Mandelson's pay out

Apologies dar.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Sarnia

Mandelson' lawyers were demanding £547,000 as the manner of his departure had permanently damaged his employability. The amount he was contractually due was in the region of £40.000 so why has Starmer given him almost double and handed him £75.000?
Am I alone in feeling that he should only have received what the terms of his contract stipulated and not a penny more? Mandelson says that had his lawyers been successful in their bid for over half a million then he would have refused it. Yeah, right!

Parts of your claim are roughly correct Sarnia, but some details are misleading. The £75,000 payment was not a legal requirement; it was a negotiated settlement to avoid a possible employment dispute.

The numbers (demand ~£547k, settlement £75k) are broadly correct.
The law did not require the £75k payment.

It was a negotiated settlement to avoid potential claims under UK employment law (wrongful dismissal/unfair dismissal and fixed-term contract damages).

People's opinion of Mandelson are irrelevant (noise). This was a simple matter of law and UK employers often negotiate a settlement agreement to:

avoid tribunal litigation,
avoid legal costs,
avoid reputational damage.

The £75k appears to have been such a settlement, described by ministers as cheaper than a prolonged legal case. So when the screams of "And who's paying for it?" come, yes, we are. That's how running the country works but the lawyers have ensured that what we pay is as little as possible.

I think most contractual agreements would probably have payment in lieu of notice arrangements, and things like owed holiday pay etc. It's usually pre negotiated.
LemonJam explains it well.

He deserved nothing. If I had breached confidentiality, as he blatantly did, I'd have been sacked on the spot with no payout. These Golden Goodbyes are very common the higher up the tree you are. Remember the massive bankers bonuses following the 2008 financial crash.

The government did very badly in appointing this man in the first place.

Funny how Starmer always claims he was given bad advice. It’s never his fault.

He has the confidence and the experience and the money, to 'chance his arm".

I'm with Cossy: 13.50. and also in 2 minds- heart over head pulling in 2 directions.

It sounds like the amount actually paid equates to the equivalent amount of standard 3 month notice period payable in lieu of notice is payable by law, in this case just over £40k. However he was not on a usual contract but a fixed term 5 year contract whcih carried much more weight than a standard contract, thereby giving PM much more latitude to seek a severance payment beyond the usual 3 month notice period. A total final settlement severance payment of £75k amount was negotiated and finally paid- my head tells me this is a good outcome on balance for the government in those circumstances.

We know Mandelson initially, belligerently and no doubt aggressively, sought £547,000 in lieu of the amount outstanding 4 years plus "fixed term" contract. We know he appoints expensive legal representatives. If he had taken the case to an employment tribunal and been offered more than severance payment negotiated and offered the government/tax payer would pick up also PM's legal costs alongside their own plus the higher severance amount. Employment tribunal awards have no limit or ceiling so always carried great financial risks for employers. It is usual to negotiate a "severance' event in addition to legal as a full and final settlement- and my head tells me the government did relatively well keeping that as low as it did.

However in all the circumstances of course it's morally provocative and frustrating particularly in the context of the police investigation and allegations of PM's misconduct in public office.

Agree with Labradaora, but MOnica I don’t quite see the connection with the working hours of the naval dockyards, much as they seem in need of improvement.

Mandelson with ànd for all his faults is obvs a clever political operator and has been an eminence grise in the Labour Party for decades. That explains a good deal. It was thought that he could be useful working with Trump and there was a perceived need to have him in post before the inauguration. It didn’t work out and the buck rightly ends with Starmer, but I agree that the Labour Party should stop wringing its hands over every email.

Maremia

Wonder what the contractual amount actually was?

In the article I read it mentioned £40.000.

Astitchintime

The manner of his departure had permanently damaged his employability……………..No! He damaged his own employability by his disgusting, despicable, vile behaviour!
When are these sick individuals going to step up and take accountability?!

He's 72 - pension age anyway.

Whilst people of 72 are perfectly capable of still working, it is not as if he's going to be on Jobseekers' Allowance, is he? Someone of his age would not be eligible anyway as he is over pensionable age.

Just when you think he can't sink any lower, he manages it.

Peter Mandelson should never have been offered the Post as Ambassador to America; he has twice been forced to resign, sacked, from Parliament during his political career which should have precluded him ever being considered.

It was Keir Starmer who recommended him, who pushed for his appointment and has been proved to have resolutely ignored advice from several well-informed parties, one of whom had expressed concerns about his links to Epstein. Starmer's excuse in claiming to have been deceived by his lies insults the intelligence; he had worked with this man since 2021,and would have known his past history.

Mandelson knew his connections with Epstein risked exposure but accepted the post with no concern for possible repercussions No doubt he expects Starmer to take full responsibility and has shown he has every intention of claiming maximum reparation.
No honour among thieves.

Labradora

winterwhite

Unless I’m mistaken all this happened before the matter of Mandelson sending sensitive information to JE came to light, and he has plausibly argued that being gay he had no part in/interest in the trafficking of young women.
Should people really lose their jobs because they have dubious friends? In this case yes, but there is a case for the £75k

I agree that this happened before the passing sensitive info stuff and I also have reservations about people losing their jobs because they have dubious friends.
The appointment of Mandelson has been clearly stated to have been a "political" appointment and I am guessing that the Government took a punt on Mandelson being a Trump Whisperer( that everybody was desperate for) and that he could steer clear of the Epstein scandal because of his sexual orientation. So he was re-employed after his second dismissal just as he was re-employed after his first.
The world is literally blowing up and there are massive domestic problems and I honestly ask myself why the Government is spending so much time on Mandelson.

Mandelson had a history of dodgy deals and dodgy connections and had had to resign from Cabinet on at least one occasion for breaking the rules governing his money affairs. Those alone should have been enough to exclude him fom this prestigious appointment.

Nobody owed him anything. He had already satisfactorily feathered his nest by trading off his connections in the heart of Labours financial affairs and donors.

It has come to public knowledge to date, that the reason all the government papers are almostsueaky clean on this affair are because most communication and ealing on this affair was done through personal email accounts of Morgan McSweeney. These of cours area, as they say, personal, so none of what went on on this personal account cannot be released because they accounts are personal and Morgan McSweeney is no longer a government employee. By the way, how big was his payoff?

I think this issue is immensely important because, as we have seen, The British government has been shown up on the world stage an recent weeks as a country that cannot make a fast naval response to a major world problem because dockyard workers only work 9.00 - 5.00.

It also shows that this government placed paying political debts, by giving a key diplomatic post to someone utterly unsuitable and against best advice, because they owe him and the uestion arises what and why did they owe him that with someone Trump in the White House it was more important to assuage Mandelson than place the best ualified person in the job at a time of such great threat.

Astitchintime

The manner of his departure had permanently damaged his employability……………..No! He damaged his own employability by his disgusting, despicable, vile behaviour!
When are these sick individuals going to step up and take accountability?!

Many dont.
They go to their grave and beyond, like that.

winterwhite

Unless I’m mistaken all this happened before the matter of Mandelson sending sensitive information to JE came to light, and he has plausibly argued that being gay he had no part in/interest in the trafficking of young women.
Should people really lose their jobs because they have dubious friends? In this case yes, but there is a case for the £75k

I agree that this happened before the passing sensitive info stuff and I also have reservations about people losing their jobs because they have dubious friends.
The appointment of Mandelson has been clearly stated to have been a "political" appointment and I am guessing that the Government took a punt on Mandelson being a Trump Whisperer( that everybody was desperate for) and that he could steer clear of the Epstein scandal because of his sexual orientation. So he was re-employed after his second dismissal just as he was re-employed after his first.
The world is literally blowing up and there are massive domestic problems and I honestly ask myself why the Government is spending so much time on Mandelson.