It shouldn't be down to the wrongdoer to take action

Tweet

 

It’s unclear whether Mandelson has committed any crimes or not in relation to his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, although – to date, at least – I’ve seen no serious suggestion that he has. Folly, yes, plenty of that. Failing to declare income to parliament, maybe: he says that he can’t remember receiving money from Epstein, and it’s just about possible that there’s some other explanation for the relevant lines on bank statements. Lobbying other ministers to reduce the tax bill for a friend, yes, that seems pretty clear cut. Leaking sensitive government documents to his friend, again, yes that also seems pretty clear cut. None of it, however, appears to be criminal. It’s enough, though, for people to be demanding that he should be stripped of his peerage as well as standing down immediately from the House of Lords.

It is a ‘feature’ of the English system of governance that people appointed to the Lords cannot easily be stripped of either their membership or their title. Apparently, it requires a specific act of parliament in each and every case, and Sir Starmer appears to have concluded that that is just too much trouble and is instead simply appealing to Mandelson to voluntarily relinquish his seat, and voluntarily stop using his title, while formally retaining it. It’s the sort of compromise and cop-out which bedevils a constitution which assumes that all parliamentarians, in whichever House, are inherently honourable people.

It’s a silly assumption to make – and it’s not as if there haven’t been previous cases to underline the point. The one which immediately leaps to mind is, of course, Jeffrey Archer. Unlike (so far) Mandelson, Archer really did commit criminal acts and was sentenced to four years as a guest of Her Majesty as a result. On his release in 2003, and although not a very active member, he remained a member of the House of Lords until he voluntarily stepped down in 2024. He remains a peer today.

It’s true that the law was subsequently changed – but it took more than ten years, until 2014 – to make it easier to sack a member of the House of Lords for serious crimes (although being sentenced to prison for less than twelve months, which one might think is still rather more serious than anything Mandelson has so far been found to have done, is still considered insufficient grounds for expulsion). The point here is not to defend Mandelson – on the contrary, he deserves to be kicked out. It is, rather, to highlight the arbitrary and inconsistent way in which things work, and the laziness and incompetence which means that successive governments would prefer to leave things alone than address an obvious failing. Demanding that the man accused of poor behaviour takes action himself rather than ensuring that he could be dealt with swiftly and effectively is a less than honest political response.

A tale of two Peters

Tweet

 

Back in 1997, John Prescott held up a crab in a jar of water and told the world that the crab was called Peter. The name was not chosen at random. Peter (the other one, not the crab; details of the subsequent career of the crab, who was actually a female called Dennis even if she didn’t know it herself, are lost to history) has led a somewhat chequered career, having been forced to resign from government posts twice over different scandals: in 1998 and again three years later. The common thread in both resignations was his over-familiarity with the very rich. It’s a theme which has run through his life.

His latest ‘resignation’ is down to much the same thing: a familiarity with, and willingness to overlook the failings of, a very rich man. In this case, it was Jeffrey Epstein, the source of whose wealth itself remains a mystery to many, although neither of the two Peters are known to care very much about the provenance of that wealth. In the crab’s case, that is entirely forgivable. Those who resisted his enforced departure from his latest role think that he was an effective bridge to Trump. Perhaps being tarred with the same Epsteinian brush is indeed actually an advantage. Being joint contributors to the Epstein birthday book gives them something in common, even though only one of them has admitted it to date. Trump continues to deny that the words, artwork and signature are his.

Trump’s supporters concentrate on the signature, claiming – despite all appearances – that it’s nothing like Trump’s own signature. Somehow, it seems that the Democrats (I mean, of course, ‘radical left lunatics’) had forged his signature 30 years ago (when he was a Democrat himself, before, obviously, they became ‘radical left lunatics’), as a hoax and planted it in a book ready to reveal it when he became a Republican president for the second time. There is probably a universe in which that is credible – it just isn’t this one. I wonder, though, if they’re concentrating on the wrong thing. What if the signature is genuine, but the words above it aren’t? I mean, setting out an imaginary conversation requires the deployment of imagination doesn’t it? And is ‘enigma’ really part of his vocabulary? I suspect that he really didn’t write the words himself. Maybe someone else did it at his behest and presented it to him to sign, or maybe he was tricked into signing it. He might stand a better chance of being believed if he admitted that the signature was genuine, but claimed he was fooled into signing it. In his case, being a fool would be a highly credible defence.

The crab’s namesake has no such defence. He really did write the words attributed to him. He was long overdue another ‘resignation’.

Enemies and opponents

Tweet When senior politicians die or retire, it is traditional that their opponents find something nice to say about them.  It often succeeds in conveying the impression that for all the nasty things they say about each other in Westminster, the place is really a jolly little club, where they all have more in common with each other than they do with the rest of us.  Sincerity is an optional extra.  So when David Cameron “leads the tributes” to Gordon Brown, no-one is in the least surprised.

The tribute by Peter Mandelson was rather more nuanced – but what else would we expect from that direction?  My favourite part was that the two big things that Mandelson claimed Brown got right are perhaps the two where history may come to tell quite another tale.  He said that “…he did get the big things right – notably when it came to saving our banks after the financial crisis and saving the union when it looked as though Scotland was going to go independent”.

One of the problems in trying to write history – and particularly the hagiographic variety – too soon after the events is that the longer term consequences of those events have yet to become fully clear.

There is little doubt in my mind that the action taken by the Labour Government under Brown to save the banks was a necessary immediate step at the time.  But the reason that they needed to be saved was down, in part at least, to successive governments’ willingness to turn a blind eye to the risks that were being taken.  I’m not sure that putting out a fire which he was at least partly responsible for starting is much of a commendation.  And taking a purely short term approach to solving the immediate problem has left us with a banking system which is likely to repeat the mistakes of the past.

And if his role in saving the banks is questionable, his role in saving the union is even more so.  Certainly his last minute intervention had a touch of drama about it.  Probably he had a significant hand in brokering the ‘Vow’ which seems to have had an effect on the outcome; although we may have to wait many years before the precise mechanism by which the vow came about becomes clear.  But at this stage, the buoyancy and enthusiasm of the ‘defeated’ side in the referendum is such that it seems likelier that his intervention will come to be seen in the long term as a tipping point which helped to bring about Scottish independence later.  (Which, incidentally, means that those of us who favour independence may yet end up holding a more favourable opinion of him, even if for the ‘wrong’ reasons.)

Given Mandelson’s reputation for spin, it is, of course, entirely possible that he well understands all of this and is deliberately trying to ensure that Brown is remembered for two major events which will turn out to look rather different in the end.  That would serve to remind us all of the dictum that those in the party opposite are merely opponents – it’s those on your own side who are the real enemies.  And it’s opponents who are most bound by the convention of being nice.

Ruled out?

Tweet Labour's very own Prince of Darkness has apparently ruled out ever being the leader of his party. But I've always felt that 'Never' is a word to be treated with caution when it comes from any politician - didn't Heseltine say something similar at one point? One of the other phrases Mandelson used was that there was 'no prospect' of him running for the leadership. The use of the word 'prospect' sparked a distant memory for me.

Too many years ago, as a member of a youth club, I played the lead when we performed an extract from what thespians are apparently supposed to refer to only as 'the Scottish play'. I can still remember some of my lines, including the one which goes "…and to be King stands not within the prospect of belief".

I'm certain that Mandelson, like Shakespeare before him, understands the difference between a prospect and an outcome. Could he simply be waiting for someone else to play the role of Lady Macbeth?

How the other half live

Tweet The Independent on Sunday carried a very good and lengthy analysis of who did what, where and when on certain yachts off Corfu in the summer. For what it's worth, I tend to accept that Mandelson probably didn't do any favours for the Russian oligarch, and Osborne probably didn't actively solicit donations - although he might well have been more than willing to pursue the point once the subject got raised.

Notwithstanding the truth of the matter, Labour and Tory alike seem determined to demand ever more detailed explanations of each other, keeping the story alive a little longer.

What seems not to be in dispute at all however, is that Mandelson for Labour, and Osborne, Feldman, and Cameron himself for the Tories all accepted what can only be described as lavish hospitality from a range of very rich and powerful people, all of whom could stand to gain significant sums of money from changes in government and EU policy. I remember when I was doing business with other companies on behalf of my then employer, that the rule was never to accept any gifts or hospitality which I would not be able to reciprocate. It was a simple and clear rule, which led to a nice collection of cheap diaries each year.

These politicians all claim to have done nothing wrong, and in the sense of keeping within the limits set down by the letter of the law, I'd be prepared to accept that they're probably right. What continues to stagger me, however, is that any of them could consider this sort of hospitality to be normal and acceptable, just because it isn't actually illegal. They really do not seem to understand that being flown in private jets to stay in billionaires' yachts and villas – the sort of one-sided hospitality which they could never reciprocate – is always going to look like a conflict of interest, no matter what the detail of the law says.

They may not have done anything which is actually illegal, but they seem to be completely detached from the real world in which the rest of us live; and the whole story raises serious questions about the judgement both of the individuals concerned and of those who are trying so hard to defend them.