What is Mandelson’s real crime?
Wasn’t he often criticized for being politically on the side of the rich and powerful, even before any of his ‘breaches of trust’ were uncovered?
Well the architect of Blair’s New Labour didn’t breach any of my trust!
He once famously declared himself intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich.
More recently, he vowed to work every hour, or something like that, to bring down Jeremy Corbyn - his own party leader.
The main interest in the current discussions is in spotting omitted elephants.
In 2009 Mandy, the Prince of Darkness FFS, revealed imminent changes in UK government policy to predatory financiers at a moment of post-crash turbulence. Not only could the damage to UK interests be incalculable, he advised his rich pals how to take advantage of this, not least by pressuring the government.
The coverage is remarkable. I’ve only tuned into BBC but it appears that only Labour ex-colleagues are allowed to offer contemporary personal justifications for his seemingly endless political buoyancy - especially his allegedly famed political skills - while lacerating, Jeffrey Epstein to duck significant political questions.
A meme is dedveloping, which says How Could We Have Known? When did he change etc.
I always saw Mandelson as a bad force; an enabler of everything a Labour Party shouldn’t be enabling.
It’s kind of striking that in commentary, notes are being struck that while piling it on about the victims of Epstein’s crimes - which currently are considered not to be Mandelson’s crimes - Mandelson’s actual principal crime - the one that is actually news - is nudged offstage.
It’s the association with Epstein, Epstein’s crimes, that bring government into disrepute. What a good shield!
There isn’t a legitimate reason for this emphasis, as until something is pinned on Mandelson, these are matters of association. Damning as of course that association is; but not yet criminal (but we will watch the space).
Bearing in mind that the UK govt just tried to prosecute two businessmen for passing on unclassified information to Chinese interests…
So where is the attention, the analysis of the information that was - surely illegally - passed on, who exactly would have got it and how would they have benefited from it?
Holding that thought, why Mandelson was so useful that he had to be installed as Ambassador to the US (though big doubts were expressed) is another question that seems is being handled using kid gloves.
We are assured he was just so good at his job; good for business, good for industry, good for banking. Hm… anyone else to be considered? Didn’t think so…
A most obvious other possibility springs to mind. Mandelson has always represented the moneyed classes; and the Labour government since Blair, despite having domestic governmental duties, is much the same.
In other words, the rich win when the public lose (which is all the time).
To the rich, Mandelson is value in this zero sum game - i.e. to those whom the government, including Labour, represent. Not the public.
After all if this criticism was levelled at the Tories, no-one would bat an eyelid. But the remaining scales falling from Labour supporters eyes could inflict a fatal wound, and not just for the next election.
The fallout extends to the relationship between UK governments and American finance and business elites. The happiness from across the pond at Mandelson’s appointment as Ambassador to the US tells us all we need to know. They are predators and the public are the prey.
Despite the ‘mysterious’ fifty grand paid into Mandelson’s account, I haven’t heard the words “Insider Trading” used once even as a comparison - wonder why that is.
Have we all been stupid - ambassadors tell inside stories, but are they usually senior members of government? Especially in such a major, time-critical department as government finance policy?
If the little fishes don’t wake up to this now, they never will.