Get Paid To Promote, Get Paid To Popup, Get Paid Display Banner

Friday, August 27, 2010

The word of the Lord

Lord Peter Mandelson is not so much a man as a collection of metaphors. He’s the Prince of Darkness, the Sultan of Spin, a hybrid of ‘Machiavelli and Hyacinth Bucket’, Tony Blair’s Jim’ll Fix It, the comeback king of Labour’s lengthy soap opera, the mincing villain of its seaside-panto-slash-psychodrama, and, now, he’s The Third Man.

As Eamonn Smith of the Adam Smith Institute has already pointed out, it’s unclear whether Mandy has ever sat through the Graham Greene/Orson Welles classic of the same name - ‘the story of a morally repugnant fraud who is prepared to sell out his oldest friends for his own personal gain, and who dies in a sewer’. But it becomes clear, quite early on in his autobiography, that Mandy sees himself, not as a cynical Harry Lime, but as the chief victim of New Labour’s Elizabethan tragedy. The story is like nothing so much as Othello, with Tony Blair as the Moor, Gordon Brown as Iago, and Mandelson himself as handkerchief-clutching Desdemona – throttled twice for good measure.

The old story goes like this. Othello must go to Cyprus to aid in the defence against the Turks. I’m sorry, Blair must reform the Labour Party in order that it will win a General Election. Blair loves Mandy. Mandy loves Blair. With Mandy offering him sandwiches and writing his speeches, Blair is sure to win glory. Enter Iago, page 36: ‘Gordon took a spoonful of yoghurt and unpeeled a banana. “I don’t like sandwiches”, he said when I offered him the plate. Then he got down to business.’

Gordon’s business involved manipulating Cassio and all the rest of the cast (I’m sorry, the media), who loved Othello (I mean Blair), in an attempt to remove him from Cyprus (I mean Number 10). It took an awfully long time, but eventually the motivelessly malignant Brown managed to oust Blair – in 2007 – by which time Blair had found himself strangling his beloved Mandy twice, first as trade and industry secretary and then as Northern Ireland secretary.

The Third Man is not a great read. But it is an interesting one. The force of the betrayal narrative is so strong – and so simply written – that if you weren’t paying attention you might get swept away with it and not realise that Mandelson appears to be lying through his teeth on almost every page.

Take, for example, his ‘shock’ at the notion that Brown would not succeed John Smith to the Labour leadership in 1994. ‘I was startled. It had never occurred to me that Gordon wasn’t up to leading the Labour Party, nor that he would not at some stage do so. Tony’s remarks left me unsettled and confused as I turned them over in my head… for days afterwards.’ Yet a mere 12 pages previously, Mandy mentioned a Sunday Times Magazine profile of Tony Blair – not Gordon Brown – which ran the day after Smith’s election as Labour leader, headlined ‘The Leader Labour Missed’. ‘The suspicion that I had set up The Sunday Times piece was correct’, notes the Third Man. ‘I had suggested it to the interviewer and columnist Barbara Amiel.’

Insights into the Mandy school of straightforwardness can be gleaned from an allusion to the column he began writing for GQ magazine. ‘I was careful to say nothing of great political consequence. As a result, I said nothing of great consequence.’ Much the same can be said of his memoirs. Aside from making the whole of the top tier of the Labour Party seem like a bunch of lunatics (a fact we know already from the exhausting torrent of biographies of Blunkett, Prescott, Campbell and Cherie), Mandelson doesn’t add much to our glimpse of the inside of the asylum. Brown glowers ‘like a black cloud’, knifing him and Tony whenever possible. Tony strums his guitar. Alastair launches a tirade. Prescott throws a punch. And the New Labour project never really quite dupes anyone. ‘Who is convinced by New Labour?’, Mandy asks at one point. ‘Me. You. And that’s about it’, replies Tony.

There are moments of humour, although they are not necessarily those in which Mandy tries to make the reader titter with his allusions to mushy peas and guacamole. For example, there’s the time style adviser Carole Caplin tells Mandelson and Co. that caffeine will kill them; so Mandy switches to lemon and hot water ‘and subsequently graduated to green tea’. Now if that’s not a cutting-edge insight into where New Labour was heading, nothing is. He also devotes a solid paragraph to explaining that he never did mistake mushy peas for guacamole in a Hartlepool fish-and-chip shop (but it wasn’t entirely made up either – according to Mandelson, the mistake was actually made by an American aide of Jack Straw’s). Details of his and Tony’s bizarre code names are pretty snigger-inducing, too. A plan to split up the Treasury and diminish the power of Iago is referred to as ‘Teddy Bear’. With inspiration like that, how did it fail? Mandelson and Blair’s inept attempts to deal with the monster nextdoor – Brown/Iago – really do leave you feeling almost sympathetic to Gordon.

There is a moment when Mandy first gets to grip with making Labour ‘New’. ‘What is “Putting People First”?’ demands Eric Heffer, at the unveiling of the very first of Mandy’s many meaningless slogans. ‘It was just one of a series of heartening reviews’, Mandelson notes. Then there is the moment when Mandy orders in a load of ‘thornless roses’ for Neil Kinnock to throw at the front row of a Labour Party conference – and he seems wholeheartedly to believe that this will boost the morale of the Labour ranks. The first photo set-piece he pulled off for Kinnock involved a little child – who I suspect might have been the recently failed Labour candidate Georgia Gould – whom ‘Neil, wonderfully, spontaneously, lifted aloft. The photographers loved it.’ Somebody pass the sick bag. Of course the whole of Blair’s career was based on his ability to go around acting ‘wonderfully, spontaneously’ in a way Kinnock could never sustain. ‘Labour was saved by you’, Philip Gould tells Peter. But the question that lingers is: ‘For what?’

Blair is said to be livid that Mandelson’s book has pipped his no doubt duller one to the bookshelves. ‘I could have written a very bland book’, said Mandy at one of his press launches. ‘I could have taken three years to do it [like Tony Blair]. And then I could have published it into a sort of void if HarperCollins had been stupid enough to publish a book like that in three years’ time.’

Now this is true candour. This is the sort of no-nonsense, burn-all-your-bridges stuff that could really have made The Third Man a page-turning bitch-fest. But now that he has conned the public into coughing up for around 50,000 copies for his not-really-revelations, who can gainsay his talent for one thing: self-promotion? We haven’t seen the last of Mandy. But in the end, the tragedy he tries to draw here – the ruin of his and Tony’s fresh promise through the vindictive spite of Gordon Brown – surely can’t have many people weeping in the aisles.

Monday, August 9, 2010

BBC Radio 5 Live

On Friday night I was asked onto the Stephen Nolan show on Radio 5 Live with Nihal. Listen from about an hour in here.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

A damaging dream of Mad Men's Joan



When it comes to the ideal female body-shape the pipe cleaner is out, the hourglass is in – or at least it will be if the new equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone, manages to chisel out her will on the perfect body image.

"In the autumn the minister will convene the first of a series of roundtable discussions with members of the fashion industry, including magazine editors, models and advertisers, to discuss how to boost body confidence among the young," the Sunday Times reported yesterday.

One might think that one of the first steps to boost such confidence might be to abolish school weigh-ins and make puppy fat a normal rite of passage rather than the subject of a health warning via the National Child Measurement Programme. (Can any woman think of anything more likely to have produced a fear of being on the chunky side than turning up to school one morning and being plonked on a set of scales? If that's not going to make you skip your Dairylea dunker as a lass and develop a lifelong fear of bread, one wonders if a picture of Kate Winslet's thighs is going to do it.)

"All women have felt that pressure of having to conform to an unrealistic stereotype, which plagues them their whole life." Featherstone explained. "It is not just the immediate harm; it is something that lasts a lifetime."

And you might think Featherstone had a point – it is after all, pretty demoralising looking at image after image of Naomi Campbell after Keira Knightley after Eva Mendes and not feeling as though the jam doughnut you just stuffed in your mouth wasn't really so irresistible after all – but then Lynne goes and recommends that we now need a new set of curvaceous role models, to replace all the whippet-thin ones, like Christina Hendricks, who plays Joan in Mad Men.

So I'm sitting here, with my images of Joan, and I'm feeling a little queasy. I'm thinking even if I eat 12 doughnuts, my hips are never going to bloom out like that. What is she wearing, some sort of side bustle? Has she got pads on under there? There she is, Joan, with her immaculately coiffed red hive of a hairdo – while the Hill barnet looks like someone's just rubbed it very fast with a balloon. Joan's embonpoint is so formidable it could have your eye out – and the Hill eyes stare down at the Hill chest and command the Hill fingers to Google "conical bras – Madonna – Girlie Tour". Joan is encased in the best dress money can buy. The Hill wardrobe looks askance at the Hill wallet and sees a moth fly out.

It's time to get the point, Lynne. The Hill ain't ever going to look like Joanie. Giving the British woman Joanie as a role model is never going to make her feel good. At least Kate Moss's hair sometimes stands on end. At least Cindy Crawford's got a damn mole. If we're talking about images of unattainable perfection, Joanie, with her hips, bust and stature could take home a newly-invented Nobel for the accolade. Oh sure, she looks like she could pack a few Big Macs – although I'm sure Featherstone would warn us against those – but as an ideal she is quite as unattainable as any other. Her BMI, in fact, is precariously near that of a model's – at 5 foot 8 and 140 pounds it works out as 21.3 (according to Joanie's driving licence). In other words, she's the equivalent of an old-fashioned perfect 10.

Rather than replacing the old impossible images with new impossible images (as the creative director of Harper's Bazaar pointed out, the fashion industry exists to create the fantasy you'll never live up to) an equalities minister should throw out all notions of obsessing about feminine beauty and concentrate on helping young girls think about the size of their achievements rather than the flatness of their navels, and the scale of their ambitions rather than – in Joanie's case – the rather spectacular power of their bosoms.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Anna Kavan


Issue 188
Freak Out


Cult VIP
Anna Kavan: Undergound novelist who shot 'bazookas' in her veins and lived a life of multiple identities

By Emily Hill

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

It's time to cut this purposeless prince

In many ways, Prince Charles is like that other famous royal, King Knut, except instead of doing anything so useful as retiring to the seaside to order the tide to turn back, the Prince of Wales sits, enthroned at his desk, red in face and big of ear, emitting his own, personal vowel ‘aiiiiieeeeyyy’ as he searches for a felicitous phrase, writing letters, and striving, hard as he might, to reinstitute the feudal system. Last year, he wrote 2662 personal letters – an average of 51 a week.

‘Plough my way through a backlog of letters’, reads Prince Charles’s diary (as told to Craig Brown in Private Eye this week). ‘The first is to the Chairman of “Tesco”, suggesting that to replace his “fleet” of “lorries”, etc, for the good old-fashioned horse-and-cart would represent a tremendous saving on fossil fuel, as well as being infinitely better for the environment and perhaps he would care to drop round to Clarence House to discuss it? It’s so often the “personal touch” that swings these people round to a more enlightened point of view.’

This is only a jot more absurd than Charles’s actual scrawlings – apparently known as ‘black spider memos’ in Whitehall because of his handwriting. He revels in his reputation for being a ‘stirrer’ and a ‘dissident’ and in February used an annual conference at St James’s Palace to declare: ‘I was accused once of being the enemy of the Enlightenment, I felt rather proud. I thought hang on a moment, the Enlightenment started over 200 years ago. It might be time to think again and review it and question whether it is really effective in today’s conditions.’

Shaky ground for the dimwitted scion of Windsor to be getting onto – for if the ideals of the Enlightenment seem out-of-date to Charles on the basis that they are over 200 years old, how on earth must he view himself, whose entire position on society depends on the retention of a thousand-year-old system of hereditary monarchy.

Why does the nation continue to have to listen to his gubbins? Last week, it was revealed that he is still on an income many times that of the much-maligned former head of Royal Bank of Scotland, Fred ‘the Shred’ Goodwin – and yet when Charles turned up for a walkabout at Glastonbury, at no point did anyone smash his car up or threaten to make him dead, like they did with the Shred before he went into hiding. Charles’ entertainment bill makes an MPs’ expense claims look like petty cash, but rather than the tabloids roaring, they all seemed to acquiesce to a Clarence House press mantra that the Prince of Wails was now a ‘cut price Prince’.

‘Thrifty Charles slashes his costs’, ran the splash on the front cover of the London Evening Standard. ‘Prince gets half as much from the state… and pays more tax’. In his latest statement of accounts, the Prince received a mere £1.664million from the taxpayer – down from £3.033million the year before. His spending on official duties was cut from £12.5million to £10.7million. Considering that a ‘greedy, overpaid’ footballer who just ‘lost us the World Cup’, such as Wayne Rooney, or the ex-England star David Beckham will cause far more excitement in Japan than balding, charmless Charles will, where was the interrogation of the idea that he needs any of this money at all - especially when the Duchy of Cornwall, creamed him in £17.2million? The list of Charles’s ‘savings’ should make anyone in their right mind blench.

Whilst MPs have become national hate figures after it was revealed that some had claimed for duck houses, wisteria removal and moat cleaning on expenses, why is no-one spitting about the fact that Charles spent £6.3million on staff costs alone last year, so the Prince could continue to getting his newspaper ironed by a valet? Staring at a list of his domestic help alone makes Sarah ‘Fergie’ Ferguson start to look like a slightly more useful human being.

Asked whether Charles couldn’t fund a few more of his overseas trips without the public purse, his private secretary, Sir Michael Peat sniffed, ‘There’s not a lot of slack in the income. We are already diverting 90 per cent. I suppose we could get the prince and duchess to eat one fewer meal a day.’ What an excellent idea. Now MPs are sleeping in the House of Commons after their second home allowance was scrapped, this seems pretty reasonable. Perhaps the Prince could learn how to boil an egg himself or open a tin of biscuits.

The continuing existence of the hereditary system is an insult – and not just because Charles is heir to the throne. Along with the House of Lords, it is a ludicrous anachronism. Last week, former defence minister John Gilbert told the House of Lords that if there were an elected second chamber, rather than a house full of former Blairites, hereditaries and wonks ‘you would get the sort of oik — and for Hansard’s benefit, oik is spelt OIK —that could not get into the Commons, Europe, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly and probably not into a half-decent county council. That is the sort of oik you would have here. That is barmy.’ He then added that he had ‘no intention of standing for a seat in your Lordships’ House for the simple reason that I know perfectly well I would not get elected’.

Would Charles be elected if the position of Head of State went before the people on the death of the Queen? I think not. Charles has all the charm of a wooden post. With all the talk about sacrifices that have to be made during the recession, perhaps cutting the cut-price Prince might be amongst the most painless.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Terrible drivers of the world unite!

I am a terrible driver. When I was 18 I failed the test three times for putting my foot down through red lights, driving straight over roundabouts and crashing into wing mirrors, whilst fighting the urge to scratch my own skin off. However, Ozzy Osbourne's diary for The Spectator this morning is infinitely more amusing than any of that:

"I'm a much better driver than I used to be - mainly 'cos I ain't on a lethal combination of mind-altering drugs 24 hours a day any more. I remember on one occasion in the 1970s,l around the time my old band Black Sabbath was just taking off, I tried to calm my nerves before taking one of my many [- 19] driving tests by taking a fistful of sedatives then smoking my way through half a brick of Afghan hash. It relaxd me, all right: when I stopped at the first red light, I nodded off. By the time I finally woke up, a little red-faced bloke from the DVLA was whacking me over the head with his clipboard and shouting, 'FAIL!'"