The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Broucek]

I agree, they’re disconnected from reality. I mean, I am also, I’m comfortable in a mainly white suburb, but I’m not pretending to represent people who aren’t.

It's evident that many of them have never met many low income families. Otherwise people on the left wouldn't assume more money will fix things and people on the right wouldn't assume increasing incentives to work will fix things. (To be clear, either can help at the margin but, sadly, too many people in that category don't have the life skills required to use money wisely or to hold down a job.)

 

[BAFRA77]

A man who twice resigned from the cabinet due to scandals over undeclared loans and influence in a passport application and, whilst EU Trade Commissioner, was seen on yachts belonging to Italian and Russian businessmen, is somehow deemed to be suitable as a British Ambassador? All this being in the public domain - as was his long-standing friendship with Epstein.

It didn't really need any additional info from the intelligence services to see that he should never again have been allowed any sort of government post. Starmer has only himself to blame for the appointment.

The part played in this whole saga by one of Mandelson’s protégés in the older days should be looked at closer.

That person - is Morgan McSweeney

 

[DarloRich]

A man who twice resigned from the cabinet due to scandals over undeclared loans and influence in a passport application and, whilst EU Trade Commissioner, was seen on yachts belonging to Italian and Russian businessmen, is somehow deemed to be suitable as a British Ambassador? All this being in the public domain - as was his long-standing friendship with Epstein.

It didn't really need any additional info from the intelligence services to see that he should never again have been allowed any sort of government post. Starmer has only himself to blame for the appointment.

surely that is EXACTLY the sort of person you want dealing with Trump......................

 

[weeklycommuter]

surely that is EXACTLY the sort of person you want dealing with Trump......................

To be honest I think that is the reason Mandelson was appointed as UK ambassador to the USA and he would not have been appointed if anyone else had been the President of the USA.

 

[Peterthegreat]

To be honest I think that is the reason Mandelson was appointed as UK ambassador to the USA and he would not have been appointed if anyone else had been the President of the USA.

I agree.

 

[jfollows]

The part played in this whole saga by one of Mandelson’s protégés in the older days should be looked at closer.

That person - is Morgan McSweeney

Yes, it’s now clear that Mandelson has been comprehensively thrown under the bus, good thing too, but now the focus should turn to McSweeney who may well be culpable also.

Mandelson scandal shortens odds on Starmer following him out the door

Appointment of the ex-ambassador despite tarnished past raises potentially fatal doubts about judgment of PM and his team

www.theguardian.com

Analysis

Mandelson scandal shortens odds on Starmer following him out the door​

Peter WalkerSenior political correspondent
Appointment of the ex-ambassador despite tarnished past raises potentially fatal doubts about judgment of PM and his team

Tue 3 Feb 2026 17.30 GMT
In many political scandals there is an agreed full stop, a time for the circus to move on: maybe a resignation, certainly a police investigation. But for Downing Street, Peter Mandelson risks being a headache that simply will not end.
Mandelson’s future in public life is definitively over, or as definitive as you can be for a figure who, much as with the Conservative saying about Boris Johnson, would possibly need to be buried at a crossroads with a stake through his heart before you could completely rule out another comeback.
After resigning from Labour as yet more revelations about his links to Jeffrey Epstein emerged, Mandelson has now departed from the House of Lords, and efforts are under way to strip him of his title.
With Mandelson off the scene, at least until he breaks cover with another self-serving interview, the focus is very much on Downing Street, and how on earth the team around Keir Starmer thought it was a good idea to appoint such a tarnished, if well-connected, figure to be the ambassador to the Donald Trump court.
There are two interconnected elements to this very public inquest: one internal and the other external.
On the latter, opposition parties will delightedly punch the bruise, using every parliamentary mechanism in their power to try to tease out new and potentially embarrassing information.
The first stage of this is likely to be a Conservative opposition day debate on Wednesday, where the Tories are expected to push for the release of internal documents setting out what No 10 knew about Mandelson’s links to Epstein at the time he was given the Washington job.
The aim of this will be to focus as much fire as possible on Starmer personally. “It’s either he knew and didn’t care, or just wasn’t curious enough to care, and neither is a good look,” one Conservative frontbencher said.
There was a similar verdict on Tuesday from Nigel Farage, who told a press conference that while he is himself mentioned 32 times in the Epstein files, he never met the child sex offender and “never went to the island”.
While acknowledging Mandelson’s skills as a networker, Farage said Starmer and his team made “a grave, grave error of judgment” in making him ambassador despite his long record of previous misjudgments and poor conduct.
Notably, the Reform UK leader said questions should be asked about the judgment of not just Starmer but Morgan McSweeney, his influential chief of staff.
McSweeney is the focus of considerable anger from Labour MPs. Some of them have said privately they hope the Conservative opposition day debate does ferret out some internal No 10 documents about the ambassadorial appointment, mainly so they can see how much it was forced by McSweeney, a former protege of Mandelson, with whom he consulted regularly before the general election.
McSweeney was already disliked by some Labour MPs, in part as a proxy for their dissatisfaction with the government’s performance, but also because of his role as the head of a group in No 10 viewed as factional to a sometimes petty degree towards those on the left of the party.
Even before the latest Mandelson scandal, there had been calls for McSweeney to be ousted if, as widely presumed, Labour fares badly in May’s elections for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and English councils.
But, as we saw in the Johnson era, changing the team around the leader will buy you only a small amount of time if your MPs, and the electorate more widely, conclude that the problem is not the team but the person they advise.
This is the current Labour endgame, the place at which essentially all conversations about Starmer within the party now end up: how much longer does he have? With yet more evidence of his seemingly poor judgment likely to be on the front pages for days to come, the ticking of that clock has again become louder.

 

[brad465]

The part played in this whole saga by one of Mandelson’s protégés in the older days should be looked at closer.

That person - is Morgan McSweeney

Yes, it’s now clear that Mandelson has been comprehensively thrown under the bus, good thing too, but now the focus should turn to McSweeney who may well be culpable also.

Mandelson scandal shortens odds on Starmer following him out the door

Appointment of the ex-ambassador despite tarnished past raises potentially fatal doubts about judgment of PM and his team

www.theguardian.com

I'm hoping that Starmer uses this scandal as an opportunity to throw McSweeney under the bus himself, myself and several others, including many loyal Labour supporters, do not like him and believe he is the mastermind of most of Starmer's blunders.

 

[jfollows]

Now Labour MPs might force the government to reveal more than they want to.
Referring to “Boris and Chris Pincher on steroids” shows they’re more than a bit annoyed.
It seems that Starmer needs to find a way to draw a line under this, and at the moment grudging half-reveals won’t do it.

Committee to review Mandelson disclosures after Labour MPs threaten to rebel

Whips agree to hand power over documents related to ex-ambassador’s links with Jeffrey Epstein to committee

www.theguardian.com

Jessica Elgot Deputy political editor
Wed 4 Feb 2026 14.03 GMT

https://www.google.com/preferences/source?q=theguardian.com
Labour MPs have warned they will vote down a government amendment to limit the disclosures about Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, with government sources saying they may be forced to change their own amendment.
The former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner and the chair of the Treasury select committee, Meg Hillier, have publicly asked the government to allow the intelligence and security committee to review the documents before public disclosure.

MPs said they believed that anger was so vast among the parliamentary party that it posed a significant threat to Starmer’s premiership. “This is Boris and Chris Pincher on steroids,” one senior Labour figure said, referring to the scandal that brought down Boris Johnson.
The Conservatives have forced a vote on the release of the documents, and the government has said it will release the vetting process for Mandelson’s appointment, which they claim will show he lied about his relationship with the disgraced financier Jeffery Epstein.
But the government’s amendment would mean the cabinet secretary could refuse to disclose documents that prejudiced national security or international relations – an exemption that many MPs have told the Guardian they believe is too broad.
Instead Rayner and Hillier have said the government should allow the select committee to have oversight over what is disclosed.
Questioned repeatedly at prime minister’s questions, Starmer said Mandelson had “betrayed our country” in his dealings with the convicted child sex offender. The Metropolitan police have opened an investigation into whether there had been misconduct in a public office over sensitive government documents which appeared to have been forwarded from Mandelson to Epstein.
“He lied repeatedly to my team, when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador,” the prime minister said. “I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never been anywhere near government.
“I want to make sure this house sees the full documentation, so it will see for itself the extent to which, time and time again, Mandelson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein, and lied throughout the process, including in response to the due diligence,” Starmer said.
In the Conservative-led debate, Rayner said the government needed to go further. “Given the public disgust and the sickening behaviour of Peter Mandelson and the importance of transparency … should we not have the ISC not have the same role now [as in relation to a previous humble address] in keeping public confidence in the process?” she said.
The Cabinet Office minister, Nick Thomas-Symonds, said he would consider the changes. “I am hearing what the house is saying and I will take that point away,” he said.
Ministers are willing to rewrite the government’s amendment, insiders say, and to give the intelligence and security committee a role in deciding what gets published.
MPs from across the house used the debate to call for the ISC to take charge of those decisions rather than the cabinet secretary.
Officials say the prime minister is willing to rewrite his amendment, but wants to ensure the process does not become a “party political” one that the Conservatives use to damage the government further.
The chair of the ISC is Kevan Jones, a Labour peer and former defence minister. The committee is made up of a mix of MPs and peers from different parties, with Labour the most well represented.

BBC also: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/czx3lq460n6t

Rayner signals she's not happy with current disclosure planpublished at 13:48​

13:48​

Henry Zeffman
Chief political correspondent

The mood on the Labour benches is really sour.

More so than I expected as of this morning, frankly.

Senior Labour MPs, most notably the former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, are signalling that they are not happy with the government's proposals on the release of documents as it stands.

The government may be about to budge on that, giving a parliamentary committee a role in deciding what is redacted and what is not.

But the challenge for the government now is to contain the red hot anger blazing within the parliamentary Labour Party to just this issue, and stop it burning across government.

 

[styles]

I think it's appropriate to have a committee properly scrutinise the documents before release.

A bit like the Snowden files - national security is a real consideration which should factor in to specifically what is released. Proper scrutiny is key but we can't and shouldn't just release anything and everything because it's considered a popular idea.

 

[jfollows]

Watching the House of Commons now.
They are all incredibly pissed off, on both sides of the house.
Starmer may be in serious trouble.

 

[Broucek]

Watching the House of Commons now.
They are all incredibly pissed off, on both sides of the house.
Starmer may be in serious trouble.

Well, it doesn't fit well with his pitch about seriousness and honesty...

 

[kristiang85]

It does have the same feeling of the last days of Johnson right now, in the Labour party.

 

[jfollows]

Government climb-down predicted at https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ies-uk-politics-live-news-updates#top-of-blog

4m ago15.50 GMT

Ministers under pressure to accept last-minute amendment saying ISC should have final say over files vetting​

Jessica Elgot says he has seen the text of the manuscript amendment that is likely to be agreed later this afternoon. (See 1.57pm.) It is an amendment to the government amendement, which says everything mentioned in the Tory motion should be released “except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”.

Under the manuscript amendment, this would read “except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations which shall instead be referred to the intelligence and security committee”.

Given the strength of opposition on the Labour benches to the government amendment, we are expecting the government to agree to this. The minister winding up the debate (possibly Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the PM) may announce at the despatch box in the speech winding up the debate (at about 6.50pm) that the government is accepting that.

The amendment implies that, if the Cabinet Office passed material it considered “prejudicial to UK national security or international relations” to the ISC, the ISC could publish it if it decided that there was no risk from publication”. But MPs are seeking clarification on this point.

Labour MPs saying they will vote against the government unless the amendment is made.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Feb 2026 ==

Government has now made the predicted manuscript amendment.

 

[brad465]

It does have the same feeling of the last days of Johnson right now, in the Labour party.

It would be somewhat ironic if Starmer has to resign before the Gorton by-election, as it means that Burnham would have been unable to run for the leadership even if he was allowed to stand in it.

 

[styles]

It would be somewhat ironic if Starmer has to resign before the Gorton by-election, as it means that Burnham would have been unable to run for the leadership even if he was allowed to stand in it.

I still can't see Starmer resigning until the next election.

Even if Labour tank in the Scottish and Welsh parliament elections, I think he'll try and stick it out.

He was elected on a ticket of stability after years of chaotic government and rapidly-changing leadership, and it would practically kill off Labour to change leaders so quickly in my view. Well, unless they got a truly inspirational leader who could turn this all around, but I struggle to see where that would come from at the moment.

 

[SargeNpton]

surely that is EXACTLY the sort of person you want dealing with Trump......................

When Mandelson was appointed as ambassador, I said elsewhere perhaps his job is to say to Trump "I know what happened".

Unfortunately, whatever Trump's relationship was with Epstein, Mandelson's meant that he couldn't use it as leverage.

 

[Egg Centric]

I still can't see Starmer resigning until the next election.

You can make some decent money with this view on Betfair at the moment if you're prepared to back it.

It's odd. This is a massive deal in the political bubble but doesn't feel like it has anything like as much cut through amongst normies as the constant Boris car crash stuff did.

 

[styles]

You can make some decent money with this view on Betfair at the moment if you're prepared to back it.

It's odd. This is a massive deal in the political bubble but doesn't feel like it has anything like as much cut through amongst normies as the constant Boris car crash stuff did.

On average I've profited from political bets quite well but I have not considered a Starmer removal bet.

For anyone wondering, Betfair odds on when Starmer will be replaced:



2026 is 4/6
2027 is 7/2
2028 is 6/1
2029 or later is 7/2

I would take the 7/2 2029 or later bet, based on the date of the next GE.

I might have a punt on this.

 

[Egg Centric]

On average I've profited from political bets quite well but I have not considered a Starmer removal bet.

For anyone wondering, Betfair odds on when Starmer will be replaced:

View attachment 197406

2026 is 4/6
2027 is 7/2
2028 is 6/1
2029 or later is 7/2

I would take the 7/2 2029 or later bet, based on the date of the next GE.

I might have a punt on this.

I was referring to the exchange. You can lay 1.5 for him going this year and that feels a heck of a lot "safer" (plus you'd collect the end of this year rather than tying cash up).

To be clear I'm not saying this is (or isn't) a good bet, but if you have that view and are correct then it would be the obvious way to make money out of it.

 

[negone]

On average I've profited from political bets quite well but I have not considered a Starmer removal bet.

For anyone wondering, Betfair odds on when Starmer will be replaced:

View attachment 197406

2026 is 4/6
2027 is 7/2
2028 is 6/1
2029 or later is 7/2

I would take the 7/2 2029 or later bet, based on the date of the next GE.

I might have a punt on this.

Know nothing about betting , but is polymarket a better bet, better odds

 

[Egg Centric]

Know nothing about betting , but is polymarket a better bet, better odds

You can't use it in the UK (well, you can with a VPN, but you'd be breaking the rules) due to FCA rules banning binary options* (which are effectively what polymarket contracts are).


*cause they were used a lot by get-rich-quick scammers

 

[styles]

I was referring to the exchange. You can lay 1.5 for him going this year and that feels a heck of a lot "safer" (plus you'd collect the end of this year rather than tying cash up).

To be clear I'm not saying this is (or isn't) a good bet, but if you have that view and are correct then it would be the obvious way to make money out of it.

Oh I see, yeah laying on him still being leader in 2026 is a good shout at those odds. I might take them!

 

[Topological]

I wonder if another MP will consider now the time to force a by-election...

I think Starmer will ride this out, but there will be some high-profile casualties to allow him to do so.

 

[styles]

Labour projected to come third to SNP and Reform in Scotland (both regional and constituency votes): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_Scottish_Parliament_election

Labour projected to come fouth or fifth in Wales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_Senedd_election)

Can Starmer survive this?

 

[Topological]

The following MET Police statement just appeared on the BBC: Live Feed BBC

"As with any investigation, securing and preserving any potential evidence is vital. For this reason, when approached by the UK Government today with their intent to publish material, we reviewed it immediately and advised that the release of specific documents could undermine our current investigation. We therefore asked them not to release certain documents at this time.

"Going forward as material is made available to us, and if we identify further documents that we believe could prejudice our investigation, we will continue to ask the Government to pause their release until such time as the risk of prejudice no longer exists. The integrity of our investigation is paramount to securing justice. We are grateful for their cooperation.

"We continue to assess all relevant information brought to our attention as part of this investigation."

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Feb 2026 ==

It is reasonable to retract information in these cases. I think the government should just make it clear that they are acting on the worst-case implications of those documents. That means throwing people firmly under the bus.

The problem for Labour is that they simply do not get ahead of any issue. It is always reactions. Further, there never seems to be the strength to stick to their guns on policy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Feb 2026 ==

Labour projected to come third to SNP and Reform in Scotland (both regional and constituency votes): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_Scottish_Parliament_election

Labour projected to come fouth or fifth in Wales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_Senedd_election)

Can Starmer survive this?

Labour will come second in Wales.

However, Scotland is less clear. This projection assumes it is still Tory vote going to Reform. The Conservatives can come third in Scotland.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm hoping that Starmer uses this scandal as an opportunity to throw McSweeney under the bus himself

You may get your wish as early as this evening!

 

[styles]

Labour will come second in Wales.

I think that's a bold bet given how they are currently perceived, but I stand to be corrected!

However, Scotland is less clear. This projection assumes it is still Tory vote going to Reform. The Conservatives can come third in Scotland.

Yes Scotland is certainly messier.

 

[Topological]

I think that's a bold bet given how they are currently perceived, but I stand to be corrected!

Yes Scotland is certainly messier.

Polls are not much good.

Labour is almost like the "quiet conservative" when it comes to polls.

In other times, that graph would support a Tory 3rd place as I usually add 4% to whatever it says the Conservatives will poll. But now I think that it is almost as bad to say you support Labour in Wales.

Expect both Reform and Plaid to poll about 2% below what the opinion polls say and Labour to take most of that vote.

 

[styles]

Expect both Reform and Plaid to poll about 2% below what the opinion polls say and Labour to take most of that vote.

Even under that the result would be the same?

The gap between Labour and the next nearest higher ranking party is 13%, which is pretty big!

 

[Topological]

Even under that the result would be the same?

The gap between Labour and the next nearest higher ranking party is 13%, which is pretty big!

Fair point. I need to pay attention to my own numbers.

Though it is also worth saying this is the poll today. Last summer, "quiet Labour" would have been able to take 2nd spot.

I am sticking with my prediction, but not putting money on it.