Home » Posts tagged 'Labour blog' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: Labour blog
The BBC and Conservatives – are they "stirring" on the Marr Show?
The BBC ran a new story that resulted in me receiving a lot of offensive abuse saying that Ed was trying to distance himself from the unions and scrap EMA. I am simply totally disgusted about how irresponsibly the BBC have reported this, and led to losing friendships.
The story is here.
The EMA story
In his BBC interview, Mr Miliband said he had been talking to Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes about the coalition’s scrapping of the Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) for teenagers in England.
This introductory statement is incredibly misleading, such that people wrote to me saying that Ed Miliband was in collusion over scrapping of the EMA. This is completely untrue. Given that some Liberal Democrats like the Labour Party find it abhorrent that such support for students is being taken away, Andy Burnham is tabling an amendment such that its successor in some form can support students financially. I understand that Simon Hughes and Andy Burnham behind the scenes are working very hard to make this happen. Here is the video I took at the Fabian Society New Year Conference on Saturday.
The ASLEF story
From the ASLEF website
This is clearly written on the ASLEF website.
Royal wedding: Tube strike
10 Jan 2011
ASLEF’s General Secretary Keith Norman said today that the question of possible industrial action on the day of the Royal Wedding has not even been discussed by the union’s executive.
The union’s London officer Steve Grant stressed that no ballot had been held and the union and the management were due to resume negotiations about compensation for all Bank Holiday working by London Underground tube drivers.
‘The story is premature to say the least,’ Keith added
The link is here.
Here is a screenshot in case it disappears for some reason.
The report by the BBC and the amount of shit-stirring by David Cameron on this has been obscene.
There have been reports of transport and public sector strikes on 29 April, but unions have played down the idea in recent days.
The reports have come from the right-wing press and the BBC. ASLEF have been trying to deny them vigorously.
London Underground drivers in the Aslef union had been considering walking out on the day of Prince William’s marriage to Kate Middleton, but the threat has been removed as talks with Transport for London officials take place.
Read the statement above by ASLEF. So that you don’t think ASLEF are a bunch of thugs, I’d like to remind you of a picture of the equivalent of ASLEF members from yesteryear.
The BBC should report the news fairly, not be in the business as usual of sensational scaremongering. The BBC News in fact as usual simply disgusts me in how incompetent it is.
http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/100012/121663/royal_wedding__tube_strike/
The Tory deceit of VAT and the ‘Jobs Tax’: Ask a straight question, don’t get a straight answer
Andrew Marr interviewed David Cameron on his show broadcast live on the morning of 9th January 2011. Recently, people have been beginning to mutter very loudly how deceitful David Cameron and Nick Clegg have been in framing their explanation of the UK economy – and especially the ‘jobs tax’.
This excerpt is a shining example of David Cameron’s evasive nature in answering a simple question, such that you have unfortunately forgotten the question by the time you’ve got to the end of the answer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xmh5g/The_Andrew_Marr_Show_09_01_2011/
(begins at 35:40; ends at 37:10)
Andrew Marr:
You’ve mentioned jobs several times there. You must have had an estimate from your own Office for Budget Responsibility about the ‘jobs effect’ of the VAT rise to 20%. Roughly speaking, how many people are going to lose their jobs because of that?
David Cameron:
Oh look – look, of course, putting up VAT or any tax has an impact on the economy. You have to ask yourself the question – what would be the impact of not dealing with the deficit? We wouldn’t be sitting here talking about growth and jobs, we’d be sitting here saying, ‘you’re in opposition, sitting in a hole like Ireland, like Greece, and you’ve got the IMF knocking at your door. You’ve got credit downgrades, your interest rates are piling up, confidence is sapping out of the economy, the economy…
Andrew Marr:
Sure, but ..
David Cameron:
No, but this is very important. Any tax rise has an impact on economic growth, I can’t deny that for a minute. Economic forecasts are now done independently by the Office for Budget Responsibility. But you have to ask the question, what if you weren’t dealing with the deficit, which would be (I think) economic madness, and the second question you have to ask is, if you don’t do VAT, what tax would you do? The first category there would probably be National Insurance, that’s what Labour have committed to, and putting up National Insurance, as I’ve said, when you’re trying to get the economy growing and get jobs growing would be a very very perverse thing to do.”
Andrew Marr:
And nonetheless, [VAT] is a regressive tax. You yourself have said VAT is a regressive tax. Is it at 20% there for the long haul; there for good?
You can see at this point Marr simply waving the white flag after an exhausting non-answer.
A simpler explanation is provided by Stuart Adams, Institute of Fiscal Studies’ senior research economist, who has told Cathy Newman’s FactCheck that:
“VAT tends to weaken work incentives much like income tax or national insurance would. Rather than reducing the amount of take home pay that you can get for working an extra hour it reduces the amount you can buy with your take home pay. So VAT acts as a tax on jobs if you like – just like Income Tax and National Insurance do.”
Source: Channel 4 website
However, this is only part of the story. Indeed, estimates vary widely on the effect VAT has on jobs, from minimal to a lot. However, one aspect is definite – to miss out of the discussion altogether, as George Osborne and David Osborne have desperately tried to do in spinning their ‘jobs tax’ Tory Story, is grossly deceitful.
Shibley Rahman’s regular political blog is at http://shibleyrahman.com
Perhaps there should be a #NetRoots workshop on humility next time?
Netroots to me, held yesterday at the Congress Centre, Great Russell Street, was a fundamentally great idea.
The description of Netroots is given on this web page: http://www.netrootsuk.org/about-netroots-uk/
Netroots UK will bring together hundreds of grassroots activists in central London for a day of workshops, discussions and networking activity.
Hear from innovative and effective campaigns in other fields.
Make useful contacts with key people and organisations.
Get practical training in digital techniques and technologies.
Take part in the debate on the future of UK activism.
The day will feature keynote speakers and discussions, as well as many workshops, aimed at all levels of activists. There will be plenty of opportunity for networking outside the organised sessions.
We’ll be helping make better links between campaigners from the worlds of politics, environment, development, civil liberties, unions, community groups and many more.
Labour would benefit from having a powerful social media strategy, comparable to that developed by @TimMontgomerie for the Conservatives. However, there were a barrage of tweets yesterday from supporters from Labour. One group tweeted sensibly from Oldham East and Saddleworth about their experiences in campaigning for the seat there on behalf of @Debbie_Abrahams. The other group flooded my Twitter timeline was a string of mostly nonsense tweets like, ‘can’t wait for the pub after curry tonight’. Whatever the solidarity that took place in Netroots, it unfortunately gave the impression of young well-off upper middle class people playing with their iPods and Blackberries, and raving about how wonderful, for example, Polly Toynbee is. In case it had escaped your attention, by the way, Polly Toynbee does not support Labour; her views are more in tune with the SDP. I do, of course, concede that my timeline was flooded also by negative comments about Netroots by people I wasn’t following – these tweets had been vigorously retweeted, several times. Anyway, in traditional Oxford PPE style, here is a definition of ‘humility’. Also in Oxbridge-style these days, this definition is from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility).
Humility (adjectival form: humble) is the quality of being modest, reverential, even politely submissive, and never being arrogant, contemptuous, rude or even self-abasing. Humility, in various interpretations, is widely seen as a virtue in many religious and philosophical traditions, being connected with notions of transcendent unity with the universe or the divine, and of egolessness.
Twitter for me has become full of “RT @author1 author2 wrote a brilliant blog shortlink.org < thanks”, with the same political bloggers tweeting each other, regularly excluding other people with genuine sensible comments from their conversation. Such people look egotistical, and run the risk of genuinely alienating potential Labour supporters with their own brand of ‘being a clique’. For example, I really respect Sunder Kutwala from the Fabian Society, and so I was saddened to see the level of conversation reduced to this like some sort of exchange between Danni Minogue and Louis Walsh. The link is here.
Laurie Penny of the New Statesman – a talented writer, who has a rising profile as an emerging voice from a new generation of the radical and feminist left – rather misrepresented this point, whether accidentally or just to serve a polemical purpose, by mangling this comment on twitter into:
Sunder Katwala says it’s the shadow chancellor’s job to propose economic alternatives, not workers’. Pity Labour has no idea
I certainly don’t think about the shadow chancellor and “workers”. Indeed, I didn’t mention “workers” – except that I went on to to say that unions have a distinctive role too.
It is this aspect which actually concerns me the most about Twitter and the blogosphere. Certain individuals wishing to make a high impact in a feverish celebrity atmosphere; further to that, I am finding a lot of arrogant overtones in how people feel that they represent ‘the ordinary Labour voter’. It is this ‘born to rule’ which Labour accuses the Conservatives of which means that the whole thing for me smacks of hypocrisy. So – in summary – less tweeting and more reflection on humility wouldn’t go amiss for me. And yes – I am a Labour member too, I’m afraid. I feel we have an open goal at the moment, and we certainly haven’t learnt the lessons of Tony Blair, described by the man himself in ‘The journey’. We should be using the opportunity on really producing a radically innovative message, whilst we have the opportunity, and not concentrate on the packaging of the message much more. That’s why many – but not all – think New Labour was essentially an exercise in rebranding.
Crucial part on VAT and jobs by the British Retail Consortium blocked by the BBC
As if Nick Clegg’s pledge on tuition fees wasn’t bad enough, do you remember this old chestnut?
Staggeringly, the crucial part on the effect of VAT on jobs in today’s BBC news story on the VAT (“VAT rise from 17.5% to 20%“) is missing. This account on the British Retail Consortium website is as follows. This is a crucial part of the story, as otherwise the Conservative spin on NI being the only jobs tax is simply lie and spin; the BBC, as an independent and partial broadcaster, should not be in collusion with lies and spin.
This is what Ed himself said on the matter, covered on ITN News, but non-existent on the BBC which prides itself on its balance and (lack of) bias.
Link to the site: http://www.brc.org.uk/details04.asp?id=1744
Here is the text of the British Retail Consortium’s original press release on the matter:
| VAT RISE WOULD COST 163,000 JOBS |
| May 27, 2010 |
| Increasing the VAT rate to 20 per cent would cost 163,000 jobs over four years and reduce consumer spending by £3.6 billion over the same period.
The biggest challenge facing the new Government is to reduce the budget deficit without damaging the recovery. Now, for the first time, independent analysis carried out for the British Retail Consortium (BRC) quantifies the economic impact of a range of possible VAT increases and of the National Insurance increases already announced by this Government. The research concludes there is no silver bullet that will allow the Government to raise large amounts of revenue without having a substantial effect on the economy. Employment, consumption and GDP would all be hit significantly by tax rises. The BRC is calling on the Government to follow through on its recent statements that public spending cuts will be prioritised over tax rises as a route to tackling the deficit. The BRC is also cautioning that halving the deficit over four years not three would better support the recovery. In its first year, a VAT rate of 20 per cent would reduce the deficit by £11.3 billion but by the end of that first year there would be 30,000 fewer jobs in the UK – across all employment sectors – than if there had been no increase. After four years that figure would be 163,000 fewer jobs. A year on from raising VAT to 20 per cent, consumer spending would be £1.6 billion less than it would have been and after four years, £3.6 billion less. Higher VAT means lower demand for goods and services as prices go up and companies’ margins are hit, meaning they have to cut costs to keep trading so employ fewer people or hold-back on job creation. The analysis commissioned by the BRC also examines the impact of a range of other possible VAT increases. A 19 per cent VAT rate would cost 99,000 jobs over four years while a 22.5 per cent rate would mean 317,000 fewer jobs over the same period. The new Government has said it will increase employees’ National Insurance Contributions by one per cent and employers’ by 0.5 per cent. That will reduce UK job numbers by 25,000 in the first year. The UK jobs total will be 109,000 down after four years. Consumer spending would contract by £948 million in the first year and £2.2 billion after four years. The Director of the BRC explained, “The budget deficit is serious. It has to be tackled but proposals must be judged against the implications for jobs and growth revealed by this new information. “The main tool has to be cutting non-vital public spending. Removing some of the previously-planned National Insurance increase and signals that the Chancellor will look for an 80:20 split between public spending cuts and tax rises are a welcome start. “Business growth will get the country out of the hole it’s in, led by retail. The Government must now deliver a route to stability that supports companies and customers by avoiding damaging tax rises.” The study has been carried out for the BRC by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) using its model of the UK economy. The model assesses the initial revenue raising impact of the taxes then the follow-on consequences as they cascade through the economy. First round effects can include immediate reductions in spending by those most affected by a tax rise. Second round effects can include firms reducing employment and investment as costs or margins are hit. This feeds through to lower demand and lower productive capacity. Notes to Editors: The full BRC/CEBR report Reducing Public Borrowing: Balancing Spending Cuts and Tax Rises is available at : Media contacts: |
And what did David Cameron originally say to Jeremy Paxman?
Tory Story 3 – Some New Year's resolutions for Labour
By Shibley Rahman / @shibleylondon
Opinion polls consistently return the verdict that Labour is economically incompetent compared to the Conservatives. Many would indeed agree that Labour didn’t get its economic messages across competently in the 2010 campaign. Labour tried to explain its economic strategy through a series of university-style tutorials, and sloppily allowed various ‘facts’ to go unchallenged. Ed Miliband and his team will have to learn from these mistakes.
This article looks at just three assumptions of the Tory Story on the economy. The true success of the Tory Story is its simple but misleading messages. The story has various components: for example, NI is “the jobs tax” but VAT isn’t, Britain is going bankrupt, and government debt is like a credit card debt. Perhaps Labour new year’s resolution should be to stop these corrosive myths from going unchallenged. Rebuilding the trust and confidence of the electorate in Labour’s economic strategy is a marathon not a sprint, so the sooner we get started the better.
Will the VAT have no effect on jobs?
To shift the limelight onto NI as the “jobs tax” is also to present an attractive story to the voter that a VAT hike presents no threat to jobs. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) in May 2010 forecast that as many as 163,000 jobs could be lost in the next four years if VAT is increased. They said that, in its first year, a VAT rate of 20% would reduce the deficit by £11.3 billion, but by the end of that first year there would be 30,000 fewer jobs in the UK, across all employment sectors, than if there had been no increase. The BRC has, instead, urged the government to prioritise public spending cuts over tax rises to tackle the budget deficit, as well as to aim to half the deficit over four years rather than the proposed three. Voters will be looking carefully at the unemployment count, while the expert economists forensically examine the GDP statistics, over the course of 2011.
Is government debt like a credit card debt?
David Cameron and Nick Clegg have consistently likened government debt to credit card debt (like paying for your weekly groceries). This is a plausible common-sense approach based on the electorate’s instinct for belt-tightening, and the hardships they will be experiencing in difficult times. The analogy is clearly weak, but analysis of that is way beyond the scope of this article. Given that the public appear to like this comparison, it might be useful to explain also what might go wrong in such terms. The biggest threat for the UK in 2011 is that unemployment goes up and therefore benefit payments go up, while tax receipts go down. This would be like credit card bills beginning to “flood in”, while you are unable to deposit any money into your bank account.
Is Britain going bankrupt?
In January 2009, David Cameron suggested that there was a “risk” that Britain would go bankrupt. George Osborne also has repeatedly warned that the country was facing financial meltdown. When asked on the BBC’s ‘Andrew Marr Show’ whether it is possible that Britain would go bankrupt, Ken Clarke said in contrast:
“I don’t think it’s a realistic possibility. Though, I mean I’m as gloomy as most people…I think it’s very important to realise the constraints of a responsible opposition.”
The media and the public seem disinterested in discussing this, but the spin of a bankrupt Britain relentlessly goes on unchallenged. Foreign investors currently fund about 35% of the government’s total debts, and there is currently little sign yet of them losing their appetite for government bonds, or gilts – the German government has had more problems selling its debts at recent auctions than the UK.
The solution
Thankfully, official data from the Office for National Statistics about GDP and unemployment will be hard for the coalition to put a positive spin on. When commentators say “it’s the economy stupid”, they fail to appreciate one further addition to that for 2015, that is, “and its social and economic consequences”.
In the meantime, Ed Miliband and team will have to work hard at identifying the reasons why the public trusts the Conservatives with the economy more. It is undeniably hard to explain in a punchy manner why the deficit grew so big under Labour, but a good start would be to point out that the Conservatives did indeed match our spending plans until the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
I wonder what resolutions Labour will make in getting its message across more successfully in 2011…
This article was originally published in LabourList on 2nd January 2011. It has had 69 comments so far.
Blog recommendations for http://shibleyrahman.com
Although the blog is left-leaning, I enjoy reading it, because it gives a fair and balanced perspective, which isn’t the case with many aligned blogs.
Walaa Idris, popular Conservative Blogger, speaker and political activist
http://www.walaaidris.com/blog/
Dr Shibley Rahman’s blog and website are one that I read on a daily basis. His non-partisan and open-minded thinking appeal to the less tribal of political followers, and always make for thoughtful discussion.
Spidey, popular Liberal Democrat Blogger, political activist and Executive Committee memner for West Woking Liberal Democrats.
http://www.spiderplantland.co.uk/
I can’t recommend his website highly enough. Dr Shibley Rahman brings a dazzling intellect to political debate. If you want knee-jerk, tribal reactions, go elsewhere! Shibley’s opinions are always balanced, never clouded and definitely worth reading.
Sue Marsh, the ‘Diary of a Benefit Scrounger’ blog
http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.com
Razor-sharp thinking and the only Labour blog I read – Shibley’s a gem among rocks!
(Also @LiamRhodes, popular Conservatives tweeter)
Liam Rhodes, popular Conservative Blogger, CoAmber Valley Conservatives
http://www.onenationtory.com/
The site is great and the content even better. Shibley does a great job and this site is a testament to his hard work!
Andy Kinsey, Creative Director, Andy Kinsey Designs
(Also @andykinsey, popular Labour tweeter)
http://www.andykinsey.me/
In moments of lucidity, Shibley Rahman breaks through barriers of subjects normally considered taboo such as dementia, alcoholism and a unique but welcome brand of Labour party politics…worthy of your bookmark.
“Rightly Wry, Satirically RIGHT” Conservative Blogger
(Also @Parlez_me_nTory, popular Conservatives tweeter)
http://www.wicksie.com/
Shibley’s blog is excellent, providing interesting insightful opinions and some alternative views, a good read.
Jimmy Chen, Ethnic Minorities Officer in Colchester CLP
I very much like the blog exactly as it is. I find it immensely readable, and altho’ we’re both ‘Lefties’, I enjoy your sometimes alternative slant on the movement. Gives me food for thought!
@yorkierose, popular Labour tweeter
Ed Miliband’s X-factor should be in one direction
A great position for Ed Miliband to be in in 2015 would be for people to think, “My life sucks without you”. Here’s One Direction, from the X-Factor singing it,
Whilst David Cameron might be populist in approach as a politician, I have never seen him trend, like the people on the X-Factor, Strictly, or (today) Bernard Matthews. Ed Miliband can easily capture the public’s imagination, being a person that most people would much rather spend an evening in the pub with, rather than with David Cameron. I don’t drink alcohol and I haven’t been inside a pub physically since 2008, so this doesn’t apply to me. Ed Miliband’s strength is that he is young, but a possible weakness is that he looks too inexperienced. An opportunity for him is that he comes in with a clean sheet (in as much as any of them do), and the biggest threat for him politically is that the cuts succeed in the reducing the deficit totally, particularly with a hostile right-wing press. I feel that clarity in purpose, having one direction, people will become aware of the Ed Miliband brand – what he stands for – and how he relates to the other options such as Nick “U-turns” Clegg. By the way, I have no understanding of marketing in the discussion that follows; but that will become clear as you read on. Due to the X-Factor nature of politics, popularity counts, but, as Nick Clegg now knows, “easy come, easy come”. When people see this in 2015, I realistically don’t expect people to think automatically of Ed Miliband, but you know what I mean!
I feel that there is one opportunity very much on his side in this most basic of SWOT analyses (SWOT = strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats). That the Coalition gets discredited in popularity terms because of Nick Clegg, and that people, even if the economy does better, are so low in morale they won’t be able to suffer any more of this coalition in 2015. Governments tend to lose elections, rather than oppositions winning them. In the last election just gone, Labour lost, but the Conservatives certainly did not win enough to secure victory. In such a analysis, the weakness and threats have to be turned into an opportunity. He chould therefore argue that him being young actually means that he comes without baggage ideologically and has an open-mind in deciding on evidence-based policy; this is why it is crucial that he is not seen at all in the ‘deep pockets’ of the unions, especially UNITE. And the threat should become an opportunity; he can claim that he has had no choice but to agree with the spending plans, despite opposing them vociferously, but in 2015, he can argue legitimately enough is enough, and he will now ‘restore’ public services.
Looking at the competition, an obvious strength is that Cameron’s agenda is very populist, but his policies at best are tolerated rather than liked. Ed Miliband could easily adopt a set of very popular policies which are in keeping with potential voters’ aspirations and tackling their insecurities, without ‘selling out’. Specifically, a problem for Ed Miliband undoubtedly that is that Labour is perceived to be pro-immigration and too much in the hands of the Unions. That is why it must always in opposition demonstrate to people that Labour is relevant to people’s lives. Ed Miliband knows that he must deserve, after being the leader of the largest party ‘in waiting’, the mandate in 2015 publicly, but actually it is sufficient for the country to lose faith entirely with David Cameron and Nick Clegg.
I happen to disagree with Ed Miliband in that there now needs to be any form of post mortem about what happened to Labour in the last term. When driving a car, it is a good idea not to stare at the exhaust pipe. People have accepted, and indeed argued passionately, that Labour made significant mistakes: this must now be taken for granted, otherwise it’s going to be a case of ‘methinks the lady doth protesteth too much’. Ed Miliband should therefore have a small set of clear messages for now, while Peter Hain and Liam Byrne are conducted a detailed policy review. A possible model for conducting this review is to have a series of detailed consultations on ideas proposed by the voting public (not members of Labour solely), and to have a shortlist drafted up. All relevant stakeholders, including the Unions and the think-tanks such as Compass, the Fabians and Progress, could be invited to give a detailed response. However, as Sunder Kutwala has previously posited, we should get out of the idea that Labour is running a university economics seminar, and look to getting a clear message across to the public regarding the relevance of Labour to their day-to-day lives.
Possibly key issues might be:
- 50p tax for highest earners
- Securing decent pay and conditions for millions of Britain’s worst-off workers
- NO to any form of privatization in the NHS
- A living wage that would improve the earnings of the lowest earners
- Bankers should pay higher taxes to compensate those who suffer as a result
- Foreign workers must not be allowed to undercut wages and those who question immigration should not be called racist.
- Action on much improved civil liberties.
- Foreign immigrants, whilst warmly welcomed to the UK, should not be given undue priority in council housing.
Ed Miliband knows full well that this is a marathon not a sprint. Labour’s main weakness is that it looks as if it suffers from too much in-fighting, and does not have any opposition to the cuts. It can turn this into a strength by saying the infighting has been purged (with the internal psychodramas and the Unions wrangling), and trying to win more convincingly using as much evidence as possible – not just Nobel Prize winners – that the rate of the cuts is likely to do a lot of damage. Time is on Ed Miliband’s side here; by the end of 2011, the unemployment and GDP figures should present a clearer picture.
Ed Miliband is currently neither in office nor in power, but time is very much on his side. This may not be the sort of perception that Ed Miliband gets or wants from the National Policy Forum, but hopefully you know what I mean.
Anybody who doesn't understand the brilliance of Mandelson clearly doesn't 'do' irony
BBC4 aired a programme last night with the title, “Mandelson – The Real PM?”
It was enormously revealing about Lord Peter Mandelson as a person, in his extremely professional working style as a politician, as well as general demeanour as a person.
You can still watch this documentary which is about 75 minutes long here on the BBC website.
Anybody who doesn’t understand the brilliance of Mandelson clearly doesn’t ‘do’ irony. Lord Mandelson seems to embue inherent contradictions from the word go – a very guarded person privately, but a branding expert. Indeed, he is clearly very enthusiastic about marketing and branding, given his lifelong commitment to reversing the rot in Labour pre-(Blair and Campbell); he is also deeply passionate about his credentials as a professional politician, being the grandson of Herbert Morrison, Baron Morrison of Lambeth, who held the offices of Home Secretary, Foreign Security, and Deputy Prime Minister, and so he should be.
He is clearly intensely funny. The way that he makes mincemeat of low-quality journalists, especially at the BBC, was something which had me in total hysterics. He blatantly does not suffer fools gladly, and, while personally I feel he might have done better in his Prelims at the University of Oxford, he is clearly an intellectual: he has focus, enthusiasm and highly-structured analytical thoughts.
He was very driven in working for Gordon Brown, and he should indeed be proud that he was acknowledged as being the chief troubleshooter for Brown in the election campaign. He has also been remarkably full of praise for Tony Blair, about whom he is clear that he does not blame for his departure over the infamous Robinson debacle. He points his wrath very heavily in the direction of Alastair Campbell, making an extremely clever remark that he can co-exist with certain people, without liking them or being friends with me. I too am very specific regarding myself, on this point.
Mandelson shows ambition, enthusiasm and focus, with wit and extreme hard work, and he deserves to be successful. As for the ‘Prince of Darkness’ label, he has branded himself extremely successful, but Mandelson is a parody. Not being able to go beyond the depth of what he is getting at will make many people fall at the first fence. Like Andrew Gibson from the Telegraph says, he is like a supreme figure-skating champion who delights in skating over the thinnest of ice, and, like me, I suspect he enjoys fighting the most when most attacked. He does not need to worry about what people think of him – because he has won, and he knows, I hope, that he is better than his sharpest of critics.
I have been deeply cynical about Lord Mandelson previously. But not anymore – I feel honoured to give him my unfettered respect, even though I do not happen to agree with him on some issues, especially Ed Miliband.
