If you thought the Lord Mandelson scandal was Keir Starmer’s fault – considering he appointed the disgraced peer as US ambassador in the full knowledge of his intimate relationship with a convicted paedo – you haven’t read your FT this morning. A hilarious long read blames everyone but Starmer himself…
The pink’un reports:
“The idea was that someone with a hotline to Number 10 — a seasoned politician like Mandelson — should go to Washington, rather than the previous Conservative government’s choice of Sir Tim Barrow, a career diplomat. The idea of Mandelson as ambassador was first promoted by Mandelson himself, as the former New Labour grandee sought one final high-profile public role.”
Uh huh…
It includes laughable source quotes such as: “it’s ironic really, because Keir didn’t even like Mandelson“. That must be why he ignored the advice of the entire government machine, showered Mandelson in praise in public, and appointed him anyway….
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has given the FT both barrels over their “explicitly false story” which claimed he had considered strengthening Treasury oversight of the Federal Reserve “in the Bank of England’s image“. Bessent described the paper as “tabloid trash”…
“Despite my direct, on-the-record denial of ever having advocated, explored, or espoused the idea that Chancellor-Bank of England statute serving as a prototype for a Treasury-Federal Reserve relationship, FT journalists manufactured a story with the headline, “Scott Bessent praised Bank of England as model for tighter oversight of the Federal Reserve.”
These pathetic journalists have clearly fabricated a story to give the impression that both I and the Trump Administration are setting “about restructuring the relationship… at a time when President Donald Trump has launched an unprecedented assault on the world’s most important central bank.”
Their mendacious assertion is based on vague statements from unnamed “financial industry executives familiar with the matter.”
In short, FT has literally manufactured an entirely fake policy position for me and the Administration. Other than furthering a maliciously false narrative of dysfunction and divisiveness, it baffles the mind as to why they would shred their already diminished journalistic credibility.”
At the time of going to pixel, the post is still live on the FT’s site with no update to reflect Bessent’s pushback…
It was a bonanza for financially-minded Chagos-followers on Saturday as the FT dedicated a long-read to the topic in its weekend edition. The only problem: the piece was riddled with errors…
The article described “the Chagos Islands, once neglected dependencies of Mauritius”. No, the Chagos Islands have never been under the sovereignty of an independent Mauritius…
It continued: “The evicted Chagossians campaigned for decades; their case was pressed by Mauritius, which argued Britain had violated international law by dividing the territory before decolonisation.” The Chagossians certainly can’t remember their case being pressed by Mauritius -hello Philippe Sands?
The paper reaches peak FT when it somehow blames Brexit for the Starmer Chagos deal disaster: “The chaos of the Brexit years damaged Britain’s reputation so much that Starmer’s government has understandably decided it must prioritise international legal obligations.” An unusually exotic case of BDS…
Paula Barker, Liverpool Wavertree MP backing Andy Burnham, told Times Radio there wouldn’t be trouble from the markets under Burnham:
“The markets will have to fall in line.”