1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

I’m not sure where you are going with all this. There’s no evidence to suggest Thatcher knew anything about Saville and Smith was dead before his criminality came to light.

I’m talking about a currently convicted felon, fraudster and $hagger of porn stars STILL holding the highest office in the land.

I don’t care what you say about “guilt by association” but absolutely no British MP would have been able to get away with anything close to what goes on in America these days.

Correct. Thatcher didn't know and as I already stated Smith was "caught" after he died and people felt empowered to come forward.

My point is that evil people have curried favour with influential persons to curry favour and those become protected. The common complaint of those abused by Saville, Smith and other vile people, is these people were in positions of power and thus their complaints would be buried. Mandelson is a serial abuser of the high position that various people have given him, once again using his associations and friendships to deter scrutiny.

Wasn't the Right Honourable Jeremy Thorpe MP charged with conspiracy to murder? Yes, acquitted (no surprise there) as politicians don't like their dirty linen aired in public. Ultimately, it killed the Liberal party.

But I see your view of a superior, squeaky clean British political propriety is through the jaundiced prism of your overcooked hatred for the current US president. I hope you get over it.

Or failing that, try and stay on topic.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

With a majority of +/-160 in the Commons how will the Labour party be forced from office before 2029?

A partly rhetorical question: The only way is if they decide that calling an election up to 12 months earlier gives them a better chance of re-election.

Callaghan is an example of what happens when the population has had enough of their sleazy, lying and economic suicidal shenanigans

4 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Show us how?

I cant believe you ruined a good explanation with reflexive anti -americanism

They just can't help themselves

Starmer is locked in. Bad governance to stay. Rentboys not so much.

I don't see any help waiting in the wings. They're all compromised.

They'll lose all speech, assembly, movement rights by 2030. I guess the sun does actually set on the British empire. Just ask Prince Andrew 😉

Probably call up all the whites and send them off to some god forsaken war.

Britain... it's Greece, but with a few atomic weapons and bad teeth 🤷 😂😂

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

Correct. Thatcher didn't know and as I already stated Smith was "caught" after he died and people felt empowered to come forward.

My point is that evil people have curried favour with influential persons to curry favour and those become protected. The common complaint of those abused by Saville, Smith and other vile people, is these people were in positions of power and thus their complaints would be buried. Mandelson is a serial abuser of the high position that various people have given him, once again using his associations and friendships to deter scrutiny.

Wasn't the Right Honourable Jeremy Thorpe MP charged with conspiracy to murder? Yes, acquitted (no surprise there) as politicians don't like their dirty linen aired in public. Ultimately, it killed the Liberal party.

But I see your view of a superior, squeaky clean British political propriety is through the jaundiced prism of your overcooked hatred for the current US president. I hope you get over it.

Or failing that, try and stay on topic.

Ok lets break this down.

I am not so naive to think that there has never been a cover up when British politicians are concerned but I think you are conflating several different matters, making your point jumbled and confusing. We're now agreed Thatcher knew nothing about Saville, but certainly Smith was accused of wrong-doings over literally decades with very little done about it, however you then state 'Mandelson is a serial abuser' as if he himself was on orgy island abusing underage girls. If he was on the island he certaily wasn't abusing girls as he is a well know homosexual. To label him as a 'serial abuser' is confusing and wrong. He's a lying POS but no-one has ever suggested that level of impropriety. And Jeremy Thorpe? A case from some 60 years ago? If you're going to make a point perhaps try and do something from this century.

And then it all goes downhill rapidly. When have I ever suggested 'superior, squeaky clean British political propriety'? I suppose in comparison to the current POTUS they are 'superior, and squeaky clean' but that's not saying much now is it? And again, I am using the comparison in the context of the grief that Starmer is under for the actions of another (and again I DON"T think it's not witghout merit), but it was Mandelson who did all the lying and it was him who was chums with Epstein, NOT Starmer. However, Starmer did chose him for Embassador and - quite rightly - he's taking a lot of flak for that. THAT'S the difference I see between the 2 countries - in the UK, MP's are held to account for their actions and the actions of those they choose and champion whilst in the US, Trump seems to just get worse and worse every day and there's never a hint that he will stand down and lose the Presidency. That's all I meant when I said' UK's politicians are held to a much higher standard' which is verifiably and factually correct.

And one final note. Just remeber who the author of this post is - an ardent and fully paid up member of MAGA who defends Trump to the hilt EVERY, SINGLE TIME. It's then a bit rich for him to come on and start pointing fingers at the UK when his own (white) house is literally a bag of garbage.

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

Ok lets break this down.

I am not so naive to think that there has never been a cover up when British politicians are concerned but I think you are conflating several different matters, making your point jumbled and confusing. We're now agreed Thatcher knew nothing about Saville, but certainly Smith was accused of wrong-doings over literally decades with very little done about it, however you then state 'Mandelson is a serial abuser' as if he himself was on orgy island abusing underage girls. If he was on the island he certaily wasn't abusing girls as he is a well know homosexual. To label him as a 'serial abuser' is confusing and wrong. He's a lying POS but no-one has ever suggested that level of impropriety. And Jeremy Thorpe? A case from some 60 years ago? If you're going to make a point perhaps try and do something from this century.

And then it all goes downhill rapidly. When have I ever suggested 'superior, squeaky clean British political propriety'? I suppose in comparison to the current POTUS they are 'superior, and squeaky clean' but that's not saying much now is it? And again, I am using the comparison in the context of the grief that Starmer is under for the actions of another (and again I DON"T think it's not witghout merit), but it was Mandelson who did all the lying and it was him who was chums with Epstein, NOT Starmer. However, Starmer did chose him for Embassador and - quite rightly - he's taking a lot of flak for that. THAT'S the difference I see between the 2 countries - in the UK, MP's are held to account for their actions and the actions of those they choose and champion whilst in the US, Trump seems to just get worse and worse every day and there's never a hint that he will stand down and lose the Presidency. That's all I meant when I said' UK's politicians are held to a much higher standard' which is verifiably and factually correct.

And one final note. Just remeber who the author of this post is - an ardent and fully paid up member of MAGA who defends Trump to the hilt EVERY, SINGLE TIME. It's then a bit rich for him to come on and start pointing fingers at the UK when his own (white) house is literally a bag of garbage.

Your Trump fetish appears to be causing you to see and read things that weren't written or even alluded to.

So, if you're going to quote me, get it right. I said "Mandelson is a serial abuser of the high position that various people have given him". I never suggested he indulged in the depravity that floated Epstein's boat.

You introduced the notion that British politicians are held to a much higher standard despite many members of the British parliament repeatedly falling foul of the laws and rules they swore to uphold, getting their whip suspended and even worse, kicked out of the party...after they get caught. Fiddling expenses, employing family members, dodging taxes, having affairs, groping in the cabinet office, pissing it up during Covid lockdown. All very, very respectable, eh?

Regardless of who the OP is and what you think of him, you are the one that pointedly introduced Trump and American politicians to a simple request as to the ramifications of Starmer getting booted. You derailed the thread with your first sentence of your first post, "Unlike America, UK's politicians are held to a much higher standard."

Now sit down and stop talking nonsense.

25 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Your Trump fetish appears to be causing you to see and read things that weren't written or even alluded to.

So, if you're going to quote me, get it right. I said "Mandelson is a serial abuser of the high position that various people have given him". I never suggested he indulged in the depravity that floated Epstein's boat.

You introduced the notion that British politicians are held to a much higher standard despite many members of the British parliament repeatedly falling foul of the laws and rules they swore to uphold, getting their whip suspended and even worse, kicked out of the party...after they get caught. Fiddling expenses, employing family members, dodging taxes, having affairs, groping in the cabinet office, pissing it up during Covid lockdown. All very, very respectable, eh?

Regardless of who the OP is and what you think of him, you are the one that pointedly introduced Trump and American politicians to a simple request as to the ramifications of Starmer getting booted. You derailed the thread with your first sentence of your first post, "Unlike America, UK's politicians are held to a much higher standard."

Now sit down and stop talking nonsense.

First of all, there's no need to be rude. We are having an online debate. I'm not screeming at you in a pub. Lets try and keep it a bit more civil than 'Now sit down and stop talking nonsense'.

Secondly you have just inadvertently corroborated my whole point - 'many members of the British parliament repeatedly falling foul of the laws and rules they swore to uphold, getting their whip suspended and even worse, kicked out of the party...after they get caught.' Where I think you are getting this wrong or simply don't understand is you are arguing actions whilst I am talking consequences. I'm not saying that UK MP's have better morals and don't f**k up on the regular - I'm simply arguing they are held to task much more than the current American administration when they do f**k up. So maybe, just maybe you could say that British MP's are held to a higher standard.

And I didn't introduce Trump. I didn't mention him once in my original post. It was only until Yagoda asked me to explain what I meant by 'held to a higher standard' that Trump even got mentioned. And then as usual toys got thrown out of the pram and the likes of you keep trying to come up with false equivalences to argue a matter that by your replies, I don't even think you understand.

But hey. You do you.

Starmer is toast, but as said, removing him is not easy, and who would do the job? Whoever does get the job will join the club of falling on their sword when it all goes pear-shaped, which it nearly always does.

With the Labor majority, they will keep going, but the most vocal of Labor MPs are the backbenchers. They know that, come the next election, they will be looking for another job; for them, it could be... the better the devil you know, so they could support Starmer.

As for the next election they is no way a party with 8 MP's will go on and govern the country with a majority, just will not happen. The problem will be if it is a hung parliament and they go with a coalition with another party, that will be a problem

The wave of antisemitism directed toward figures like Peter Mandelson, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell has converged into a perfect storm of prejudice and conspiracy. Am Yisrael Chai. Starmer's wife and chldren are Jewish - old hatreds die hard.

Yes, Peter Mandelson has Jewish heritage through his father, who was Jewish and worked for The Jewish Chronicle, and his paternal grandfather founded the Harrow United Synagogue.

12 hours ago, JAG said:

I don't think that there will be an election. Under our system of parliamentary government the Executive (Prime Minister) is found from the party which has the most seats in the House of Commons. To be appointed as Prime Minister by The King one must command a majority of votes in the Commons, either through an absolute majority or through a coalition with other parties.

Labour has a massive majority in the Commons. The next election does not need to be called until August 2029. Labour are extremely unpopular in the country, having, quite remarkably, lost an astonishing amount of popular support extremely rapidly, however their majority is sufficiently strong to keep them in government.

If Starmer does lose the leadership of the Labour Party, either through the scandals over Mandelson or (I suspect more likely) disastrous results in the May local council elections then another leader will emerge from within the Labour Party.

They won't call an election because quite simply, as things stand, they would lose it. The most likely result would be a Reform led government, either as a minority government propped up by the Conservatives or in coalition with Kemi Badenoch's Tory Party.

Speaking personally that last would be my preferred option - it would clip Farages wings and I think Badenoch has a lot to offer. Such arrangements have to be pragmatic, and I favour pragmatism over dogma in government! Many would disagree but remember of course, coalition allies do not need to like each other!

So basically, no election, possibly a new Labour leader as Prime Minister. Looking at the likely candidates, hmm, heaven help us!

Perfect answer.

7 hours ago, baansgr said:

Who said they would be in for 5 years, no chance of that now

I wish that were true. Unfortunately Labour have the numbers in Parliament to stay their full term, with or without human rights lawyer Starmer.

7 hours ago, baansgr said:

Callaghan is an example of what happens when the population has had enough of their sleazy, lying and economic suicidal shenanigans

Callaghan's government was forced from office early because it lost a vote of 'no confidence' not because of public pressure.

This government has a majority of 160+. Labour MPs are not going to support an opposition 'No confidence' motion no matter how unpopular Starmer may be. The bottom line is this (Labour) government will decide if an election is held before 2029.

12 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Show us how?

I cant believe you ruined a good explanation with reflexive anti -americanism

If our PM posted a video depicting his black political opponents as apes he/she would be out the door before you could blink.

If our PM said he could just kiss people uninvited and grab them by their p*****s he would be out the door before you could blink.

If our PM encouraged people to storm parliament and incited insurrection he would be out the door before you could blink.

If our PM lied about everything constantly he would be out of the door before you could blink.

3 hours ago, RayC said:

Callaghan's government was forced from office early because it lost a vote of 'no confidence' not because of public pressure.

This government has a majority of 160+. Labour MPs are not going to support an opposition 'No confidence' motion no matter how unpopular Starmer may be. The bottom line is this (Labour) government will decide if an election is held before 2029.

Today's Westminster is totally different to that of the last millennium. We all know labour will try to keep their power no matter what people think of them, because they just don't care. Gorton and Denton election will be the catalyst if Reform beat Labours 100 year rule...almost 2 years into their term with 2 atrocious budgets, crime rates through the roof with tens of stabbings each day, the lower paid being taxed to the hilt accompanied by the highest heating bills worldwide and not to mention all the sleaze, lies and nazi dictatorial policies they are behind. I don't think they will be in power by the end of the year.

4 hours ago, baansgr said:

Today's Westminster is totally different to that of the last millennium. We all know labour will try to keep their power no matter what people think of them, because they just don't care. Gorton and Denton election will be the catalyst if Reform beat Labours 100 year rule...almost 2 years into their term with 2 atrocious budgets, crime rates through the roof with tens of stabbings each day, the lower paid being taxed to the hilt accompanied by the highest heating bills worldwide and not to mention all the sleaze, lies and nazi dictatorial policies they are behind. I don't think they will be in power by the end of the year.

Perhaps you're not from the UK, but Labour's majority means they're not going anywhere until they either have to, or think they can win a General Election!

11 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

The wave of antisemitism directed toward figures like Peter Mandelson, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell has converged into a perfect storm of prejudice and conspiracy. Am Yisrael Chai. Starmer's wife and chldren are Jewish - old hatreds die hard.

Yes, Peter Mandelson has Jewish heritage through his father, who was Jewish and worked for The Jewish Chronicle, and his paternal grandfather founded the Harrow United Synagogue.

Nothing to do with anti-Semitism, only with their actions.

29 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Perhaps you're not from the UK, but Labour's majority means they're not going anywhere until they either have to, or think they can win a General Election!

Thankyou for agreeing, "they either have to"

33 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Perhaps you're not from the UK, but Labour's majority means they're not going anywhere until they either have to, or think they can win a General Election!

Majority or not, thankyou for agreeing, "they either have to" which will be the reason

12 minutes ago, baansgr said:

Majority or not, thankyou for agreeing, "they either have to" which will be the reason

He clearly disagrees with you.

Why do you think 'they would have to '.

18 minutes ago, baansgr said:

Majority or not, thankyou for agreeing, "they either have to" which will be the reason

The only thing they "have to" do, is call an election before their 5-year term is up in 2029.

18 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and shout “la, la, la” then that’s up to you.

You asked why UK politicians are held to a higher standard and I answered. Your answer is from the usual echo chamber you choose to inhabit; mine is from verifiable facts.

And Trump is neither my boss nor my better. But he certainly might be yours.

Well you are a poster on an anonymous irrelevant internet forum and Trump is the president of the US. arguably one of , if not the, most important man in the world.

Whilst that might not make him your "boss" as such , purely in terms of personal achievement, few would deny that it demonstrably makes him your "better"

Presumably you think you could do a better job ? who or what has led you to believe this ? your missus or your mates ? lol

Starmer is in plenty of trouble , just not quite enough.....yet. The problem that the Labour party have is the absence of anybody suitable to lead them if they get rid of him, any body suggesting the likes of Rayner , or Lammy or Milliband deserves a posting ban for their overt stupidity

There was only one alternative who could be considered capable of leading them but thanks to Starmers underhand way of operating it is now highly unlikely that Andy Burnham will ever be in a position to replace him during the remaining term of this government.

Just as well really , looking at the state of Manchester

Burnham is no political genius by any stretch of the imagination either, but he is a more popular option for leader than Starmer, a national embarrasment, whose political career is over

55 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Well you are a poster on an anonymous irrelevant internet forum and Trump is the president of the US. arguably one of , if not the, most important man in the world.

Whilst that might not make him your "boss" as such , purely in terms of personal achievement, few would deny that it demonstrably makes him your "better"

Presumably you think you could do a better job ? who or what has led you to believe this ? your missus or your mates ? lol

You really are a terrible sycophant when it comes to Trump. I know you think he is some sort of genuis but I'm afraid facts don't support that.

I'm not a politician (so it's irrelevent to compare our political careers) but I am a businessman and unlike Trump, I've never gone bankrupt (whilst he's gone bankrupt 4 times), I've never stiffed my suppliers, my staff nor my creditors. I've never been embroiled in hundreds of lawsuits for refusing to pay suppliers, contractors and workers and I've never had my staff sue me for unpaid overtime and/or salaries. I also don't have 34 felonies convictions, have never been done for sexual assault and never been impeached.

I am in business to create wealth for myself, my employees and my investors. He's in it solely for self-enrichment at the expense of the little guy and has literally bankrupted small businesses and staff by refusing to pay after the fact. I suppose you think that's ok and for you that makes him 'better'. I don't think that makes him 'better' - I think that makes him a whole lot worse.

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

You really are a terrible sycophant when it comes to Trump. I know you think he is some sort of genuis but I'm afraid facts don't support that.

I'm not a politician (so it's irrelevent to compare our political careers) but I am a businessman and unlike Trump, I've never gone bankrupt (whilst he's gone bankrupt 4 times), I've never stiffed my suppliers, my staff nor my creditors. I've never been embroiled in hundreds of lawsuits for refusing to pay suppliers, contractors and workers and I've never had my staff sue me for unpaid overtime and/or salaries. I also don't have 34 felonies convixtions, have never been done for sexual assault and never been impeached.

I am in business to create wealth for myself, my employees and my investors. He's in it solely for self-enrichment at the expense of the little guy and has literally bankrupted small businesses and staff by refusing to pay after the fact. I suppose you think that's ok and for you that makes him 'better'. I don't think that makes him 'better' - I think that makes him a whole LOT worse.

You know nothing , I don't think Trump is a genius at all, and I have never posted anything to that effect, your business practices are no concern of mine , but I'm sure you will be rewarded in heaven for your virtue

15 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

You know nothing , I don't think Trump is a genius at all, and I have never posted anything to that effect, your business practices are no concern of mine , but I'm sure you will be rewarded in heaven for your virtue

Great. Thanks

6 hours ago, baansgr said:

Today's Westminster is totally different to that of the last millennium. We all know labour will try to keep their power no matter what people think of them, because they just don't care. Gorton and Denton election will be the catalyst if Reform beat Labours 100 year rule...almost 2 years into their term with 2 atrocious budgets, crime rates through the roof with tens of stabbings each day, the lower paid being taxed to the hilt accompanied by the highest heating bills worldwide and not to mention all the sleaze, lies and nazi dictatorial policies they are behind. I don't think they will be in power by the end of the year.

One thing that hasn't changed from the last millennium - and if we have the same system of government, won't change in the next millennium - is that MPs of the governing party will not vote in favour of an opposition motion of 'No confidence' in their own government (party). This is as close to a political fact as anything.

Given this, and the actual fact that this government has a current Commons majority of 168, a motion of 'No confidence' has no chance of succeeding. A Labour loss in the forthcoming by-election, which reduces the majority by one, will make no practical difference; a vote of 'No confidence' will still not succeed.

One other fact is as @brewsterbudgen says, "The only thing (this Labour government) "have to" do, is call an election before their 5-year term is up in 2029" i.e. it is up to this government when it calls an election in the next +/-3 years and no one else.

It really is as simply as that

10 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

You change PMs like others change underwear. The last 10 have been awful. You worship Charles who sniffs bike seats and married a horse. The Yanks saved your ass from Hitler. You can't play sport to save yourselves and got thrashed in the Ashes.

Run along, I am not engaging with a child.

The UK crime rate, based on data from November 2025, is 74 crimes per 1,000 people across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (excluding Scotland). This represents a 4.1% increase compared to the same period in 2024.

Keir Starmer's popularity has reached a record low, with recent YouGov polling from January 2026 showing that 75% of Britons hold an unfavourable view of the Prime Minister, up from 72% the previous month. Only 18% view him positively, resulting in a net favourability rating of -57, the worst of his leadership and matching Rishi Sunak’s lowest point in June 2024.

Labour voters' support has also eroded significantly, with just 39% viewing Starmer favourably compared to 55% who see him unfavourably. This decline comes amid ongoing public dissatisfaction with the government's handling of economic and social issues, despite key policy achievements.

Starmer is more hated than Trump by a mile. That's a bitter pill for the left.

5 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

The UK crime rate, based on data from November 2025, is 74 crimes per 1,000 people across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (excluding Scotland). This represents a 4.1% increase compared to the same period in 2024.

You are supposed to include a reputable source when you copy and paste stuff. Anyway I have no interest in discussing adult topics with you as you are simply incapable.

"You worship Charles who sniffs bike seats and married a horse. The Yanks saved your ass from Hitler. You can't play sport to save yourselves."

Run along, child.

Before I go I'll leave you with this, a certified article with facts from the independent ONS on how homicides, violent crime and knife crime are down significantly in the last year, with homicides at their lowest level since records began:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/29/homicides-england-wales-lowest-level-since-records-began

16 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Starmer is more hated than Trump by a mile. That's a bitter pill for the left.

Hardly. The ''Left" are no fans of Starmer.