|
UNDERPANTS PETE AND HIS PESKY PORKY PIES
You do not need me to tell you that there are 650 seats in Parliament. At the General Election, Labour won 411 of them. By any measure, that is a sizeable majority that should enable Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to get things done with confidence.
In that context, that the Prime Minister should set out the Government’s position at noon, on any given issue, frankly, let alone one of such gravity, and be browbeaten by furious rebels - as he has been today in relation to his appointment of Peter Mandelson as United Kingdom Ambassador to the United States - before the sun could even go down on a cold, dank Wednesday in February is, frankly, astounding.
Yet, here we are with Labour backbenchers forcing Sir Keir Starmer into an embarrassing concession on the release of the files and timelines relating to Mandelson’s (as the PM could only bring himself to call him at PMQs - no ‘Peter’ or ‘Mr’) elevation to custodian-in-chief of the UK-US special relationship - unquestionably the country's most important diplomatic position.
Now, make no mistake, this is a genuinely perilous moment for the Prime Minister. People’s perception of his judgement has been irretrievably damaged and with it his leadership credentials left in tatters. Where does he go from here?
Think about it: he could throw his security services under the bus, by suggesting their intelligence and subsequent briefing of him was insufficient for him to make the right decision on the suitability of Peter Mandelson for the prestigious international role of UK Ambassador to the US. Hardly ideal for the United Kingdom’s reputation on the world stage, is it?
He could say he was given a thorough briefing by the security services, yet he made the appointment anyway. That is a disastrous reflection of his character, his mettle, his values. If I were Kemi Badenoch, Nigel Farage et al, I would be saying nothing. Leave a gap. A hole. A silence. Ensure the spotlight lingers on the Prime Minister for, at his own hand, he finds himself in zugzwang. Each and every square surrounding the square upon which he stands tonight is an open trapdoor.
Let me give you a live example of a manoeuvre the PM thought might help; he has said ‘Mandelson lied to me!’ Seriously, Prime Minister? You expect that to cut the mustard? That Pesky Pete the Dark Lord Mandelson gave all of your Ministerial apparatus the slip with a few porky pies? It doesn’t stack up, I’m afraid. Even if you were willing for a moment to suspend your disbelief and imagine you are satisfied with the PM’s excuse - that he was lied to - what does that say about the resilience of our national security? What does it say about the Prime Minister, a former chief prosecutor who we were led to believe could spot a wrong 'un a mile off.
John McDonnell, MP stopped short in Central Lobby, of saying the Prime Minister should step down from his position over this, but, crucially, he did say that he has now lost confidence in his leader. That is Mr McDonnell being the wise old Parliamentarian that he is, saying as much as is needed to convey his view without compromising himself. That’s what I mean when I say Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership credentials appear shredded beyond repair. He has, yes, moved quickly today but decisively? I think the reaction of his collegues to his initial plan belies decisively.
Now, I have very deliberately stayed away from Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile monster and his enthralled cronies. This newsletter is not about him. I cannot imagine what he and others put innocent, vulnerable women and children through - it is imperative we keep their plight front of mind. This newsletter is a deliberate exploration of my own incredulity at Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer having put his trust in Peter Mandelson - given what he must have known. I suppose I'm curious as to how and why the machine of Government didn't help a sitting Prime Minister make a better call. Is that too much to ask, or am I being naive?
In the coming days, questions are going to be asked, not least, by way of example, quite why it is that a solid, proven, community-first operator like Andy Burnham is blocked from getting close to prestige and power in Westminster, yet Underpants Pete (if you haven’t seen the photo, don’t go in search of it) gets the keys to the kingdom? Is that what Sir Keir meant by ‘doing things differently’ when he swept to power?
What are your thoughts? Is this a resigning matter? Or would you prefer for the Prime Minister to show us precisely how he was led into a position so unedifying; so humiliating; so wrong? Because that is where he finds himself. The question is: how?
James
—
Write to me - it’s nice to hear from you all: james.mitchinson@iconicmediagroup.co.uk
Lend a hand - we need you more than ever - https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/subscriptions
NB: correspondence sent to me will be deemed fit for publication.
|
