Peter Mandelson Pulling the Blanket from Under Blair
Mar 13th, 2007 by Donagh
That Martin Turner cartoon the other day in the Irish Times summed it up well. It has Ian Paisley after his DUP party won 35 seats in the Assembly Elections declaring that they’ll hold out until they’ve a complete majority. Of course the prospect of holding out for another election, whenever that may happen, is a political disaster for Northern Ireland, and perhaps even counter productive for the DUP. But the move from constantly saying NO, to becoming unusually taciturn is inspired by an attempt to extract as much as they can out of the results and to consolidate its position in the long term as part of a devolved government.
And so the news today, which is not news at all, that after the first talks with the current Northern Secretary Peter Hain, Paisley cannot indicate whether or not the DUP will enter a power sharing government with Sinn Fein.
It’s a recalcitrance boosted perhaps by the views expressed by Peter Mandelson in the Guardian today that Tony Blair was willing to secretly offer a host of concessions to the Sinn Fein leadership back in 1999 when plans for a devolved government were being explored once voters throughout the Island ratified the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.
It was Mandelson’s opinion, as Northern Secretary, that if you gave Republicans ‘too much of the blanket’ it would ‘push unionists off the table’. Thanks Pete, in my mind I have now merged this mixed metaphor into an image of Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson rolling to the ground once the blanket which they were snuggling up with on top of the negotiating table was viciously yanked by Adams and McGuinness.
The story in the Guardian this morning, which is the first of three retrospectives to focus on the Northern Ireland peace process, suggested that Mandelson was strongly critical of Blair’s tactic of, as he saw it, offering too much to Republicans in order to get them to enter negotiations on power sharing.
Mendelson then reacted on BBC’s Radio 4 Today program saying that they had taken one part of a long interview and made it the main part of the story. So the Guardian released an MP3 of the interview on their Guardian Unlimited site. It’s full of choice picaresque gems, such as the ones I’ve mentioned, with Republicans trying to take too much of the blanket and pushing Unionists off the table.
It’s a fascinating interview, if only to get an insight into how politicians give interviews for newspapers (as opposed to the more polished TV performance), but also adds to the notion, already well established, that Mandelson had more sympathy for the Unionists position.
He was unwilling to try and challenge the Unionist hegemony, anticipating the recalcitrance and thereby reinforcing it. While conceding that a peace process needs momentum he considered that providing concessions to Republicans would automatically alienate Unionists.
He tries to list the concessions in the interview ‘On the runs’ he says first, ‘…not flying the Union Jack on certain days…there was three. And then there were three other ones…you can check all this in Dom’s book, it’s in there’.
It’s not that he can’t remember but there is a snide tone when he mentions ‘not flying the Union Jack on certain days’, which considering the changes in the police force and other serious concessions that have been won in the meantime, seem an absurd thing to object to if it provides the opportunity to move a fledgling peace process forward.
These and other concessions are called ‘sweeties’ and although its clear that Blair was willing to do anything to make a deal it also acknowledges, as admitted in the interview, that contrary to Mandelson’s position No. 10 considered Adams and McGuinness to be progressives.
About the letter that Blair asked him to write he complains that he was called three times out of a performance of the Royal Ballet in Belfast to talk about the issue with No. 10. He said that he wouldn’t write the letter because it’s not how he likes to do business but, while talking to Blair’s advisors and being informed that Blair thinks this is definitely the right way to proceed he effectively said that Tony can write it himself. Which in fact he did.
But this confirms to me, or perhaps reinforces a prejudice, that this former Labour minister, who is so much part of the New Labour project is simply an upper middle class effete man who prefers high culture more than low politics. As with many of those career politicians posted to Northern Ireland over the years, Hain being a prime example, there is a resentment for being sent so far from the London to act as middle men over the squabblings of prod and taigs and being kept from the real business of state.
Tommy Gorman, summing up the remarks this morning on Morning Ireland suggested that Blair’s tactic indicates that he’s a bit of a gambler, willing to put his money down, throw the dice and see the policy wins or loses.
And then he said, with a frankness that surprised me.
That’s what he did with Iraq; he bet the house on it and he lost.
Mandelson. A thirty two carrot cunt.
Yes, a right tonsured pudenda.
Mandelson. Cunty McCuntCunt. Jon Ronson has a funny piece in his book “Them” about going to a meeting of the Secret Rulers of the World - the Bilderberg Group - and Peter Mandelson went by in the back seat of a bus, spotted by Ron’s companion on the trip, Brendan. The quote:
“I looked through the window,” he [Brendan] expained, finally, “and I focused on one person, and he was staring back at me. I was standing with my camera in hand, and this person… just stared.”
“What kind of stare was it?” I [Ron] asked.
“It was a strange stare,” he said. “It was a different type of stare. Yes. He looked down at me. As if he was staring through me.” There was a pause. “I couldn’t even lift my camera.”
“And who was it?” I asked.
then Brendan said, softly, “It was Peter Mandelson.”
I don’t agree about Mandelson. I don’t particularly like the idea of either man having power to make decisions about Northern Ireland, but if you strip away the primly patrician tone Mandelson comes across as far more engaged with the consequences for people living there than Blair, who is basically an amoral hustler: Kissinger without the brains.
Ben, very good. I like Ronson’s books but I haven’t read Them. I have to put it on the list.
Indeed Mandelson seems to attract a sort of hatred from the traditional Left in British politics, those who are not best pleased by the New Labour project and the Torification of the Labour Party. They seem to blame Peter for the corruption of Labour, deciding that he was the architect of spin and focus group politics. There’s no doubt that his ‘brand’ politics was an influence, but it kind of lets Blair off the hook. As Hugh says he has a prim patrician air, which goes against the grain of the down-to-earth image that many traditional Labour supporters imagine for themselves. But this means the negative reaction is based on his publicly perceived images as opposed to what he is actually responsible for.
But there was a time when Mandelson was considered to be the power behind the throne, especially around the time when he was a Minister with a Portfolio. Around the time someone on Newsnight suggested that a Labour minister was gay and the implication was that it was him. All mention of the suggestion in further news reports were banned by Downing Street. It became absurd when the topic came up on Have I Got News for You – it was referred to as the ‘topic which we cannot mention’.
Now the attitude towards him is ‘oh how the great have fallen (twice)’.
Hugh, very good point. In my rush of writing I gave the impression that I preferred one man’s approach over the other, whereas its more accurate to say I dislike them both equally. While my opinion of Mandelson is very much based on impressions of his time in office (as opposed to actual facts) I’ll concede that he may have been more concerned about what effect the outcome of such a tactic (secret letters etc) would have on the people of Northern Ireland and that Blair was preoccupied with a Clintonian style legacy event. In this case and is in many other its as if he’s trying to appeal to the as yet unfilled pages of a history book rather than real people.
Blair is indeed an amoral moron and his motivation for negotiating with the ‘Army’ council was based the prospect of devolution that had come about from the Good Friday Agreement, an event which was initially driven forward not by British politicians but by Hume and Adams. So he was being presented with an opportunity and yes, looking at it from your point of view, it seems that Mandelson’s view was more considered.
Thinking about it today I did some ‘what if’ style speculating. So, what if Blair had followed Mandelson’s advice and not offered concessions in 1999. It’s difficult to know exactly as there were probably many other factors involved but considering that Republicans were moving towards power sharing anyway, offering them less might have strengthened David Trimble’s and the UUP’s hand. Now I am probably out of my depth already but is it possible that the slipping away of support from the UUP was because that under their watch it seems as if too much was being given too quickly, reinforcing the position of the DUP, the vanguards of intransigence. Just a thought.
I’m not sure Donagh. My sense from talking to Unionists over the past three or four years is that the GFA votes were like a step too far which they rapidly retreated from, hence the UUP (which had signed up) began to founder and the DUP (which hadn’t) began to rise. In that environment playing harder ball with SF, and let’s be honest, from Stormontgate to other issues it’s hardly been the easiest of rides for them either, probably wouldn’t have done much more. And there is one critical aspect to Mandelson’s whinge that is very telling indeed. Part of the Blair project was to see PIRA decommission and SF enter constitutional politics full time. That’s quite a prize and well worth the effort.
I was at a conference in 2003 and was amazed to talk to a serious thoughtful guy from Belfast who was telling me that a new middle ground would emerge between UUP people like Donaldson and DUP realists. I didn’t believe him at the time, but now…
I don’t know. I think that the prize of SF entering constitutional politics is a bit like the prize of getting shot of gonorrhea. The price Blair has paid -actually, he hasn’t had to pay it- for keeping Sinn Fein sweet is polarisation.
The DUP and Sinn Fein have had this symbiotic relationship in recent years, where unionist voters think the DUP is the only response to Sinn Fein’s advance, and vice versa with nationalist voters, and the only middle ground really worth having -the one between unionists and nationalists- has crumbled.
So you might have Sinn Fein in constitutional politics, and they might be sharing power with the DUP, but in practical terms you have Northern Ireland split into a series of fiefdoms, with identity politics set to rule in perpetua.
To give you an idea: my parents live in a reasonably nice part of town, traditionally nationalist, but our next door neighbour is Protestant, and I’m sure there’s a few more Protestants living in the street. In the recent elections, however there was no canvassing there from unionist party candidates.
Now in campaigning terms this might make sense for the canvassers, but it illustrates that what you have in Northern Ireland is not two competing visions of a better life, where unionists actually want to live alongside nationalists and vice versa, and try to convince them of such, but rather just two nationalisms, where demagoguery trumps almost everything else.
Did I say fiefdom? Sorry, that’s a bit too strong. How about ’sectarian blocs’ instead?
Very very interesting indeed. WBS, I remember Trimble bitterly commenting on the fact that the GPA was the poisioned chalice for the party and that DUP gains were made by simply opposing it. UUP being the biggest party at the time was in effect forced by the circumstances of the time to deal with it.
His acid comment was that UUP handed their majority over and once all the hard work was done the DUP scooped the honors. Similarly now that the chalice has been passed the DUP have to deal with it and can no longer put off entering into a power sharing agreement. What Paisley is doing of course is cutting the best deal possible. The recent mention of the conversations between Blair and Paisley going far beyond politics illustrates not Blair religiosity, but his ability to butter the anti-papist up and make the transition easier.
Hugh, you’re right of course, about the loss of the middle ground, but all mention of Northern Ireland now is about economics. Bertie in New York was talking how the talk is all about the price of houses rather than sectarianism. But then you’d expect him to say that as it his solution to everything, thinking that a property bubble is the sign of a healthy society. Jeremy Paxman was walking the streets of Belfast with a SF councillor recently. With his usual nonchalance he nodded back to a group of red bricked terraced houses and said ‘you couldn’t give those away a few years ago, now you’d be lucky to get one’. The councilor chuckled and looked as if Paxman had inadvertantly happened upon his favourite topic of conversation.
But its interesting what you say, if I get you right that these ’sectarian blocs’ (a much more 20th century term)would become crisscross through the different areas. Living together but forever separate.
I’ve always thought that the polarization was a consequence of each faction ensuring they get a big enough piece of the pie once the resolution of the conflict allowed for economic expansion.
Yes, I’ve been hearing all this about house prices too. But Bertie talks about it as if having a sectarian worldview and wanting the price of your house to go up were mutually exclusive.
Ad nauseam I have heard reports over the last few days about how voters really wanted to talk about ‘the bread and butter issues’ instead of the usual crap. Well, if this is true, it sure as hell made not a blind bit of difference to their voting habits.
Hugh, watching Hearts and Minds last night it was clear that the DUP are only looking at a devolved government as an interim measure - it’s a transition, says Paisley and Sinn Fein are saying everyday will be a fight, even though on the prog there was much talk of ‘bread and butter’ issues. If a government is formed it won’t last long the suggestion is because lines have been drawn and still no ones willing to cross them. Maybe in the next generation, eh?