Keir Starmer Is A Barrister - So How Is It......

Absolutely Devorgilla.
It may all turn out to be a 'good thing' and will destroy foreign interference in our politics.
Improve vetting protocols.
Deny rich foreigners the opportunity to bribe our politicians.

Thanks to those Posters for responding to my general request for evidence that Starmer knew about Mandelson's betrayal of our financial secrets and plans while he previously was in power.
I think this will be the charge that will bring him to trial.

Devorgilla

Perhaps the best thing that will emerge from the current situation is that it opens the door wide to an overhaul of the whole system. Checks and balances reviewed and new, stricter and tighter ones put in their place. Gordon Brown was saying just that today. I think he, and KS, both of whom have had encounters with PM would be excellent at working together to overhaul the whole system. I believe both of them to be honest, honourable people. I am cynical enough to believe that a great many people in politics prefer a 'slightly' loose system as it gives them a loophole. IMO one of the problems with the current government is there are too many Government MPs. This allows for dissent without responsibility as they know certain things will pass anyway. It would be madness to call a general election now and I think the majority of other parties think so too. We'd get a 'knee jerk' response that won't serve any of us well.

I would have agreed with you about an overhaul but how many times have we heard the phrase ‘lessons will be learned’ and they never ever are.

Gordon Brown I believe to be an honest man, but Starmer, never. He has lost all authority as Prime Minister and lost control of his party. Until he goes there will be none-stop briefing against him, and no Mandelson to tell him what to do.
And as for:
Deny rich foreigners the opportunity to bribe our politicians
rather more important to stop our politicians selling information for bribes, don't you think?

non-stop

Devorgilla

Perhaps the best thing that will emerge from the current situation is that it opens the door wide to an overhaul of the whole system. Checks and balances reviewed and new, stricter and tighter ones put in their place. Gordon Brown was saying just that today. I think he, and KS, both of whom have had encounters with PM would be excellent at working together to overhaul the whole system. I believe both of them to be honest, honourable people. I am cynical enough to believe that a great many people in politics prefer a 'slightly' loose system as it gives them a loophole. IMO one of the problems with the current government is there are too many Government MPs. This allows for dissent without responsibility as they know certain things will pass anyway. It would be madness to call a general election now and I think the majority of other parties think so too. We'd get a 'knee jerk' response that won't serve any of us well.

I think you’re right. Many of us have been saying for a long time that the MP and Minister vetting process in the UK is quite inadequate, what Gordon Brown said gave me some heart that at last something will be done. A good place to start would be with all current MPs from all parties.

Both eazybee. Both are important. Not one or the other, but both.
Don't you agree?

Oreo, I too hate the phrase 'Lessons will be learned' but I think you can make changes that improve things. It does, however, rely on the personnel involved. You need a manager who actually knows how to, and is not afraid to, manage even if it is a close friend. You need a work force prepared to learn, adapt and change. You need staff prepared to accept they got it wrong and acknowledge they need extra guidance and training. Sometimes it means heads need to roll. Generally, organisations have to work with what they have but extra pressure can make a difference. Some will fall by the wayside, but some will rise to the challenge. One of the reasons I believe the young workforce in particular need to be back in the workplace, learning from more experienced staff. In the context of politics, strict checks and balances can work if the people appointed to administer them are of the right calibre, and prepared to be unpopular.

Someone on TV last night said she could not believe that Starmer, as a lawyer who is used to being forensically accurate can be so casual about the “bad advice” he says he was given about Mandelson. I agree with her.

Has he been given "bad advice" about Ch ina too?!

fancythat

Has he been given "bad advice" about Ch ina too?!

or giving the Chagos islands to Mauritius and paying them £101 million per year for the pleasure

Wasn’t he a human rights lawyer? So perhaps less likely than one representing criminals to suss out lies, though whether barristers defending criminals actually care whether they’re lying or not, is open to question. Their job is to get them off regardless.

The Mandelson scandal is why past polititians should not be recyled.
Too much baggage, too many conrtoversial decisions, leave them in the house of lords where they cant do much damage

I don’t agree with that as a concept David49. It would mean that every new government consisted of 100% untried, inexperienced ministers.

I've wondered the same thing Mae13, but I guess the point that barristers are supposed to be only interested in evidence and not in 'gut feeling' might apply, This is of course difficult to agree with when you think how our human nature often intrudes in our conclusions about things. . However, one thing that seems to be apparent to me is that barristers stick together. I became very cynical about Sir Keir when his friend and ex barrister colleague Lord Hermer got his peerage. It was as if he got it so Sir Keir could appoint him from the Lords as Attorney General without having to bother with him being voted for. I can't seriously believe these old friends don't have private chats about political decisions. It's human nature!
Wonder if Hermer will stay on if Sir Keir goes?

Casdon

I don’t agree with that as a concept David49. It would mean that every new government consisted of 100% untried, inexperienced ministers.

That, of course is the problem with the current government too many untried and inexperienced ministers.

These include the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Excheguer.

M0nica

Casdon

I don’t agree with that as a concept David49. It would mean that every new government consisted of 100% untried, inexperienced ministers.

That, of course is the problem with the current government too many untried and inexperienced ministers.

These include the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Excheguer.

I think the same applies to the majority of governments though M0nica, they are a mixture of tried and untried ministers.
It’s impossible when the party has been out of power for some years to field all experienced ones, particularly if they have a lot of baggage. If the Tories win the next election they would have the same issue. The best we can hope for is that some have experience. The worst case scenario is David49’s suggestion that none of those with experience serves again.

Leading members of opposition have plenty of knowledge of how government works, in any case Civil Servants guide ministers on the protocols involved, they are the ones that actually implement any new policy

David49

Leading members of opposition have plenty of knowledge of how government works, in any case Civil Servants guide ministers on the protocols involved, they are the ones that actually implement any new policy

Have you never watched 'Yes Minister'?

Im sorry, David49 what help is it if the opposition have experienced ministers but the new government doesn’t, that makes no sense. None of us want to see corrupt ministers, but it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to bar all former ministers from serving again in a new government.

My experience is that barristers, especially KCs have the capacity to forensically review evidence and get to the truth, quickly.
Starmer’s genuine commitment to improving safety for women and girls was demonstrated at the CPS. His appointment of Mandelson was at odds with his demonstrated and expressed belief systems.
Was he persuaded by MacSweeny the risks were outweighed by the positives a known Machiavellian liar could use in the Trump Whitehouse?
Disaster for Starmer, the LP and our country. We need stability, we need confidence in our parliament.

Starmers problem is that his MPs dont support his policies, its not government, its internal politics and discipline that is the issue. Possibly the only way for him to survive is a move to the left, its clear that the Mandelson advice was wrong and he believed it, his own party is using it as an excuse to change leader.

To me, it is all rather irrelevant.

Cant see him in power past May. One way or another.

M0nica

David49

Leading members of opposition have plenty of knowledge of how government works, in any case Civil Servants guide ministers on the protocols involved, they are the ones that actually implement any new policy

Have you never watched 'Yes Minister'?

Sorry I thought you realized "Yes Minister" was comedy fiction, real government business is somewhat more orgainzed whichever party is in power. Blair achieved many changes in his time, implemented by the civil service.

The one prominent ex minister is Milliband, former failed leader

mum2three

He seems to take little notice of other people's opinions. Mandelson has been in politics for a long time. Surely anyone who knows him would have warned against his appointment.

On the contrary he seems to have taken a great deal of notice of McSweeney’s opinion, Starmer’s choice for the position was George Osborne but McSweeney wanted Mandelson to have the post and Starmer went along with McSweeney’s advice.