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

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.

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

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.

non-stop

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Doesn't it just show that if Starmer
A. Didn't know about this or
B. Didn't think it was any big deal or
C. Didn't want to listen to concerns
that these sort of cock ups are endemic in politics, and in society in general.
I'm tempted to say, whether he did or whether he didn't, that we need to move on, but some things are too big to let them go unchecked.

And I guess even small indiscretions can grow into major disasters. I agree the buck stops with him.

Information from a discussion group concerning Mandelson' appointment as Ambassador in 2024.
1997, Mandelson was credited with being the architect of Labour's win in and the creator of New Labour, along with Blair, Alistair Campbell and Philip Gould.
1998 he fell from favour because of an undisclosed loan from Geoffrey Robinson, MP, whose financial affairs were under investigation, by Mandelson's department. Each accused the other of lying and both were sacked from their posts.
1991 Secretary of State for N.Ireland
2001, allegations of using position to influence passport application for Srichand Hindiya, under investigation by Indian government. Resigned from post, or sacked?
Re elected 2001 but no further cabinet posts; stood down to becomeUK's Commissioner to Eu in 2004.
Conflict of loyalties about his EU pension.
2008 Returned to cabinet under aegis of Gordon Brown, as Business Secretary, more controversy over appointment. Raised to Peerage.
2009 intensive lobbying campaign concerning technical measures for music and film industry.
2010 Labour lost General Opposition.
Pursued business interests, some which aroused suspicion.
2011 discovered Mandelson had approved technical measures in music Industry 2 months before Public Consultation had completed; approved day following letter from CEO of Universal Group.
Mandelson opposed to Corbyn.
2021 advising Starmer to move beyond Corbyn, advised him for several years in his political life unspecified.

Consensus of the group, predominately Labour supporters, was that Mandelson was not a suitable candidate.
The fact overlooked was that from 2021 onward he was an 'advisor' to Starmer, helping him become Leader then Prime Minister.
Payback Time?
The connection with Epstein was unknown to the public; all the focus then was on Andrew. But Starmer knew plenty about Mandelson continual suspect business dealings and his controversial behaviour as a politician, but refused to listen to concerns raised.

Oreo

It doesn’t matter what was said at the time by others ( and they certainly weren’t all for it) the appointment was made by Starmer and the buck stops there.

Well said.

It doesn’t matter what was said at the time by others ( and they certainly weren’t all for it) the appointment was made by Starmer and the buck stops there.

Jonathan Freedland: There’s one argument Starmer could make to save his skin – but he won’t dare do it

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/06/keir-starmer-peter-mandelson-pm-argument

He could say that what has enraged so many, including among his own MPs, was his admission on Wednesday that he had known, when he appointed him, that Mandelson had continued his relationship with Epstein. But, Starmer could say, pointing his finger at the benches in front of and behind him, so did all of you. It had all been laid out, in detail, two years before Mandelson was posted to the US, in a JP Morgan report covered in the Financial Times. Why did so few of you protest at the time? Why, on the contrary, did the Westminster village, including Farage by the way, along with most of the media, support the appointment, declaring it a masterstroke?^

It’s not as though association with Epstein after the latter’s imprisonment was previously understood to be acceptable: look at the response to the then Prince Andrew’s Newsnight interview in 2019. Yet the outrage of that moment had clearly faded six years later. Just before Starmer sent him to Washington, Mandelson had been the chancellor of a British university and the co-host of a Times podcast; he was on screen throughout the BBC’s election night coverage in July 2024. What was once deemed disqualifying from public life was regarded so no longer.

The hypocrisy of the same people now clamouring for Starmer’s head is astonishing.

Of course he knew all that but decided to go ahead and appoint him to the job anyway.
How do we get saddled with these lame duck PM’s🤬

MartavTaurus

Maremia

But with lawyers, isn't it all about 'evidence' not 'feeling'.
What evidence of Mandelson's financial treachery was in the public domain before the recent Epstein info dumps?

Exactly, that's what I said in my conclusion,
Surely he doesn't believe everything someone tells him without thinking very hard about it and requesting absolute evidence?
If your question was to me, straight after my post?

How about being sacked a s a government minister afterit was discovered he had accepted a large interest free loan from another minister being investigated by Mandelson's department. How about putting pressure on the appropriate authorities to grant someone a British passpart?

Those are the two items where he was publically known to be dishonest. In circumstances like that there will also be many people in government circles who will know of numerous other cases, small and large where Mandelson was 'economical with the truth' but where it did not get further than those involved. His nickname 'The Prince of Darkness' goes back to 1985.

If Starmer did not know all this, then he should have and it reflects very poorly on his political skills if he didn't. The evidence would have been there if he wanted it. Mandelson's reputation has always been that of a man that you would not trust in broad daylight in an open field.

It was a general question Martav/T, because someone on the Thread might know. GNs seem to have their sources and research methods.
Was there EVIDENCE before the recent disclosures, that PM was giving sensitive financial information to outsiders and foreign interests?
PM's house is being searched just now by the Police with reference to 'misconduct in public office'.
Allegedly Gordon Brown organised some checks into PM before he appointed him, back in the day. Nothing was found.
Now, that investigation need to be scrutinised.
Who gave the 'all clear' to Gordon Brown?

Thinking back to Yes, Prime Minister and the advice and actions of Sir Humphrey, what were Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister or the Principal Private Secretary thinking when KS appointed Mandelson?

They have big responsibilities and highly paid jobs. Were they not aware of any of Mandelson‘s actions either?

Did they say nothing? Or did KS not listen?

I agree

I still think there's nobody who could replace him at the moment.

However getting rid of him would be a massive mistake for Labour and for the country,

Why?

Maremia

But with lawyers, isn't it all about 'evidence' not 'feeling'.
What evidence of Mandelson's financial treachery was in the public domain before the recent Epstein info dumps?

Yes! My short term experience of the legal world is that legally trained people have no instinct for anything.

Liars get away with things in court all the time- how naive of me to believe this could be 'seen' through!

I find Starmer a typical legal person in this sense- there is little of feeling in him.

However getting rid of him would be a massive mistake for Labour and for the country,

Smileless2012

IMO his anger is because of how badly this reflects on him.

Maybe. I guess that's likely.

Maremia

But with lawyers, isn't it all about 'evidence' not 'feeling'.
What evidence of Mandelson's financial treachery was in the public domain before the recent Epstein info dumps?

Exactly, that's what I said in my conclusion,
Surely he doesn't believe everything someone tells him without thinking very hard about it and requesting absolute evidence?
If your question was to me, straight after my post?

We don’t need the cult of personality in our prime minister. We need workable policies. The country is floundering. nanna8. We deserve better.