Mandelson's pay out

MartavTaurus

And who's paying for it?
I think we know the answer to that. Not Keir Starmer.
I agree, even a penny over what he was worth is disgraceful.

Why would a PM pay a diplomat’s severance package?

Because Starmer made a serious mistake in ignoring well-evidenced advice about appointing him, and his appointment
and subsequent disgrace brought Britain into disrepute.

Sheebee1

IMO - As Keir admitted to misjudging the situation re mandleson he should put that money back into the system from his own pocket - lessons are not learned until those that make mistakes pay - monetarily.

I understand the frustration behind this, but it rests on an overly simplistic view of how democratic accountability works.

It assumes that a political misjudgment should lead to personal financial punishment; that people only learn if they “pay” out of their own pocket. That might make sense in a very basic, almost instinctive way, but it doesn’t map well onto how government actually functions. Political decisions are made collectively, under uncertainty, and with input from advisers and institutions. Outcomes are rarely attributable to one individual in a clean, cause-and-effect way.

In a democracy, accountability is primarily political, not financial. Leaders face scrutiny, reputational damage, and ultimately the judgment of voters. If every mistake carried personal financial liability, you’d likely end up with leaders who avoid difficult or risky decisions altogether.

That said, the underlying concern - that decision-makers don’t seem to face meaningful consequences - is a fair one. But the answer isn’t to treat governance like a system of personal punishment. It’s to strengthen the mechanisms that already exist: transparency, scrutiny, and electoral accountability.

Reducing it to “they should pay personally” might feel satisfying, but it oversimplifies a system that depends on shared responsibility and informed judgment, not just punishment.

Fine words, but if politicians were held rather more accountable financially for their poorer decisions, as in Starmer's choice to give prime roles to his 'friends,' he might consider them more carefully.
He clearly does not care; we do.

eazybee

Because Starmer made a serious mistake in ignoring well-evidenced advice about appointing him, and his appointment
and subsequent disgrace brought Britain into disrepute.

Cameron, Johnson and Truss brought Britain into disrepute years ago.

Basgetti

eazybee

Because Starmer made a serious mistake in ignoring well-evidenced advice about appointing him, and his appointment
and subsequent disgrace brought Britain into disrepute.

Cameron, Johnson and Truss brought Britain into disrepute years ago.

Yes, I don’t think judging by the mount of press coverage that anybody else is interested much in Mandelson, it’s a UK issue. Unfortunately Prince Andrew is of far more international interest.

eazybee

Fine words, but if politicians were held rather more accountable financially for their poorer decisions, as in Starmer's choice to give prime roles to his 'friends,' he might consider them more carefully.
He clearly does not care; we do.

I think this gets to a deeper disagreement about what accountability in a democracy is supposed to look like.

What you’re describing is closer to a consumer model where, if a decision turns out badly, the individual who made it should personally compensate for it. I can see why you feel that is fair. But the difficulty is that political decisions aren’t like faulty products. They’re made under uncertainty, often collectively, and their outcomes can’t be cleanly attributed to one person, although some try to frame it that way.

If you build a system where politicians are financially punished for “bad” outcomes, you create a strong incentive to avoid any decision that carries risk. The safest move becomes doing very little, or choosing whatever looks least controversial in the short term. That doesn’t produce better government; it produces more cautious and less effective government.

I hear your frustration. It often feels like there aren’t meaningful consequences. But in a democracy those consequences are meant to be political, e.g., scrutiny, loss of trust, and ultimately being voted out—not personal financial liability.

The real question isn’t how to punish individuals more directly, but how to make those political forms of accountability actually bite.

DNA - do you have a solution? As it’s a shame democracy enables these types of politicians to prosper (monetarily), before, during and long after they have left Westminster.

I think you may have been asking me as there doesn't seem to be appear to be someone calling themselves DNA Sheebee1. If so, may I refer you to the last paragraph of my last post.

Apologies dar.