Siobhán Sarelle 🏳️⚧️
50 year old multi instrumentalist musician, singer, improviser.
Trans, queer, AuDHD, vegan.
Green, Anarcho Emotionalist, antifascist
Lived experience with trauma, intensive therapy.
Working class background.
She/her
- Some people don’t get why Starmer is being blamed for the current Mandelson situation. Starmer brought back Peter Mandelson. Peter fucking Mandelson. Regardless of Jeffrey Epstein, it’s Peter Mandelson.
-
View full threadThey hired him because he's a spin doctor, his use is manipulating people.. which is why when everyone's like I can't believe starmer trusted him I think everyone's got great hindsight.
- Alastair Campbell is also a well respected figure in politics. Maybe Starmer could give him a job.
- The amount of insipid, wishy-washy defence of Keir Starmer, is mildly irritating at best. There’s the “Hey look over there! Farage/Trump!” defence. You know, people can scrutinise more than one thing at a time, right? Then there’s “well at least he quickly apologised” Oops soz my bad.
- None of this even matters how actually bad a person Mandelson is. What matters are the risks of how a person such as that, might be perceived, based on risk of them getting involved with dodgy people like Epstein. That wasn’t even a risk, it was a known issue.
- An apology from Starmer over Mandelson, is really not enough, its lip service. Mitigating risk around who you put in important positions, and selecting the best person for the job, are absolutely fundamental responsibilities, and Starmer fucked up big time.
- Starmer failed to mitigate obvious risks to the standing of the UK government, to his party, Labour, and probably to those higher in the hierarchy (yes, they do exist, The Prime Minister is not the top). Worse, he brought the risk back in through the door, like inviting a vampire in.
- Starmer had the Intelligence/security service at this disposal, with one of if not the highest levels of access. Starmer is/was in one of the most important roles in the United Kingdom, which specific responsibilities to protect the integrity of the Government, and his party.
- Keir Starmer, is (or was by the time some people read this comment), the Prime Minister of The United Kingdom. He showed that he understood at least some of the risks of appointing someone like Peter Mandelson, a man who regardless of Epstein, had weirdly been brought back into power, twice.
- A lot of this just works on selective ignorance. Ignorance of context, role, responsibility of a person in Starmer’s position. Ignorance of risk, regardless of legal investigation. Ignorance of politics.
- Then rehired and given a better job. then made a lord by Brown. So hiring Mandelson for his use as someone who manipulates people, then being manipulated and betrayed seems to be a very Labour right Blairite stance.
- I do feel like getting all ‘conspiracy theorist’ with all of this and saying: It feels like we’re missing something about Mandelson, like, an ulterior motive for switching between keeping him close, and then at arms length so much.
- Can anyone help me because I genuinely dont understand? I have never been in the Labour Party but understand they are instinctively loyal and its procedurally hard to remove a leader. So when so many say Kier Starmer is toast - are they right? Or is this just media chatter?
-
View full threadSure, but most of these have been conservative! We're a lot better than the Labour Party of getting rid of poor performing PMs - both procedurally and culturally.
- Also a lot better at choosing poor performing Prime Ministers, apparently. Liz Truss is a shining example here.
