Skip to main content

Return of the Undead

Peter Mandelson is an... unusual... political figure.

He began his career as an exponent of the blackest of the black political arts. The quintessential back room boy, he was one of the most ruthless of the political spin doctors who jointly founded the New Labour project. Fiercely loyal to Tony Blair, he repressed anti-Labour stories and promoted the New Labour project with a will that one of my friends, who as a Newsnight producer was a regular recipient of Mr. Mandelson's brand of charmless bullying, did not hesitate to describe as "evil".

Yet, as a Minister, he was surprisingly clumsy. He was forced from office, not just once, but twice under circumstances that would have destroyed any other political career. His forgetfulness over loans advanced to him to purchase his large house in Notting Hill could have left him open to fraud charges. His handling of the Hinduja passport applications was said to be "naive", yet the very word naive seemed the antithesis of this sophisticated and cerebral figure. Even Mr. Mandelson's closely guarded personal life- he has a long-term Brazilian male partner- came into the public realm in the almost farcial disclosure by the journalist, Matthew Paris. Peter Mandelson left British politics under something of a cloud, yet he was still able to gain the significant power of the European Trade Commissioner.

The news that Mandelson is set to return to the Cabinet can only be a shock. It is public knowledge that Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson have long been bitter political enemies. The repressed emotionalism of both men has certainly contributed to a bitter feud. Why then does Gordon Brown want Peter Mandelson in his Cabinet?

The answer can not be that he values his ministerial skills. There are still many high quality figures, such as Denis Macshane, who have not been brought back into government, and Macshane was a far more popular Minister than Mandelson was. Clearly it is for the black arts of political threats and blackmail that Gordon Brown has chosen to resurrect the undead political career of his old enemy.

Mandelson inside the tent may prove to be a more potent political force than he was in more distant Brussels. Yet that threat may prove to be more to the Prime Minister himself than to his opponents across the floor. Mandelson is widely disliked across the country, and having been out of the loop for so long, he is a far less formidable figure than he once was.

It seems somehow appropriate that the dying years of the New Labour project should see the resurrection of the ruthless, dishonest and baleful influence of this most disliked and distrusted politicians. The undead political career of Peter Mandelson joining the Zombie government of Gordon Brown.

I shall be clutching at garlic and crucifixes and loading my pistol with silver bullets. I do not expect to see the Cabinet in daylight at all.

Comments

Newmania said…
You are starting to sound like me ( funny)This was obviously cooked up when the zombie was 20% behind and just about finished in the Labour Party.
He is doing a bit better now (...why why why...) so its another collosal blunder, inexplicable unless you follow the desperate trench warfare of the Labour Party.


Suprised you are interested in such petty stuff C, aren`t you busy saving the world ?
Anonymous said…
It seems to me that Gordon Brown wanted Nick Brown back as Chief Whip and the price to be paid was a senior blairite in the cabinet - Charles Clark hardly; Alan Milburn hardly; - so he was left with Peter Mandelson.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...