World Exclusive! The Barnet Eye publishes transcript of Sir Keir Starmer discussing Mandelson appointment with Morgan McSweeney

 One of our customers, who buys guitar strings, works in the Cabinet Office. They kindly shared an official secret transcript of the conversation between Sir Keir Starmer and his cabinet secretary Morgan McSweeney, discussing the proposed appointment of Peter Mandelson as US Ambassador in an act of supreme public interest. I have transcribed this and burned the original copy, so PC Plod can't work out who the leaky source is. 

Sir Keir: Morgan, I have some reservations about Peter and this appointment. He is associated with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and the Democrats are seeking full disclosure of all of the documents. This could blow up in our faces. Surely we should choose a solid career diplomat.

MM: I have spoken to Peter and he has categorically assured me that there is nothing in the allegations. As you know, he has no interest in young girls and any contacts with Epstein were simply part of larger groups, where Peter was seeking to advance the UK's national interests.

SKS: But, how can I put this, Peter has a bit of form for not being entirely frank with people, in regards to his activities. Can we really trust him?

MM: Peter is someone who moves in the circles Trump moves in. We need someone on the inside who has a direct line to the president. 

SKS: But he was sacked for financial irregularities? 

MM: Oh don't be such a hypocrite. You have been sanctioned eight times for breaching the Parliamentary code. We all make minor indescretions. You know that the Tory press blows everything out of all proportion. If you are to succeed as PM, you need to have a backbone

SKS: But he has form for not being entirely honest, he has been sacked numerous times, can we trust his assurances. This is our most important ambassadoral role

MM: Has your wife ever asked you if her bum looks big in an  outfit? Did you tell the truth? Peter has told the odd white lie, but only in the interests of the UK. Peter knows what to say to schmooz the likes of Trump. Surely that is more important than a few minor indescretions in the past. We will have access to the White House that other nations can only dream of. 

SKS: Well I guess you are right. I mean just because he maintained a relationship with a convicted Paedophile, has been sacked for all manner of financial shenanigans and seems to tell porkies whenever he opens his mouth, we need to look at the national interest and you are right, he will fit in over in Washington. A fine choice.

**** Of course I made all of this up. But it is 100% clear that this conversation must have taken place in some similar form. Starmer's position is totally untenable. He is either gullible as hell or a blithering idiot, or worse still, someone who is quite happy to surround himself with dishonest, dodgy people, who think it is cool to hang around with paedophiles. I am sorry, but that is not someone who is fit to be PM. If he had any honour, he'd already have resigned. The Labour Party have made a monumental mistake blocking Andy Burnham, who for all his faults is outside of the cricle of doom. God Help us all in the UK. However there is one aspect of this that gives me hope. Starmer will go over this. We do not think that indulging paedophiles is OK. Look at America. Trump is President and he is not even one step removed from Epstein as Starmer was. Thank God WE DONT LIVE IN AMERICA

Blessed are the bignoses.

I don't need much excuse to throw in a clip from my favourite comedy film, Monty Python's "The Life of Brian". Luckily Iain Dale (Tory Blogger and PPC) has given me just that. Today he posted this - http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/06/mandys-nose-just-got-bit-longer.html -

He drew attention to a few Porkies Peter Mandleson has been telling and suggested that this may have a Pinnochio like effect on Mandies nose (for those of you unfamiliar with the story, Wiki it). Immediately his blog started getting comments accusing Dale of anti Semitism for making a remark about the size of Mandies hooter. I am not an Iain Dale fan, thought he's been a bit cowardly with his blogging of late, especially with the Ian Clement story. That said, to accuse him of such a charge is clearly nonsense. It's like me howling anti Irish racism if someone calls me a boozer, because the Irish are supposed to like their drink, or accusing them of racism if they compliment our families athletic prowess, because we had Black ancestry several generations ago. It is nonsense.

I despise political correctness. I sometimes wonder if The Life of Brian would be made to day with all of it's un PC clips. What do you think?



I remember a rather devout Catholic relation telling me that I should be ashamed of myself, going to see such blasphemy. I retorted that I wasn't a follower of Brian, so it didn't offend me at all.

Mandleson looses the plot

When was the last time someone said to you "It would be really great if they privatised the Post Office"? If anyone has ever said that to you, were they anything other than an Uber-Thatcherite? The reason I as is because of the bizarre comments by Peter Mandleson in The Observer.

Mandleson reportedly said that "The Party would be kicked out of office if it retreated and showed itself to be tired and afraid of making a decision". Well Mr Mandleson, I'm sorry to say that Labour will be kicked out of office for imposing stupid and unpopular policies. In their Thatcherite pomp, the Tories sold privatisations as they funded tax cuts and were seen as a way of making a quick buck. The Post office privatisation will achieve neither of these politically useful goals. Any extra revenues raised in the next year, will merely be shovelled down the black hole which the bank bailout has created.

Labour has about a year before the election must be held. The only thing that might save them would be to come up with a few genuinely popular policies and rush them through Parliament. Put the Tories in a corner where they either back them or lose votes. Given that there is no cash to splash, what could catch the public imagination. Here's a few suggestions. If Mandleson pushed these policies, he might actually achieve the public admiration he craves :-

a) MP's to take a 5% pay cut.
b) Full on-line access to all MP's expenses.
c) Limit all expenses to genuine out of pocket costs.
d) Ban ALL sale of playing fields for redevelopment
e) Force councils to publish full details of all council house waiting lists (not names or addresses) and the way points are allocated to achieve one.
f) Allocate seats to members of the public (elected by common vote) on all state ownbed companies.
g) Have complete transparency on all public sector pensions (including recently Nationalised (or semi nationalised) banks - give the public a veto on excessive awards

So what would you prefer Labour to implement - Post Office Privatisation or my list above? Which do you think would be better for the Country? To be completely honest, although I'm a lifelong Labour Member, I am so disgusted with Mandleson's Post Office plan, that I'd probably vote for any non Racist Party which scrapped PO privatisation and adopted my plan above.

The Prince of Darkness returns

There is an old saying "A week is a long time in politics". A fortnight is an eternity. A couple of weeks ago, I had a quick exchange of emails about the return of Peter Mandleson. I'm a Labour supporter, but I am not a fan of Peter Mandleson. I am not really very keen on his methods, but I will concede that they are extremely effective. The one thing I know about Peter Mandleson is that he is an extremely effective politician. He plays politics like a chess grand master. You don't know why he does things until you've been check-mated.

If I was Mike Freer or Matthew Offord, our local Tory PPC's I'd be worrying. Two weeks ago, it looked like the only thing Gordon Brown would be planning was the removal vans in 2010 at no 10. All of a sudden the BBC news is comparing him to Winston Churchill, for saving the worlds financial system. In all of the hubris, we almost missed a classic bit of Mandleson manipulation. The House of Lords had rejected the 42 day terrorism bill. Gordon Brown could have overridden them using the Parliament act, but it would have cost him. This legislation that was a monumental issue for Brown a few months ago has quietly been dumped.

I expect many more unpopular issues to be dumped in the next few weeks. So long as Mandleson can survive until the next election without getting sacked for the shenanigans that cost him so dearly last time, I expect a very different election to the one I thought we'd have.

So how does that make me feel? Well as I said I'm not a fan of the Mandleson modus operandi. Is it a price worth paying to keep a Labour Government? Now that is a very hard question. I was thinking about the Tories and to be honest I don't know what David Cameron stands for. I'm not aware of his key policies. Is he a tax cutter? What is his position on Europe? What is his stance on benefit reform? I have formed the opinion that Cameron must have his own Mandleson working away behind the scenes. He's managed to undermine labour without actually announcing any policy initiatives. Think of Thatcher. break the Unions, Privatisation, get our money back from Europe.

So my answer is if I must have either a policy free Tory party or a Mandleson Spun labour party, I'd take Labour with a major dose of trepidation.