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 ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure.

I don't expect an answer from police custody.  

  • 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

    • 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 ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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