom Watson, with whom he had held a decades-long contest over the scale of their mutual hatred. Defeating Corbyn was more important than any old enmity.

Eventually it fell to Starmer, a man who would be baffled by the weird specificity of that preceding paragraph, to finish the job and reclaim control. Then, in time, the objective shifted. Once the Tories surrendered their lead in the opinion polls under Boris Johnson and surrendered altogether under Liz Truss, the name of the game was risk aversion rather than a Mandelsonian grip on policy detail. To the extent that said policy figured in strategic discussions, it was subjugated to campaigning.

And so Starmer's programme for government amounts to a knapsack of heirlooms rescued from the homes of Labour's extended family: something Old, something New and something Blue. By turns it is soft left, then old right; one day it imitates Blairism and the next it bemoans its failures; it pays lavish obeisance to the City while hiking taxes on business; Ed Miliband and Bridget Phillipson are briefed against for leftish policy on energy and schools, then kept in post.

You could call this a very Keirish preference for practicality over faction. Or, more likely, you'd call it incoherent. If this Labour government fails as badly as the polls suggest, this will damn them as much as any one scandal. If you want a real measure of Mandelson's influence and its limits, just take a look at the rest of the mess.

[Tamas]

"if we are not forcing people to die a slow and agonising death that's going to eliminate our profit margin"

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/sep/12/assisted-dying-hospices-struggling-house-of-lords

[Josquius]

 
That is quite messed up.
Though I suppose I can see the argument that if hospices go under that it then forces people down the assisted dying route who would really rather be in a hospice.

[Tamas]

That is quite messed up.
Though I suppose I can see the argument that if hospices go under that it then forces people down the assisted dying route who would really rather be in a hospice.

By all means argue for better funding for hospices. But perhaps not this way.

[crazy canuck]

"if we are not forcing people to die a slow and agonising death that's going to eliminate our profit margin"

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/sep/12/assisted-dying-hospices-struggling-house-of-lords

That is a gross mischaracterization of the quote.

 

[crazy canuck]

That is quite messed up.
Though I suppose I can see the argument that if hospices go under that it then forces people down the assisted dying route who would really rather be in a hospice.

By all means argue for better funding for hospices. But perhaps not this way.

They didn't do it that way

Don't make shit up. 

or was that a summary of the article AI gave you?

[Tamas]

"if we are not forcing people to die a slow and agonising death that's going to eliminate our profit margin"

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/sep/12/assisted-dying-hospices-struggling-house-of-lords

That is a gross mischaracterization of the quote.

 

OK yes but it was made by the article itself. The actual quote isn't saying that, agreed.

[Josquius]

Whilst the US is going mad over a dead Nazi....


https://northeastbylines.co.uk/region/north-east/local-mps-office-firebombed/?fsp_sid=892

Local MP's office firebombed
Suspected arson gutted Sharon Hodgson MP's office in Washington; graffiti left, charity hit, and man arrested after blaze

There was a suspected arson attack on the office of Sharon Hodgson, MP for Washington and Gateshead South on 11 September. There was little left of the first floor office in the Concord area of Washington, Tyne and Wear, after the fire which took place when it was unoccupied in the early hours of the morning. It was also noted that graffiti had been scrawled on the side of the building reading: "328 days blood on your hands."

A spokesperson for Hodgson, commented that she would "not be deterred" and would go on supporting her constituents.

Downing Street spokesperson
The attack was condemned by the office of the Prime Minister with a spokesperson commenting: "There is absolutely no place for this kind of violence in our society. All those involved in our democratic process should be able to go about their vital work freely and with confidence.""

Man arrested
It was later reported   that a man had been arrested following the fire, which was said to be a suspected arson attack/ It was also thought that a brick had also been thrown at a window of Vermont House the previous week.

A Northumbria Police spokesperson commented: "Emergency services attended and no-one is reported to have been injured in the incident.  A man in his twenties has subsequently been arrested on suspicion of criminal damage and arson. He remains in police custody at this time."

The police spokesperson went on to say:

"Anyone with information should send Northumbria Police a direct message on social media or use the live chat or report pages on the Force website. For those unable to make contact via those ways, call 101. Please quote reference NP-20250911-0007".

Adding to their earlier comments, a spokesperson for Hodgson said: "We will not be commenting or speculating while there is an ongoing police investigation, what we are clear on is there is no place for this kind of violence in our society. Sharon will not be deterred and will continue to support her constituents in Washington and Gateshead South as she does day in, day out. Constituents should get in touch with their issues by emailing in the usual way.""

Charity hit by the fire
Hodgson's office was not the only casualty of the fire  as Niemann-Pick UP (NP UK), a small charity which supports patients and families with an extremely rare and life-limiting group of genetic diseases have said that their offices were also destroyed in the fire.

It was noted that, "John Taggart, NP UK's head of communications, told the PA news agency it was suspected that the fire had started in shared bins and spread to the MP's office, before the charity and up to an NHS unit, all based at Vermont House".

Any idea what could be meant by this 328 days?
The last election and the Gaza war both begun further back than this.


Edit-
ah. Bylines fails.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/11/labour-mp-sharon-hodgson-office-suspected-arson-attack

Graffiti on the side of the building reads "328 days blood on your hands", although it is believed to have been there for as long as a year.

So no reason to believe its related to the attack and I'd guess is probably Gaza related.
Though leaving this graffiti up so long even on an MPs office.... #wouldnthappeninlondon

[Sheilbh]

I'd guess the graffiti as Gaza related, if old.

Unclear on the arson itself but it wouldn't surprise me if that was too - not arson but there's definitely been a lot of vandalism of MPs offices and intimidation of their staff over Gaza to the extent that some have had to close their offices (in London at least ).

Whatever the motivation, we need to come down like a tonne of bricks on this sort of thing.

[crazy canuck]

"if we are not forcing people to die a slow and agonising death that's going to eliminate our profit margin"

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/sep/12/assisted-dying-hospices-struggling-house-of-lords

That is a gross mischaracterization of the quote.

 

OK yes but it was made by the article itself. The actual quote isn't saying that, agreed.

No, the actual quote is to the effect that if the legislation comes into force, more funding will be required because there will be more demand for something that is currently illegal.

That just makes sense. And it is very different from the gross misrepresentation you posted.

[Sheilbh]

Not going to get any easier - the Tories are also proposing a motion to compel disclosure of all the documents Mandelson made available for vetting and the vetting reports. People close to Mandelson are reporting that he had told the vetting team about this and reused to resign - he made Starmer actually fire him (Number 10 apparently increasingly concerned that Mandelson feels very badly treated).

At the same time some reports that the intelligence services apparently flagged concerns about appointing him which were overruled. So far Number 10's line seems to be that he went through vetting which determined he was appropriate to appoint. But that vetting was a "departmental matter" so run by the FCDO and nothing to do with them. Not sure how sustainable that line is - and I get the concern in Number 10 if they think Mandelson's feeling personally aggrieved v Starmer as he is a very, very effective operator.

Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed, says minister
Leaked cache of emails to Jeffrey Epstein shows that US ambassador role was a mistake, says Scotland secretary, as Keir Starmer faces questions about his judgment
Steven Swinford, Political Editor | Katy Balls, Washington Editor | Oliver Wright, Policy Editor | Chris Smyth, Whitehall Editor
Thursday September 11 2025, 9.40pm, The Times

Lord Mandelson should never have been appointed as US ambassador, a minister has said, amid mounting questions over Sir Keir Starmer's political judgment.

Douglas Alexander, the Scotland secretary, said that Mandelson's appointment had been a "high-risk, high-reward" decision but that new revelations suggested his hiring had been a mistake.

The prime minister sacked Mandelson on Thursday morning, less than 24 hours after making a forthright defence of him in the Commons, after reading "reprehensible" emails in which Mandelson defended Jeffrey Epstein after his first child sex conviction.

Mandelson is said to feel ill-treated by Starmer's decision. Allies said he admitted in the vetting process that he had carried on his relationship with Epstein for many years and deeply regretted doing so.

Alexander told the BBC: "The past association was known. It's a matter of record. A judgment was made in the British national interest that the capability that Peter Mandelson would bring to that job justified his appointment. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Keir Starmer have all recognised that Peter Mandelson brought high risks and potentially high rewards."

He said that a leaked cache of emails between Mandelson and Epstein "changed everything". "If Keir knew then what we knows now, he would not have made that appointment," he told LBC.

"This was a political appointment because we judged as a government — and the prime minister judged — that with a new president in place, a different kind of administration required a new kind of British ambassador. Having seen and read those emails, that appointment should not have been made ... but given Mandelson's trade experience we needed an unconventional ambassador for what was a very unconventional administration."

There were claims on Thursday night — which were denied by officials — that the security services had raised concerns about Mandelson's appointment at the time.

Days before a state visit to Britain by Donald Trump, the scandal threatened to overshadow the prime minister's meeting with a president who has also struggled to shake off his own links to Epstein. Administration officials are said to be perplexed by the decision.

It is the second time in less than a week that Starmer has defended a senior figure in his government only for them to leave office over a scandal. Angela Rayner was forced to resign as deputy prime minister last Friday after admitting that she had failed to pay enough stamp duty.

Cabinet ministers and Labour MPs raised questions about Starmer's judgment, especially because he came into office pledging to run a more ethical government.

"It was obvious from the start that he [Mandelson] was the wrong choice," one cabinet minister said. "It was just a matter of time. It's so damaging." Another said it should have been "obvious" that Mandelson's resignation was inevitable.

The former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said Starmer should have known it would be "risky" to appoint Mandelson to such a high-profile role.

He told Times Radio: "It was always going to be risky to appoint Peter Mandelson ... Not because of anything particularly dramatically dreadful but because of severe errors of judgement that questioned his integrity.

"So the prime minister must have known this was risky and of course it's all exploded and far, far earlier than one might have anticipated."

Starmer is facing mounting scrutiny over his decision to appoint Mandelson given that there was already significant evidence in public about his connection to Epstein, including the fact he stayed at the disgraced financier's townhouse in Manhattan while Epstein was in jail.

Downing Street said Starmer had decided to sack Mandelson after reviewing a series of leaked emails that revealed how he had offered his support to Epstein in 2008 when the financier was charged with and pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from minors.

"I think the world of you and I feel hopeless and furious about what has happened," Mandelson said in one email. He urged Epstein to be "incredibly resilient", adding: "Your friends stay with you and love you."

The formal decision to dismiss him was made at a meeting on Thursday morning with Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, and Jonathan Reynolds, the chief whip.

Reynolds told Starmer he had received messages from nearly 50 Labour MPs calling for Mandelson to be sacked.

Downing Street sources said Starmer did not speak to Mandelson to inform him of his decision. Mandelson himself is understood to have refused to resign.

Stephen Doughty, the Foreign Office minister, told MPs that the emails, published by Bloomberg on Tuesday night, showed "the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment".

He added: "In particular, Lord Mandelson's suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein's first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. And in light of that, and mindful, as we all are, of the victims of Epstein's appalling crimes, he has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect."

Several Labour's MPs openly criticised Starmer's handling of the scandal. Paula Barker, who initially stood for the party's deputy leadership, criticised the "delay" in dismissing Mandelson, saying there should have been "no hesitation".

"The delay in sacking him has only served to further erode the trust and confidence in our government and politics in the round," she said. "We must be better."

Charlotte Nichols, another backbencher, said Mandelson's sacking was "not immediate enough, unfortunately", adding he should "never have been appointed in the first place".

Sadik Al-Hassan, a Labour MP, said there were "serious questions about the vetting process of the ambassador", calling for whoever had vetted Mandelson to be sacked as well.

Starmer's critics in the party also turned their fire on Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff, who was instrumental in Mandelson's appointment.

One Labour MP said it "should have been obvious long before" Thursday that Mandelson had to go, saying: "The real question is whether Keir will sack Morgan McSweeney. Mandelson was McSweeney's pick, and it's proved to be a colossal misjudgment."

Pointing to previous retreats on welfare reform and cuts to winter fuel payments, the MP said: "How many more mistakes does [McSweeney] get before he's sent packing?"

The criticism comes at a difficult time for Starmer as Labour enters a deputy leadership election which will pitch a government candidate against a key ally of Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor.

Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, is through to a members' vote after winning the backing of 175 Labour MPs, along with Lucy Powell, sacked from the cabinet last week, with 117 backers.

Luke Hurst, co-ordinator of Mainstream, a new Burnham-aligned Labour group, said Mandelson's sacking was "what happens when you put your party faction's interest before your party and before the country. If Starmer keeps running a narrow and brittle political project, it will break him and could break the Labour party."

James Roscoe, Mandelson's deputy, will take over as acting ambassador to Washington pending the appointment of a permanent successor.

The opposition demanded the full publication of all papers and communications between Downing Street — including McSweeney — and Mandelson regarding his appointment, along with any relevant vetting documents.

Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said: "There are now serious questions over what Keir Starmer knew and when."

In a letter to embassy staff, Mandelson said being ambassador to the US had been "the privilege of my life" and he deeply regretted the circumstances of his departure.

"I have no alternative to accepting the prime minister's decision and will leave a position in which I have been so incredibly honoured to serve," he said.

On Thursday night it was reported that Global Counsel, the lobbying firm co-founded by Mandelson, was preparing to cut ties with him, telling clients that his stake in the business would be sold imminently to a new investor.

Global Counsel was set up as an advisory firm that could help clients "anticipate regulatory and political change" in 2010 by Mandeslon and Benjamin Wegg-Prosser. There is no chance of Mandelson returning to Global Counsel, people close to the situation told the Financial Times, acknowledging the reputational risk to the firm.

Mandelson stepped back from Global Counsel at the start of the year after being appointed by Starmer as UK ambassador to the US.

[Josquius]

Lots of hints Burnham is moving towards a takeover.

[Sheilbh]

Godwilling. At this point, and I'm not generally a fan, I even think if the right made their move and got Streeting in that would be better than Starmer.

[garbon]

I even think if the right made their move and got Streeting in that would be better than Starmer.

Have you caught his 'tagline' - 'Promise Made, Promise Kept'?