Editorial
Mandelson's departure - a new beginning?
It had to rival the departure of Portillo on election night – the news of Peter Mandelson’s resignation for not declaring his loan. Whatever doubts they had about how temporary his departure was, no socialist could help rejoicing. at the best Christmas present by far.
Geoffrey Robinson – no less an unsavoury character – didn’t rate the same elation. Already semi-detached, and hanging on by his fingertips, he wasn’t viewed with the same hatred.
For many, Mandelson represents all that is bad about ‘New Labour’. Highly manipulative, pro-business, anti-union, and one of the few with a real vision of where he wanted to take the party – a lash-up with the Liberal democrats with no hang-ups about being a working class or socialist party.
Mandelson’s departure was a blow to Blair, of course: he was his closest political ally and in effect his ideological guru. Blair wasted no time in showing that as far as he was concerned, Mandelson’s regrettable absence from the Cabinet (for a short a period as is decently possible) wasn’t going to change anything.
He declared that he would continue to govern as ‘New Labour’, confirmed Mandelson as chair of a British-German think tank and invited him round to Chequers just to show he was as much in favour as ever. Mandelson will be there, advising and manipulating, however long it takes him to get back into the Cabinet.
‘Old Labourites’ have been expressing their hopes that Mandelson’s going will provoke a sea-change. Barbara Castle said she was ‘relieved’ at Mandelson’s departure, and felt sure that Blair would return to Old Labour ways, denying that Blair himself shared Mandelson’s views.
Prescott, seen by Old Labourites as their champion, issued a New Year message, coded to prevent accusations of disloyalty, but talking of state intervention, Keynesianism and an end to modernisation (interpreted as a rejection of further cooperation with the Liberal democrats).
Blair’s office immediately repudiated any such possibility. Margaret Beckett however, also seen by many as Old Labour, distanced herself from Prescott.
The press endlessly speculates about who is a ‘real’ old Labourite in cabinet, trying to discern some political differences at the heart of the personal feuds which repeatedly break out, with rival spin doctors briefing against their masters reputed enemy. Did Charlie Whelan leak the details of the Mandelson/Robinson loan as a service to Gordon Brown? Do we care?
Blair was quick to replace Mandelson and Robinson with loyalists, even if not of the calibre of Mandelson. In fact, Blair is very much in control of government policy. The Cabinet hardly has a role in determining anything anyway. Speculation that Brown is really a closet socialist is so wide of the mark as to be laughable.
While he may not be ecstatic about cooperation with the Liberals and electoral reform, isn’t Brown the one that was adamant that this would not be a ‘tax and spend’ government, pledging not to raise income tax and keeping down public spending?
As for Prescott, isn’t he the one pushing through the effective privatisation of the London underground?
And, of course, how could anyone place any confidence in people who have been willing partners in all the policies of the government and the carve-up of the labour movement, but who occasionally try to indicate that they are not real believers by smuggling dark phrases into heavily coded speeches?
The fact is that the policies championed by Mandelson and Blair, if not their ideological underpinning, pervade all departments of government. It will take more than one casualty in Cabinet, albeit such an important one as Mandelson, to change that.
Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t take heart from Mandelson’s departure and recognise that it wounds Blair to lose such an important ally.
But the only way it can be made into something more long-lasting is if the Left use the opportunity to go on the attack.
First, we have to drive home the message that Mandelson’s desire to emulate the high living of his rich friends is a logical outcome of being ‘business friendly’ and rejecting any idea that there is anything obscene about wealth obtained from the labour of others.
Mandelson far from being the first to fall foul of this, Ramsay MacDonald was pilloried by the left for hob-nobbing with high society when he led the first (1924) Labour government.
We mus also demand of the likes of Prescott that if they really favour state intevention, then they could start by halting the privatisation of the tube. If they really reject coalition (formal or informal) with the Liberal democrats then they should speak out in plain language and push for the abolition of the joint cabinet committee.
Until they do, we will continue to treat them as loyal Blairites – and fight them accordingly.