A day off gives time to think.
Yesterday was not exactly a day off. Quite a lot was done, but some thinking took place as well. That will be apparent in this and another post or two today.
One person I thought about was Peter Mandelson, or at least his consequence for politics.
I made the presumption that Mandelson, now in his 70s, is unlikely to return to front-line politics. He has departed after the third political scandal of his career. I also made, perhaps hopefully, the assumption that neoliberal Labour will soon cease to exist, denying him any further chance of high office.
But in that case, what might his legacy be? The answer seems fairly obvious. If Mandelson has ever been credited with anything - apart from his ability to commit serious, serial errors of judgement - it was as the creator of spin. He was the original spin doctor. He thought style was more important than substance, the message more important than the content, and the manipulation of the media more important than telling the truth.
In this sense, Mandelson, even more than Saatchi & Saatchi and Tim Bell - who created Thatcher's messaging - was the archetype of the modern political PR agent.
His politics were not about substance but about theatre.
He turned messaging into a substitute for political content.
The aim was always persuasion, never truth.
The goal was to make the public align their interests with those of the rich and powerful, who were the people he belonged to, and the people whose affection he craved, as did Tony Blair and as does Keir Starmer now.
There are many people to blame for the rise of neoliberalism and the destruction of real democratic choice in the UK. But Mandelson's role in creating what is called the single transferable party on this blog must be recognised.
That party's existence is now fuelling the rise of fascism in the UK, as people have had enough of the meaningless drivel and dire gruel which it delivers.
By seeking to remove the idea that people had a genuine political choice, Peter Mandelson played a special role in creating extremism in this country. And that is very hard to forgive.
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!
Interestingly, In discussion, I was trying to think “what could he claim to have achieved?”. I couldn’t think of anything. Blair could claim investment in education, for example. I wasn’t sure if I was just unaware.
Your point is that he did absolutely nothing of any substance …. Only the puff and flannel of dressing up rubbish to appear as something else. Sad, really, if it wasn’t so toxic.
A fair summary.
Blairite politicians were able to convince their consciences that they could square the circle of personal greed with social benefits – without realising that a lot of personal wealth making in this world is made at a loss to some one else. It’s just convenience thinking, and Mandelson was a master at it.
The most significant and lasting legacy of the Blair years was the lesson to politicians of all colours that it was possible to be caught in a blatant lie (the WMD claim, in Blair’s case), and yet still be re-elected. Suddenly, truth and honour was no longer a key component of politics. Mandelson was a significant contributor to this discovery (maybe even its chief architect).
His legacy is a bad taste in the mouth and wanting to retch.
Perhaps the doom of Labour should be described as Mandelsonism, not Blairism?
One Keir to begin Labour, another Keir to end it…
Seems symmetrical, at least.
He was at least up front and honest about one thing, how he worked every every day to undermine the Corbyn project. Many influential people who should have known better, found themselves on the same side as Mandelson. And look where that got us.
According to The Canary, Mandelson now says “Epstein was not a paedophile”. Strewth, does the man have no shame? Or is it another lame excuse so people think Mandelson’s OK? I
https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2025/09/14/mandelson-epstein-paedophile/
s it possible to chuck him out of the HoL too?
I would await verification on that one.