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

He will stand by anyone.
Well he definitely didn't stand by Rosie Duffield because she knows what a woman is, and that nobody can change sex and dared to voice that opinion. He didn't even invite her as the only sitting Labour MP in Kent to his launch party for the general election which kicked off in Kent! He distanced himself from her totally and wasn't interested in speaking to her.

You could be right,

But he has stood by women as well, in their scandals.
He will stand by anyone.

Until he cant he cant any more.[mandelson].

Rosie Duffield has spoken about the 'Boys' Club Culture ' at No.10. Lisa Nandy has referred to the 'Macho element' which has been a problem in the Labour Party for Years; women are routinely briefed against and there is a sneering culture against those from the North. And this the Labour Party.

Well, Dame Antonia Romeo is to become the first female Cabinet Secretary, and will replace Sir Chris Wormald, set to resign following Mandelson, McSweeney and Tim Allan. Perhaps alarm bells are ringing at last.
A plethora of titles: Dame Antonia, Lord Mandelson, Lord Hermer, Lord Doyle, (sex offender sent to the Lords,) Sir Chris and Sir Keir. All for doing their jobs.

^ Keir Starmer is entirely responsible for appointing Mandelson.^

As I keep writing on multiple threads whenever there is a "scandal", he "stands by everyone".

Looks like that is actually going to prove to be the issue that bring him down.

MOnica is correct, Keir Starmer is entirely responsible for appointing Mandelson.
I don’t believe he ‘forgot’ when appointing MacSweeney that he’d been a protege of Mandelson.
Mandelson seems to have been able to ensure his capacity for manipulation, his numerous significant political and social connections meant potential positives outweighed any risks.

I’m so disappointed. Starmer at the CPS did great work in improving investigations and safety of women and girls.

Just what I was thinking too M0nica

MacSweeney is merely the scapegoat. This decision to send Mandelson to the USA was a collegiate decision with Starmer in charge.

Iam64 has listed the ualities of a top barrister, which Starmer is. There is no way he can wriggle out of his 100% responsibity for this appointment.

As I said MacSweeney is the patsy taaking the blame. I am sure he has been suitably compensated for walking the plank, and will soon surface in a new well-remunerated job somewhere in leftwing political circles.

Iam64

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.

Yes and he seems to have overlooked the fact that McSweeney was a protege of Mandelson.

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.

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

To me, it is all rather irrelevant.

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

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.

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.

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.

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'?

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

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.

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'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?

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

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

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.

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

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

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.