How would anyone summarise Starmer's most recent month's worth of self-inflicted misery? Easy: he is accused of severe, sustained failure of judgement on personnel matters - in the face of prior knowledge and warnings. Oh, and of course disowning responsibility afterwards. No internalised ethics adviser inside that Max Headroom skull; and no internalised HR adviser either.
So, when needing a new Cabinet Secretary (and how did that requirement come about, pray ..?) what does he do but pick someone with a track record of bullying accusations[1]. FFS, why? OK, the Labour wimmin have been braying about the need to break up his "boys' club", but (a) so what? (b) Sue Gray, anyone?
Meanwhile, someone on Team Starmer is continuing the "good work"[2] with daily injections of supposedly ultra-pop, and/or left-pleasing "initiatives" - i.e. belligerent statements of empty intent - for Starmer to deliver as a mighty smokescreen for the non-stop string of genuinely damaging cock-ups. It's not a prime-ministerial look: and it ain't working.
Here's a simple prediction: the meejah has got it in for him to the extent that an editorial edict of "find a story that brings him down" has replaced "stay onside with Team Starmer no matter what" as a standing headline of the newsroom's Orders of the Day. They'll be doing whatever it takes to find stuff on the Romeo woman, too - given that there are evidently skeletons in her closet. There'll always be a disgruntled / slighted / insulted / sidelined / bitter ex-colleague out there.
A race, then, between which of them is turfed out first. Popcorn supplies are running low.
ND
_______________
[1] Let nobody fall for "there was one complaint (a long time ago in a galaxy far away) ... but no case to answer".
[2] Of course, it may be that McSweeney is still having his instructions chanelled into TS from wherever he's skulking. Mandy's too - even if from one of Deripaska's yachts. Well, why not? They are trusted advisers, no?
6 comments:
I'm more concerned by the Andrew arrest, being as how the Royal Family are still (just) the totem of the British tribe. It's amazing that he is apparently the only fallout from Epstein. As I keep saying, where the hell were MI6?
The top women in the public sector have a habit of failing upwards - see Lin Homer or Paula Vennells as examples. It's not unlikely that Romeo followed this well established pattern.
Not forgetting Cressida Dick.
And I'm not suggesting that this is a women only problem - the rebranded "Association of First Division Civil Servants" is stuffed full of people lacking in useful real world skills.
Anon - there are very many precedents for royal personages being subject to the law throughout English history. Even monarchs. Even ferocious monarchs. Two quick examples come to mind:
> Henry VIII had to go through a truly humiliating legal process to get his divorce from Anne of Cleves
> Berkeley Castle fell into the hands of the Tudor monarchy, but under legally binding terms which saw it returned to the Berkeley family when there was no male heir to the throne
Maybe the Intelligence Service or the Security Service routinely reported this stuff to the FCO or the Home Office, as appropriate, who plain weren't interested. Or maybe they kicked it upstairs to No 10 which decided to keep a lid on it.
Is there any sign that Andrew pkaP stopped leaking (allegedly) info at any time, implying that he'd been warned off?
OT, but when your thinktank fails to declare donors, just accuse (to GCHQ no less) the journalist who reported it of being part of a "pro-Kremlin influence network" !!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/20/labour-minister-falsely-linked-journalists-to-pro-kremlin-network-in-emails-to-gchq
Post a Comment