Mandelson

[CollieModdle]

Should he / will he face criminal charges?
For sending sensitive / confidential information to Epstein?

Obviously the man’s integrity was in the sewer and it would break every code of good practice in public office to discuss raising Epstein’s point of view with the Chancellor but that probably counts as misconduct rather than criminal?

But forwarding sensitive e mails that could threaten the financial security of the country?

The peerage thing is a distraction.

The market abuse case looks slam-dunk. 7 yrs maximum jail.

Does anyone more knowledge know how this would be sentenced? It’s not clear that he got any large financial benefit (he didn’t trade himself or sell the info). Otoh, these were massive financial events, leaked directly from the PM/Treasury papers by a cabinet minister.

Well if the people on this thread who know Mandelson better want to spill any beans…

I don’t usually like The News Agents, but there’s a bit this morning where Emily Maitlis talks about the barriers women see to entering public life, and how many of them decide it’s not worth the scrutiny/abuse. And then, by contrast, all these men (I know not exclusively men, but Jesus there are a lot of them) who saw no problem at all in hanging out with a man convicted of child prostitution. She gets properly angry, it made me want to stand up and applaud. Mandelson can get to fuck with his by-the-rote apologies to women and girls. He didn’t give a fuck.

I have always despised him but presumed that he knew where bodies were buried and that is why he kept coming back!

Looks like his own bodies are coming out to haunt him now though. What karma.

I hope he is charged with misconduct in public office. I'm fed up of there being no consequences for public figures, other than loss of reputation. (I include Michelle Mone, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnston, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and many, many others in this category.) All these people lining their own pockets, furthering their own futures whilst stabbing their own country in the back and all the taxpayers in it. Enough!!!!!

We can have dishonest people in the Cabinet because they are good at spin. Spin being of course anathema to honesty in politcs anyway.

And relations with Trump? You do wonder why he may have such good relations with Trump. It cant just be the fact he used to be seen as amusing although looking at the emails between him and Epstein I'm not sure we can say that any longer.

Cant stand Emily Maitliss usually, but I agree with her there.

If there is evidence of criminal behaviour - and I'm no lawyer but it's hard to see how this would not fall under the definition of misconduct in a public office and/or some other criminal act - then of course he should face trial and whatever consequences might ensue. We need to shine a light on this stuff, no matter how uncomfortable the truth might be.

There also needs to be further investigation of exactly what was known when and by whom when he was appointed to the US Ambassador role. And if certain things weren't known, was that because of a lack of due diligence or some other reason.

And yes, we need to find a quick way of stripping peerages from people who don't uphold high standards of conduct in public life.

This looks awful for the Labour Party, no doubt. But the other parties might do well to focus their attention on how we can improve systems and processes to prevent this kind of corruption and misconduct in the future and/or deal with it more effectively when it happens, because the truth is that there could be rotten eggs in any party. It's very easy to use this particular story for scoring cheap party political points (and of course, the Labour Party would do exactly the same if the scandal involved someone from a different party - and indeed have done in the past) but what MPs of all parties really need to do is focus on how this was ever allowed to happen and what could be done to prevent it from happening in the future.

The trouble is everyone knew he was a rotten egg due to past performance. And yet he was let back into the Cabinet and appointed ambassador. Rotten egg in plain sight.

To some extent, yes, but I think further investigation is needed to understand exactly what was and wasn't known when appointments were made - to GB's cabinet in the first instance, and then more recently as US Ambassador. What questions were asked, what questions did people fail to ask and why? Who was involved in the decisions and what exactly did each of them know at that time? And what were the specific thought processes were when those decisions were made, including any decisions to overlook past misconduct to the extent that this was known about?

There needs to be detail and proper accountability. If we just say that it was always obvious that he was a wrong'un, and nobody should ever have appointed him to anything, then I don't see how we are going to learn a great deal from the mistakes that have been made.

But there was a huge hullabaloo when he was appointed ambassador. Everyone was saying it was an accident waiting to happen based on past behaviour. And it came to pass. Surely politicians have to assess foreseeable risk? It would be like appointing Boris Johnson has PM again. Bound to go wrong. We all know it. Why do it.

The problem is the judgment of the person doing the appointing.

I don't disagree with you, it was a bad judgement. But I don't think we should just leave it at that - people do make bad judgements, and leaders other than Starmer will make them again in the future. What I want to know is how we might be able to improve our systems and processes in ways that will help to safeguard us against such bad judgements in the future.

I do agree but I honestly dont think its the system that was the problem in this case. It was Starmer doing something that he had the power to do but was clearly stupid. Can you guard against a PM exercising his power of patronage badly? Presumably he was advised against it. Should the PMs power of appointment now be limited?

Well, maybe?

I don't know exactly how these decisions are made, but there need to be enough checks and balances in place to ensure that our national security doesn't rest on the poor judgement of one individual. Some PMs will inevitably have better judgement than others but ultimately they are all human and they are all fallible.

We have a system of collective government in the UK - we don't have an absolute monarch or an all-powerful president. I don't want any PM to be given too much unfettered power.

Yes there is collective cabinet responsibility. But the PM has power of patronage which was one of those things we learned at school as being useful. I don't know who has ultimate power in this case. Presumably the King just appoints whoever is recommended by the PM.

If anyone is interested, here is a good explanation for how our diplomats, including Ambassadors, are appointed: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/how-are-diplomats-appointed/

Looks to me like there is room for a much more formal process!

He’s none of that.

Read up on him. There’s a reason he is known as “The Prince of Darkness” and none of them good.

I guess I'm saying I don't want the PM to have the power of patronage.

This isn't just about Starmer. Look at some of our recent PMs - Boris Johnson, Liz Truss... would you trust them to make good, solid judgements? What about the prospect of Farage as PM, who previously appointed a Russian agent as leader of Reform in Wales?

I want a system with better checks and balances that limits the power of individuals to make bad decisions.

Yes in that case I agree with you.

There needs to be detail and proper accountability. If we just say that it was always obvious that he was a wrong'un, and nobody should ever have appointed him to anything, then I don't see how we are going to learn a great deal from the mistakes that have been made.
I don't see that it an either / or; two things can be true at the same time.
Short term: Mandelson is a known wrong'un and Starmer should never have appointed him. What was he thinking!
and
Long term: the system needs to be investigated, so that we can have proper checks and balances for the future.

Nor did I @EdithBond @Efacsen it should be made very public.

I don’t, in fairness! However I wasn’t aware he was such a criminal.

@Pineneedlesincarpetis right. It was a terrible decision to bring him back.

Yeh I don’t listen to that podcast but she has a point.

Isn't it? What a spiteful little bastard he is re Mo Mowlem (a genuine 'great' imo)

Add that to giving away national security info (tunnels under Downing St?)
Arranging attempts to 'threaten' the then Chancellor (Darling)
As well as happily taking wads of cash from someone who was convicted of solicitation of minors / prostitution.
He needs formally kicked out of the Lords and a criminal court case bringing.

Have a look at his chequered past. Its a roller coaster!

I didnt say "criminal". I said he was out of control for years.

Being involved in selling off UK assets and ensuring your mates get first dibs. After Johnson's contracts with mates I expected Labour to be better. Was it McSweeney who pushed for him to be ambassador?
Is it unreasonable to treat the Mandelson case as equal in seriousness to The Cambridge Spies and Anthony Blunt.?