It has always been scandal after scandal with him, yet he kept being brought back into senior positions. Always an accident waiting to happen. Surely those who are or want to be running the country should display better judgement?
Why did Peter Mandelson keep getting senior jobs in the Labour party/government?
by 87 Comments
In the Blair & Brown years he was chief of the ones making the Labour Party’s policy decisions.
He continued to have a lot of clout in the centrist/right wing of the party right up to this year.
Keir Starmer’s chief policy wonk Morgan McSweeney was a protegé of Mandelson’s back in the Blair days.
Starmer and McSweeney have of course completely turned against him now. He has just resigned from the Party, to avoid inevitably being thrown out, but they are trying to get him removed from the House of Lords too. Knives are in his back. Rightly so.
I just remember that during a press walkabout when he was flown in as New Labour candidate for Hartlepool they visited a takeaway where he famously mistook mushy peas for guacamole.
Alas the mushy pea guacamole story is not true.
A-pea-cryphal…
👍
…I’m here all week…
Unlike Keir Starmer, according to rumours.
Because he’s politically useful and until now hadn’t done anything that was either provable (he’s tended to be exonerated for past misdemeanours) or which inflamed public opinion to the point where he couldn’t stage a comeback.
Regrettably, all parties and political factions seem to be willing to overlook bad behaviour where it’s convenient to do so. Mandelson is very well connected and politically effective, so he got a pass until it became impossible to give him a pass any longer, at which point they’re now turning on him.
Exonerated? I think he has had to resign 3 times for his misdemeanours.
1. Interest free loan from a person his department was supposedly investigating.
2. Using his role to influence a passport application
3. Epstein
This is what stuck, lots of other dubious stuff speculated about when in senior positions
I’m not defending Mandelson – I think he’s awful. I’m answering your question.
Why was he still involved with the Labour Party?
1. Assuming you’re referring to the loan from Geoffrey Robinson, this was the sort of irregularity that – unfortunately – has not tended to completely sink political careers in this country. Hence why he was back within a year.
2. Following his resignation over the Hinduja passport application an inquiry (rightly or wrongly) cleared him of wrongdoing. Which is what enabled him to make a later comeback.
3. See the words “until now”.
As for the other dubious stuff speculated about – again, unfortunately not enough to end a political career, because it wasn’t evidenced.
I would love us to be far more discerning about who gets near power in this country and I’m really not a fan of this thing where ministers resign for misbehaving, take a breather and then show up again a few month later as if nothing happened. But the reasons Mandelson was allowed to carry on are as above.
Well actually he was previously sacked as US ambassador over Epstein, only now has he resigned from the Labour party when more stuff came out and no. 1 was definitely proved, you said it wasn’t initially
Yes, I know, and no, I didn’t.
I dunno – you asked the question, I answered it. Not really up for an argument, seems a bit pointless.
Not saying it’s anything like the same thing but like Jimmy Saville there was always something dodgy about Mandleson. One thought despite that, both were doing good things.
Oh, how Wrong we were…
My personal thought on all of it is that this is a great example of why we should be far less tolerant the first time our leaders demonstrate their lack of integrity and/or respect for the rules.
Mandelson shouldn’t have been allowed back after the first time. Nor should Nadhim Zahawi. Nor should Angela Rayner. Or about a hundred other politicians from right across the political spectrum who have resigned for this sort of financial/regulatory irregularity, taken a little break and then darkened our door again shortly thereafter. These are invariably sophisticated people who knew exactly what they were doing.
But if the question is “why” Mandelson was allowed back, in our current culture – the answer is above.
The Labour Party at the time was very keen on people who were perceived as first rate networkers. Keith Vaz was viewed in much the same way. Indeed, Derry Irvine, then Lord Chancellor, described him as “the most incredible networker I have ever met”.
As Bingo says, the nub of it is simply that “Mandelson is very well connected and politically effective”.
That little black book has now been his downfall. I suspect it’s got alphabetic tabs down the right hand side, and the tab marked E records the final straw.
Good riddance I think.
Just asking out of interest -, is Mandelson any more dodgy than say Boris Johnson?
The corridors of power are awash with dubious characters who in other walks of life wouldnt have gotten away with stuff that doesn’t stick to politicians
I have no idea why they get the leniency they do. You can get struck off as a solicitor and never work in the profession again for a quarter of what politicians get up to before lunch.
A couple of years ago a trainee was struck off for dodging £600 of rail fares. And another trainee was struck off for losing a folder on a train and lying about it to colleagues. Because the assumption is that if you’re willing to cheat and steal in one area, you shouldn’t be trusted in another where you’ll have serious responsibilities.
How the same doesn’t apply to those in government, I have no idea. We should be identifying low-integrity people early on and keeping them well away from power.
Couldn’t agree more. You would expect people in High office to adhere to the highest of standards. Too many seem to regard their roles as an opportunity to flout the rules that they expect the rest of us to abide by.
We were shown round Westminster by an ex-student of the school I’d worked at as he was working there.
He mentioned that there were so many stories about various members but that there was an omerta about what happened there.
Omerta was a new word for me.
The blog that keeps on educating!
As far as I know, Johnson didn’t actually leak confidential information from the highest levels of government to a foreign paedophile for his own financial gain so, I think that the answer to your question is “yes” — Mandelson is much dodgier.
Two words – ‘Lebedev villa’
Sleazy, but not actual treachery.
Not sure about that – straight from a NATO meeting focused on Russia and the Salisbury poisoning crisis, to a private rendezvous with a KGB agent.
Donald Tusk has accused Mandelson of being a Russian agent.
I’m sure the latter will take legal action if not true…
Wow! Even given the murkiness of the webs that Epstein seemed to have spun, I would thought that would have been beyond Mandelson, but he clearly put personal advantage over national loyalty when sharing financial secrets with Epstein, so who knows?
I think it was Epstein who Tusk accused of being a Russian agent, not Mandelson.
It’s a tricky legal manoeuvre to sue for slander when you’re dead. It would be even harder for Epstein to argue that his reputation had been harmed with the spy accusations.
True indeed – you can’t libel the dead, as they say.
Unproven, I suspect…
What actually was discussed, for sure – but I think the elements I mentioned are quite well documented.
Wouldn’t disagree…
This sub thread seems to be discussing which is the smelliest shit. I’d like to point out that shit is shit.
See, that’s why you earn the big bucks…
Reported to the police:
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/clynp40ekrdt
It’s just money and power, isn’t it? Politicians need money in order to buy votes, I mean campaign for office, and there are many ways to ‘earn’ money, some whiter than white, some distinctly muddy, and some rather grey. If you can launder dirty money, and offer influence in return, then you’re an asset to both sides in the bargain, as long as you’re good at your job, and don’t get caught. Trebles all round.
It doesn’t seem so long ago when politicians would be forced to resign for the relatively minor “crimes” of having an affair or fiddling expenses or getting a mate planning permission.
Now it seems, unless for instance you are best mates with a paedophile, you just stand there, brazen it out and wait for the news cycle to move on.
I’d hazard a guess that the process goes something like this. “Are there anymore skeletons in the closet we need to know about Peter?”
“Absolutely not”
“Splendid”
They should have asked if he had any more closets.
Well played.
Arf @leedsboy
Is there not also an argument that in order to become any sort of elected politician, of almost any background or persuasion, that you have to be SO thick skinned and oblivious to criticism or scrutiny that you are probably much more likely to be the type of person who might choose to ignore rules or even basic ethics?
A lot of these people have such well paid other sources of work that their MP income is almost irrelevant…they aren’t thinking they might be vulnerable any time soon.
I’d introduce the following rules for MPs…
1, You MUST have worked in a public sector role for at least 5 years before you can stand for election. ( As you will be making judgements on public spending.) A cushy well paid role in a non profit does not count.
2, One proven strike against you, (by a cross party committee) and that’s it. Immediate firing, deselection and a by-election.
3, Absolutely no way back in the future.
The problem with those rules is that it makes me eligible. So there must be something awry.
Hmmm, yeah me too…though I’d be completely unsuitable as I’d spend my whole time insulting Trump instead of trying to embarrassingly ingratiate.
“Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.”
(Harry Day, 2nd Lieutenant RFC)
Politicians do not wish to be seen as fools, so they disobey when it suits them and smugly consider themselves to be wise when they get away with transgression.
This misapprehension needs regulatory correction.
That line is just a get-out clause for the arrogant, when caught disobeying the rules.
Number one feels a bit bonkers – we already struggle for quality MPs and you’d be reducing the potential pool by at least half. Plus, MPs aren’t only making decisions about public sector spending. You need a variety of perspectives.
Rule number two is a winner, although god knows how you vouchsafe the integrity of the committee, particularly in this day and age. It’s potentially turtles all the way down.
On your point about other well paid sources of work, the real question I’d love to ask of the Mandelson affair is why on Earth the man had to keep borrowing money. Given the career he’d had he should have been absolutely minted.
Rule one is improved by changing it to you must have worked in the public sector for no more than 6 years. Some experience of why it doesn’t work would be valuable.
@bingo-little
Your third point about Mandelson having to borrow money is a good one. Wonder where it all went?
I’ve never worked in the public sector but I’ve made many spending judgements. I’d say that a better criterion would be “show us a contract you have negotiated that didn’t make you a laughing stock for years”.
Katy Balls from The Times spoke to him the other day
What does he say to those who say it’s time that the Prince of Darkness finally retired — and hid under a rock? He won’t hear of it. “Hiding under a rock would be a disproportionate response to a handful of misguided historical emails, which I deeply regret sending. If it hadn’t been for the emails, I’d still be in Washington. Emails sent all those years ago didn’t change the relationship that I had with this monster.
“I feel the same about the recent download of Epstein files, none of which indicate wrongdoing or misdemeanour on my part.”
He clearly shares with Johnson a cast iron confidence in himself and his ability to ride through these things. But he must surely have known what sort of stuff was likely to come out; I just don’t understand the cast of mind that reckons its a good idea to keep on denying the blatantly obvious and think you’ll get away with it. Weird.
The pictures of him “relaxing at home” are horrendous. The “news” about him relieving himself in public had passed me by (although not a very noble thing to have photographers hanging around for such an occurrence)
What I don’t understand about the people involved is how they’re able to keep on functioning in daily life knowing what’s in their past and what might come out. Most normal people, those without bullet-proof skin and psychotic levels of self-confidence, would be reduced to a gibbering wreck and never sleep again. But Mandelson and many others just brazen it out, at least in public.
They don’t expect to be caught probably, after all j saville wasn’t exposed until after death, there’d been rumours but nothing came out.
This is a great question, and these are the kinds of narcissistic sociopaths you meet in all walks of life, but whom we should be making enormous effort to keep from positions of power, and particularly government.
There’s a certain mentality amongst some of the privileged, wealthy, entitled, whatever – that their peccadillos and sins don’t count, unless they sin against each other. After all, its hard work running a country/business/paedophile ring etc – and they should be able to take their ease, their perks and play amongst themselves as they see fit. Look how Epstein cultivated the gormless Andrew, the very encapsulation of that attitude, to structure his social positioning. Moral outrage is a petty, bourgeoise bore one must endure from the media etc.
Grubby social climbers like Epstein and Mandelson grew up craving that effortless sense of privileged indifference to public morality and accountability and believing they deserved it. Look at the whole wretched Borisgate to see that attitude in action.
The sad truth of this whole thing is that the wealthy are not a closed group (not yet, at least), and the willingness to abuse power that you’ve correctly identified isn’t limited to them. They simply have greater opportunity to do so.
Many of Epstein’s accomplices and apologists were not born rich and powerful, they simply became rich and powerful. They came from across the social strata and indeed across the political spectrum (Chomsky – wtf).
The unpleasant truth is that they’re not a separate and distinct class possessed of evil characteristics. They’re just regular people, elevated to a position where they had the influence to ensure their behaviour was tolerated and even justified, and who in turn were willing to tolerate and justify the behaviours of their peers. Because – as we’ve seen time and time again – when you give human beings power and remove accountability an awful lot of them, perhaps even the vast majority, will quickly abuse that position.
We should have no illusions that this is a one off, or limited to the rich, or to these specific individuals. It’s unfortunately the human condition, and we as a species should be doing far more to identify genuine integrity and ensure that those rare few possessed of it are elevated to positions of power. We should stop turning a blind eye to bad behaviour in those we agree with or who are useful to us, or who we’ve regrettably come to hero worship.
Power is poison. We should keep a close eye on everyone who ingests it, and be prepared to call it out when the symptoms begin to show. Fiddling your expenses, your taxes, your register of interests, etc, is just the first symptom. If you can’t even abide by the rules you’re tasked with overseeing then you have no business being in government.
I think in this instance there is a also technological factor, namely email. I think a lot of people at that time either misunderstood how email works, or simply thought that there was no risk whatsoever of a private email ever becoming public. That they were words written on water.
Among the many things I don’t understand about the men in Epstein’s circle is why there are so many photos of them in his house(s), on his island, and the like: Mandelson in his pants, Andrew on all fours over a woman, etc. Was there no part, not a single iota, of their brains that wondered (a) why is somebody taking my photo in this position/situation and (b) maybe I shouldn’t be pictured like this?
None of the men come out well in these pix. Given that they are the sort of people surrounded by minions/bodyguards, couldn’t they have said at the time, “Put that camera down, Jeff” or “Delete those pictures!”?
Did they simply not care what the hoi polloi might think if the photos ever came to light?
Yes thats the point I was making – they don’t care one bit what the hoi polloi might think – again, see Johnson, Cummings, etc. You or I might think twice, should we be in high office and simultaneously, getting up to no good with cameras being waved about. It’s really quite astonishing and utterly depressing.
Mandelson’s narcissm and sense of entitlement is quite off the charts. The fact that he has been repeatedly brought back into successive governments despite his resignations is a pretty bad reflection on our system
They have the goods on each other, that’s part of the ‘deal’. The news generally only makes it to the ‘civilian’ world after someone dies, and someone finds their diaries.
“And now it’s Kicking the Beggar. (the twits are kicking a beggar with a vending tray) Simon’s there and he’s putting the boot in, and not terribly hard, but he’s going down and Simon can move on. Now Vivian’s there. Vivian is there and waiting for a chance. Here he comes, oh a piledriver, a real piledriver,…”
Monty Python saw through the whole corrupt lot decades ago – firsthand at Oxford and Cambridge, I shouldn’t wonder.
If you’re going to quote an ex-Oxbridge boy on the problem, I think Douglas Adams did it better: “…it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it … anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
And then there was the bit about how the wrong lizard might get in…
I think your quote covers Mandelson, mine covers Elizabeth Windsor’s sons.
He has resigned from the House of Lords.
That man must have a resignation template on his desktop
🙂
When asked for his thoughts on the death of Michael Jackson when the King Of Pop died in 2009, Mandelson replied, “Michael who?”
Blimey, PMQs is astonishing right now. Starmer is struggling
Starmer’s own party rebelled against him. Is he toast?
I’d be surprised if he makes it as far as the May local elections (the one’s he hasn’t cancelled); if he does, he’ll definitely be toast when those results come in.
Oh, and don’t forget the Gorton and Denton by-election is just a few weeks away. The polls say Reform is on course to win and that defeat has Starmer’s fingerprints all over it.
The truth is: he’s not up to the job.
The bookies say it’s going Green. I wouldn’t underestimate the electorates lack of enthusiasm for a party that is now becoming dominated by Tory retreads who abandoned ship ahead of facing them at the last election.
Not a fan of starmer myself however the elections aren’t cancelled but delayed until 2027 at a request from the councils involved due to reorganisation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2ggk333l4o
Not quite true. The government asked councils in 63 areas whether or not they would like to cancel elections in May.
“As a turkey, would you like to vote for Christmas?”
I was trying to point out that they’re not cancelled but delayed.
If you’re waiting for a train and the board says its cancelled you’ll wait in vain for it to turn up.
If it’s delayed then it will eventually arrive, (apart from the rare times it’s cancelled eventually)
Most are labour because of the labour local election landslide four years ago. My BIL lost his London council seat then to be replaced by a Labour member who two weeks later was ejected from the party, and now turns up at council once every sixmonths so she can qualify to collect her wage. There’s a couple of Tory councils and a lib dem council too.
It seems pointless going to the expense of holding an election for a council that will no longer exist in a few months after. One of our previous MPs after winning decided to stand as west Yorkshire mayor so a few months after voting we had to do it again for a new mp and a mayor.
The QAnon theory of the pedophile illuminati is starting to look that little less ridiculous.
Peter Mandelson is one of the chief architects of the New Labour project.
He has been completely imbedded right from the start of it under Neil Kinnock, pulling strings even when not in any official office.
It should be noted that Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney* is, as I mentioned above, a political protegé of Mandelson’s. It was on McSweeney’s recommendation that Mandelson was offered the US ambassadorship.
Labour are completely sunk as far as the Gorton and Denton by-election goes and probably for any remaining council elections in May too.
I don’t think Starmer will be ousted just yet, but he’s most certainly no longer as powerful in his party as he was. He’s going to have to do something pretty spectacular to pull things around for his party.
*Took over having ousted Sue Gray from the job.
It’s reckoned that McSweeney will be the next to go.
I think he’d be a hard man to shift, but if it should come to pass and the rest of the Labour Together cabal, who manoeuvered Starmer into the leadership remain in place, you’d be hard put to notice any difference.
Starmer blocked Andy Burnham’s bid to stand at the Gorton and Denton by-election which he almost certainly would’ve won but appointed Mandelson as the US Ambassador which has proved to be a catastrophic decision.
King Midas in Reverse…
I suspect he got one of those decisions right.
From a party strategy POV, not allowing Burnham to go for the Gorton and Denton seat is probably sound. He might well have won* and become an MP but it’s by no means certain his replacement would win as mayor in the election for that post.
Having a popular Labour mayor in Manchester, the UK’s second city, is probably worth more to them than having one of (currently) many Labour MPs.
*Possibly a tighter contest than a lot of Burnham fans might like.
Re McSweeney: hopefully the next person in his role will start changing course on the Supertanker of Shit™️that has been Labour strategy since their election.
I believe Starmer has today tried to blame the security services for failing to vet Mandelson’s appointment thoroughly. That’s after admitting in Parliament yesterday that the briefings from the security services specifically warned of Mandelson’s close ties to Epstein.
The man has no shame.