Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Peter Mandelson has all the skills and abilities to make an exceedingly good diplomat.  But  the incoming Republicans are unforgiving and intolerant of anyone who has been derogatory about Trump.
Considering the deprecatory remarks made previously by both Mandelson and Lammy , one wonders how things might turn out for UK-USA relations going forward.

Many people have been dismissive of Trump in the recent past, including his VP.
Besides, Mandelson and Trump have much in common. They are both shallow, vulgar and vain. They both fetishise wealth and power, irrespective of who holds it or how it was accumulated. They were both close friends and associates of the late Jeffrey Epstein and have moved in the same circles, as Ghislaine Maxwell’s address book allegedly confirms.
Recognising another who is utterly transactional and lacking in a moral compass, there’s every chance of “Petie” fitting right in Mar-a-Largo.

Being nice to Trump, constantly and obsequiously, in no way keeps you onside with him

honesty far better

and there isnt going to be any meaningful trade deal with USA anyway because it conflicts with other interests.  
 

bugs the shite out of me listening to people complain about uk being rude about Trump when the things the uk continues to say about Europe and its leaders is unhinged 

Edited by Sephiroth
5 hours ago, malumbu said:

They are not being rude they are giving a factual account of his character and behaviour.  Unstable is a good example.  Dishonest  criminal.  Mysogenist.  All accurate.

Try "misogynist",  and you would be 100% right

  • 1 year later...
  • 2 weeks later...
2 hours ago, Sephiroth said:

The fact that some people in England seem to be narrowly focussed on the eejit that is mandelson whilst ignoring the real villains in the whole Epstein thing is… revealing 

and those villains are lauded and unaffected 

Revealing of what, exactly?
I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events.
The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it.

In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.

  • Like 1
10 hours ago, Insuflo said:

I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events.
 did; the Epstein shit just proves it.

In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. 

You are most likely correct in thinking that  Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew it.  But they obviously thought that his skills, abilities and usefulness far outweighed the negatives.
Here is a summary of the positives lifted from elsewhere:-
 

1. Strategic Architect: He was a primary architect of "New Labour," rebranding the party and shifting its core ideology to win the 1997 general election.

Master of Communication: Often called the original "spin doctor," he revolutionised how political parties manage the media. He famously created the "grid" system to coordinate government messaging.

Networking and Charm: Known as "Silvertongue," he possesses a peerless ability to charm and network with high-level global figures, including business leaders and heads of state.

4. Governance and Trade Expertise: Beyond strategy, he was considered a highly efficient minister, serving as European Commissioner for Trade and Secretary of State across multiple departments, including Business and Northern Ireland. 
5. 
Reinvention: His capacity to adapt to changing political climates and rebuild relationships reflects personal resilience and strategic flexibility.

With his skill and abilities, he delivered results for all his bosses. In the short time in Washington, he found a way to get on the right side of Trump - despite him  being critical of Trump in previous years.

That said he is c
omplex personality He can be simultaneously brilliant and arrogant, thick-skinned yet sensitive, and selfless for his party while appearing narcissistic in his personal dealings. 

My OP asked if he would be accepted over the pond. It turned out he was because he got on famously with trump. He worked out the correct strategy to get on the good side of Trump and secured a better trade deal than the EU and other nations.

 

 

Edited by vladi
21 minutes ago, vladi said:

It was clearly stated that it was "lifted from elsewhere". Or did you miss that?

No, I clearly quoted you in my response; did you miss that?

It’s obviously AI generated: any reasonable human being would be too ashamed to spin such arrant twadle.

On 17/02/2026 at 13:08, ANDY B said:

Hi put him in the Tower until Execution

I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor

Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake. 

So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson rather than yourself.  Bit of a failure.

I don't expect an answer from police custody.  

Edited by malumbu
typo
  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Morally they should, but we don't actually vote for parties in our electoral system. We vote for a parliamentary (or council) representative. That candidates group together under party unbrellas is irrelevant. We have a 'representative' democracy, not a party political one (if that makes sense). That's where I am on things at the moment. Reform are knocking on the door of the BNP, and using wedge issues to bait emotional rage. The Greens are knocking on the door of the hard left, sweeping up the Corbynista idealists. But it's worth saying that both are only ascending because of the failures of the two main parties and the successive governments they have led. Large parts of the country have been left in economic decline for decades, while city fat cats became uber wealthy. Young people have been screwed over by student loans. Housing is 40 years of commoditisation, removing affordabilty beyond the reach of too many. Decently paid, secure jobs, seem to be a thing of the past. Which of the main parties can people turn to, to fix any of these things, when the main parties are the reason for the mess that has been allowed to evolve? Reform certainly aren't the answer to those things. The Greens may aspire to do something meaningful about some of them, but where will they find the money to pay for it? None of it's easy.
    • Yes, but the context is important and the reason.
    • That messes up Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - democracy being based on citizenship not literacy. There's intentionally no one language that campaign materials have to be in. 
    • TBH if people don't see what is sectarian in the materials linked to above when they read about them, then I don't think me going on about it will help. They speak for themselves.  I don't know how the Greens can justify promising to be a strong voice for one particular religion. Will that pledge hold when it comes to campaigning in East Dulwich (which is majority atheist)? https://censusdata.uk/e02000836-east-dulwich/ts030-religion
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...