Matthew Parris
Already a subscriber? Log in
In fact that is not what Peter Mandelson was saying. It is what Derek Draper was suggesting, and Mandelson was chiding him for it. Mandelson was plainly irritated by talk of how Brown’s ‘public personality’ might be repaired, re-spun, and marketed. He was instead suggesting (I believe, but only by implication) that the real problem lay in Brown’s lack of any coherent policy ideas or direction. As this happens to have been precisely my own analysis for at least the last four years, I seized with interest on the tenor of Mandelson’s argument.
Not that you would have known the tenor from the way the leak was presented. The key phrases emphasised were all about Mr Brown’s failure at ‘masking and managing his insecurities’. He was not (Mandelson was reported as saying) ‘comfortable with his skin’; he was ‘self-conscious’ and ‘angry’. And indeed all these observations can be extracted from the exchange; such that Lord Mandelson (said one report) ‘has been accused of savaging Gordon Brown’s personality after his private emails were exposed by a Sunday newspaper’.
What those who saw only the extracts will not have realised is that, placed back into context, Mandelson’s argument was very different. Almost the entire exchange was published on the Sky News website, and in an idle moment I decided to read it.
The exchange, which I’ve abbreviated, begins with an email from Mandelson to Draper:
‘Derek… The point you make about GB “being himself” (whatever that is) is, I am sure, right. But this is not a substitute for policy formulation and taking well-prepared, well-ordered decisions that the government collectively owns. In my view, this is more the problem than telling people you watch X Factor (whatever this is…)… Don’t put this on your blog, thank you! And I do know what a blog is. Peter.’
Draper replies:
‘Dear Peter, …[policy formulation and well-ordered decisions] won’t be enough… people vote according to a (partly unconscious), emotional motivation as much (if not more than) a rational one… That has to be conveyed by the public personality of the politician… I don’t underestimate the challenge in GB being able to do what I suggested, for all the reasons you know much better than I. Nonetheless I am convinced he has to try — and be helped to try — otherwise he will leave voters cold, for sure… Love Derek.’
Peter replies:
‘The thing you need to understand is just how complex Gordon is. We are all complex, of course. But Gordon has developed fewer ways of masking and managing his insecurities. So of course what you say is right. The public personality of a politician is crucial (don’t I know) but you guys have to be careful that you don’t make it worse/more difficult for him to change his public personality by telling him he has got to do so and inundating him with opinions as to how he does it. He is a self-conscious person, physically and emotionally. He is not as comfortable with his own skin as, say, Tony was (is). A new public persona cannot be glued on to him. It cannot be found, it has to emerge. It will do so from self-confidence. When things go right for him. When he is being successful and receiving approval. Then he will visibly relax. He will be enjoying himself. Not so angry. And then he will start talking about himself. Finding his voice. Talking about X Factor, or whatever. The trouble with his first few months is that he was told (by Deborah Mattinson? Bob Shrum?) that he was seen as courageous, turning back floods, wrestling terrorists to the ground, curing ill cows etc. So everyone went around saying and briefing how courageous he was. It’s fine to make the point but after a while these things should have been allowed to speak for themselves. Not keep saying so on every occasion as his people did on every interview. It became self-congratulatory and slightly absurd… P.’
I’ve quoted these exchanges at some length, not only for what they say about the marketing of Gordon Brown, but also for what they reveal about Peter Mandelson’s own thinking. That Mandelson believes Brown is weak on policy direction and overall political philosophy is, admittedly, only my own speculation. All he actually says is that it’s the beef that counts, not the packaging, and frenetic attempts to package will only make the problem worse — to which I would reply (and Draper should have replied) ‘OK, then. Where’s the beef?’ To my mind, this is what Mandelson stops just short of asking or answering, and his silence is thunderous.
This emphasis on substance is fascinating. I believe Mandelson’s thinking has developed and changed enormously over the years, moving from an absorption in presentation to an impatience with presentation — and an increasing interest in strong policy and the sound execution of policy. To me as a parliamentary sketchwriter, Mandelson never looked happier or more substantial than when at the dispatch-box as trade and industry secretary, talking about the nuts and bolts of policy. His spell in Europe as trade commissioner must have reinforced both his administrative competence and the importance he attaches to sound policy.
If Peter Mandelson believes what he wrote to Derek Draper then — given Mr Brown’s abysmal poll ratings — he must also believe either that the PM and his policies are sound but that spin has ruined things, or that the problem is the product, and spin alone is useless, maybe even counterproductive. I have no doubt which Mandelson believes.
Also in Society
Also by Matthew Parris
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in