Prime Minister Keir Starmer (R) and then British ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson during a welcome reception at the ambassador’s residence in Washington, DC., February 26, 2025
… Parliament determined last month that all government communications relating to Peter Mandelson’s disastrous appointment as ambassador to Washington in December 2024 be made public.
That is to allow voters to understand how this first-order misjudgement, naming to the country’s most prestigious diplomatic post a man famous for his overaffection for the rich, twice dismissed from government amid scandal, and most importantly known for his prolonged intimacy with paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
…
No communications are likely to have been more relevant to the appointment than those from and to McSweeney, then Downing Street chief of staff, effectively running the government as top aide to the ineffectual Keir Starmer.
McSweeney was mentored by Mandelson as a close associate in Labour’s unending factional wars, with the younger man carrying forward the latter’s obsessive hatred of the left and socialism.
It is clear that he was instrumental in pushing Keir Starmer to name Mandelson to Washington. It is believed that he was charged with asking the now-disgraced New Labour grandee about his relationship with Epstein.
While the Prime Minister bears the responsibility, it appears that this was a calamity engineered largely by McSweeney, whose messages on the subject would therefore be central to any understanding of it.
Yet it is now unclear if we will ever read them. Now, McSweeney announces that his mobile phone was stolen in London last year, a month after Mandelson’s enforced departure from Washington and when it was already highly likely that some form of public accounting for the misjudgement would follow.
The police concur that McSweeney reported the theft at the time it apparently occurred. Giving an incorrect location, and then asserting that he was near a park in east London when he was in fact miles away in Westminster may perhaps be attributable to the stress of the moment.
Failing to advise the police that he was the No 10 chief of staff, and that his device held any number of secret communications of state significance is far less comprehensible, since that omission must have downgraded the police response.
Still odder, No 10 is unable to confirm that the contents of McSweeney’s phone have been fully backed up in line with government regulations for handling official business.
So on this occasion, the stench of cover-up is powerful, however much Starmer may deny it.
Keir Starmer discusses Peter Mandelson, Jeffrey Epstein and the UK Labour Party’s tradition of excusing and protecting child rapists.Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.Keir Starmer confirms that he’s proud to be a red Tory continuing austerity and targeting poor and disabled scum.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer (right) and then British ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson during a welcome reception at the ambassador’s residence in Washington, DC, February 27, 2025
LABOUR MP Ian Byrne got to the heart of the Mandelson crisis in the Commons on Wednesday. Namely, he made the point that it is in fact a Mandelson-McSweeney-Labour Together scandal and the measures taken by the government in the wake of the New Labour grandee’s disgrace only scratch the surface of what is needed.
Byrne told MPs that the row over Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to Washington in December 2024 “was not just a catastrophic error of judgment that has caused profound damage to this government’s reputation.
“It was the result of a clique at the top of the party, as we have seen with the Morgan McSweeney and Labour Together scandal, which I and colleagues … have called on the Prime Minister and the general secretary of the Labour Party to launch an independent investigation into.”
Socialist Campaign Group secretary Richard Burgon underlined the point, asking how Mandelson was even considered for the Washington job.
“It is because it suited the interests of a tiny faction in the Labour Party, funded by big business, which wanted Mandelson at the heart of things in order to shift a Labour government away from the agenda that a real Labour government should have.
“That is why Mandelson was popular with these people … and that is why, despite his despicable character, despite his greed and his avarice, he was put in that position.”
Defence Secretary John Healey arrives for a Cabinet meeting in Downing Street, London, March 3, 2026
…
[Defence Secretary John] Healey pretends Britain and other US-aligned powers have some moral authority to snatch ships on the high seas, depicting Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” as smugglers who must be apprehended by the law.
Actually sanctions on Russia by Britain, the EU and US have no standing in international law at all, since they are not endorsed by the UN security council. Refusing to buy Russian oil ourselves is our right as a sovereign country: seizing it when sold to third parties is straightforward piracy.
Like most of the wind-up Westminster politicians intoning the same set phrases as the world crumbles around them, Healey probably can’t even see what’s obvious to everyone else: talking up his determination to punish “Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine” while deploying British forces to assist Trump’s illegal war on Iran oozes hypocrisy.
…
Healey’s a hypocrite. The whole architecture of unilateral sanctions he upholds has to go: it is a weapon for powerful countries to bully and starve others, most obviously in the six-decade US blockade of Cuba, now tightened to deadly extent through severing the oil supply.
Keir Starmer explains that UK is participating defensively in Trump and Israel’s criminal war for Israel’s genocidal expansion in Iran and states that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Starmer said it here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.Orcas discuss Genocide-supporting and complicit Zionists. Donald Trump, Keith Starmer, David Lammy, Rachel Reeves, Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting are acknowledged as evil genocide-complicit and supporting cnuts.
The byelection in Gorton and Denton this week has been huge for the Green party of England and Wales, with Hannah Spencer pushing Reform’s Matt Goodwin into second place, and Labour into third. Having one extra MP in parliament may not seem like a big milestone, but this byelection win is record-breaking for the Greens. I believe it shows their potential to be a credible alternative to Labour.
The Greens had never won a byelection before. They polled less than 7% of the vote (coming in fourth place) in the Runcorn and Helsby byelection in May 2025. And, unlike Reform UK in that byelection, the Greens didn’t just edge this victory – they took nearly 41% of the vote. That’s a whopping 28-point increase on their performance in the same constituency at the 2024 general election.
The victory has given party leader Zack Polanski the confidence that voters now see the Greens as a viable alternative to Labour, even in former Labour strongholds. He announced to supporters, “this is what replacing Labour looks like”.
Over the past few years the Greens have really professionalised their party. We saw the impact of this in the 2024 general election, when they quadrupled their number of MPs and finished second in 40 constituencies.
Under Polanski’s leadership, they’ve developed a more populist edge, focusing on issues such as the cost of living and moving away from being “just” a climate party. They’ve also had a more visible media presence and started to take their communication strategy more seriously.
Spencer’s win increases the size of the Green parliamentary group to five MPs. In the context of a 650-member House of Commons, this doesn’t seem like much.
The Greens certainly aren’t large enough to swing any votes, or cause the government many problems. And although they now have more MPs than ever before, they are still only the sixth-largest party group in the Commons. There are still over twice as many independent MPs as there are Greens.
The win will, however, give the Greens some breathing space. It’s a tough job being a small party in the Commons, and the existing group of four Green MPs have shared a heavy burden of responsibilities in the chamber since their arrival in 2024. As Spencer finds her feet, she will be able to take on some of these policy portfolio responsibilities.
Having a bigger parliamentary team doesn’t just alleviate some of the pressure to be in the chamber all the time. It also allows the party to be more strategic, and to insert Green voices into more conversations than before.
This could be through places on committees scrutinising legislation, trying to catch the speaker’s eye during high-profile government statements and question times, or holding backbench debates on more local issues. There is no place for passengers in any small party, so we can expect to see Spencer playing a very visible role for the rest of the parliament.
The battle ahead
When the next general election draws closer, the Greens may be grateful of this bigger team. They will want to capitalise on their success in Manchester and continue to professionalise their operations as a national party.
They are also likely to face more hostility at Westminster. Labour is now fighting a war on two fronts. The party’s embarrassing third-place result in Gorton and Denton – which Keir Starmer called “very disappointing” – will have hammered this home. We can expect to see more attacks on the Greens, including in the Commons chamber.
Until now, the prime minister has focused much more consistent attention on discrediting Reform. Now, he needs to worry much more about Polanski and the Greens, and will be directing some focus to winning back Labour voters who see the Greens as the stronger party of the left.
Hannah Spencer celebrates her byelection win in Gorton and Denton with Green Party leader Zack Polanski. Jon Super/Associated Press
We had a glimpse of this in January, when North Herefordshire’s Ellie Chowns used her occasional opportunity to question the prime minister to ask about water pollution. Starmer turned it into a partisan attack on the unrelated topic of Polanski’s comments about Nato.
While the Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, regularly berates Starmer in the Commons, the Greens rarely take such an overtly partisan approach. Reform MPs tend to participate more frequently in high-profile parliamentary occasions, where they can question the government. The Greens tend to have a more balanced, policy-focused approach, regularly popping up on committees to scrutinise legislation.
This is helped by Polanski’s position as a leader who sits outside the Commons (a member of the London Assembly). He can delegate the scrutiny of government policy to Chowns and her colleagues, while he takes broader comments about the government’s performance directly to the press.
This balance will be important as the Greens think about the upcoming local elections. Spencer told the press today that the party can now “win anywhere”, and Polanski predicted a “tidal wave” of Green MPs at the next election.
To do this, they need to maintain the momentum they’ve created this week. This means keeping a tight hold of the former Labour voters who chose them instead in Gorton and Denton.
It will be difficult for the party to carry out the same intensive campaign strategy on a more national level, but this sort of intensity is key to ensuring that the left vote goes to the Greens rather than to the other alternatives. Having more party members than ever before will help with this, but they will need to rely on their on-the-ground campaigners to feel secure.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.Keir Starmer refuses to be outcnuted by Nigel Farage’s chasing the racist bigot vote.Keir Starmer says that the Labour Party under his leadership is intensely relaxed about assaulting those least able to defend themselves – the very poorest and most vulnerable.
dizzy: I won hundreds of pounds by gambling on this election. I have a bet on the Green party at general election at 66/1.
Labour did not simply lose; it disgraced itself. It has been accused of sending leaflets appearing to come from a tactical voting organisation that did not exist, which “recommended” voting Labour based on “a new prediction”. Labour attacked the Greens for their principled opposition to a failed “war on drugs” that leaves a multibillion-pound trade in the hands of criminal gangs and condemns many addicts to early graves.
…
Labour feared a Green victory would be existential. It is. Gorton and Denton ranked 127th on the Greens’ target list. If Polanski’s party can capture one of Labour’s safest seats, then no Labour MP can feel secure. And it is worse than it looks. Canvassers repeatedly told me they met voters – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – who were frightened into backing Labour to stop Reform. They would have voted Green had they believed victory possible. Next time, those people will.
The Starmer project rested on crushing the left. As a mere frontman for the most reactionary and personally toxic elements in his party, he secured power by assuring members he would preserve the radicalism they had voted for – and then buried it. They assumed they could get away with it, confident much of the media would applaud the destruction of socialists as sober statecraft.
But deceit is all Starmerism had – and events in Gorton and Denton show the vacuity of that. There was no animating vision, no reckoning with a broken economic order. What Starmer’s Labour did not anticipate was the re-emergence of the left beyond Labour’s institutional walls. It was comfortable competing with the Conservatives and Reform, aping their anti-migrant rhetoric. It did not regard the left as a legitimate political force: being devoured by the radical left was never in the script. In the end, its war on the left has consumed it.
Labour now faces a reckoning between a Blairite faction urging further defiance of an estranged electorate and others demanding a frantic pivot to win back disillusioned voters. Even if the leadership desired the latter, the parliamentary party is crowded with too many cynical careerists to make it credible. In my view, Labour cannot be saved: it must be replaced. Gorton and Denton suggests that is possible.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer (R) and then British ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson during a welcome reception at the ambassador’s residence in Washington, DC., February 26, 2025
