When policies mattered less

Having read most of the abridged serialised version of Peter Mandelson’s The Third Man in the London Times I was hardly interested in reading the book proper. But having picked up an airport copy for a friend I found it hard to resist the temptation of buying a copy for myself.

While one cannot exclude that even this book, like most political memoirs, could have been partly ghost written (some claim by best selling novelist Robert Harris whose The Ghost has been recently turned into an excellent movie, The Ghost Writer, by Roman Polanski) most of the dry wit and wryness is no doubt attributable to the “Prince of Darkness” himself.

Rather than committing errors of judgment, Lord Mandelson seems to have made deliberate ethical errors by quoting verbatim off the record statements by key personalities of the British political scene.

This is what arguably made his book even more saleable and daring, as can be accounted for the way it rose to the top of the best seller lists. Hardly two weeks away from the publication of Tony Blair’s much awaited memoirs A Journey.

Although Gordon Brown bears most of the brunt of Lord Mandelson’s criticism, he does not shirk from balancing out his weaknesses, personal and political, with his strengths, which he singled out as intelligence, iron determination and, above all, a grasp of the economic challenges that were increasingly threatening “our country and our world”.

Although politics often has the better of policy throughout the book, Lord Mandelson often made the case for bold policies, arguing that good communications required not just good, confident people and organisation but also clear policies to go with them.

What I liked best is Lord Mandelson’s study in contrasts about the way Mr Blair and Mr Brown addressed the Tory challenges.

While accusing Mr Blair of having probably cared too much about what the daily papers and the TV news bulletins were saying, according to Lord Mandelson “even, indeed, particularly, in times of crisis, he never lost sight of the issues that mattered while keeping in mind the long-term goal”.

On the other hand, Mr Brown was reported to have been transfixed by the media. The same way he was transfixed by the Tories.

“Tony, of course, also took on the Conservatives. The difference was that Gordon wanted to pulverise them, whereas Tony was more often content to outmanoeuvre them.”

Coming from a family of atheists, for Lord Mandelson Labour was more nearly a religion and, yet, over the years he seems to have grown into the pragmatist that we all know him to have become.

I love the way he semi conceals his Jewish roots by claiming that “I suppose I was, however, dimly aware of my refracted Jewishness”. A cynical friend told me he must have then been only partly circumcised!

He was always convinced more than ever through his first-hand experience of Labour in the 1980s that the party had at some stage to take on the hard left if it were to survive. Lack of urgency to do so by past leaders would come back to haunt Labour and that, sooner or later, a battle over policy and ideology would have to be fought.

Lord Mandelson makes no effort to hide his deep admiration for Shirley Williams who he describes as a modern, outward looking, pro-European Labour politician who knew where and how elections were won by appealing to mainstream voters on the centre ground.

He will always be remembered as Labour’s spin doctor supremo. For him, the three basic rules that remained with him were: Don’t over claim. Be factual. And never arrive at a briefing without a story.

Neil Kinnock might not have brought about the change that Labour needed but, Lord as Mandelson, rightly points out, it was clear that he saw the need for change.

I am convinced that Lord Mandelson’s work in television had given him the necessary insight into and experience of modern communications.

He inherited a party that “we were so bad at communicating with voters, so seemingly uncaring about what they thought or wanted, that we had become unelectable”. Many other parties have gone down this same route over the years.

It was he who coordinated a team that examined every aspect of Labour’s corporate appearance.

One might dislike Lord Mandelson the disdainful politician and schemer but who can beat the following observation?

“I was driven by the conviction that a more modern, in-touch Labour party would not just be more likely to win an election but would lead to a fairer, more broadly based, more socially engaged and economically successful government than the Tories.”

In identifying the BLP’s shortcomings, Lord Mandelson also identified areas of weakness that have proved to be many a Labour party’s undoing:

“‘Labour, while thought to be caring and fair, is seen as the party that is most likely to take things away – a report says. We were viewed as the party that looked after losers, not the ordinary man. We did not respect, nurture, reward or even understand ambition.”

This is any Labour party’s main challenge: to be aspirational, apart from offering a vision.

Although Mr Blair is reported to have felt hurt with some of the observations made in the book, in my opinion he fares very well indeed. Particularly when we are told how he turned Labour into a party of change, momentum and dynamism. Too many of his predecessors were prepared to take only half a step forward. That Lord Mandelson was one of the Three Musketeers that made it happen surely absolves Mr Blair of any shortcomings that might have followed.

www.leobrincat.com

brincat.leo@gmail.com

The author is shadow minister for the environment, sustainable development and climate change.