The Labour movement column
By Anthony Painter / @anthonypainter
It is easy to dismiss thoughts of a Peter Mandelson leadership as the onset of silly season. Actually, it seems more serious than that. While Tony Blair’s mission to make the Labour party love Peter Mandelson seemingly remains incomplete, as a prospect it is now no longer completely outlandish.
First, let’s deal with the slightly less interesting aspect of this: the constitutional and legal implications of an ermine clad move from life peerage to first lordship of the Treasury. An amendment to the Constitutional Reform Bill would allow life peers to renounce their peerage in the same way that hereditary peers have been able to do so since the Peerage Act of 1963.
This is precisely what happened when Sir Alec Douglas-Home renounced his hereditary titles in 1963, sitting in neither the Lords nor the Commons for two weeks until he won the Kinross and West Perthshire by-election following the untimely- or timely?- death of Gilmour Leburn. Realistically, Peter Mandelson, should he become leader, would have to return to the Commons either in a by-election or in the general election.
There are far greater barriers than constitutional or legal ones though. The obvious one is that there is no vacancy. There is a leader of Labour party, Gordon Brown, and while that is the case this discussion is rather academic.
But, as it’s August, let’s just consider the wider implications of Peter Mandelson becoming leader of the Labour party.
Peter Mandelson is a colossal figure in the history of the Labour party. His tireless endeavour contributed massively to the transformation of the party from the inchoate, self-indulgent shower that it was in 1983 to something that not only became electable but was elected - and with a thumping majority. For all our grumbling with and criticism of New Labour, it is easy to forget that fact.
We can pursue a glass is half empty attitude to the Labour government - but it is a mistake to do so. Tax credits, the national minimum wage, colossal investment in health and education, Scottish and Welsh devolution, the maintenance of constructive engagement with the European Union and Sure Start are just some of the achievements that spring to mind that would not have been possible without the election of a Labour government in 1997.
That is not to say there haven’t been disappointments - Iraq, reticence in attacking inequality, slowness off the mark on the environment and an, at times, over-zealous security policy immediately spring to mind. But there needs to be an honest appraisal.
As European commissioner, Peter Mandelson pursued a principled and resolute policy of free trade underpinned by fair rules. That was not just a regional but a global contribution; his pro-Europeanism has been an important contribution to the domestic political discussion.
And since returning to the British political scene he has once again shown himself formidable in driving political and public policy strategy. In December of last year, he laid out his concept of the ‘strategic state’ where growth industries are indentified and supported. It is distinct from both laissez-faire and old-style industrial policy (though in the environmental domain something akin to this may actually be what’s needed.) If we were being retro, we’d say that it was very third way.
Lord Mandelson - as we’ve just got used to calling him - is eminently capable in intellectual, charismatic, and political terms of being leader of the Labour party and, indeed, Prime Minister.
Capability and desirability are two separate questions, however. The driving dynamic of New Labour was novelty. Modernism was its fundamental ethos. Inevitably, it was a political idea that would consume itself. Times always change, things move on. That was New Labour’s central insight. That, more than anything, is the lesson that we must never forget. It goes for New Labour itself as much as anything else.
Now after twelve years of government, for all the achievements, there is a sense that we can afford to be bolder, more challenging, to rub against the grain a little more rather than go with it. This society is too unequal, too alienated, too hurried, too pressured; it values things and often forgets about people. We are angst-ridden and frustrated. We want support but we feel alone.
And New Labour doesn’t feel quite up to the task in hand. The Labour party needs to be a more liberal, greener, movement based party energised by a commitment to secure a Britain where everyone has a stake and has a say. New Labour just doesn’t feel able to challenge vested interests - in the private sector, not just the public sector - in a way that is meaningful. It is time to acknowledge New Labour’s achievements and shortcomings - in an honest, historical way, not just dishonestly resting on hindsight - and move on.
So this purely hypothetical discussion comes down to a very simple set of considerations. Could Peter Mandelson create a new political movement out of New Labour’s twilight? Could he be the person to pour away the bath water while retaining a firm grip on baby? It comes down to this: do architects have just one style or can they evolve successfully as times change and new materials become available?
Should a vacancy arise, it would be fascinating to hear Lord Mandelson’s thoughts on all these issues. Even though a vacancy has not arisen and is very unlikely to, it would still be interesting. There is no questioning his capability but his answers would determine whether he was the man for these times - not just as a Secretary of State but as a leader.
Ultimately, this is a set of questions that is bigger than one individual. They are fundamental to defining the next chapter of the left in Britain. And it is encouraging that these are discussions that the left is capable of having while its major party - Labour - is in office. It is worth remembering the value of that.
Note: I feel I have to mention the Tories’ open primary in Totnes where it appears that something in the region of 10,000 have voted. If Labour thinks it can carry on as normal while the Tories are experimenting in this staggeringly successful way then it has another thing coming.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
The second paragraph of this, perhaps?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/5941721/How-the-class-war-backfired-and-put-social-mobility-into-retreat.html
I would trust Mandy about as far as the dodgiest backstreet used car dealer. In fact that might be a career move for him when his "pretend prime Minister" time is up - he'll probably call himself "The Major" or something, and will try to sell you a 1963 Morris Minor that has only been used by little old Frank Field to drive to church every Sunday!
There just isn't a chance that Mandleson can become Prime Minister and if he did, without a general election, do you think Labour would ever return to office? And I do mean ever.
Irrelevant of how indestructable he may have been politically, what happens in politics and particularly front bench politics has already been revealed to be so out of touch and detached with the real world. If politicians do not alter this and very quickly the electorate will switch off permenantly. This may be good for minority who will continue to vote, but government will represent the people of Britain less than it already does.
It really does say a lot about modern politics and what the Labour Party has become when you look at Peter Mandleson. Not only is it now overlooked that he has twice been disgraced and resigned from cabinet, but the electorate have witnessed an unelected man be given one of the most important jobs in the country after hearing of his exploits in Europe. They are currently witnessing Jack Straw running round to alter the law and allow Mandleson to give up his position as Lord. What else do you need to do to show how undemocratic the Labour Party have become? Would it take Mandleson being assigned the job as Prime Minister for people to realise it? Or would it take something even more sinister before the Labour Party wakes up to what it is doing just to stay in office?
So Alan, Bill and anyone else I've forgetten, enjoy these gems about Lord Mandelson from Matthew Norman in The Indy -
*Whether he means to use his colossal strength to oust Gordon Brown in October, the likely time of maximum danger for the PM and last possible moment for a pre-election putsch, or wait until after the election to challenge for the leadership, remains opaque. But the clues are all there. In recent days we've seen Jack Straw change the law to enable life peers to switch to the Commons without fuss; a brace of Sunday paper reports about his leadership intentions; former chief whip Hilary Armstrong, who has an ultra-safe seat in the North East to bequeath, supporting him; Harriet Harman giving that American cliché "dream ticket" an airing by also talking him up; and William Rees-Mogg (not always a soothsayer who speaks the utmost sooth, but a commentator of heft all the same) treating the notion of Premier Mandelson seriously.
*If fretful ministers and backbenchers do finally conclude they'd rather not go down meekly with the ship, he has only one serious rival. But Alan Johnson, charming Minder extra though he is, lacks the ruthlessness and gumption, as, to the nth degree, does David Miliband. James Purnell is too weedy and callow, Straw too bland and sneaky, Harman too overtly power-hungry and, as her nonsense this week confirms, politically dim. As prospective Prime Ministers go, this lot are less than pygmies. They're Munchkins.
*Wherever I go these days, be it pub, back of a cab or steam room at the Turkish baths, those who not long ago would rail about him in the least elegant of language now nod sagely and say that he is the only minister they trust on the economy, in much the way they talk of Kenneth Clarke and Vince Cable.
*Peter Mandelson could, if the cards fall right, be our Prime Minister before the year is out. If the Labour movement has an ounce of survivalist sense left, he will be. He is its best, and probably only, hope of averting the cataclysm. After all, as the song almost goes, how can we resist him?
Might as well just have posted up the entire article now I think about it. If you're in need of cheering up after reading that, head over to The Guardian where Rupert Murdoch sets out his plans for charging people to read The Sun website because as he says, 'quality journalism is not cheap'.
Let's hope Cameron is a little more 'wet' on this issue than you are.
Labour stood up made a series of promises and sequentially broke them; now the country is almost broke and somehow that's Thatcher's fault? She left office 20 years ago. It's Labour's fault they mismanaged the economy; no-one put a gun to their head when they reformed the banking system and failed to run a surplus in the good times.
The whole country was in a mess than Thatcher took charge; it was the economy given to Labour on a plate that allowed them to make these promises. Labour have had 13 years to meet just one of their pledges.
The Tory party didn't abolish the 10p tax rate either as a political stunt (so much for caring for the poor). The Tory party didn't overpay tax credits to the poor then seek to make them poorer by demanding immediate repayment. The Tory party didn't screw up the economy putting a million out of work either.
The Tory party did pay out more in benefits than Labour so whatever perceived slights you have against Thatcher; Labour have trumped them.
The truth hurts; so it should because for all of Labour's promises and angst for the poor and disenfranchised; they are crocodile tears.
Forget history; Atlee, Wilson or Callaghan never made 'child poverty' an issue either.
Ask Barnardos, or indeed any NGO involved in domestic poverty issue if they look forward to the kind of 'trickle down' Thatcher/Reaganomics which you regularly propose, and I doubt they'd give you much moral weight either. Let's hope Cameron is a little more 'wet' on this issue than you are.
What about the decline in disposable incomes and the widening gap between rich and poor?
These are mere trifles?
Labour pledged to remove a million children from poverty in its first term.
Failed.
Labour missed its 2004/5 target by 600,000
Failed.
Labour wanted to halve it by 2010.
Failed.
Labour wanted to eradicate it by 2020.
Failed.
Now the poor are worse off under Labour than they ever were under the last Tory administration both in terms of disposable income and benefit payments. Do you seriously think that the trend now is still downward with 1,000,000 more people on the dole?
Barnardos have called Labour's inaction on child poverty 'a moral disgrace'.
Labour are the nasty party now.
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23728374-details/Lord+Mandelson%2C+in+the+image+of+Roman+orator/article.do
One word: YUK
The thing to grasp about Mandy - the ONLY thing to grasp about him is his arrogance, self importance and over-weening pompousity is geared towards one thing and one thing only - the furtherance of the career and bank balance of P. Mandleson Esq. At the moment I suspect he feels that New Labour will only just lose the election if not actually win it, and that the incoming Tory government will only last one term, then he would see his chance, BUT if the Tory win is a landslide and there seems the possibility of being out of power for two terms at least, Mandy will find other fish to fry.
To elect him as leader would be as suicidal to Labour as it would have been had the Tory party been mad enough to vote John Redwood leader in 1995.
The cover of this week's edition of "Private Eye" says it all about his oiliness
It is just no-one is brave enough to take it.
All the candidates have stood passively by while Brown has spun, lied and misled. To have any credibility they will have to admit that Brown was a disaster and explain how they will repair the damage he has done. But this will pose the obvious question 'where were you, and what were you doing while Brown was doing all this?', a question they dare not answer.
Browns replacement will have to be as shameless a liar as he is an continue as is (then why replace Brown), or denounce him and have too much explaining to do.
No Labour MP has the balls for the job.
In opposition they can keep up the lie that they did the right thing and it should have been continued, so save face - the cowards way out that they have chosen.
Read the whole thread and you'll see lots of discussion about the role of policy.
Shame on you for talking down the country with your 'piffle'
Shame on you all.
First prize will be the priveledge of kissing Mandy's bottom.
Second Prize will be TWO kisses.
Seriously! Mandelson the saviour of the Labour Party. New Labour is on it's way to the graveyard and Mandy is driving the hearse.
They're a sign that the government is taking too much in tax in the first place. But, rather than just lower the taxes they take, they set up a huge, inefficient bureaucracy to hand it back out which costs us even more than just letting them keep it to begin with.
Its weird but I grew up with people around me who had strong beliefs but they didn't really influence me. I discovered what I believe through life experience and seeing what certain politics did to people. I openly accept that Labour made mistakes in the late 70s, but they did a lot of good before that and they had the opportunity to do that again.
I've had this discussion about what Labour has done since 97 for me, but realistically it isn't about what they've done for me personally, it is about what they have done as a whole and I am beginning to see that for others they have made a difference, but that is where I draw the line. I take onboard the benefits, but I can see clearly the negatives and I want to see more positives.
Now is the time. Quite how is what should be debated, but I'm leaning towards understanding more of what has happened to date. Getting the media view out of your head helps a little, politics shouldn't be about selling newspapers or viewing figures on a TV programme.
Imagine a Conservative version of Peter Mandleson, maybe not quite as good with the media, but very good at putting himself into a position.
In saying that, I don't trust the Conservatives one bit. The thing that is forgotten is that the ID card scheme was the brainchild of the Conservatives, not Labour. Labour followed it through, but the Conservatives had it planned way back in the early 90s. I don't argue that the Conservatives shouldn't be tackled, they should and vigorously, but they need to be ignored when it comes to the next election. Labour need to take the high ground.
He really is viewed with contempt by many and I accept those close to politics can't see it, which is why I do try to talk politics with anyone who hasn't the slightest interest, because their opinion counts. And they depise the man.
From Herbert Smith, top lawyers appointed by the Britannia Building Society to investigate the 'Mandleson mortgage.'
I'm afraid too many people use the word 'lie' and its derivatives far too often. To be able to call someone a liar, the person making the accusation, by definition, must know the truth.
I am not a supporter, but it is healthy for us all that there should be an strong and effective opposition to whichever party in in power.
It's up to you lot to whether or not Labour can fulfill that essential role.
OK. About the historical legacy. A personal view.
In the general public perception, on past performance, the only things people will note in fifty to a hundred years time, if at all, is Scottish Devolution and it's effects (John Smith's legacy), and the Northern Ireland Peace Deal, should it endure(Blair/Mowlem but not really connected to the New Labour project and started by others). Oh and of course Iraq (All Blair's and he's welcome to it.)
Realistically Maggie will be no more than a footnote, and probably more closely associated with the Falklands War, and maybe the Miners strike, than general economics. I mean does anybody remember what the governments of McMillan, Wilson, or Douglas-Home did, without doing a discrete Google. And of course there's Edward who?
Eden of course launched a failed, illegal, invasion of Egypt. I imagine most people are unaware that Churchill even led a post war government. Assuming they don't get him confused with an irritating nodding dog flogging insurance.
Think about Callaghan's government. It's only generally remembered for the winter of discontent and going cap in hand to the IMF, if it's remembered at all.
Major's is remembered for a sleazy out of control government now. Given the time his government won't be remembered at all. And somehow Lamont somehow got left holding the ERM baby. A lesson that Alistair Darling has clearly learnt from.
I somehow think we'll still be harking back to the real, lasting, legacy of the Attlee government in a few years time. Everything else since has been mere tinkering.
The main theme of the period since the war will be European integration, whatever the result is, the Cold war and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union.
As for 3rd consecutive election victory, if we weren't reminded all the time, the general public wouldn't know or care how 'historical' it is.
As for new policies. I think people don't care what fantastic radical ideas we come up with, other than giving an indication of intent and values. We won't be implementing them soon. What they really want, right now, is people to concentrate on governing, for the sake of governing, not a deluge of pointless initiatives announced purely to grab headlines and without substance. That's what oppositions should do.
Then there's the incompetence of announcing policies purely as an idealogical trap for the Tories, and then blundering blindly into the bear traps we've laid ourselves, whilst the just look on in disbelief. (10% tax rate, Labour Investment vs Tory cuts)
There are some basic principles that we can state, they haven't really changed, Liberty, Equality, & Concern for welfare of our fellow citizens. (You can use other words, but it boils down to the same thing)Policies that don't measure up to these values don't make the grade.
The problem now is that we have a number of government policies that clearly contradict these values.
You obviously don't remember how the Iranians released the US Embassy hostages exactly 5 minutes after Reagan officially became President just to spite Carter.
If / when they enter office, I wonder how solid their liberalism will actually turn out to be.
Although I have no evidence to support this, I feel there is more to David Davis's resignation than has been admitted to.
You don't just walk away from the chance to be Home Secretary within 2 years to make a point, when by staying on you would have potentially been best placed to reverse those Labour policies you objected to.
(But thank God the Tories weren't in power during 7/7)
It was I think Smith's shadow budget that damaged Labour in 1992 if I'm not mistaken.
Not sure if this should be posted here but seeing as there is a bit of an American link with Anthony's post -
North Korea pardons US reporters after Clinton (B) visit
See Little Bush and all your f***wit neo-con cronies. A bit of humility and respect goes so much further than macho posturing.
Axis of evil my arse!! Thanks for 8 wasted years d***heads.
Seriously, I think fear is at the crux of a lot of the bad decisions Labour have made. I don't accept the line that they just want to control everything.
Good motives, poor judgement.
In the meantime, Labour needs a Chris Grayling type figure – though not necessarily as leader - to take the fight to the Tories. It's not the sort of politics that will win back any votes but necessary all the same. I agree with you – as do the Conservatives incidentally – that they will be deeply unpopular within a few years if not months. It's a bit before my time but wasn't the first Thatcher government in trouble before the Falklands War, even with Foot as leader? Cameron will have no such occasion this time round. Even if another war did crop up, I think the public have reached the limits of their tolerance for any more military activity.
IMO it is vital that by 2012/3 Labour has accepted and acknowledged their mistakes and can offer – and I hate using this word – a compelling vision for the country. I think the moment has long since past when they can do that in time for 2010. However, I stand by my assertion that Mandelson, if he wants to, has an important role to play going forward.
I've met many people who joined Labour in the early 90s (when it looked likely they would win). I will name no names, but some of these were avid conservatives in the 80s, but modified their principles like weathervane friends, merely following which way the wind was blowing.
You say 'original values' as if that is taken as read. Of course there are some things about fairness, justice, internationalism, openess which we could all rally round (but maybe not...), but one of the core values when I joined in the 80s was nationalisation and union power. Where are those values now? I don't think they can be taken as read.
Of course, we all believe we have common values. The tough part, the necessary part, will be figuring out what those values are. I don't think we've even really begun that process, and it explains the often bipolar actions of our current government.
On your last point, I think New Labour has both been too ideological, and also too partisan. It's a strange thing to say, but I witnessed a similiar thing in America during the last election. The Clintonites were diehard partisans, but their politics was triangulated, and a weird mix of left and right wing dogma. They considered themselves democrats by label, part of the culture wars of the 60s, but ideologically they were quite conservative.
I'm looking forward to something happening in British politics akin to the Obama shift. No I don't mean messianic nonsense, or obeisance to US politics. But Thatcher followed Hayek and Friedman, and Blair and Brown modelled themselves on Clinton, and what I learn from Obama is that there is a way to be more radical and liberal, and yet less polarising and partisan.
It would take a whole essay to unpack that last sentence, but perhaps you get where I'm coming from.
Labour need someone inoffensive, someone who won't play party politics for a little while so Labour can regain a good place, an honourable place in politics. I hate the fact that I can't identify anyone as it makes my argument fall flat on its face, but there will be someone, there is someone, they're just hiding at the moment.
After 9/11 and 7/7, as a government we got scared. Scared that on our watch, we were failing in our basic duty of protecting people. And it was that fear that led us to make decisions and legislate in haste. Invariably, these decisions have not been the right ones and we need to admit that, but also to say to people that no government can eliminate risk entirely and neither should they try because the end product of doing so is to erode the liberties we set out to protect.
Sure it'll be painted as a U-turn but if you're going to do a 180, do it for the right reasons.
The idea of wilderness makes me shudder a little, I hadn't looked at it like that. I want Labour to regroup, but the idea that Labour is out there in some other place isn't a comfortable one, but if thats what it takes to regroup and come out with things that the electorate really want, then thats what has to happen.
I think a period of listening is key, but that can be done right now. I found it disturbing to find a PPC saying:
"I think it is very difficult for politicians to espouse values of trust and honesty and be believed in today’s climate. I would ask people to get to know me, listen to my views, and if they agree with me, vote for me."
That isn't politics, thats dictating. Its not important what a PPC's views are unless they represent the electorate. It isn't the electorate that needs to agree with the PPC, it is the PPC that needs to agree with the electorate. Politics needs to encourage its candidates to listen and listen good.
Something else that needs to stop really, and although this is may be counterproductive to party politics it does need to happen, is the concept of safe seats. No one, and I mean no one deserves a place in Parliament just because the local electorate blindly votes for one party. It brings the wrong people into politics and this needs to be addressed. There are bright minds here who can resolve this, please tell me how this can be resolved?
Because unlike the Tories in 97, where ideological fervour over Europe had split the party, Labour now look like a party of pragmatism rather than principle. It wasn't just sleaze that shook the Conservatives in the 90s, it was the extreme ideological dogma of Thatcherism. Labour need to return to a more principled stance because, in Cameron and the current Conservatives, it faces a Blairite form of polity.
Oddly enough, the so called 'Young Blairites' are not particularly ideologically entrenched. You could call it opportunism or merely success, but they went with the mainstream of New Labour because - for the first time ever - it delivered three Labour victories.
As I say below, New Labour is a doomed as New Democrats were when Hillary faced Obama. We are done with policy triangulation. We need something more principled, and strangely more pragmatic and cross partisan too.
We have a generation now of young politicians, both used to governance0 and with no investment in the ideological status quo ante. Given this scenario, Mandelson's extreme flexibility, his aptitude for changing jobs, staging comebacks, mutating from left to right to left again, might be a useful caretaking role. It won't be principled, but you don't need a principled caretaker. It won't be new, but caretaking is a job for those on the way out.
The Labour minded aren't fooled by the spin, they know what is needed to be an effective Party and some are coming round to the idea that the Labour Party will soon be in opposition and are preparing for it. This is the first time in political history that this technology has been available to be able to prepare for this and it is the technology, particularly the LL, that will make a difference in my opinion.
As I say alot, I could be wrong. Maybe the big plan is that the Labour Party is destined to become history in the next few months, but I wouldn't bank on it, especially not if what I'm seeing on here is anything to go by.
What do you expect from life on the opposite benches?
I'm disagreeing with the fact that Labour won't be listened to because I believe, naively or not, that something will come out of this mess that will be really rather good. Something will rise up and create a new sort of politics, something the Conservative party are not geared up for because they are happy to accept the next election by default. I could be wrong, you might be right, but its all speculation until something happens. That will be the day GB manages to pry himself away from his books and calls a general election or when the PLP grows a set and realises that the current situation is helping no one other than those who are on a wage from Labour being in office.
I have long contended that if Labour ever wants to return from the wilderness into which it will shortly be cast, then it needs to face reality, ditch the deadweight pilot, get a good caretaker and start the slow process of rebuilding.
The alternative is oblivion.
I find your view of the role of opposition deeply depressing. Just waiting for the government to screw up so that the next party can take their turn on the predictable political merri-go-round is not how I see politics. I agree with Roy Hattersley that it should be about competing visions of the good society rather than passively waiting your turn.
I have no knowledge of Purnell or how good / bad he is as a constituency MP. However this Fraser Nelson piece on him is worth a read -
The Spectator
In anticipation of the reply that JP is more Tory then Labour consider this. The exact same thing was said about Blair (3 election wins) and the opposite is said about Cameron (1-2 election wins) by people like Heffer and Hitchens (P.). See the pattern? To win, your party and specifically your leader have to appeal to the other side, as well as traditional supporters. This is a tough job, but as Palin and Hague (1997-2001) show, it is an impossibe job if you only appeal to your base.
You are probably right about there being vast numbers of people waiting for the Labour Party to discover it's better angels but in terms of media focus, it will be exclusively on the Tories for a good few years. If used well, this time will be positive in terms of allowing Labour to exercise a few demons and present itself as an alternative government again.
If you want to test the metal of Mandleson then why not show some character and put him up against Cameron, literally. If the Labour Party really believes he is the solution, let him stand as a candidate for Cameron's constituency (without looking is it Witney or something along those lines?)
Lets see whether he really is the brilliant political mastermind he is made out to be and sod putting him a safe seat, lets see him fight for his supper!
That won't work quite as well with this next few years, but what will work is regaining the high ground. Throwing out the lies and spin and becoming what the Party should be, fighting for the rights of the individual, not what it has become, taking them away.
Opposition is a great thing in many respects. You don't have to deliver policy, you don't have to deliver anything, all you need to do is point out where the government is going wrong and without any spin, ensure the media does their job by reporting the mistakes of government and how you, the opposition can do it differently.
Alan is right to explode over James, the man is cut from the same cloth as Mandleson, but unlike Mandleson he doesn't make you laugh or wonder how he gets away with it. The man hasn't a clue about his constituency, whatever he might claim and he is only interested in one thing, his own goals.
Anyway, back to positives. I don't agree that the first few years the Labour Party won't be listened to and do you know why? There is an army of people waiting for the Labour Party to return to something decent, something that is worthy of the name Labour. Even those who openly come out to defend the Labour Party have some doubts about some of the policies and they wonder whether it is a Labour government making those policies. I know those people are there waiting, and I also know they are right here. They may not comment, they may not submit articles, but they are watching. They are waiting. Give them something positive to believe in and watch what happens. The Conservative party won't know what has hit them if the real Labour support comes back and starts to fight for what is right.
Our Conservative viewers will now think I've lost the plot and maybe I have, but the Conservatives haven't gained any ground so far in any by-election, it is the Labour vote that has not bothered to turn out. If the Labour vote comes back, the Conservatives have a fight on their hands and they know it.
HYou are arguing against yourself, Tony.
Mandy is part of the past, not a "new era". Nobody trusts him and he is something of a joke. Like the undead. He's dead (politically) but he won't lie down.
You seem very naive - mandy would say anything to hang on to the power he has accrued without being democrratically elected.
I hope if he DID renounce his title and stand for Parliament Martin bell would take him on. like Hamilton, Mandy is the peitome of sleaze and vulgarity.
Yes - and how did he do it?
By turning the labour party into a cheap copy of the Tory party - even to the point of being anti-union and with a pro-privatisation bias.
If mandy really thinks the country would accept him as Labour leader - or come to that any lickspittle lurking under the New Labour paving stones - they must be mad.
His overweening self importance, his previous misdemeanours would come back to haunt him. He always spoke as if he had a plum in his mouth - now he sounds as if he has got a whole bagful in that oily gob.
Mandy as potential PM? Two words: Mortgage application should put a stop to that.
Anyway, I very much doubt that his importance even in pre 97 days was that great: by 1993/4 this country was sick to death of the Tories and just wanted change 9just like they do now, sadly for you). Anyone could have won provided they were "Labour" (sic) in 1997.
Mandy is, and always was, an oleaginous creep detested by a great many within and without of the Labour Party.
You should get Peter Kilfoyle to write a piece about this eulogy
Given this, if Labour was led by someone who saw their role as creating the space and conditions for others to develop, then time could be spent judging who might be best suited to take on the job long term. It is no conincedence that James Purnell's Demos project is due to report in mid 2012. I firmly believe he (and others) see their work as the basis for a 2014/5 manifesto.
Alan Giles should feel free to explode at this point
I'm not sure what you mean when you say the re-branding didn't work? It won 3 elections. No question the outcomes of these 13 years have been a let down but dealing with the issues you raise about workers and poverty can't be achieved in opposition.
You mention again in your fourth paragraph about campaigning for 'the right people' but still don't say who they might be.
As a guy who has always voted Labour through thick and thin, the 2001 election was the last time I could bring myself to waste my vote on a collection of arrogant, hypocritical, self-opinionated folk who believed their nuLabour values were so much more relevant than my Labour ones.
I tend to believe that the epitomy of nuLabours arrogance would be to elect Mandleson, or the appaling Ms Harman, as leader. At least that way the nuLabour project would blow up in their faces rather than spin its way out of control.
The problem with Mandleson is it is so obvious to the electorate when he is lying, for starters his lips move. He may well have helped to rebrand the Labour Party, for all I care he could have come up with the whole idea, but it didn't work.
Labour exchanged any good faith it had with the electorate by getting rid of Blair without an election and under the premiership of GB all we have seen is him dashing from one disaster to the next. Then in steps Mandleson. He's promoted to the highest rank he can be and is shoved on television to fight the corner of the Labour Party and why? Because politically he is viewed as someone the Conservatives is scared of. With the greatest respect, Charles Bronson is a man that is universally feared by politicians and he can do a good patter into a camera, so why not release him from prison, give him a peerage and let him into a television studio with Cameron? Cameron would have kittens, let alone puppies!
Its a farce Louis and its being played out with utter contempt for the electorate. If GB had some guts he would face the fact that Labour have a huge mountain to climb to get back on course with the electorate, call an election and allow the rebuild to begin, but this time from the grassroots up. I'll gladly put on my walking boots and go out on the doorstep for the right people, but only if that is backed up by the right policies. And that isn't going to happen with the man who only a month or so ago was hellbent on disposing of the Post Office.
The next Labour leader? Good question, but lets just hope that whoever it is hasn't been ordained by the likes of Mandleson and that it is someone with a bit of integrity, that is what the role needs. Someone of substance, someone who understands the electorate and someone with the vision of something other than calling the Conservatives nasty. If Labour want to be progressive, if they want to rebrand themselves, then do something daring - be the Party that you should be and return to good old fashioned honour and respect. Prove that modern politics has some values that our young can admire, and for the love of all that is holy, prove that we have some decent politicians that do not lie when asked a straightforward question.
Mandelson was central to that re-branding as was his decision to back Blair as the front man over Brown. The importance of that one action is now clear fo all to see. Yes sleaze helped but it wasn't the only factor. The Tories were unpopular in 1992 but Labour couldn't 'seal the deal' with Kinnock, they needed the appeal of Blair as the personification of middle England.
Mandleson stands for the very thing that makes Labour unelectable at the moment
There are many things that are making Labour unelectable at the moment and the blame lies mainly with Brown not Mandelson. PM for PM will depend on whether he can change because as he said on this very site, the old centralized, command and control days are over. What worked in the 1990's - and spin worked back then - won't work now.
Who do you think should be the next Labour leader Bill? Who is a step forward because I'm struggling to figure it out.
Joking aside, you're right, Peter Mandleson did help win against the Conservatives in 1997, but in case your history is a little hazy, the Labour Party won that election because people were sick of Conservative sleaze and they thought the newly branded Labour Party might be worth a chance. Whether Mandleson had been there or not is an irrelevance really in the scale of things, and besides which, the electorate didn't have a clue who they were dealing with. They do now.
You may think I'm being overly negative, but Mandleson stands for the very thing that makes Labour unelectable at the moment, and he certainly isn't the solution. I couldn't give a monkey's right testicle whether he's been appointed as a Lord or if he's given a fancy title, he is the reason the Labour Party is in the mess it is because of the lying, the spin and generally trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate. And people think he's a good choice for leader?
I want to see Labour back to what it should be, fighting for the working person, giving back to communities and making sure that no one lives in poverty in what should be one of the richest countries in the West. But that isn't going to happen with the current model that the Labour Party are following and with Mandleson, what you see is what you get, slimy politics designed to decieve the electorate so he can fill his boots and attempt to follow in the footsteps of his grandfather.
1 step forward in admitting that the Labour Party needs to change to be more appealing to the electorate, but 3 steps backward for thinking that will have anything to do with the likes of Mandleson.
Have all the arguments you want about Labour / New Labour / NuLabour / ZanuLabour / Old Labour but they don't count for anything if the party isn't in government.
If you want to see what happens to a party that swings away from the centre when it gets turfed out of office perhaps I could recommend the following 2 case studies -
Conservative Party 1997-2005
Republican Party 2008-eternity if Palin's popularity is anything to go by.
I sincerely doubt that any will still be alive. Heck, by then maybe even young 'uns like Alex will be too old to have voted...
His Lordship seems untroubled by public opinion or democratic mandate and openly advocates a policy on the EU, which to most in Britain is not acceptable. I don't see how that can be reconciled in a happy manner.
In the narrow, partisan world of labour politics, I can well see how Mr. Mandelson's abilities are admired. However, outside of this I can assure you he is even less liked than Gordon Brown. Spin and a good TV manner won't be enough this time around.
I can assure you, next time Labour are in government, there will be no senior MPs from the nulabour project, let alone a leader.
However, I would not be enthusiastic about a proposed alternative which appears to be old-style workerist socialism.
Labour have to hold together its coalition, which isn't only the 'traditional working class'. The liberal-Left are also an important part of that coalition, and a workerist party, hostile to progressive social legislation, would just see that group peel off to the Lib Dems and the Greens
With commentd like this it's no wonder the voters are staying home
Sorry for the short responses- mobile phone Internet only for me for a few days.
Thomas- you can discuss any elements you wish. I just saw the Peter Mandelson stuff over the weekend as a topical route into a much broader discussion. Feel free to do the same because that's the more interesting discussion actually.
Enjoy.
I thought the key element to clear communication, was to stick to one point.
There's a danger the good points get ignored whilst people state precisely what 'Lord Mandelson' can do with his ermin.
And what are the proportions of children in poverty from 1997-2006?
I don't regard myself as 'poor' as I have shelter, heat, light, food, etc (but not much else after income tax, NI, CT, etc). I don't consider myself to have been helped in any way by New Labour, economically or otherwise.
"Attacking the Party of the minimum wage and tax credits for preferring benefit dependency to jobs which pay living wages is excretable nonsense."
Except that the minimum wage still requires top-ups with benefits unless you're still living with parents. We need millions of real jobs that pay at least two-and-a-half times the min. wage.
The poorest 5 million paid less tax under the last administration.
The poorest 10% of workers pay a higher effective tax rate than the richest 10% of workers?
Disposable income has fallen since 2006. Since 2006, 400,000 more children fell into child poverty; it now stands at 2.7m.
Hear, hear!
In short, us poor people have been helped considerably by Labour, but we can only stare with envy as the richest continue to get richer.
Attacking the Party of the minimum wage and tax credits for preferring benefit dependency to jobs which pay living wages is excretable nonsense.
It gets worse. Labour might talk about fairness and equality, yet Labour has unleashed the oppressive double whammy that is infringement on civil liberties and an untrammelled nanny state. These days it is the people versus Labour - and also Harriet Harman versus half the population.
Unless the Tories implode, nobody is going to lead Labour to a general election victory. Neither Brown nor Mandelson can hoodwink us for a 4th term.
P.S. We don't have to fisk the list of "achievements" to point out again why they are sooooooooooo hollow do we?
How dare you libel Machiavelli in that way.
This is beyond parody.
The silly season is not, it seems, confined to the printed media.
'Mandy', may be the answer to a lot of questions, but I suspect 'who could be a successor to Gordon, and acceptable to the voters?' isn't one of them.
His past massive lapses in judgement(putting it nicely) just don't bear repeating.
Does anybody seriously think one member, one vote, is a mechanism he can win with, or that indeed anyone will tolerate another uncontested coronation?
What are his winning ideas, on ID Cards, National databases, 90 day detentions without trial, economics, housing, tackling poverty, equality of opportunity, etc, etc? He seems to be backing some pretty rubbish policies on these at present.
What follows 'New Labour' has to be seen to be not the same, otherwise it will be treated as the same.
As someone once answered on the impact of the French Revolution, 'it's too early to say'. I think putting the New Labour experiment down as a major historical event in the nations history at this stage is a bit silly. The body's not cold yet.
There are some vaguely serious snippets in your post, but wrapping them in a blanket of pythonesque surrealism doesn't help them get treated seriously.
It's August, lets consider holidays, and time with the familiy, and maybe building a better future, but not curve ball proposals about the Prince of Darkness occupying a non-existent vacancy.
I know it isn't working towards the benefit of the article that Peter Mandleson has had to resign not once, but twice from the cabinet. He disappears off to Europe for a couple of years while the dust settles, collects a huge amount of cash for leaving the EU and then without so much as a single vote cast by the general public, he's catapulted into the highest job you can hold in the country without actually being elected (at least GB was voted in as an MP) and then proceeds to be given responsibility over the entire country while GB goes on his jollies.
Call me picky or pedantic, but I don't think the guy knows the meaning of the word democracy.
And for those who admire him, what are you admiring here? A man who is so good at lying he can show utter contempt to both the electorate and the politicians at the same time? A man who has to resign twice but manages to weedle his way back in because of who his grandfather was?
A new start for Labour would be to get rid of Peter Mandleson, not give him the leadership. And on what planet do you need to be on to think he would ever, and I do mean ever, become the Prime Minister of the UK?
In case I haven't made it clear, I don't much care for Peter Mandleson.
Don't you mean: It's time to acknowledge New Labour’s failures - and move over?
What do you mean by "reticence in attacking inequality?"
Yes, when it comes to economic equality, New Labour has widened the gap between rich and poor. For us proles, benefits dependency seems preferred to jobs that pay living wages.
If you mean the New Labour newspeak dictionary definition of 'equality', i.e. 'promote the interests of the few at the expense of the majority', then it's hardly a wonder that society is becoming unfairer.
As for Count Mandelson becoming Prime Minister, it just doesn't bear thinking about. It's a ghoulish nightmare with horrendous implications, like a total sell-out to the EU.
I also agree with your point "The Labour party needs to be a more liberal, greener, movement based party energised by a commitment to secure a Britain where everyone has a stake and has a say. New Labour just doesn’t feel able to challenge vested interests - in the private sector, not just the public sector - in a way that is meaningful. It is time to acknowledge New Labour’s achievements and shortcomings - in an honest, historical way, not just dishonestly resting on hindsight - and move on."
You also listed the disappointments with the examples of "Iraq, reticence in attacking inequality, slowness off the mark on the environment and an, at times, over-zealous security policy immediately spring to mind".
I think Iraq for some was a bit more than a disappointment. I agree with the slowness off the mark which is a trait of our current leader and PM.
Inequality is a big one, though as I am sure you appreciate in some ways we are going too far in the opposite direction, we have a serious lack of consistency here.
The over-zealous security policy you are bang on with which is also a very poor political strategic move, with the erosion of rights and habeous corpus it will possible for our opponents to carry out sweet merry hell and (if in opposition) it will be difficult bringing it into question when used in a ruthless manner as we introduced it.
I agree with your views generally as to the direction we should take, but (hence it would be interesting to hear Mendelson's views) I wonder if he sees your disappointments as disappointments, that if he would ever consider evolving when he may well enjoy not challenging the private or public sector for that matter.
As for a new leader I will await the general and see what is available to us then, as, to be completely honest I cannot see anyone doing the job at the moment and I personally prefer Mendelson in a supportive role. If your good at something don't change it, I genuinly wish GB had stayed in the Treasury, I was gutted when he became PM though I have and will continue to support him.
He's a crook who's twice had to leave government in disgrace.
Success has been very thin on the ground and the failures far too many.
The question I ask myself is: Could I trust a man who lied on his mortgage application to run the country?
No.
He is a 21st century Machiavelli - not a Medici.
To say that we must just 'move on' is not good enough. Once in opposition, there will have to be a full enquiry into how the best part of 14 years with a big majority and mandate to roll back the Thatcherite revolution were wasted.
Where was the re-nationalisation of our railways? Where was the social house building and the ability of Councils to regain and keep their social housing stock for the public good? Where was the reduction in inequality? Etc. .....
We need to get back to our roots and start rebuilding the party based on real people, trade unionists and their problems not the trendy Islington media types who have dominated New Labour and have brought the party and the country to near disaster and bankruptcy.
This is yet another article including a discussion of the values of the Labour Party where the word socialism does not appear !!!!