The price of Mandelson's support

Sir Graphus

None of this makes sense unless there's a project to preserve the Blair brand So he can become President of Europe, and Mandy to have a right-hand man role. Must ensure Gordon hangs around so that Lisbon is a done deal.

Sally Chatterjee

"preserving the Blair Brand"

This is surely one of the most sullied political brands around? A potential war criminal, he egged on a housing boom and surrendered chunks of domestic policy to his bullying neighbour from hell. Abroad, Blair was lampooned as the poodle of incompetence personified, George Bush Jnr.

Politics became all about substance and the repeated passing of legislation instead of enforcing existing rules.

Blair was always about "I believed it was the right thing at the time" and this lawyerly gambit lives on today with MPs and their expenses, which were infamously "within the rules".

Is it worth so much political capital to defend one of the most tarnished brands in politics?

oldtimer

Interesting and, no doubt, authoritative. Does this mean we should set aside the other Machiavellian theory, namely that Mandelson is propping up Brown to ensure no early general election and, therefore, no chance of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty before Ireland votes a second time?

Maybe the Czech President and/or the German constitutional court will save us by delaying their decisions until after we have a general election and referendum here. We can but hope.

Marbury

This is such tosh I can't believe you're writing it. First of all, you present the 'deal' as if it was part of Mandelson's emergency post-Purnell save-Brown operation - the "make-or-break hours". But the piece itself says it was a "done deal" before Purnell resigned. How long before? Hours? Weeks? Months? The lack of clarity here fatally undermines the story.

You present the question of why Mandelson saved Brown as if it was some mystery that has only now been solved - I won't patronise your readers by explaining the very clear reasons he did so, none of them connected with this rather implausible 'deal'.

Third, you repeat the author's absurd assertion that Mandelson joined the government to save the Blair 'brand'. When in fact, if anything, he did so to separate himself from it - to establish himself as a player independent of Blair's patronage.

I have no brief for Blair or Mandelson or any of the others, but I just get irritated when the habits of sloppy, irresponsible and frivolous reporting spread to quality publications.

You can hardly hold GB to account for his porkies if your own standards of truth are so shabby.

diswiss

What an utter breathtaking disgrace.
One is left speechless.
How can this be allowed to go on?

Disorganised1

It says everything that we all know the inquiry will not bring any politician before the courts. We know we were lied to and Parliament knows it was lied to. Yet we know we'll be whitewashed, and lamb-like we line up for it to happen.

Peter Wilson

@Oldtimer: Maybe the Czech President and/or the German constitutional court will save us by delaying their decisions until after we have a general election and referendum here. We can but hope.

The German constitutional court is due to give its decision on 30th of this month, so the Czech President is our best bet.

The Czech President's office has heavily hinted in recent months that it would be easier for him to delay his signature until next year if he receives support from UK MPs, MEPs and even UK citizens themselves etc.

So get writing! I've written already to the Czech President himself and to my own MP - it may just make a difference.

Vulture

Apart from your nauseating habit of continuing to refer to these scumbags by their Christian names - 'Peter' & 'Gordon' Yuck! - to show how inside track you are, you miss the main point of the story: Viz. that this 'deal' has fallen apart quicker than the Granita Latte cooled: the hearings won't be in private;
witnesses will be questioned etc etc. This time its B.liar who can turn round and say 'There is nothing you can tell me that I would ever believe'. Poetic justice, I guess.

Ivan D

Agree totally with Marbury: one of the worst cover pieces in a *long* time. Just one thing from me: what a pity you choose to endorse the - entirely retrospective - garbage that Hutton was 'manageable'. Hutton was *honest*, something the hacks he reported on, and who reported him, are seemingly quite incapable of being.

Ian C

Marbury,

You should expand on what you think - that is why we are here.

Dirty Euro

This does not seem likely me. Why have the terms of the inquiry changed then.
Surely Mandy could have appointed Milliband or another Blairite who would have done the same.
Plus the tories could easily get another inquiry, to harm Blair, if they win. So the deal would be a total waste of time.
Plus who gave the details on the deal away. It would make Blair look like h has something to hide and the PM look weak.

grace the collie

Have to agree with marbury, and the biggest laugh is when you say that John Kampfner is "A must-read by an impeccable journalist"

Steve.W

When Lord Longtitle returned to help Brown David Blunkett said the move was “a masterstroke”. So who does Blunkett support and does he really know what's going on? I don't think Blunkett is bright enough to be useful, so why did he say that?

Andy Carpark

A car-crash of non-sequiturs.

Purnell and Miliband's decisions did not impinge on the "done deal", so why expound on them?

What were the grounds for thinking that Brown would be in a position to control the secrecy and the quiescence of the inquiry?

How exactly was a secret inquiry (or rather the fact of its secrecy) supposed to burnish the Blair brand?

No motive is offered for Mandelson's primary loyalty to the Blair brand, as opposed to the New Labour Project or the survival of the Party itself. No two of the three are synonymous.

The thesis also ignores Mandelson's interest in minimising obstacles to the Lisbon Treaty and thereby fails to dislodge a more coherent alternative.

To destroy the final paragraph in detail: There was no mystery. The pseudo-mystery has not been "solved". If the terms are unravelling, as anyone might have foreseen, then there was not a heck of a lot to trade, was there? Loyalty to what (see above)? What Gordon sold was worthless. Loyalty to what (reprise)?

Academia = "pseudo-solutions to non-problems" (Kingsley Amis, Lucky Jim).

Shambolic from beginning to end.

Liz Brown

What price democracy? - We have been sold down the river...........

brian kelly

[Marbury
June 25th, 2009 9:53am] I don't mind being patronised. What is this theory?

Lee Jakeman

Sir Graphus is spot on. Ratification of Lisbon and the Presidency of Europe is what it's all about.

Denis Cooper

oldtimer

It's only essential to keep Cameron out of Downing Street until after the Lisbon Treaty has come into force, so that he can treat it as a fait accompli and refuse to hold a referendum on it.

It's not essential that Brown remains Prime Minister; in fact it's not essential that the Prime Minister is a Labour politician, as Clegg or Cable would serve the EU's purpose just as well.

That last idea may seem pretty absurd, but it's not entirely inconceivable.

If the Labour majority in the Commons started to seriously fragment and it seemed possible that the Labour government could fall, precipitating a general election, then first of all the Liberal Democrats would step in to prevent that happening.

The current state of the parties is here:

http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/mps_and_lords/stateparties.cfm

and if you move the 63 Liberal Democrats over from the opposition side to the government's side, its working majority trebles from 63 to 189 - so it would then need 95 rebel Labour MPs to vote with the opposition, or 190 to abstain, for the government to be beaten on a no confidence motion.

Even if the 63 Liberal Democrats only abstained - I'm sure they could find some fatuous excuse, they usually can - it would need 126 Labour MPs to abstain for the government to fall.

If absolutely necessary, the Liberal Democrats would join with the core of the Labour party to form a coalition government, solely to prevent a general election being held - so then, yes, it becomes conceivable that Clegg or Cable could replace Brown as Prime Minister.

As far as the EU is concerned, it really doesn't matter too much who is Prime Minister during the next six to nine months, provided only that it isn't Cameron.

Which situation he has himself created, because by pledging to hold a referendum if the treaty hasn't yet come into force, but ruling out a retrospective referendum, he has in effect told the EU that he must at all costs be kept out of office until after the treaty has come into force.

TrevorsDen

I think of more immediate interest was the fact that yesterday the Governor of the Bank of England took out his bread knife and sliced up the reputations and policies of Brown and Darling (and Balls) into salami sized portions.

Not to mention the OECD ....

In the meantime all Jeremy Paxman can think to do is play his usual parlour game tricks - trying to embarrass Tories into publishing cuts made necessary by Labour incompetence. "What cuts would YOU make?". Doesn't he realise thats not the point? The more people like Paxman play their self interested games the worse we will be governed.

mac

@ Marbury:

I enjoyed reading that. Snorting sanctimony in the irony-free Guardianista style.

And without your denial of holding any brief for Mandelson I would have thought the opposite.

Sir Graphus

Brown, though, has been unable to do what Blair would have done; brazenly bluff it out for a private inquiry.

This means he's welshed on his side of the deal. This means he'll be out as soon as he's no use, i.e. straight after the Irish referendum (I gather they've had the stuffing knocked out of them by the death of the Celtic tiger and opinion polls says they'll overwhelmingly vote yes this time).

jennywren

Marybury, I fear that you are incorrect when you say that Mandleson joined the government to establish himself as a player independent of Blair's patronage. At the time he agreed to become Lord Mandelson of (too long to repeat here) it was made clear that he was acting in accordance with approval that he had received from Blair. Of course he jumped at the chance to return to mainstream UK politics, but Blair was (and still is) with him all the way.

Simon Stephenson

Marbury 9.53am

1. Although d'Ancona has a contradiction between the inquiry restrictions coming into play post-Purnell and them being a "done deal" beforehand, this contradiction is not in Kampfner's article. I'm sure you wouldn't like to participate in damning by association, so maybe you should have made clear that your comment "The lack of clarity here fatally undermines the story" applied only to d'Ancona, and not to Kampfner.

2. I'm all for being patronised if this means you disclosing with irrefutable evidence every reason why Mandelson saved Brown. It would certainly help anticipate likely happenings in the future.

3. Could Kampfner, do you think, have meant something different by the "Blair brand" than you have taken him to mean? For example, I think that he could have meant something above personalities. Perhaps Mandelson sees the origination and the continuation of the New Labour project as only being possible with Blair, or a Blair clone as a figurehead; that a revelation that Blair's character, for all its good points, was responsible for some pretty poor decision-making would make New Labour unsustainable; and that therefore all efforts must be made to derail any revisionism that could result in Blair being painted in a bad light?

Mr Green

Mandy has too much time on his hands if he can weave such a tangled web.

Simon Denis

Obviously the thesis has hit a raw nerve in Labour circles - which is why they're out in force to rubbish it.

Martin

"Which in turn begs a further question. "

You really ought to know what "beg the question" means.

salieri

And on the subject of the Editor's standards, could we please have an end to this horrid and ignorant misuse of the phrase "beg the question"?

You meant only: "which in turn raises [prompts] a further question". You did NOT mean that the previous comment had assumed what it set out to prove - known in philosophy as petitio principii.

My 25-year subscription has ceased because you and an increasing number of regular contributors simply don't understand, and therefore cannot communicate to others, the subtleties of your own language.

Verity

Sir Graphus - Yes, that was rather the point of Daniel Hannan's article in The Telegraph a week ago. I linked to it and several people read it and commented on the truth of it.

Marbury - Go ahead. Patronise me. Explain what you're talking about.

Re the commenter who noted how nauseating it is to have these people referred to by their first names by a journalist, I second that.

Peter Wilson, well, good for you. Care to share the address with the rest of us? Do they write in Cyrillic in Czechoslovakia?

How can we get the ball rolling? Perhaps Daniel Hannan.

Jonathan Cook

I was in the House of Lords the day after the Butler Enquiry press conference. I was told by a Lord (who shall remain nameless) that Lord Butler had said to him, that there was one question, if he had been asked it at the conference, that he would have responded and that this reply would have taken Blair down.

Which makes this excerpt from the article curious:

"What mattered was the press conference that accompanied the launch. Butler had the prime minister’s fate in his fingers. He decided beforehand that he would not give an opinion as to whether Blair should resign."

I previously thought the info I had received was just conspiracy theory nonsense. However, I now tend to believe that maybe Lord Butler did consider responding to a certain question, if asked, in a way that would have ensured Blair's downfall.

Rat __/@\^>

@ Mr Green: weaving tangled webs in order to ensure his continuance in power is his entire raison d'etre IMHO.

Bob.India

Earth calling Marbury - we're avidly awaiting your patronage.

Sir Graphus

I don't remember Hannan's article bringing in the Iraq inquiry and Blair's reputation. As I recall, Hannan only alleged Mandy was shoring up Brown to ensure Lisbon was irretrievable for the Tories.

This goes much further, by interweaving Blair's plan to become EU President, by ensuring the treaty which creates the office comes into effect.

Marbury

Simon,

1. I'd like to agree - except that the lack of clarity starts with the piece itself. If you read the para starting "Fast forward" and ending "4 June" you see the same strange elision.

2. My only point here is that there are very obvious reasons for M to 'save' GB, self-preservation amongst them. We don't need an extra layer of conspiracy to answer the "Why?" question. Nobody was seriously asking it before this piece came along.

3. If Kampfner meant something "above personalities" then he wouldn't have referred to a personality in the phrase in question. Part of the problem with the piece is that K still wants to stick it to one man - Blair - rather than thinking seriously about the issues involved. A secondary problem is that he seems to have only the shallowest sense of the personalities involved.

I'd just add that I don't think the construction "I am told" conveys a very authoritative sense of sourcing...! Enough for a diary piece maybe, but not a cover story.

David Ossitt

Marbury.

"I won't patronise your readers by explaining the very clear reasons he did so"

Go on; force yourself, I am sure that we all would like to read 'the very clear reasons'.

oldtimer

Who is Marbury on whose further word so many are waiting?

My assumption is that he can be found here:
http://www.marbury.typepad.com/marbury/

...if it is him, then he does write for the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/20/peter-mandelson-labour

Simon Stephenson

Jonathan Cook : 3.36pm

Reading Richard Norton-Taylor's article* in the Guardian, I think that the unasked question may have been no more detailed than whether Butler believed Blair should resign. Butler seems to feel that he would have had to reply "this is not a matter for us", in which case he thinks Blair would have been toast. He's relieved that this direct question was not asked.

*http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/29/whatthebutlersaid

Ian C

A wise old bird, oldtimer. Well found. I have emailed him inviting his 'patronage' through his site..... !

Edward

Do we all really need Marbury to patronise us ?

Mandelson, Osborne, Balls, Clarke, Blair all share something in common.
What could it be ??

Verity

Maybe Sonny and Cher could have sung, "You Got Myself, Babe".

How about "Don't Cry for Myself, Argentina"?

Simon Stephenson

Edward : 9.08pm

"Mandelson, Osborne, Balls, Clarke, Blair all share something in common. What could it be ??"

That would explain why Mandelson saved Brown? I'm afraid you've got me stumped, Edward.

Are they all members of Brown's Masonic Lodge? Or all Common Purposers?

Tell me. I'm intrigued.

JohnAnt

I see the Spectator has published an apology for a sentence in Kampfner's article, where "we stated that Alastair Campbell prevailed upon Lord Butler to tone down important sections of his report..." But Kampfner didn't write that: he wrote: "Downing Street had prevailed on Butler..."
Does Campbell now think himself synonomous and interchangeable with Blair?
And as he has reminded us that "Mr Campbell, who left Downing Street in 2003, played no role in relation to the Butler inquiry, to which he was not a witness", then why would Campbell imagine he was being referred to by Kampfner? And why would the Spectator assume this was reasonable?
The Speccie's apology is as mysterious as Campbell's complaint.

Scot Richards

Wow, this piece certainly brought out the Trolls from Labour central (Marbury, et al). Never seen so many attempts to rubbish a perfectly good piece.

Must have touched a nerve.

Moraymint

Another foul stench emanating from the Labour Party.

It would be good if the whole lot of them would just rot away for ever.

Jamie

@oldtimer, Marbury thinks Cate Blanchett would be best suited to play the film of his life: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2008/04/the-normblog-pr.html.
Marbury - so many questions.

Marbury

My reply to Simon belatedly published above. To those who like to use the ghastly word "troll" I'd point out that the piece you're defending is written by a leftie. Anyway, my point isn't political - it's about standards, which many of you on here seem prepared to drop as long a piece says something - however implausible - that you wish were true.

There are some serious charges that can credibly be made about Blair and his cabinet with regard to Iraq and even about Brown and this enquiry. But this piece just isn't up to either task.

Given the Spectator's apology for one particular claim (JohnAnt - I assume the piece has been edited to replace AC with 'Downing St', no?) you may infer that the article's author is ever so slightly 'peccable'.

Rollo Reid

The Article on the Blair Brand misses 9 tenths of the point. Blair wants to be the First President of Europe. Mandelson shares this dream. If Brown is toppled, there would be an election, before the Irish vote and before the Treaty/Constitution is ratified. So then there would be the referendum; the treaty would be binned where it ought to be; and Blair could not be President of EU. Brown has to be saved to save the Constitution.

Simon Stephenson

Marbury 11.27am

"Anyway, my point isn't political - it's about standards, which many of you on here seem prepared to drop as long a piece says something - however implausible - that you wish were true."

What sort of standards then are they that succeed, however innocently, in damning by association, and then, when this is pointed out, fail to give a retraction. Just part of the jounalistic circus, is it?

"There are some serious charges that can credibly be made about Blair and his cabinet with regard to Iraq and even about Brown and this enquiry. But this piece just isn't up to either task.

And why not, in particular? Are we supposed to guess?

"Given the Spectator's apology for one particular claim (JohnAnt - I assume the piece has been edited to replace AC with 'Downing St', no?) you may infer that the article's author is ever so slightly 'peccable'.

Could it not have been that there wasn't much wrong with the original wording other than that it couldn't be proved, and that therefore Kampfner's mistake was with his proofreading, not with his argument nor his facts.

Simon Stephenson

Marbury

I'm sorry. I now see the reply stuck half way up the comments column as it was posted yesterday afternoon. Stuck in the moderation process, I suppose. I'll read it now.

Ignore the bit about damage by association for the time being.

Marbury

Simon - I'm not "damning by association" - I'm directly damning the piece in question, which as I've tried to point out, plays the same sleight of hand as the editor's introduction.

On the last point: if you make a damaging accusation that can't be proved, then that's not a proofreading mistake - it's a libel.

Puzzled that I'm having to point out the obvious...and mystified that you're so intent on defending this particular article.

Simon Stephenson

Marbury 25/6 4.29pm

1. Bullsh1t! You are trying to portray that an attempted emasculation of the Chilcot committee is a Kampfner invention and that he has used the plausibility of a balancing favour for Brown's rescue as a device to give it false credibility. You're asserting that "done deal pre-Purnell" raises doubts about the veracity of the linkage claim, and so about the very authenticity of the nobbling claim. I'd say you'ld have to have pretty sound evidence that Kampfner is a fabricator, and a poor one, to follow this line. A decent fabricator would have seen "done deal pre-Purnell" as a potential weakness, and would not have included it, since there was no enhancement to the fabrication from doing so.

Far more likely, to my mind, is that this is someone telling the truth who failed to spot how "done deal pre-Purnell" might be misused by those desperate to discredit him.

2. With respect, this has nothing to do with conspiracy. Labour would have us believe that there were no hidden or ulterior motives behind Mandelson's actions, that the reasons are the ones announced, and only the ones announced. But, especially after the last 12 years, why should we believe them? As Sir John Major wrote a couple of years ago "Now, if No 10 tells you Friday follows Thursday, wise men check the calendar".

Very regrettably, the first requirement for seeking to understand political affairs is to disbelieve everything said by any politician, and to check out every journalist to see if he is a quasi-politician.

3. Another piece of misrepresentation, I fear. I'm sure Labour would be delighted if the ire of such people as Kampfner was directed entirely at Blair. That way they could, if it became necessary, set him up as a fall guy for the failings of the Labour party, as a body, to deal acceptably with the Iraq decision. I'd suggest, although I expect you already know, that the anger of Kampfner and his supporters is with ALL those who twisted the process so that, amongst other things, we were taken into war. Not Blair, except in so much as he was central to the twisting, not even the war itself, for there are compelling reasons for concluding that the USA's decision was wrong, but ours was right. No, the anger is with the mainstream's denial of a platform for the opposition's political voice. The manipulation of the general population into the way of thinking that holds those outside the consensus to have forfeited their right to be trusted in political affairs.

Iraq is just the most extreme manifestation of of the politics-free world that Labour saw as to their advantage to create.

Simon Stephenson

Marbury 1.41pm

"On the last point: if you make a damaging accusation that can't be proved, then that's not a proofreading mistake - it's a libel."

Well it could be both. And also, are you trying to say that if it's libellous it can't be true? If this is the case, then I'm a banana, as I think someone has said before.

Simon Stephenson

Marbury : 11.27am

"I'd point out that the piece you're defending is written by a leftie"

I know this. But I'd rather have a leftie who talks with reason, intellect and sense, than anyone of whatever political hue who doesn't.

Marbury, this is the 21st Century power-struggle, not left vs right, nor authoritarian vs libertarian, but intellectual vs populist. The populists have control of the game, and have had ever since the Third Way demolished the last vestiges of representative democracy. I'm no intellectual, but I am a puzzler and a thinker, and I'm open to persuasion that what Clinton, Blair, Obama and their like are doing is actually a dual process in which the simplistic nonsenses that form the front of the organisation are actually no more than that - a front. And that the actuality is that policy is as intellectually precise as it would be in a regime that paid little attention to trumpeting its popular appeal.

Can you convince me of this? Or are we, maybe necessarily, maybe not, transferring from government by reason to government by emotion?

salieri

"If you make a damaging accusation that can't be proved, then that's not a proofreading mistake - it's a libel."

Marbury goes too far. Firstly, he does not say "a lie" - because an accusation can be perfectly true without being provable.

Secondly, because libel means - as he knows jolly well - writing something untrue which is damaging to the subject's reputation. How can this possibly apply to someone with Mandelson's reputation or, for that matter, the Prime Mentalist's?

JohnAnt

Certainly there was much media allegation, back during the Hutton report, that Campbell had some influence over the Butler Inquiry, despite his no longer working for Blair.
As we know, McBride no longer works for Brown, but...

Edward

Simon - June 26th 12:28 am

I am assuming your question is not rhetorical.

Mandelson didn't "save Brown".
Even he can't raise the dead or turn water into wine.
He has simply preserved the probability of a future Cameron Premiership, free from the inconvenience of responsibility for offering the UK population yet another EU referendum.

Oh yes - the names I mentioned - Mandelson, Osborne, Balls, Clarke, Blair - are all (as I'm sure you are aware) Bilderberg attendees.

You mention "Common Purpose".
From their website :-
"Leading Beyond Authority".
"People who lead beyond their authority can produce change beyond their direct circle of control".
This sounds ominously like the subject of this thread.
Curiously the above quotation does not clarify whether such "change" is positive.
I can only surmise that it depends whether you're pulling the strings, or having them pulled.

UK Party Politics = Red Herring

The Price of Mandelson's Support ?
Courtesy of Tom Utley :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1195647/.html