We all knew that Peter Mandelson had stayed at Jeffrey Epstein's house after Epstein's conviction. The problem was apparently that Keir Starmer did not know that Mandelson had thought that Epstein was innocent. So it would have been fine for Mandelson to have stayed at the home of a man whom he had believed to be the child sex offender that he had been convicted of being. Or for him to have told Starmer that he did not accept Epstein's guilt, as we are expected to believe that Mandelson never mentioned to Starmer.
Mandelson has been recalled from his posting, but that does not mean that he is off the books. That does not mean that he is no longer being paid. Technically, and no doubt more than technically, he is just waiting to be reassigned. Moreover, he retains the Labour whip in the House of Lords. He could turn up there tomorrow and vote on legislation, specifically on Second Reading of the Assisted Suicide Bill. And he could do so as a Labour Peer.
Down the corridor, there turn out to be all of 24 left-wing Labour MPs, even leaving aside that some people, and one name does jump out, might have nominated Bell Ribeiro-Addy to broaden the debate or what have you. 24 is one in 17 Labour MPs, and none of them has the slightest hope of office. To secure disaffiliation from the Labour Party and then to build what came next, join Unite Community here. Or stay in a party that extended its whip to Mandelson but not to Diane Abbott, John McDonnell, Apsana Begum, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff or Rachael Maskell.
Absolutely spot on.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
DeleteThere are numerous miscarriages of justice (I am not suggesting that in the Epstein case - though three others do immediately spring to mind). Regardless of the Epstein particularity, those accused and imprisoned - and especially those who are innocent (regardless of what a politicised police and or judicial system may decide... for God is the only judge that matters) - depend to a very large extent on those friends who remain close and support them in the face, sometimes, of sustained public and other disdain. For supporting his friend Mandleson cannot, on that point alone, be faulted.
ReplyDeleteI quite agree. My point is that Starmer supposedly would not have minded that Mandelson had stayed at Epstein's house, if Mandelson had thought that Epstein was guilty.
DeleteI concur
ReplyDeleteI rejoice.
Delete