StephenKMackSD's Blog

Political Observer : Mr. Eaton focuses on this melodrama, while Starmer and his cadre hope to quell the near revolt, or something akin to that? Have I miss-read it?

stephenkmacksd.com/

Feb 12, 2026

Keir Starmer has entered the anger stage of his premiership. As much was made clear by his response to Ed Davey at yesterday’s PMQs. After the Lib Dem leader, with a reasonable but wounding tone, accused Starmer of a “catastrophic lack of judgment” over the appointments of Peter Mandelson and Matthew Doyle, the Prime Minister snapped back that Davey “should take accountability and responsibility” for austerity. That might have worked as a riposte to a question over public spending but it fell short given Davey’s subject was links to paedophiles.

The latest story concerns the case of Sean Morton, an ex-Labour councillor twice convicted of possessing indecent images of children. Doyle, Starmer’s longest-serving director of communications, campaigned for Morton – who stood as an independent candidate in May 2017 – even after he had been charged (Doyle says he accepted Morton’s claims of innocence and has apologised). The Sunday Times’ Gabriel Pogrund reported as much on 27 December 2025 but it was not until Tuesday of this week, as the Mandelson scandal swirled, that Doyle had the Labour whip withdrawn. For now, as the party investigates, he retains his peerage (Lucy Powell, Lisa Nandy and party chair Anna Turley have called for its removal).

It is Starmer’s judgment that is once again the central question. The Prime Minister did not know that Doyle had campaigned for Morton but he did know that he had been “supportive” of him. Five days before Doyle’s peerage was announced, Scottish Labour’s Pam Duncan-Glancy resigned as the party’s education spokesperson over her close friendship with Morton, making the Prime Minister’s decision to proceed even stranger.

But had Starmer kept his word he would never have been in this invidious position. Back in 2022, he told Labour peers that he would strip politicians of the power to make appointments to the Lords, vowing to “restore trust” after Boris Johnson stuffed the house with “lackeys and donors”. Starmer was right: peerages, doled out as a reward for factional allies or a bauble to potential foes, are an inevitable source of scandal.

Yet in office the temptations of patronage have proved irresistible to Starmer. And so Britain’s unelected second chamber – the largest in the world after China’s National People’s Congress – continues to swell (with only hereditary peers set to be removed).

There is a complacent view in Westminster that subjects such as Lords reform are the preserve of constitutional obsessives, a distraction from the “bread and butter” of politics (in 2009, David Cameron privately described Lords reform as a “third-term issue”). But the elevation of those with links to Epstein and Morton has seen Labour, in the words of Emma Lewell MP, branded the “paedo protectors party”. Starmer is certainly right to be angry – but principally with himself.

Editor: The question that is avoided at all costs, with Eaton and the whole of the British Polititcal Class, is the reality of Jeremy Corbyn’s forced expultion from respectable British Politics. That made way for Tony Blair’s political catamite Keir Starmer!

Political Observer.

Newspaper Reader.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Feb 11, 2026

Opinion Keir Starmer

Britain should pray that Starmer survives

The country did not and would not vote for the Labour left

An unsustainable situation can be sustained for quite a long time. John Major, Gordon Brown and Theresa May all governed the UK for years after the apparent collapse of their authority. On balance, it is better that Sir Keir Starmer does the same.

“On balance”, because there is no good outcome here. Starmer can only survive by pleasing the many Labour MPs to his left. If he falls, the likeliest successor will come from that same quarter. Either way, Britain is about to get a government it did not and would not vote for. When the likes of Ed Miliband tell Starmer to implement “change”, that is Labour-speak for “policies we couldn’t persuade the country to support in 2015”. Or indeed 2017 or 2019.

So why, if there is to be a mandate-less turn to the left anyway, should Starmer stay?

First, he has at least shown some aptitude for foreign affairs (outside of the occasional ambassadorial appointment). Don’t assume that his successor as prime minister would be able to continue his ongoing diplomatic project: a rapprochement of sorts with Europe and China without alienating the US. The world is not tranquil enough right now to risk finding out.

The other reason to keep Starmer is that a new prime minister would come under immediate pressure to call a general election. If one takes place, a country that has not known much calm for a decade would be disrupted again. Even if it doesn’t, that prime minister would be paralysed by a lack of mandate.

Now a word about the principal alternative to Starmer. From time to time, a political party convinces itself that it has a real “character” on its books. Any evidence that voters are less charmed is tuned out. A Conservative example is Jacob Rees-Mogg, the cartoon blue blood who so amused the wider electorate that he lost his seat. Angela Rayner is Labour’s character. The personal ratings of the former deputy prime minister, who resigned over a property tax, are comparably bad to those of Jeremy Corbyn. Still the notion persists that voters would love her straight-talking woman-of-the-people shtick.

Other alternatives to Starmer include an electoral reject from over a decade ago (Miliband) and the changeling Andy Burnham. In all three cases, the scariest thing is their analysis of the government’s plight.

You have to have access to a special plane of consciousness to believe that Labour is unpopular because it is not leftwing enough. This is a government that removed a child benefit cap that a majority of voters wanted to remain in place (including most Labour voters). It increased taxes on “working people”, having said that economic growth would obviate the need for such measures. It increased regulation on employers and — those other class enemies — landlords. A large plurality of Brits now believe that taxation and spending are too high.

Labour is disliked in large part because it has governed to the left of the prospectus on which it was elected. Anyone who believes the direct opposite is too eccentric of mind to hold the highest office.

And so it must be Starmer. Better a semi-reluctant leftward turn than an enthusiastic one. None of this is to exonerate him. The Tories took six years in office to begin disintegrating. His government has done it in about 18 months, and even that is an overgenerous estimate. In truth, it never recovered from that first Budget.

Besides the incompetence, there is the question of Starmer’s fibre. Before he let a chief of staff called Morgan McSweeney twist in the wind, he let a chief of staff called Sue Gray twist in the wind. He gave up on welfare reform because of protests that would register 4.5 at most on a Richter scale of political dissent. (The government died with that capitulation, I think.) It should be a big thing to suggest that a prime minister is a moral coward. Notice how little fuss there is when the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch does just that. People know.

Still, if Britain should have learned anything from the past decade, it is to scrutinise the idea of “change” more seriously. The faults of EU membership never amounted to a case for leaving. The odiousness of the post-2016 Conservatives was never a good reason to give Labour a landslide. Here is a third opportunity to learn the lesson. The failure of Starmer is not an argument for a new leader.

Part of me thinks a Rayner or Burnham putsch is historically necessary: that only when an avowedly leftwing government is tried and tested to destruction will Britain accept that it must reform its unaffordable state. But that is a columnist’s fancy. Countries must prioritise the practicalities, such as having the least bad available prime minister at any given time.

When asked to re-elect a Labour government to a full second term, the British have always said no, except under Tony Blair. As rash as it is to predict an election that could be three and a half years away, Labour should start to contemplate a scale of defeat on an unrecoverable scale. It is already inviting trouble by straying some way from its 2024 mandate. It is now shaping up to do even more of what no one voted for, egged on by “soft left” MPs who would be out of their depth in a champagne coupe. In suggesting that Starmer should remain in charge of all this, it is hard to know if one is doing him a favour or volunteering him for hell.

Editor: The actual problem that Ganesh’s shadow boxing of a kind seeks to obfuscate, via his political roulette, is that Jeremy Corbyn was subject to a Public Linching, led by respectable political hacks like himself!

Newspaper Reader.

Two comments from readers of The Financial Times:

2/12/2026

2 Likes∙

2 Restacks

Newspaper Reader.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Feb 11, 2026

Alexander Mercouris

Starmer Clings On As UK Gov Unravels;

0:00 – Introduction and reminder to like and subscribe
0:31 – Overview of the British political crisis involving Peter Mandelson and Keir Starmer
3:15 – Starmer’s admission of knowledge about Mandelson’s Epstein connections
6:50 – Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney scapegoated and resignation
11:32 – Analysis of McSweeney’s resignation letter and implications for Starmer
18:01 – Responsibility for Mandelson’s appointment likely lies with Starmer
25:47 – Additional resignations and growing crisis in Starmer’s government
28:21 – Impact of upcoming Manchester by-election on leadership change timing
30:39 – Prospects for policy change under potential new Labour leadership
33:19 – Insider information on Rishi Sunak’s views on Ukraine policy
36:00 – Critique of Starmer’s character and political actions

…

Headline: Starmer Has an Epstein, Not Truss, Moment

Sub-headline: Personal probity is the very least of the British prime minister’s problems, and markets are in for a period of uncertainty.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-02-10/uk-politics-starmer-has-an-epstein-not-truss-moment?srnd=phx-opinion

Epstein’s Political Victims

The Jeffrey Epstein scandal is poised to bring down its first major political leader. That’s not surprising. But it’s amazing that the head to roll looks likely to be that of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Unlike US President Donald Trump, there is no evidence that he ever even met the convicted pedophile. Personal probity is the very least of his problems.

And yet he is in terrible political trouble. His House of Commons majority is unassailable and his mandate runs until the summer of 2029, but bettors predict he will be out of office by the end of June:

…

Editor: This collection of ‘data’ titled ‘A Prime Minister in Trouble’ is political window dressing, a holdover from John Authers time as ‘A former chief markets commentator at The Financial Times’ .

…

The catalyst was his 2024 decision to make the Labour Party grandee Peter Mandelson ambassador to the US, in the hope that he could smooth the relationship with Trump. Mandelson was fired after his gushing correspondence to Epstein came to light, and the scandal rose to a far more dangerous level last week when the latest downloads revealed emails he had sent to the disgraced financier when he was deputy prime minister, alerting him to market-sensitive policy decisions. This is extremely bad for Mandelson; but there’s no suggestion Starmer knew this when he hired him.

The appointment attracted much commentary at the time, but little condemnation. However, in the last two days, Starmer’s chief-of-staff and head of communications have been forced to resign over the issue, with his chief civil servant now likely to follow. Monday brought a call from Anas Sarwar, the Labour Party’s leader in Scotland, for the prime minister to stand down.

How can a long-dead American pedophile possibly bring down a British prime minister he never met? Tina Fordham of Fordham Global Foresight offers two explanations:

I can’t decide is this just the latest example of the particular disease we have here in the UK, where our politicians are seemingly simultaneously comparatively cheap to bribe…and our political culture is deeply self-righteous…or if the UK government is merely the first casualty in what will become a wider Epstein-induced decapitation strike on the Western political and business establishment.

Editor: John Authers then trades in ‘Market Metaphysyics’? Though it resembles Miss Havisham’s wedding cake!

Markets must now tolerate protracted uncertainty. Labour Party elections take about two months, and there’s no clear front-runner. The most plausible candidates are ideologically to the left of Starmer, and more likely to stoke fiscal problems. Gilt yields jolted up noticeably after Sarwar called for him to go.

…

Editor: With only 304 more words and graphs, that awaits the reader attention, and waining patience!

Newspaper Reader.

An Economist Reader from Dec 09, 2021 offers insights. Zanny Menton Beddoes has replaced this duo- note that she conducts her interviews, as if her male companions were mere widow dressing!

stephenkmacksd.com/

Feb 10, 2026

Adrian Wooldridge on the Political Apostacy of The Quincy Institute’s Andrew Bacevich and Michael Swaine. Richard Fontaine, of the Centre for a New American Security, shares the stage!

An Economist Reader comments.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Dec 09, 2021

Headline: What will America fight for?

Sub-headline: The world that the West built after the attack on Pearl Harbour is cracking, not least because America is lukewarm about preserving it

What writer/propagandist, at The Economist, but the redoubtable Adrian Wooldridge, would have the brass to write these paragraphs:

A Line of white-painted moorings in Pearl Harbour—the old “Battleship Row”—traces the history of America’s participation in the second world war. At one end a memorial straddles the sunken remains of the USS Arizona, a battleship destroyed during Japan’s surprise attack on December 7th 1941; most of the 1,177 sailors who perished on board remain entombed in the wreck. At the other end, the USS Missouri looms above the tree-line with its imposing 16-inch guns. It was on her deck that General Douglas MacArthur accepted the formal surrender of imperial Japan, ending the war.

“The ships are the book-ends of the war,” notes James Neuman, the official historian of the naval base at Pearl Harbour. “Their legacy is with us every single day.” Families of deceased veterans still come to scatter their ashes in the waters. Some 30 survivors of the attack will attend a ceremony this week to mark its 80th anniversary.

The “date which will live in infamy”, as Franklin Roosevelt called it, transformed America’s place in the world. The country abandoned isolationism and, with “righteous might”, entered the war in the Pacific. Four days later Hitler declared war on America, ensuring that it would join the war in Europe. Victory in the global conflict, hastened by the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, established America as the world’s dominant power, which would go on to defeat the Soviet Union in the cold war.

…

The American Wound tended by a British Jingo! America’s revenge against the ‘infamy’ were two Atomic Bombs, dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and horrific deaths of civilian populations, and the long lasting deadly effects of radiation on those who survived the blasts! The only nation to ever use Atomic weapons is now the stewards of political sanity? Mr. Wooldridge is in the territory of the Michael Bay, Jerry Bruckheimer, Randall Wallace epic ‘Pearl Harbor’ of 2001?

And its just the first 238 words of this 4,062 word shaming polemic.

A History Made to Measure follows. With the addition of a list of the Bad Policy Actors: Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft’s Andrew Bacevich and Centre for a New American Security’s Richard Fontaine.

The prime venue for such thinking is the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think-tank in Washington set up in 2019 with money from both Charles Koch, a generous funder of right-wing causes, and George Soros, a supporter of liberal internationalist groups. Quincy cheered the withdrawal from Afghanistan. “We were very much heartened by Biden’s decision,” says Andrew Bacevich, its president. He urges Mr Biden to leave the Middle East next. odd military bases and depots around the globe. Such ideas have deep roots. He also thinks America should, over time, withdraw from NATO and close many of its 750-George Washington’s farewell address in 1796 enjoined the young nation to “to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world”. The think-tank takes its name from America’s sixth president, John Quincy Adams, who declared that America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy”.

Yet the Quincy recipe is too strong for most Democrats and Republicans. Commentators chastise it for endangering global stability and America’s security, and being soft on Chinese human-rights abuses. Public opinion seems divided. A poll for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last summer found that Americans approved of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, but were far from ready to abandon American primacy in the world. For the first time, a majority also favoured defending Taiwan.

…

What of Mr Biden himself? “On one side, he looks like our kind of guy,” says Mr Bacevich. “On the other, defence spending is going up for no particular reason. And the administration seems to be leaning into the idea of a cold war with China. Right now, Biden is all over the map.”

**************************************************

Richard Fontaine, head of the Centre for a New American Security, a think-tank whose alumni occupy some prominent positions in the Biden administration, says opinion among foreign-policy experts is broadly split by generation: younger scholars, disillusioned by years of fruitless war in Iraq and Afghanistan, are often sympathetic to the idea of restraint. Any zeal to export democracy has abated. “There is a big disillusionment with the missionary role,” he notes. “They say, ‘after Trump, the Capitol riots and covid, are we really going to tout our model?’” The restrainers’ arguments have been seeping into Washington’s discourse—both among doves who want to reduce America’s commitments globally, and among China hawks who want America to do less in the Middle East and Europe the better to direct attention and resources to Asia and the Pacific.

The Reader’ stamina is being tested, as there are 2,530 words remaining ! Mr. Wooldridge has come to the readers assistance by titling the parts of his essay.

Troubles in battalions

Biden’ his time

Pounding sand

Awaiting the big wave in Hawaii

In need of friends

With the naming of the Apostates, Wooldridge begins his extemporaneous ramblings, on the politics that plague the Neo-Liberal/Neo-Conservative Cadre, that now constitutes ‘Political Centrism’:

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, NATO, Ukraine , China, Taiwan etc., etc. … The Bad Actor Michael Swaine of the Quincy Institute appears:

Others favour retaining a military presence in the Indo-Pacific to “balance” China. Michael Swaine of the Quincy Institute says the cost of war would be enormous. America’s best hope of maintaining stability is not to embark on an arms race with China, but to reduce tensions and seek an accommodation based on an American commitment not to allow Taiwanese independence. “You cannot have deterrence without some degree of reassurance,” he says.’

Wooldridge did identify the Quincy Institute’s, Andrew Bacevich and Michael Swaine, as the central bad actors, in his Political Melodrama. Note Bacevich’s stand on NATO, as the ultimate crime against the American Imperium!

He also thinks America should, over time, withdraw from NATO and close many of its 750-George Washington’s farewell address in 1796 enjoined the young nation to “to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world”.

The concluding paragraph, is the point of arrival of Wooldridge’s shaming polemic, framed by A History Made to Measure. Was it worth The Readers time and patience?

Nevertheless, for all the lurches in America’s politics at home and abroad, many countries will continue to cleave to their main ally. As China, Russia and Iran become increasingly assertive, other countries may be driven closer to America for their own protection. America’s greatest strength is that its magnetic power goes beyond fear. On the day your correspondent visited Pearl Harbour, a pair of British offshore-patrol vessels were moored alongside American destroyers as part of a new, semi-permanent deployment to the Indo-Pacific. And a Japanese submarine was sailing out of port, with its crew lined up topside in white ceremonial uniform. If America succeeds in retaining its dominance in the world, it will be in no small part thanks to its ability to draw in old friends and foes alike.

https://www.economist.com/briefing/what-will-america-fight-for/21806660?utm_medium=social-media.content.np&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_content=discovery.content

An Economist Reader

Newspaper Reader : @FT seemes to echo Zanny Menton Beddoes, and her cadre of kitch meisters, that are Re-Writing American History via readable Politial Snapshots. Daumier & Hogarth be dammed!

stephenkmacksd.com/

Feb 10, 2026

Old Socialist.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Feb 09, 2026

Special report

The visible hand

The crisis of Western liberal capitalism has coincided with the rise of a powerful new form of state capitalism in emerging markets, says Adrian Wooldridge

Jan 21st 2012

https://www.economist.com/special-report/2012/01/21/the-visible-hand

…
State capitalism increasingly looks like the coming trend. The Brazilian government has forced the departure of the boss of Vale, a mining giant, for being too independent-minded. The French government has set up a sovereign-wealth fund. The South African government is talking openly about nationalising companies and creating national champions. And young economists in the World Bank and other multilateral institutions have begun to discuss embracing a new industrial policy.

That raises some tricky questions about the global economic system. How can you ensure a fair trading system if some companies enjoy the support, overt or covert, of a national government? How can you prevent governments from using companies as instruments of military power? And how can you prevent legitimate worries about fairness from shading into xenophobia and protectionism? Some of the biggest trade rows in recent years—for example, over the China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s attempt to buy America’s Unocal in 2005, and over Dubai Ports’ purchase of several American ports—have involved state-owned enterprises. There are likely to be many more in the future.

The rise of state capitalism is also undoing many of the assumptions about the effects of globalisation. Kenichi Ohmae said the nation state was finished. Thomas Friedman argued that governments had to don the golden straitjacket of market discipline. Naomi Klein pointed out that the world’s biggest companies were bigger than many countries. And Francis Fukuyama asserted that history had ended with the triumph of democratic capitalism. Now across much of the world the state is trumping the market and autocracy is triumphing over democracy.

Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy, claims that this is “the end of the free market” in his excellent book of that title. He exaggerates. But he is right that a striking number of governments, particularly in the emerging world, are learning how to use the market to promote political ends. The invisible hand of the market is giving way to the visible, and often authoritarian, hand of state capitalism.

Editor: Reader look to Wooldridge’s Cast Of Characters and the redoubtable Ian Bremmer, given to exaggeration!

Old Socialist.

Newspaper Reader.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Feb 09, 2026

Headline: Britain Needs So Much More Than a New Prime Minister

By Adrian Wooldridge

February 9, 2026 at 4:50 AM PST

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-02-09/starmer-crisis-britain-needs-so-much-more-than-a-new-leader?srnd=phx-opinion

As a long time reader of The Economist when Adrian Wooldridge and John Micklethwait held political sway, via one of their many their Best Sellers ‘The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America’ featuring the toxic politics of Bush The Younger, and his masters Vice President Dick Cheney and the long forgotten Karl Rove Mr. 1 % !

The resignation of Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, on Sunday brings the Starmer era in British politics to an end. The precise timing and mechanism of the prime minister’s defenestration is unclear. But his authority is shot to pieces, and his government has lost what purpose it had.

There is only one subject on the Labour Party’s mind: Who should replace him? The pros and cons of the two main candidates are endlessly debated. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, is a deft media performer. But is that a strength rather than a weakness in the post-Peter Mandelson era, with the party’s former spinmeister now in disgrace? Angela Rayner, the ex-deputy leader, is a charismatic champion of the left. But what about her tax affairs? Al Carns, the armed-services minister and former special-services officer, has made a well-publicized visit to NATO’s northernmost border on Norway’s Russia border. At least this relative unknown is free of political baggage.

But Labour needs more than a new leader. It needs a new sense of direction. The problem with Starmer’s leadership is not simply that he isn’t very good at politics. It is that he has never known what he wanted to do with power. He occasionally flirted with silly ideas — “mission-driven government” one day and reviving the spirit of Harold Wilson the next — only to abandon them. He never had an answer to the basic question: What am I here for?

Ideas are essential to politics because they give you both a sense of direction and purpose. Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair were successful prime ministers because they knew where they were headed and were willing to make sacrifices to get there. Starmer made up for his absence of ideas by over-relying on political operatives, most notably McSweeney, and their standard tools of spin, manipulation and “out of the box thinking,” culminating in the appointment of Jeffrey Epstein’s “best pal” Mandelson as British ambassador to the US.

Where can the Labour government get new ideas from at this late stage? Not from the Blairite right. The Mandelson affair has reminded us of everything that was wrong with the clique of insiders who ran the country during the Blair era. Not from think tanks such as the Resolution Foundation. Clever policies cannot deliver unless they are linked by a guiding philosophy. And not from the big-spending left, whatever Rayner’s political talents. Liz Truss’s disastrous Tory premiership has limited the slack the bond markets will grant the country.

…

Editor: When dose it become utterly transparent that Blair and his cadre, not to speak of whole of the British Political Class, that made a protraced war against Jeremy Corbyn, while Blair nourished the political ambitions of an utter mediocratiy of Starmer! Yet some how the greater of too evils is the very definition of what Stamer manifested?

Newspaper Reader.

Le Monde: Monday, February 9, 2026

stephenkmacksd.com/

Feb 09, 2026

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/

Newspaper Reader.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Feb 09, 2026

Headline: If you’re not terrified by AI, you’re not paying attention

Sub-headline: In Britain it often feels as if this revolution isn’t happening — but it very much is.

Saturday February 07 2026, 11.00pm GMT, The Sunday Times

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/ai-uk-technology-ll28d70n8

Robert Colevile in the Sunday Times of Saturday February 07 2026, 11.00pm GMT, The Sunday Times

Editor: The once reguilar reader of The Economist will be surprised by the comments of Adrian Wooldridge, who now writes for Bloomberg Opinion on the question of Mandelson’ and Starmer’s political trajectories

The challenges for Prime Minister Keir Starmer are piling up. He now faces another blow to his leadership, as further details about ties between Britain’s former Ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein emerge. In his latest Bloomberg Opinion piece, Adrian Wooldridge argues that the fall of Mandelson may be an opportunity for systemic reform, with politicians and the press corps needing to break the habit of manipulating the country from on high and think about the long-term national interest. Adrian Wooldridge joins Stephen Carroll and Anna Edwards on Bloomberg radio to discuss.

Reader I will treat the these paragraphs as the comments of Adrian Wooldridge and not of his fellow travelers!

The Epstein files threaten to topple the government. Not Donald Trump’s in Washington, but Keir Starmer’s in London.
The British prime minister huddled with Labour MPs yesterday in a desperate effort to quell a party rebellion over his disgraced former ambassador to Washington, Peter Mandelson, and his frequent appearances across the 3.5 million pages released by the US Justice Department.
Starmer issued a public apology to Epstein’s victims and said “sorry” for believing Mandelson’s assurances about the nature of his ties with the deceased convicted pedophile.
It may not be enough.
While Westminster is no stranger to sleaze, the explosiveness of the scandal has few parallels in recent British history. Some reach back more than six decades to the Profumo affair, when the then-secretary of state for war’s dalliances with a woman linked to Soviet officials precipitated the downfall of Harold Macmillan’s government.
Already weak and unpopular, Starmer looks to be governing on borrowed time, preserved only because his most likely replacements — such as Health Secretary Wes Streeting and former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner — aren’t ready to challenge him.
The prime minister faces pressure to fire his chief of staff. Betting odds on Starmer leaving office in the first half of the year have soared. It’s been a shocking reverse for the man who led Labour to a landslide election win barely 18 months ago promising a renaissance of the British left.
Instead, he’s battling a resurgence of the populist right, in the form of an antagonistic Trump administration and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.
While Trump’s Democratic opponents were hoping the Epstein files would weaken the president, his British ally Farage may be the biggest beneficiary for now.
The Brexit campaigner only has to stand back and cheer the ongoing scandal.
Little wonder Farage joked yesterday he didn’t want Starmer ousted: “I want him to stay forever.”

Newspaper Reader.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2026/02/06/we-journalists-of-agence-france-presse-believe-management-s-plan-would-lead-to-our-complete-demise_6750227_23.html

stephenkmacksd.com/

Feb 09, 2026

‘We, journalists of Agence France-Presse, believe management’s plan would lead to our complete demise’

Op-Ed

AFP’s journalists’ association

In an effort to cut costs, Agence France-Presse (AFP) management wants to reduce the number of expatriate positions by two-thirds. The reform, which would spell the end of staff mobility, would result in the loss of the agency’s network, warns the AFP’s journalists’ association.

Published on February 6, 2026, at 4:45 pm (Paris) 3 min read Lire en français

Today, behind the acronym AFP, which readers find at the bottom of thousands of articles on the web and in the newspapers worldwide, without always fully understanding what it stands for, behind those three letters mentionned in passing during news flashes on radio and television broadcasts, or appearing under the photos that illustrate the news, lies a global network of several hundred journalists, driven by an ambition to offer their clients the fastest and most reliable information possible.

AFP has forged its strength from its unique perspective on the world, enriched by the six languages it operates in. This unifying force is a diverse and shared vision, regardless of the nationality of its journalists.

As a wholesaler of news, AFP sells its wires, photos, videos, live coverage, fact-checks and infographics to thousands of clients worldwide, the vast majority of whom are other media outlets that value our unique perspective, our rigor, and our independence.

AFP is facing financial difficulties, like many media organisations. To cut costs, management wants to undermine its very foundation and strength: the mobility of its journalists throughout its global network. Because it believes AFP can no longer afford this, it wants to reduce by two-thirds the number of expatriate positions that last three to five years.

Shortsighted plan

Only 80 to 90 positions would retain the financial support (housing, schooling for children, travel, etc.) they currently receive, while the others would be subject to significantly less advantageous local conditions (contracts under the law of the country, salaries, social protection, retirement, etc..).

The strength of the AFP network lies in the synergy between local and expatriate journalists: the in-depth expertise of the former combined with the fresh perspective of the latter and their mastery of in-house know-how. Expatriates are a key element in this balance. They help spread the company culture within the offices and protect their colleagues from pressure by local authorities, particularly in countries with authoritarian regimes.

Reducing the number of expatriates by more than two-thirds (from 270 to 80) will dangerously weaken foreign offices and undermine the principle of journalist mobility. How can you believe that drastically reducing their compensation packages will convince as many journalists to go abroad in the future? How can you believe that, in return, local salaries will be increased, given that management has set itself the objective of making savings?

More seriously, by effectively killing mobility, this reform will cause the agency’s network to collapse – a network in which management is also considering merging bureaus, with the risk of becoming detached from the field, at a time when being close to what is happening has never been more important.

We are obviously aware of the financial difficulties that AFP is facing, like all players in the sector. But we believe that management’s short-sighted plan – driven solely by accounting considerations, would lead to our complete demise.

Without a strategy or a vision for the future, the Agency might stabilise its finances, but its integrity and purpose will die. If what constitutes the very essence of AFP is diluted or disappears, what added value will we have compared to our competitors?

The French state helps fund our international network in the name of our public service mission. If we turn our backs on who we are, there is a real danger that this public funding will diminish or even disappear.

As news agency reporters, we work behind the scenes, in the shadow; our names are not in the spotlight. We have only one ambition: to inform, and keep informing; to be on the ground everywhere; to go where others do not go or no longer go.

Today, given the gravity of the situation, we are appealing for the support of all our clients –media outlets, institutions, NGOs, businesses – of all those committed to maintaining the only international news agency of French and European origin in this world where information has become a battlefield.

AFP’s journalists’ association, with the support of all trade union organizations (SNJ, SNJ-CGT, FO, SUD, CFDT, CFE-CGC, CFTC) and employee representatives on the AFP board of directors.

AFP’s journalists’ association

Translation of an original article published in French on lemonde.fr; the publisher may only be liable for the French version.