I wrote yesterday about the incoherence of neoliberal politics. Waking rather too early this morning, as the sun was rising, another thought occurred to me. After a day of watching the news media and watching the antics of supposedly leading politicians, the sheer tedium of their behaviour is the overwhelming impression that I am left with.
Donald Trump has to take the top slot again. At various points yesterday, he suggested that he did not want an extension of a ceasefire with Iran because, he claimed, the US would get a good deal and outcome from this war, whatever happened. He went on to suggest that the recommencement of bombing was likely and that US armed forces were keen to get going again. Then he announced that the US would participate in new talks with Iran in Islamabad, after prevarication and delay over whether this would be the case.
As someone who would always prefer peace to conflict and bombs, I welcome the fact that the US is willing to negotiate, but that opportunity was available before now, and it was the tedious posturing of Donald Trump that prevented it from happening. I strongly suspect it will be the same tedious posturing that will now prevent a successful outcome to the talks.
As happened last time, JD Vance will soon announce that the US has put its latest, best, and final offer on the table, when absolutely no one, including the Iranians, will believe that to be true. The whole process of negotiation, when properly undertaken, always involves compromise and, eventually, a willingness to see the world from another person's perspective, leading to outcomes of mutual advantage. It is tedious to pretend otherwise, but Trump does so nonetheless, clearly identifying himself as a potential loser whenever he does so. The American public is tired of this; the world is bored with this; I am bored with this; and I suspect you are, too. What we are all looking for is a degree of honesty. We are not getting it.
The same could be said of the other political fiasco of the day, which does, of course, revolve around the Mandelson fiasco. I deliberately use the words “revolve around the Mandelson fiasco” because the tedious discussions that have taken place since The Guardian mysteriously obtained the documentation around Mandelson's supposed security vetting, or its absence, last week have not, in any real sense, related to the true Mandelson fiasco.
Addressing the true Mandelson fiasco would require an explanation as to why Keir Starmer, or rather Morgan McSweeney, was so desperate to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington DC. This would, in turn, require transparency about who influenced their actions and what was expected of them in return. Such transparency would expose who is truly influencing power in this country at present, with what expectation of return, and that issue is not being addressed in the current discussions. As a consequence, the answers we need about the inner workings of power in the UK remain unaddressed, and the same influences might still be in play.
In that case, the saga of who said what to whom about whether vetting, by whom, to what standard, requiring what level of judgement to be exercised about the past conduct and ethics of Peter Mandelson, must be the most glorious distraction for those who do not wish the truth to be told about how and why, and for whose benefit, Keir Starmer became Prime Minister of the UK, meaning he was given the opportunity, as a consequence, to make a series of hideously inappropriate decisions, frequently disabling the processes of government at cost to the people of this country.
Sir Olly Robbins, whose smooth style makes clear why he will have a successful return to the lobbying industry via the ever-revolving door between Whitehall and that insidious activity once this matter is resolved, delivered sufficient distractions during the course of his evidence provided to a House of Commons committee yesterday to ensure that he will appear the innocent victim in all this, whilst the blame will land on the shenanigans of Downing Street. That apportionment of blame may well be appropriate. The Downing Street operation under Morgan McSweeney appears no more benign than it was when Boris Johnson was notionally Prime Minister and Dominic Cummings called the shots. But my whole point is that the tedious exchanges of claims and counterclaims mean that the real Mandelson fiasco is not being properly addressed, leaving it in the background, which must be very pleasing to those who do not want questions asked about it.
No wonder people are alienated from politics. The overwhelming message being delivered by Trump, Starmer, and, let's be clear, Johnson and Cummings in their day, is that these people are more than happy to play silly, stupid and even dangerous games whilst they deceive themselves that they have power in their grasp, when the true purpose of politics is to use the temporary power entrusted to anyone in office for the greater good of those who have put them there. That, however, is only possible if people of principle are elected to office, and as is all too apparent in the two-party systems that have for far too long dominated politics in both the UK and the USA, such an outcome is now almost unknown.
Let me, in that case, take this note to another tedious experience I suffered yesterday, which was watching the Channel 4 broadcast in which the leaders of all the main political parties seeking support in the forthcoming Welsh elections for the Senedd were interviewed by Krishnan Guru-Murthy.
Two of the parties whose leaders were present have no realistic prospects of any meaningful representation in that parliament, so why the Lib Dems and Tories were there is, in itself, open to question, and their Welsh leader certainly provided no explanation in what they had to say, let alone reasons for anyone to vote for them.
Anthony Slaughter, for the Greens, underwhelmed.
Current First Minister Eluned Morgan pretended that Labour has a chance in this election, when everybody knows that Labour support in Wales is disappearing almost as fast as air from a burst balloon.
Darren Thomas for Reform UK, which is a name that fits uncomfortably in this context, appeared able to produce rage at a moment's notice without any indication of good reason to justify it.
In amongst all these people, Rhun ap Iorwerth of Plaid Cymru was able to stand out because he was the only person present who was able to say that he was standing on the basis of conviction. He had a clear mission when all the others appeared intent on discussing 20 mph speed limits, the benefits of which are proven beyond question. His solitary voice was not, however, enough to break the tedium.
We need more politicians of the rare type that he and Zack Polanski might be in the UK at present, with most of the rest being a very long way behind.
I can remember when it was not like this. I can remember when we had intellectuals as political leaders. I can remember when people seeking political office talked about the greater narratives that they represented. I can remember when a political speech could incite passion. I can remember when politicians were for things, rather than against things. I can remember when we dreamed that a better world was possible. Now, most of politics is about sweating the small stuff and arguing about who said what, and when, on issues which are totally tedious for most people.
We need, once more, a politics for people. We need politicians who care. We need politicians of conviction. Only then might we get hope. Right now, that is a scarce commodity.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Agree 100%. We are being taken for fools, and we don’t even know who is actually in control – of government or the media.
Its interesting how the Welsh 20 mph speed limit, a policy that suggests something of a mission by the Labour administration that introduced it has been attacked and what has been behind that attack such as petitions signed by people from Sunderland.
Curious indeed, what exactly is going on? Especially given the numbers if deaths and serious injuries it has saved.
You make some sound points but this could do with a ruthless edit
So what did you write of any consequence before 7am this morning?
Let me place a wager on it: nothing at all
Slightly tangential, but may I recommend listening to the Guardian’s Today in Focus issued a few hours ago on “The security report the UK government doesn’t want you to read” and, in particular, the interview with Lieutenant General Richard Nujee? Given yesterday’s parliamentary pantomime over the security “vetting” of Mandelson, it leaves little room for doubt that we are truly led by donkeys.
Totally, Professor.
As you say, the new pollies are mouthpieces of hidden power plays, who get up and do their thing, which is to pitch angst to the algorythm, hoping to get traction. The social-media mediated relationship between public and politicians makes this inevitable. The democracy we have is actually the only one we can have in this particular information environment. The environment creates the behaviour.
I see that in Sweden, screens are out, pencil and paper is back on the children’s school desks. By changing the learning environment of the child, they will return education to somethink like what it was.
If we can invent a new environment for politics, now would be good. There was a ‘yes minister’ episode that sketched a shift to actual representative politics.
It is interesting that on X now, ‘Grok’ can, if asked, give a pretty clear verdict on the veracity of a post’s claims, whether stated events happened or didn’t happen. It seems possible that with AI, social media could be reduced to mostly dull boring truths, so that we can all calm down and resume our inate abilities for analytical thinking and concept development. Crisis conditions needed for such a step. Will sustained closure of the SOH bring such conditions about? Will the crisis permiting change be expansion of unrest in the ME. Will it require further poverty? At some point, the catalyst will appear that aligns everyone’s frustration into a single, attainable, political goal. Maybe that would be cancelling political funding, maybe something else. Until then, in a multi faceted public debate hinging on fast-thinking outrage rather than on slow-thinking conceptual exploration the current pattern continues.
Thanks
Could it be that WW2 moulded peopel and hence politicos who were serious? That ended +/- in the 1970s and we then got a crew mostly in it for themselves/ plus the feeling that having power gives? Events (WW2) ensured people of principle were elected to office (mostly). But the system of selection (who should stand?) was never addressed & we have seen how this has been manipulated (LINO MPs = puppets (mostly) – Johnson elected by less than 100k Tories – mostly men).
& thus we stand in Athens in 405BC with Plato and Socrates discussing exactly that problem, who to put into politics how to keep them honest +/- 2500 years ago. We need to discuss the selection system.
I’ve read Michael Hudson’s ‘The Destiny of Civilisation’ (2022) which goes into the historic failure of societies to deal with capital’s toxic influence on democracy so Mike is on the right track.
The facts are known – but not widely enough it seems even if history is littered with compelling evidence.
Interestingly Mike the ancient Greeks financially audited their politicians pre and post appointment. Any impropriety found could result in execution.
It was a thorough, all encompassing and ongoing process…. something similar is much needed today.
Reminds me of the Hitch Hiker Guide story of the planet that was so concerned about its mass disappearing that visitors were weighed at the beginning & end of their sojurns such that if they weighed more than when they arrived, the excess was surgically removed before they went on their way…
So perhaps we need a similar rule for MPs & members of the second chamber – if they accumulate more assets than they were paid – any excess should go back into the treasury…
🙂
Might it be that recent and current politics have morphed into an unstated caste set up/system resulting from obsessive political conformities?
“A caste system is an artificial construction, an embedded ranking of humans that sets the presumed supremacy of one group against the presumed inferiority of other groups.”
[From Isabel Wilkerson]
“As those seeking political power lean towards conformity, so we will be crushed by mediocrity.” [From Geoff Thompson]
You are spot on about the real issue with the Mandelson fiasco. It was interesting to note that the Northern Ireland Alliance Party MP Sorcha Eastwood asked those questions of the prime minister in Parliament yesterday. Perhaps one of the few politicians able to cut through to the meat of every problem.
I hope she reads your blog as avidly as the rest of us.
We have met.
“The Guardian mysteriously obtained the documentation around Mandelson’s supposed security vetting”
Pippa Crearer, who broke the story, is married to Tom Whitehead, a senior civil servant in the comms and media department at the FCDO.
Olly Robbins was a highly regarded career civil servant until 2020, when he left and took up a post as a consultant for Hakluyt. That’s a global intelligence and strategy company, whose Chair is Lord Powell, Thatcher’s previous Robespierre, and brother of Jonathan Powell, Blair’s Chief of Staff and now Starmer’s NSA. Robbins was headhunted to return as PUS at the FCDO, replacing Philip Barton. Barton took early retirement 8 months early (why?) with a six figure payout. Robbins’ appointment was approved by the PM and F Sec. His evidence was given with clarity and dignity. He gave up his new civilian life to return to the FCDO after presumably being persuaded by Starmer/Lammy. Then Starmer shat on him. Like he shat on Sue Gray, who was the only individual in his whole structure who actually knew how Whitehall functioned. He shat on Chris Wormold, 5 months after he appointedhim, the day after Wormold gave evidence to the f Affairs select Committee on Mandelson in Feb 2026. Olly Robbins also gave evidence alongside Wormold.
Starmer was always careful to stress he hadn’t been told of the vetting results by the FO but I am pretty sure his advisors/ people in Cabinet office knew and would have told him because that’s the way hierarchical way the Civil Service works
Agreed. Yesterday and Monday were performative posturing.
I remember and miss those earlier days too. When the closing stages of a Commons debate were on BBCR4 in the evening, early 1970’s. It not just nostalgia, it’s real grief for a lost era.
Now? I don’t bother with broadcast MSM. I listened to the Robbins/ Thornberry show, main impression, these 2 very skilful performers ignored the real issue – WHY was such a dodgy character as Mandelson NEEDED in Washington?
On Monday, Diane Abbott asked that question, & ridiculed Starmer for being shocked at how everyone else had behaved yet had zero curiosity about Mandelson’s vetting.
The reason Mandelson was sacked, was the reason he was appointed. When that was leaked to we peasants, he had to go (even though we already knew).
The WHO question (raised by commentators above), was not even touched on. It can’t be discussed because the answer would involve discussion of Labour Together, MacSweeney, Steve Reed, and (content warning), “criticism of Israel”, and that is apparently, terrorism, unpatriotic, and a threat to national security. Seriously, looking at recent changes in policing and the law, that is where we have got to now in UK, EU & US.
Are MSM front pages discussing TODAY’S genocide/ethnic cleansing/war crimes in Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem, southern Lebanon, & southern Beirut or Sudan? All talk about Iran is about “ceasefire negotiations”, and Trump’s ramblings, not war crimes or genocide.
Not only do MSM not discuss this, anyone who DOES, is silenced and intimidated by the full power of the state.
And the silents screams of millions of the sufferers go on.
Any system that needs people like Mandelson to keep it functioning, is rotten to the core.
Much to agree with
I remember when Michael Foot was around and endlessly mocked as an intellectual. Not stopping there the assasinations focused on his Duffle coat, his filthy glasses and so on.
We have been denigrating thinkers in parliament for some time now. As a result we have ended up with MPs like Lee Anderson who seems to think his primary role is to be offensive.
Yes, I can remember a time when politicians, well, some of them, had “a vision”. They wanted to make things better. Today, only Polanski fits that bill, unless you think that Farage, and his desire to send us back to the dark ages is “a vision”. A living hell on earth vision, is what Farage offers. No one in British politics is more two-faced than Farage — Britain’s Trump in waiting.
You are right, people are alienated from politics, which can be seen by the 40.3% that didn’t vote at the last election.
Most of today’s politicians have forgotten that you have to give people something positive to vote for. All I see, outside of Polanski, are visions of more of the same — or worse if FPTP delivers Farage to power.
So, amongst a group of intelligent people I know, we talk about all these political games and what is going on.
One speaks of managed decline, and I argue, we must challenge this to which the reply is there are too many problems in the world, we can’t solve them, decline it is. Really??? I fear a lot of people who aren’t as focused on these issues feel the same.
Perhaps, they think the fire will not come to their door.
Beliefs are vital but not enough. Where does someone like Zack Polanski get experience of running things?
He runs the Greens
From the same place David Cameron did? Or Tony Blair? Neither had ministerial experience before entering 10 Downing Street.
Study the list of PMs in Wikipedia.
Polluting experience in the corrupt cess pit of toxic UK politics is not always an advantage.
Liz Truss had 7 ministerial positions, including Foreign Secretary, before becoming PM and she was equally poor in all of them. I think Zack Polanski has a good chance of doing a little better than her.
As Richard says, he’s running the Greens, and showing signs of knowing what needs to change in that organisation, to help it become more responsive on policy formation.
Or we could carry on with the status quo…
Thanks
Not the same as running a country.
No one is ever prepared for running a country
I hasten to add, I’m not being anti-Polanski or anti anyone, for that matter. It’s a genuine question about how one learns how to lead and run the most complex organisation in the country.
I cannot claim the following words but given the view that the behaviour of Govt.uk are presented as opaque, in particular Starner’s, I’d like to share what Alan Lester wrote yesterday on twitter (hoping this fits with the comments policy):
‘The constant intrigue over Starmer-Mandelson is exhausting. We all know what happened & why. Starmer wanted Mandelson in the US because he was widely thought to be someone who could humour Trump & prevent him harming UK interests. Very few protested at the time.
Olly Robbins was pressured to speed up vetting because the narcissistic US toddler was threatening another tantrum. He did his work diligently nonetheless. As instructed, he took into account security vetting concerns but decided it was worth the risk.
Once his links with Epstein were clear, Starmer’s opponents weaponised Mandelson. Starmer had acted in what he saw as the UK’s interests & Robbins had acted professionally. Yet they’re now pitched against each other as a result of unrelenting hostility & a refusal to explain.’
..as stated at the beginning, I am not the author however there is more than a ring of truth in Lester’s observations, and – at least to myself – a sense of can’t we see the wood from the trees.
What does feel particularly incongruous is the behaviour of the Guardian, and therefore their political editor, Pippa Crerar, who’ve relentlessly amplified this story. As an ex-pat who watches UK politics from across the channel this appears an extraordinary circus – some would say witch hunt.
I tried to watch the Channel 4 debate, had to give up. I tell my children that serious and principled politicians were to be found in my youth, but how can they imagine that? It is all to easy to worry that ‘the like of them will never be again’. But I must remember the ancient Greeks and Romans wrestled with the same issues, and managed to make democracy work at times.