Starmer Should Resign

[baggieal]

Starmer needs to resign as he?s either lying or being incompetent over the vetting of Peter Mandelson.

The most lying individual ever, never his fault, completely cowardly and yellow and still thousands upon thousands of illegals keep entering. Yes hotels are emptying but they are all going into shared accommodation which many of our own can?t get!

Many other countries have slashed the taxation on fuel but not this government. All they care about is welfare and sending billions to Ukraine and the latest to Sudan.

If he refused to resign as expected then the defeat in the May elections will be an absolute embarrassment. Milliband can do one too!

[Omegstrat6]

Starmer needs to resign as he?s either lying or being incompetent over the vetting of Peter Mandelson.

The most lying individual ever, never his fault, completely cowardly and yellow and still thousands upon thousands of illegals keep entering. Yes hotels are emptying but they are all going into shared accommodation which many of our own can?t get!

Many other countries have slashed the taxation on fuel but not this government. All they care about is welfare and sending billions to Ukraine and the latest to Sudan.

If he refused to resign as expected then the defeat in the May elections will be an absolute embarrassment. Milliband can do one too!

My understanding is that the Security Services vetoed Mandelson's appointment but that someone in the Foreign Office over-ruled this but that none of this information was passed on to Starmer. This rather beggars belief but appears to be the case and has subsequently cost Sir Olly Robbins his job as he was head of the FO at the time. Regardless of this, Starmer's decision to appoint Mandelson still brings his judgement yet again into question which-very arguably-can be claimed to impact on his suitability as PM. He may indeed have "good intentions" as his supporters claim but there is little place in politics for naivety.

The moot question Al, is what would then happen if he was forced to resign. All the talk on the Right about this and the coming local elections in May leading to a General Election is, of course, both wishful thinking on their behalf and complete b o ll ocks constitutionally as Labour have been voted in for their 5 year term and nothing short of a national catastrophe will change that. As others have commented previously, we should be careful what we wish for too. If Starmer does go, who then replaces him? This is down to the Labour Party not the general electorate. When Boris resigned the Tory Party gave us Truss remember! Anyone on here in favour of Rayner as PM because she would definitely be in the running. There is much I dislike about Starmer as PM but just saying....

[baggieal]

My understanding is that the Security Services vetoed Mandelson's appointment but that someone in the Foreign Office over-ruled this but that none of this information was passed on to Starmer. This rather beggars belief but appears to be the case and has subsequently cost Sir Olly Robbins his job as he was head of the FO at the time. Regardless of this, Starmer's decision to appoint Mandelson still brings his judgement yet again into question which-very arguably-can be claimed to impact on his suitability as PM. He may indeed have "good intentions" as his supporters claim but there is little place in politics for naivety.

The moot question Al, is what would then happen if he was forced to resign. All the talk on the Right about this and the coming local elections in May leading to a General Election is, of course, both wishful thinking on their behalf and complete b o ll ocks constitutionally as Labour have been voted in for their 5 year term and nothing short of a national catastrophe will change that. As others have commented previously, we should be careful what we wish for too. If Starmer does go, who then replaces him? This is down to the Labour Party not the general electorate. When Boris resigned the Tory Party gave us Truss remember! Anyone on here in favour of Rayner as PM because she would definitely be in the running. There is much I dislike about Starmer as PM but just saying....

Very good point! Starmer though is a complete gutless coward and only he could ruin the relationship with the USA. Forget Trump but FFS not letting the USA use our bases in the first instance was pathetic. Starmer is very quick though with that other wet lettuce Macron to rush to the Middle East and try and be the big man now to get the Strait back open. None of the neighbouring countries have any respect for Starmer as he?s seen has irrelevant. We have families struggling like hell here at home but no help to reduce taxation on fuel like other countries but then it?s a p iss take sending more millions in aid to Ukraine and Sudan.

All those in the Labour Party are pathetic including Rayner who has defrauded the taxman and Milliband who is a wet wipe. The least we mention of Lammy and Streeting the better. Burnham comes across all nicey nicey but he?s more left than most and another Tony Blair!

This country is finished and the only thing Starmer said was true - we are a land of strangers! Not like that in the USA!

I predict Labour will be annihilated in the May elections and what do they expect. People work hard and pay their taxes only to see billions spent on illegals entering in their thousands and billions sent in aid plus many who choose not to work being more financially better off than working for the minimum wage. Unbelievable!

As for Reeves to say she did not think Iran had nuclear capability is embarrassing. The Iranians 100% have it and would use it. As for that idiot the Pope condemning the attacks on Iran I would love to know his view on 15,000 innocent protesters massacred plus daily executions of young girls and kids whose crime was protesting. Over to you Pope Leo ?.

[Omegstrat6]

Very good point! Starmer though is a complete gutless coward and only he could ruin the relationship with the USA. Forget Trump but FFS not letting the USA use our bases in the first instance was pathetic. Starmer is very quick though with that other wet lettuce Macron to rush to the Middle East and try and be the big man now to get the Strait back open. None of the neighbouring countries have any respect for Starmer as he?s seen has irrelevant. We have families struggling like hell here at home but no help to reduce taxation on fuel like other countries but then it?s a p iss take sending more millions in aid to Ukraine and Sudan.

All those in the Labour Party are pathetic including Rayner who has defrauded the taxman and Milliband who is a wet wipe. The least we mention of Lammy and Streeting the better. Burnham comes across all nicey nicey but he?s more left than most and another Tony Blair!

This country is finished and the only thing Starmer said was true - we are a land of strangers! Not like that in the USA!

I predict Labour will be annihilated in the May elections and what do they expect. People work hard and pay their taxes only to see billions spent on illegals entering in their thousands and billions sent in aid plus many who choose not to work being more financially better off than working for the minimum wage. Unbelievable!

As for Reeves to say she did not think Iran had nuclear capability is embarrassing. The Iranians 100% have it and would use it. As for that idiot the Pope condemning the attacks on Iran I would love to know his view on 15,000 innocent protesters massacred plus daily executions of young girls and kids whose crime was protesting. Over to you Pope Leo ?.

I'm certainly no great fan of Starmer on many issues Al but his refusal to support Trumps war on Iran I believe was spot on. This was technically an illegal war for which Trump neither got agreement from Congress for nor consulted his NATO allies about. Moreover, he clearly had no joined up thinking regarding planning or outcome and surrounding himself with sycophantic idiots has meant no one has reigned him in. Anyone who doubts that he was also greatly swayed by Netanyahu is naive at best.

Harold Wilson refused to let the UK become involved with the US war in Vietnam, a war successive presidents from Eisenhower, through Kennedy, LBJ to Nixon continuously and knowingly lied to the American public about. He was right to do so. IMHO, Starmer is similarly right not to support Trump in this war.

When he announced his candidacy in 2015 Trump vowed never to let Iran develop nuclear weapons yet as soon as he became president, one of his first actions was to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal which had taken some 18 months of negotiations to be reached and under which Iran allowed independent inspections of its nuclear capabilities. This withdrawal was in flagrant breach of his 2016 election promise to rather negotiate a new deal. Maybe he didn't like it because the initial deal had been brokered under Obama and we know how much Trump likes him.

All the intelligence reports from the period state that Iran was not capable of developing nuclear weapons any time soon. Doubtless, the Iranian regime were indeed still trying to do so but the inspections could not find any evidence of it. By pulling out of the agreement such inspections no longer happened and logically this would only make it easier for Iran to pursue this aim so why did Trump do so?

In June 2025, Trump ordered a US attack on 3 nuclear facilities in Iran and subsequently claimed that they had "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons yet by February 2026 he was launching his war/ excursion against them quoting the same aim.

No one doubts the nature of the Iranian regime, the treatment (and killing) of its own citizens nor their support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah or Hamas but what has this war really achieved? Freedom for its citizens or regime change? No. Increased stability in the region? No. It has also, of course, massively impacted on the global economy due to the almost unbelievable lack of foresight over how Iran would respond regarding control of the Strait and only the Americans could continually fail to learn the lessons of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan-ie that killing civilians (whether members or supporters of "terrorist" groups or not) does not decrease the numbers of those joining insurgency or decrease hatred for the US but achieves exactly the opposite. If Trump thinks that he has not only "obliterated" Iran's nuclear weapons programme but also dissuaded them from returning to it, he is greatly deluded.

As for the Pope, I certainly agree with you that he can be rightly criticised for not being far more vocal in his condemnation of the Iranian regime and it's treatment and murder of its own citizens but is he wrong when he posted about the world being "ravaged by a handful of tyrants"? This could clearly be seen as a response to Trump but it can equally apply to Putin, Kim Jong Un, the Iranian regime, Xi Jinping and several other authoritarian leaders.

The Pope also referenced those citing religion to justify their actions. Given its history, this may be all a bit rich from the head of the Catholic Church, but he is right again. Again, this has been seen as a response to Trump specifically following not only his posting of that AI image of himself as some kind of Jesus but also the Christ like comparisons of him made by the sycophantic idiots around him. It can, again, equally be seen though as being a criticism of the Iranian regime or any other that wages war in the name of religious differences.

Trump's willingness to wallow in comparisons of himself to Jesus and the recently converted JD Vance trying to lecture the Pope on the tenets of Catholicism and the concept of a "just war" have done them no favours however with the conservative Christian right that make up a big part of the MAGA crowd, especially on top of Trump reneging big time on his election promises to end all US involvement in foreign wars and those in the Middle East particularly. He is becoming increasingly desperate for an off ramp despite all the continuous bragging that comes out of his mouth. If his blockade of the Strait continues much longer he will also surely come into more direct conflict with China who rely heavily on oil from the region. That will almost certainly see him reverting to TACO type.

[baggiematt]

Very good point! Starmer though is a complete gutless coward and only he could ruin the relationship with the USA. Forget Trump but FFS not letting the USA use our bases in the first instance was pathetic. Starmer is very quick though with that other wet lettuce Macron to rush to the Middle East and try and be the big man now to get the Strait back open. None of the neighbouring countries have any respect for Starmer as he?s seen has irrelevant. We have families struggling like hell here at home but no help to reduce taxation on fuel like other countries but then it?s a p iss take sending more millions in aid to Ukraine and Sudan.

All those in the Labour Party are pathetic including Rayner who has defrauded the taxman and Milliband who is a wet wipe. The least we mention of Lammy and Streeting the better. Burnham comes across all nicey nicey but he?s more left than most and another Tony Blair!

This country is finished and the only thing Starmer said was true - we are a land of strangers! Not like that in the USA!

I predict Labour will be annihilated in the May elections and what do they expect. People work hard and pay their taxes only to see billions spent on illegals entering in their thousands and billions sent in aid plus many who choose not to work being more financially better off than working for the minimum wage. Unbelievable!

As for Reeves to say she did not think Iran had nuclear capability is embarrassing. The Iranians 100% have it and would use it. As for that idiot the Pope condemning the attacks on Iran I would love to know his view on 15,000 innocent protesters massacred plus daily executions of young girls and kids whose crime was protesting. Over to you Pope Leo ?.

Big fan of Labour then Al? 😆

And I think the pope condemns all wars and major killings. This condemning has come to light because the real idiot Trump challenged his condemning of the war.

[baggieal]

I'm certainly no great fan of Starmer on many issues Al but his refusal to support Trumps war on Iran I believe was spot on. This was technically an illegal war for which Trump neither got agreement from Congress for nor consulted his NATO allies about. Moreover, he clearly had no joined up thinking regarding planning or outcome and surrounding himself with sycophantic idiots has meant no one has reigned him in. Anyone who doubts that he was also greatly swayed by Netanyahu is naive at best.

Harold Wilson refused to let the UK become involved with the US war in Vietnam, a war successive presidents from Eisenhower, through Kennedy, LBJ to Nixon continuously and knowingly lied to the American public about. He was right to do so. IMHO, Starmer is similarly right not to support Trump in this war.

When he announced his candidacy in 2015 Trump vowed never to let Iran develop nuclear weapons yet as soon as he became president, one of his first actions was to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal which had taken some 18 months of negotiations to be reached and under which Iran allowed independent inspections of its nuclear capabilities. This withdrawal was in flagrant breach of his 2016 election promise to rather negotiate a new deal. Maybe he didn't like it because the initial deal had been brokered under Obama and we know how much Trump likes him.

All the intelligence reports from the period state that Iran was not capable of developing nuclear weapons any time soon. Doubtless, the Iranian regime were indeed still trying to do so but the inspections could not find any evidence of it. By pulling out of the agreement such inspections no longer happened and logically this would only make it easier for Iran to pursue this aim so why did Trump do so?

In June 2025, Trump ordered a US attack on 3 nuclear facilities in Iran and subsequently claimed that they had "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons yet by February 2026 he was launching his war/ excursion against them quoting the same aim.

No one doubts the nature of the Iranian regime, the treatment (and killing) of its own citizens nor their support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah or Hamas but what has this war really achieved? Freedom for its citizens or regime change? No. Increased stability in the region? No. It has also, of course, massively impacted on the global economy due to the almost unbelievable lack of foresight over how Iran would respond regarding control of the Strait and only the Americans could continually fail to learn the lessons of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan-ie that killing civilians (whether members or supporters of "terrorist" groups or not) does not decrease the numbers of those joining insurgency or decrease hatred for the US but achieves exactly the opposite. If Trump thinks that he has not only "obliterated" Iran's nuclear weapons programme but also dissuaded them from returning to it, he is greatly deluded.

As for the Pope, I certainly agree with you that he can be rightly criticised for not being far more vocal in his condemnation of the Iranian regime and it's treatment and murder of its own citizens but is he wrong when he posted about the world being "ravaged by a handful of tyrants"? This could clearly be seen as a response to Trump but it can equally apply to Putin, Kim Jong Un, the Iranian regime, Xi Jinping and several other authoritarian leaders.

The Pope also referenced those citing religion to justify their actions. Given its history, this may be all a bit rich from the head of the Catholic Church, but he is right again. Again, this has been seen as a response to Trump specifically following not only his posting of that AI image of himself as some kind of Jesus but also the Christ like comparisons of him made by the sycophantic idiots around him. It can, again, equally be seen though as being a criticism of the Iranian regime or any other that wages war in the name of religious differences.

Trump's willingness to wallow in comparisons of himself to Jesus and the recently converted JD Vance trying to lecture the Pope on the tenets of Catholicism and the concept of a "just war" have done them no favours however with the conservative Christian right that make up a big part of the MAGA crowd, especially on top of Trump reneging big time on his election promises to end all US involvement in foreign wars and those in the Middle East particularly. He is becoming increasingly desperate for an off ramp despite all the continuous bragging that comes out of his mouth. If his blockade of the Strait continues much longer he will also surely come into more direct conflict with China who rely heavily on oil from the region. That will almost certainly see him reverting to TACO type.

Don?t disagree with may of your points Omeg but the drums are banging loudly in the US - why should American tax payers keep supporting NATO and what do they get out of it. The US contribute about 50% of all NATO costs because it?s calculated on percentage GDP. Starmer says the UK is ready for war! Really when one ship took 3 weeks to get to Cyprus and broke down. Yes the US must get approval from Congress to pull out of NATO and technically give 12 months notice but the US could in theory choose not to offer any support now. So if the US completely walk away from Ukraine are we confident the rest of the Allies would stop Russia? What?s in it for the US to keep selling ammo for Ukraine when they will need to restock after Iran for their own protection.

Starmer needs to focus on everything at home with a crumbling country - totally invaded by illegals - welfare out of control and services crumbling. It?s getting to be a horrible country Omeg and those who don?t see this are deluded, Crime is getting out of control too! Do we really think Lebanon are doing everything to eradicate Hezbollah? Are they hell and don?t blame Israel for going for the jugular!

How much longer should we keep supporting Ukraine and sending them many millions?

Even now Starmer blaming everyone but himself for Mandleson and even calls it staggering as he was not told. Kemi runs circles around Starmer because quite simply she?s sharper and brighter!

Let?s wait for the May elections😭😭

[Lindenbaggie]

Starmer needs to resign as he?s either lying or being incompetent over the vetting of Peter Mandelson.

The most lying individual ever, never his fault, completely cowardly and yellow and still thousands upon thousands of illegals keep entering. Yes hotels are emptying but they are all going into shared accommodation which many of our own can?t get!

Many other countries have slashed the taxation on fuel but not this government. All they care about is welfare and sending billions to Ukraine and the latest to Sudan.

If he refused to resign as expected then the defeat in the May elections will be an absolute embarrassment. Milliband can do one too!

The best thing I can say about Starmer and this Labour Party is that I'm glad that my parents and grandparents didn't have them around on 1 September 1939.

[Omegstrat6]

Don?t disagree with may of your points Omeg but the drums are banging loudly in the US - why should American tax payers keep supporting NATO and what do they get out of it. The US contribute about 50% of all NATO costs because it?s calculated on percentage GDP. Starmer says the UK is ready for war! Really when one ship took 3 weeks to get to Cyprus and broke down. Yes the US must get approval from Congress to pull out of NATO and technically give 12 months notice but the US could in theory choose not to offer any support now. So if the US completely walk away from Ukraine are we confident the rest of the Allies would stop Russia? What?s in it for the US to keep selling ammo for Ukraine when they will need to restock after Iran for their own protection.

Starmer needs to focus on everything at home with a crumbling country - totally invaded by illegals - welfare out of control and services crumbling. It?s getting to be a horrible country Omeg and those who don?t see this are deluded, Crime is getting out of control too! Do we really think Lebanon are doing everything to eradicate Hezbollah? Are they hell and don?t blame Israel for going for the jugular!

How much longer should we keep supporting Ukraine and sending them many millions?

Even now Starmer blaming everyone but himself for Mandleson and even calls it staggering as he was not told. Kemi runs circles around Starmer because quite simply she?s sharper and brighter!

Let?s wait for the May elections😭😭

Can't but agree with you about both the state of the country or the world Al-all quite depressing when you think about it as it is so difficult to see any light at the end of the tunnel! 😞

I certainly worry-as I'm sure many of us do-about what the future holds for our children and grandchildren. My mum and dad are now both in their 90s, both were born into what would today be seen as poor working class families, lived through the Second World War, the on-going rationing and grey-ness of the post war 50s, the Cuba Crisis and the Cold War, the threat of terrorism due to the Irish Troubles, the economic decline and 3 day week of the 70s and the ups and downs of subsequent decades. Both say that they still worry more about today's world. Rose tinted glasses? Maybe, but I sympathise with their view. Perhaps it's an age thing and I'm increasingly turning into Victor Meldrew the older I get myself?

I certainly don't view populism as any solution to our problems but the hard part for me is the lack of a leader from any political party who seems capable of getting us out of the mess this country is in. Of course, I'm not stupid enough not to realise that it's taken many years to get to this point and so there are no easy fixes, but it would be nice to have at least a glimmer of hope!

Bugger, I've depressed myself now so may have to open a bottle and plug the guitar in 😀

[Omegstrat6]

The best thing I can say about Starmer and this Labour Party is that I'm glad that my parents and grandparents didn't have them around on 1 September 1939.

Very true-but I equally wouldn't want Farage (who would probably align himself with Hitler) or Bad Enoch either!

[soulman101]

Even Diane Abbot put him in place today .

[baggieal]

Even Diane Abbot put him in place today .

She did Lloyd and well and truly! Kemi is so much brighter than Starmer and really does run rings around him!

He?s all but finished. A laughing stock on the world stage and will be absolutely annihilated in the May elections. An absolute embarrassment!

[soulman101]

Wonder if Dennis Skinner would have called him Dodgy Kier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvIUa47x_Oc

[Omegstrat6]

Wonder if Dennis Skinner would have called him Dodgy Kier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvIUa47x_Oc

Ah, the Beast of Bolsover from the days when Labour had some decent politicians 😀 Didn't agree with all his views but he at least had integrity.

[Omegstrat6]

She did Lloyd and well and truly! Kemi is so much brighter than Starmer and really does run rings around him!

He?s all but finished. A laughing stock on the world stage and will be absolutely annihilated in the May elections. An absolute embarrassment!

Don't actually agree that Bad Enoch is that bright Al or that sharp.

It's always been the case that PMQs provide the perfect opportunity for leaders in opposition to have a go at the ones in power and it's fully recognised by politicians of all parties that this is all part of the Westminster game and that it is, of course, far easier to criticise than to provide actual solutions not least because it's mostly about point scoring and you don't have to overly concern yourself with the nuances around situations.

Kemi can indeed make Starmer look weak and indecisive but I think that this is more to do with Starmer's own failings than her own abilities as there have been times over the recent weeks when he has actually bested her during PMQs and she has failed to raise the pertinent questions of him.

Listening to both Bad Enoch and Abbott today, for example, while Kemi stuck to the "he should have the decency to resign" line because he was either "lying or incompetent", it was Abbott who actually got to the heart of the matter. She pointed out that even if what Starmer is claiming is true and that he wasn't informed of the vetting issue, given Mandelson's known and long history of inappropriate behaviour (leading to him having to resign twice from cabinet) why did the PM wait to be "told" about the situation when he should have pre-empted this and "asked"?

I've said before that my son likens Starmer to a blind man surrounded by garden rakes that he constantly walks into. I genuinely don't believe that he is anywhere near as self serving as Boris for example or many other politicians but that doesn't excuse his failings as a leader. He is his own worst enemy and creates problems for himself because he too often fails to read the room, does not think things through properly (which leads to too many U-turns) and his lack of judgement at times (as in this case) is truly woeful.

Should he resign? If there was a better candidate available I'd say yes but given the alternatives I think we'd still be better off with this tool makers son.

[baggieal]

Don't actually agree that Bad Enoch is that bright Al or that sharp.

It's always been the case that PMQs provide the perfect opportunity for leaders in opposition to have a go at the ones in power and it's fully recognised by politicians of all parties that this is all part of the Westminster game and that it is, of course, far easier to criticise than to provide actual solutions not least because it's mostly about point scoring and you don't have to overly concern yourself with the nuances around situations.

Kemi can indeed make Starmer look weak and indecisive but I think that this is more to do with Starmer's own failings than her own abilities as there have been times over the recent weeks when he has actually bested her during PMQs and she has failed to raise the pertinent questions of him.

Listening to both Bad Enoch and Abbott today, for example, while Kemi stuck to the "he should have the decency to resign" line because he was either "lying or incompetent", it was Abbott who actually got to the heart of the matter. She pointed out that even if what Starmer is claiming is true and that he wasn't informed of the vetting issue, given Mandelson's known and long history of inappropriate behaviour (leading to him having to resign twice from cabinet) why did the PM wait to be "told" about the situation when he should have pre-empted this and "asked"?

I've said before that my son likens Starmer to a blind man surrounded by garden rakes that he constantly walks into. I genuinely don't believe that he is anywhere near as self serving as Boris for example or many other politicians but that doesn't excuse his failings as a leader. He is his own worst enemy and creates problems for himself because he too often fails to read the room, does not think things through properly (which leads to too many U-turns) and his lack of judgement at times (as in this case) is truly woeful.

Should he resign? If there was a better candidate available I'd say yes but given the alternatives I think we'd still be better off with this tool makers son.

Wooden - zero charm and zero personality perhaps could sum up Starmer over Kemi and a lier.

Even Blair who I hated had self imposed charm even if that smile was false!

Yes he should resign!