Aside from saving Gordon Brown, twice, what’s Peter Mandelson ever done for us?

Austin Barry

Mandelson is a paradox. A man who can readily identify chumps without, presumably, being familiar with them.

Mazza1230

DC's idea that the Kindly Pussycat should serve on a Truth and Reconcilliation Commission which looks into all Labour's actions over the last 12 years is best by far.

EyeSee

Oooh, the thought of the word genius being applied to Mandelson for any reason whatsoever. Apart from being The Top R's girlfriend, he has no possible cause for being involved in politics. When you were at school, did the boy who told lies, all the time, to get his own way ever seem like a genius to you? I wouldn't trust Mandelson to hold the dog's lead at the paper shop while I went in to get a copy of the Sun for Limpwrist to chew on. Peter the Grate is the scorpion on the frogs back ("it's what I do")

Moraymint

Don't touch him with a bargepole would be my advice ... he's poisonous.

BrianSJ

"As the nation pursues economic recovery, could Mandelson do for British commercial interests what he did for Labour?"
What, saddle us with a complete failure cf. Ken Clarke's point about Gordon? No thanks.

Listing successes that Lord Peter has had for me rather than himself is a very short task.

Feste

Mandelson's sole objective will be to benefit Mandelson. Benefits to British trade, if any, will be purely incidental.

Stephen Grant

Peter Mandleson unlike his opposite numbers is the person business wants to deal with.Its no good Ken Clark-a worn out old pair of suede shoes-slagging off Mandleson regards what he hasnt achieved.Clarke is no newcomer to failure-in most things he has ever done,especially in government.Its a fact that once Blair decided to go Mandleson would have got the top job had all the plans gone through at the right time but events took hold thanks to the creeps that surrounded GB.The same crawlers who appear to have ministerial jobs for their reward.
As for Mandleson not being able to secure the Vauxhall plant making vehicles in the UK,was it not the Tories mantra that companies sink or swim in the global market whatever the conditions?The buyers of Vauxhall/Opel are a moody bunch of operators including the Russian Spiv who bought up LDV and then closed it down through lack of cash?Yet there he is again as an investor in Vauxhall-it will all end in tears me thinks.Mandleson did as much as he could but is clever enough to know when to quit,when the investors are Russian.The Royal mail row was started by the Tories in there rush to privatise everything regardless of the consequences and Labour never quite had the courage to go through with it 100%.Every state owned industry thats been sent to the market for sell off has been nothing but a total disaster for the UK plc.So Ken Clarke should just zip it up.Anyway Im sure Mandleson has enough on Clarke to get him chucked out of the party if it was ever made public.Slag off Mandleson at your peril-he is the best Prime Minister we never had.

Athesius the Facilitator

Mr Grant-Your little ditty about the Tory's being reponsible for the problems with the post office is "utter crap" you will be telling us they are responsible for the hundred years war next.

De Rigueur

Mr Grant,

Not our long lost bachelor relative are we?

Been trying to be in touch for years...

As for politics - better leave it to the big boys.

Simon Stephenson

Stephen Grant : 7.27pm

"Peter Mandleson unlike his opposite numbers is the person business wants to deal with"

"Clarke is no newcomer to failure-in most things he has ever done,especially in government"

Some evidence that these are more than just your opinions would be nice.

"Its a fact that once Blair decided to go Mandleson would have got the top job had all the plans gone through at the right time"

You obviously have sources of information that are denied to the rest of us. Mandelson was not even in UK politics at the time of Blair's departure - he was a well-paid unelected official at the EU.

"As for Mandleson not being able to secure the Vauxhall plant making vehicles in the UK,was it not the Tories mantra that companies sink or swim in the global market whatever the conditions?"

Maybe, but Clarke's point is that Mandelson professes NOT to believe this mantra, so his inability to apply his own principles to Vauxhall is either a failure on Mandelson's part, or an indication that Mandelson doesn't actually practise what he preaches. Or both.

"The Royal mail row was started by the Tories in there rush to privatise everything regardless of the consequences"

For a socialist to accuse non-socialists of ignoring consequences, particularly in view of the Brown-made economic catastrophe which is still unwinding, displays a level of hypocrisy that is breathtaking.

"Every state owned industry thats been sent to the market for sell off has been nothing but a total disaster for the UK plc"

Some examples of these "total disasters" from each denationalised industry would be nice.

"Anyway Im sure Mandleson has enough on Clarke to get him chucked out of the party if it was ever made public"

Would this be truth or false innuendo? Do you have any examples?

By the way, I think for future reference you'll find that the Business Secretary spells his name Mandelson, not Mandleson.

General Zod

SG, the only reasons that business has been happy to deal with Mandelson have been his position in the EU and continued influence thereafter and his lack of ideological socialist leanings.

Once Labour is out of power he will retain some interest for business through his EU contacts and experience, but as is already the case business will be queuing up to see Ken and George and the rest of their teams.

JohnOfEnfield

Mandy has resigned under a cloud, twice. I know of no other minister ever who done that & then come back AND been promoted.

He should be buried as a politician, along with New Labour.

He cannot be trusted.

TrevorsDen

"Clarke is no newcomer to failure-in most things he has ever done,"

Clarke was a successful Chancellor - unlike Brown, who has squandered Clarke's legacy.

chris

Sign of the times how Mandelson is fawned upon by much of the press. Please spare me his "hammy" performance at last weeks Labour conference. Peter, there's a job on a cruise ship waiting for you! Cruise Director, right up your alley. Only goes to show how weak Brown has been as PM. Didn't we always expect this though. It's a disgrace to both the Labour Party and the reputation of the UK having this coward,liar and bully as leader.

Kalvis Jansons

Any last calls for the "resign" petition which is finishing very soon:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/

NorthernJohn

I think Clarke's speech was most noteworthy for his wholehearted and seemingly genuine endorsement of Cameron / Osborne.

As for Mandelson, the less said about him the better.

Stephen Grant

Im flattered to have enraged so many Tory supporters regards Mandy.Im a mere humble "spectator"of events as "reported" and make my own mind up as others do.If reporting in this country is of such a standard that it is telling lies about individuals(heaven forbid!)or events then all opinion is questionable.
Im not a Socialist as one comment would have you believe.Im not a Lib Dem either.PM would have inherited Blairs crown from the start,as early as 1997 despite what has been said.Yes,its true he had gone off to jolly old Europe by the time Blair decided to go but the damage of briefing against PM started long before that.GB knew that Blair didnt think him worthy of the top job so he merely used his little tribe of misfits to brief against PM and Blair to dig up any dirt or invent it if need be. After all it has been hinted that Blair was advised to sack Brown long before PM went to Europe.Yes,he had to resign twice but in years to come you will see who was actually responsible for his resignations-especially when we have now seen that high profile MP's were ripping off the tax payer on outrageous expenses,which made PM's mistakes seem somewhat tame.
The selling off of state controlled industry and ultilities has hardly been a success.For example Energy Companies.I note that in today's Tory press they are calling them "Rip off merchants".Does that sound like it has been a success for the country?The same companies who ignore the regulator over prices put in place to "protect" the consumer.
The royal mail would have been successful had it changed back in the 1980's and charged realistic prices for services and it was the Tories who first wanted to close post offices and then backed off under pressure leaving it for Labour to take the flack.BT was ready to change its entire network to fibre optics before it was privatised, now it is privatised it still hasnt achieved that goal a quarter of a century later.It is a fact that every public utility monopoly that was owned by the people has ripped off the people when it ended up in private ownership.The competition promised evaporated soon after and we have a cartel who hold the whole country to ransom on prices in electric,gas,water-mostly owned by foreign companies.I have no love of PM or any politician but in all fairness the fact PM stirs up so much debate gives him qualities which go beyond a mere minister or the so called prince of darkness.Surely,he is in the same mould as Francis Urquhart- frightening but true.

Will J

I thought everyone now knew why Mandelson is propping up Gordon Brown â“ to prevent a general election which would result in a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and hence foil Tony Blair's bid to become President of Europe. Since where Tony Blair is, there Mandelson is also.

Dorothy Wilson

What has Mandelson ever done for us? Ruined the country!

General Zod

Please learn to use paragraphs, SG. That last post is a dense wall of unreadable text.

Sarge

Stephen Grant
Your argument might carry some weight but for this comment:

'Yes,he had to resign twice but in years to come you will see who was actually responsible for his resignations-especially when we have now seen that high profile MP's were ripping off the tax payer on outrageous expenses,which made PM's mistakes seem somewhat tame'

I see - mortgage fraud is 'somewhat tame' is it? Of course,for some reason this crime was never investigated despite the evidence being available. A scenario the rest of Joe Public would not have the privelege of enjoying.

If that is the standard by which you judge people, it sets the remainder of your argument in a new light

Simon Stephenson

Stephen Grant : 9.37am

As it happens, I agree with you about the utilities, but I don't really think that it is denationalisation that is the cause of the problem. The utilities under state ownership were massive make-work schemes; pools of people many of whom were being paid for pointless, erratic and uncoordinated activity. The structural culture of these businesses was such that the apparently bottomless coffers of the national purse made it politically impossible for any government even to hint that their only justifying purpose was to provide a cost-efficient service to the rest of the economy. Under state ownership it would always be impossible to break the perception that they were a hidey-hole for people seeking the easiest way to get good wages without ever having to justify these wages in terms of productive output. Of course there were exceptions, but a public works job for many meant an unspectacular but guaranteed income for life with a cosy index-linked pension to come, and, all the time, never any requirement to reconcile the cost to the rest of us of this employment with the value of the output that was being created by it.

I fully accept that this attitude is not confined to the state sector, but the theory of denationalisation was that commercial necessities would force cost control where the nebulousness of state finance couldn't. The problem, of course, was that the commercial necessities require the strictures of competition, and the utilities weren't usually being put out into a competitive market. Hence the need for regulators, and I think it would be true to say that these haven't been very effective as a substitute for competition.

But the problem is not the denationalisation. We'd have been at least as badly served by our utility businesses had these remained in state ownership. The problem derives from the self-first behaviour of employees and business owners, and the fact that the tempering of this behaviour through competition has proved well-nigh impossible to bring about.

Perhaps there is another way of creating human efficiency that relies neither on state-dictat, nor on accepting the validity of Smith's invisible hand theory.

Ian C

What has Mandelson done for us?

Stuffed the country by ensuring New Labour came and satyed inpower even while he could not.

Stephen Grant - you've been inhabiting a very different planet from the rest of us who like to think we interpret the facts as they're exposed and have no love of politicians or parties. Or perhaps you had a special coloured pair of spectacles on for the past 12 years?

Frank P

"As the nation pursues economic recovery, could Mandelson do for British commercial interests what he did for Labour?"

That sort of idiot question/suggestion, plus the constant puffing of the political poovery of mendacious Meddlesome and the simpering images of the little shit constantly displayed on this site, put into question The Spectator's erstwhile long history of representing the interests of Britain and conservatism.

After the next election the noxious parasite must be pursued with every disinfectant available, if necessary with the added facility of a napalm sprayer to remove all trace of his pernicious influence over British and European politics. Any resurgence thereafter must be detected immediately and pursued with ruthless determination. Any remaining miasma must be removed by means of a wind machine with ten foot blades and a forty horsepower engine. The implied suggestion lurking in your remark, that the odious little twerp has any role whatsoever in public life once this lot has been routed is shudderingly disgusting. Exterminate! Exterminate!

By comparison the H1N1 virus is a mere coryza. Ugghh! Get a grip, man.

Stephen Grant

Oh!dear poor old PM.Either most of you are actual newspaper hacks or have suffered at his hands?Shame.

The whole thrust of what Ken Clark was saying was to rubbish someone for cheap appluase. This person(PM) must have been clever enough to mastermind an election victory which nearly wiped out the Tories and it would seem the voters agreed with him at that time or did he go around personally and blindfold every one of them?

I neither support him or oppose him but as I see it his so called crime(mortgage fraud)or was it?I don't recall him being prosecuted.So it still stands then that your only guilty if found so in a court of law or are you also saying that all the current batch of politicans both labour and tory who were committing crimes that were indeed provable should have been charged? If so I agree.But of course in their world you just pay it back and everything is ok-no prosecution.So much for law and order.

Apart from all of that who decided that snippet of info about PM was fair game for the press?Perhaps it was the same saintly crowd which "sold"the MP's expenses story to a national newspaper?

I agree that public utilities were over manned but we are talking about a decade when this country was going through change and it could have been done within public ownership-it would have been cheaper.

I dont recall anyone asking me to vote to sell off what was partly mine along with every other citizen.If the question had been asked openly without spin the answer would have been no and everyone knows it.

The result we have today surely goes against even what the Tories intended?No competition,no cheap energy and a transport system which is no better than what we had before-in some ways even worse because we are still paying for it.Try selling that to the public-we will sell off what was yours to companies who will then make you pay them to run it plus high fares!

PM may be everything which is heaped upon him or he may be a saint? I get tired of all political liars especially those who have been in government and hope the voters have short memories and it seems those who religiously follow them.

A curse on all parties.

Liz Brown

Brussels is behind the self off of the Post office and not the Tories
I wouldn't trust Mandelbum further than I could throw him (which is not very far what with my duff shoulder and all)
Now that The Lisbon Con/Treaty has virtually been signed off, we can expect to see Mandelbum leaving Gordo in the brown stuff and making no further attempts to prop him up. Mandelbum's job in the UK is now done and he will be off to Brussels pushing for the Bliar presidency with all his might

London77

Remind u

Manderlson saved car industry once last year

Without his drinking milk in far east and the long time business relationship with far east, UK might not get the great finance support in the most difficult time.

He got billions of buisness this September as well and hope far east to open more business oppotunities.

London77

Face with what this country have

Empty finance, not too much high technology industry

How to solve the problem in 1 year?

London 77

Tax payers, media, policy makers, royal mail customers

We call the nations spirit today---A spirit that will unite all of the people together to help UK to get through the recession.

We show disappointment at the postal strike, which will cost the economy 1.5 billion pounds and will damage UK economic competitive advantage in the world; Which will deepen the financial deficit of Britain; which will add the burden to the tax players.

For Royal mail, it should face with the high competition of the market. The strike will give all of the business opportunity to domestic and international competitors to take more market share. It will damage Royal mail¡¯s market advantage in the long run.

We remind royal mail to think about their customers and market, other organisations, other people and nation concept. The strike will lead all of the policy maker¡¯s and media and taxpayer¡¯s effort to come to nothing.

There¡¯s no natural disaster such as earthquake, flood here but human made disaster is coming at this special recession period. Who pay for the strike, taxpayers and the whole of UK?

We are against the royal mail strike and we are against strike from any special organisation because of its particular interest during this hard time. We also suggest participants will not follow union with self interest.

It is really the time to let the policy makers to try to reduce finance deficit and concentrate on the reform of the industry; it is really the time to let the tax players to work smoothly. It is internationally laughable indeed. It is the time we call all the people join together to against strike.

JIA Jia

Labour can make any decision by its own to do something to win more votes and then reform completely.(At that time, economy more stable).
Balance the party needs and country needs is preferable. Please do not misunderstand.

UK need coherent policy and good engineering plan at th period of recovering.

Any analysis here may be bias because do not know the case in detail. This make me upset greatly.