Unlike most people who have an opinion on Peter Mandelson, I've met him. I must add that it was in a business not a leisure setting and it was back in the days when Gordon Brown invited him back into the government, following one of his many sackings. I hadn't been a fan, but I was impressed by his grasp of his brief as business secretary. I was never a Blairite and I hadn't been a fan, but it was fascinating to see him in action. What became 100% clear to me was that he seemed to have a cast iron belief that he was a genius and everyone else in the room was a blithering idiot, who unfortunately had to be humoured. I have long been fascinated by the way people behave, what their body language tells you and the signals they give off. Mandelsons whole manner is "I am in charge here, don't bother arguing, this is the way we will do this". In most people that would be completely insufferable, he had a grasp of detail and the matters at hand that meant no one even wanted to challenge him. He instinctively identified the important people in the room (not me) and turned the charm on. For the rest of us, I am not sure if he even realised we existed and after any of us spoke there was little or no acknowledgement of what we had said, although five minutes later he was repeating this verbatim as if it was all his work. I've met all manner of politicians over the years, including Thatcher, Jim Callaghan, Ed Balls, Ed Milliband, Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Sor Charles Kennedy to name a few that come to mind. Meeting Mandelson was different. He was the only one who left me questioning whether I actually existed at all. What was interesting was that the other people I went with were either completely over awed by his charm or his brilliance or both.
I saw something else. I realised that Mandelson was an incredibly intelligent, shrewd and calculating individual. He saw his role as business secretary primarily as a vehicle to get Gordon Brown re-elected as Prime Minister. He made it 100% clear that every decision he made as business secretary between then and the election would be based on how it would play in key marginals. He was not interested in whether it would be good in the long term for the UK. His view as that Labour getting re-elected was the absolute be all and end all of the matter. I got the impression that if he could bulldozer the bits of marginal constituncies that had Tory voters, he'd happily do it. He wasn't at all interested in what was good for staunch Labour areas or Tory areas. Due to NDA's I never said a word at the time. As what I am saying is not relevant to the business I was doing and is just my personal observations of the man, I think it is safe to recall these impressions.
I left with the view that Mandelson was someone who I would never like or trust, but I completely understood why Brown saw him as a necessary evil. Mandelson correctly identified that Brown had let things drift and the ship needed to be tightened up. To this day, I think that the reason the Tories didn't get a majority in 2010 is because Mandelson had got them focussed on the politics rather than the distractions. I suspect that if Brown had bitten the bullet and brought him back six months earlier, they may even have won. By the time of the election, I'd left the Labour party and when I studied their material in 2010, I saw the imprint of Mandelson all over it.
I mention this because I think it gives some insight into why Sir Keir Starmer appointed Mandelson as a ambassador to the USA. What was clear to me is that Mandelson was very good at targeting people who he thought mattered and making them feel special. I could see this in the meeting we had. My boss went in being very sceptical of Mandelson and leaving thinking he was a genius. But that was sixteen years ago. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then and any Prime Minister worth his salt would realise that Mandelson should be dealt with using a very long bargepole. I am sure that Mandelson persuaded Starmer that Mandelson and Trump moved in the same circles and they had a good personal relationship. The trouble is that those circles were centered around convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. I simply refuse to believe that Starmer was unaware of this fact. Mandelson's statement that because he was gay, he didn't see any of that sort of behaviour is simply untenable. He is the type of guy who is well briefed about everyone and everything. Sadly, if you know a bunch of rich men, with unsavoury nocturnal habits, that is a very powerful tool to use if you want to climb the greasy pole which is the worlds political scene.
Sir Keir Starmer has the entire weight of the civil service, MI5, MI6, Special Branch, GCHQ etc at his disposal. The concept that none of these said "Prime Minister, this idea of yours to make Peter Mandelson the US Ambassador is a very brave decision, do you know who he was friends with and that the Democrats are hell bent on ensuring all of the papers are released". Now even if you personally were not bothered that the bloke you wanted as ambassador liked to hang around with very unsavoury people, common sense is that you should say "Well on reflection, it may not be the best idea".
But Sir Keir Starmer didn't say this. He appointed Mandelson and has landed up in a situation that doesn't require Mystic Meg's foresight to see was always going to be a disaster. I can see how some people may be taken in by Mandelson, he knows how to press peoples buttons, but this wasn't about a nice chat at a party. It was about selecting the best person to represent us at the court of the President of our biggest and most powerful ally. Sir Keir Starmer could have selected the best career diplomat at his disposal, one with zero risk and contacts across the board in Washington., who could have ensured that the UK was properly briefed and had dialog with all camps (that is what career diplomats do). But he chose Mandelson, because Mandelson and Trump seemingly moved in the same rather grubby circles.
What disturbs me most is why Mandelson was seemingly so fascinated with Epstein. I can see why the likes of Trump and the artist formerly known as Prince (Andrew) were. A cursory glance at the pictures tell that story. But Mandelson? Today we learned of claims that Epstein paid Mandelsons partner a huge sum of money. Now Mandelson has claimed it never happened, but in my experience, the reasons that people behave badly are almost always because they want sex, money or both. If you want to know the truth, follow the money. Mandelson claims he wasn't interested in the sex parties as girls isn't his thing. He claims that he didn't receive the money. What was the basis of his friendship with Epstein then. I can't see them swigging beers and talking about Arsenal?
Which again comes back to Sir Keir Starmer. Did he ever ask Mandelson what was the basis of his relationship with Epstein. Starmer is a barrister and this question is the obvious one. Starmer seems to have gone to ground. I can see exactly the reasons why Starmer appointed Mandelson. What I can't see, for the life of me, is why he ignored all of the reasons he shouldn't. It is called judgement and it is 100% clear that Starmer has no sense of judgement at all. How many times did Mandelson get sacked, yet Starmer still appointed him? How many warnings did Starmer get about his inappropriate friends?
I have to say that until relatively recently, I thought Starmer was an intelligent bloke, who was having a few problems getting to grips with a very difficult job, in turbulent times. What the Mandelson fiasco has laid bare is that he simply has no sense of judgement at all. If Keir Starmer had any decency at all, he'd call a press conference, apologise to the people of the UK and the USA for appointing Mandelson and then announce that he's sacking himself, because he's realised he lacks the judgement required to do the job.
If I wake up tomorrow and Hell has frozen over, I will know he's taken my advice. As for whether Mandelson should be in the House of Lords. The further away this man is from the corridors of power, the better for decency and honesty in UK politics. I can recall talking to one of my colleagues about Mandelson after the meeting. They said "Blimey, I wouldn't want to be on the worng side of him". I repled "To be honest, I am not sure I want to be on the right side of him either, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him". Sadly for Starmer, he failed to see what was obvious to me in 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment