By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
Back from his holiday in Corfu, Peter Mandelson is again ubiquitous, and has attacked George's Osborne's "progressive conservativism" speech yesterday as "audacious political cross-dressing" in this morning's Guardian.
Mandelson says that Osborne "doesn't believe in the necessity and value of social justice", or in "making a better society by acting together."
He writes:
"After a decade of New Labour government Britain has better health and childcare, better education, better help for the unemployed, greater investment in science, better workplace rights and greater devolution of government than it did after 18 years of Tory rule. These things didn't happen by accident. It is no wonder that David Cameron is desperate to convince voters that this progressive legacy would be safe in Tory hands. But Osborne simply defines progressive to mean whatever the Tories believe this month."
"If Osborne is serious about making a bid for progressive credentials, why are the Tories so coy about their policies on education, healthcare, minority rights, workplace rights and Britain's place in – or out of – Europe? How progressive is a policy on inheritance tax that would favour the very wealthy with a substantial tax cut? Why does he have so little to say about social mobility? From the benches of the European parliament, where the Tories sit alongside a motley collection of far rightists, nationalists and homophobes, their claim to carry the torch of progressive politics looks like a bad joke."
Mandelson has also just appeared on Radio 5, where he talked lucidly about the economy. Answering a question about how perceptions of the recession would impact the next general election, he said:
"Any level of unemployment is unacceptable. What would be the level of unemployment if we hadn't interevened? There would be at least 500,000 more unemployed...last year, 225,000 started on apprenticeships, compared with 65,000 in 1996-97. 65% of people are now completing those apprenticeships...in most of those cases the Conservatives wouldn't have taken action and unemployment would have been much higher...so there's a choice to be made."
The First Secretary is very good when he's on this sort of form, when he is able to speak with slow and measured clarity and conviction.
Indeed, his confidence speaking about the economy was noticeably different from his more hesitant answer to the question of whether the Prime Minister should be away on holiday on the day the latest unemployment figures are announced - not quite so fluent.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
In this day and age it does not matter what your sexual orientation is. We have lots of openly homosexual MPs.
If James Purnell is homosexual, were to pull off obtaining the leadership and won an election he could be the first homosexual PM.
Gord is just bullying and phone-throwing.
Pete does have charm and a wily smile. Lightness of foot on the dance floor too I'll be bound!
I was only being Sid James unintentionally. As far as homophobic etc language goes, LL is like a Nuns' convention compared to the rest of the internet. But with more dirty habits.
I'll stop now.
well as you're not prepared to give any other explanation of what you said, I do now take it as a reference to Mandy's sexuality, and to the allegations that have been made from time to time about Brown.
What I do - strongly - object to is the way you seem to treat homosexuality as something you are trying to make sound "dirty" and "a slur".
Call me a prude if you like, but I find such behaviour contemptible.
Even his 'gift' couldn't conceal that he had nothing to offer.
q: "What are your plans to repay the debts you are running up?"
a: "We know that plans are needed to replay the debt, and they will be made when we know what is happening"
q: Something or other
a: "The question is how high would unemployment be if we had not taken the action that we have "
Oh... thats alright then... You have no answers and no plans, but you will make some up when they are needed... great...
But of course there is no real substance to any of it. Him and Tony Blair should be on the stage together! But of course they are making good money without having to take the trouble.
Ha, ha, ha.
I find your ordering of crises revealing and I am sure that you are right that the self-interested men did come together (leave it Tim) to address the former.
Ha, ha, ha! It would have been even funnier, Charlie, if you had added a word, changed another and said, "Keep your pecker up!" Bwaaaa! Ha! Ha! Bwaaaa! Stop messin' about!
PM4PM
I AM offended by Mandelson running the country, but plenty of other people are expressing their offence at that. In the general run of things a flat joke about gay men and anal sex isn't a big deal, and I am certainly not a puritan, but on this site recently there has been quite unpleasant language, from left and right, about gay men, women, people's religion, the working poor, single mothers, you name it. Of course, the one thing that tends to unite people comes the minute Harriet Harman says anything about "men". Fine, whatever, but a lot of the people on here like to think they're all for tolerance and open-mindedness, and it makes me puke.
Mandelson doesn't seem too concerned, sunning himself with the Rothschilds - he obviously has shown where his loyalties lie, and it's not with the hard-pressed people of Britain is it?
Mandelson is gay - so what? Are we not allowed to discuss it for the sake of cleanliness?
If Brown were gay, what would be the problem?
I fail to see the issue.
Ha, ha, ha!
Is this the scene where Babs Windsor loses her top?
Personally, I'm sure Mandelson and Brown both know where a lot of New Labour bodies are buried. Mandelson's sudden rehabilitation last year is fascinating, especially since the two of them fell out so catastrophically (having been friends for years) when Mandelson supported Blair for the leadership.
But perhaps it's simpler than you think. Whatever internal rivalries there were between Blair, Brown and Mandelson, these shrink in the face of the political crisis facing Labour, and the economic crisis facing the country.
In this (which is much more interesting than double entendres) perhaps a cigar is just a cigar.
Even the best socialists fall to knees in the face of sheer wealth.
And anyway, what is wrong with jokes? A joke about a gay person is no worse than a joke about a straight person.... it doesn't mean that I don't like gay people, or for that matter, am not one myself.
There really is quite a sterile atmosphere here.
Does he have a story about Brown that Brown would prefer wasn't aired?
It's a simple question, I fail to see why so many esteemed LabourListers cannot grasp it.
Was it a joke about Mandelson's sexuality or not?
Giz yer policies....
As for Mandelson himself... Labour only has one more universally hated politican than him - the PM.
Daily Mail
Could it be that Brown feared that Mandelson might want to take his job? Brown knows that Mandy loves power and would hardly resist the title of Lord. And with Mandy safely in the Lords, then he would be unable to pose a threat to Brown's position as PM.
But Mandy now senses his time has come to lead Labour...so it's simply a case of getting the law changed.
Isn't that where you shove a suppository?
Ha, ha, ha.
Sorry. I couldn't resist. Now, let's all try to leave the double entendre behind us shall we? Is this a serious blog or a script for a Carry On film? Not everything said is a Freudian slip. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Ha, ha, ha.
To help you out - I am a "man in the street". I don't know what "Progressive" means, it is a meaningless flag that politicians wave.
Step 2 in your enlightenment - go out onto the pavement and stop people at random. Ask them what "progressive" politics means. They will also be "the man (or woman - sorry Ms Harman) on the street".
Step 3 laugh at any politician that thinks using the term "progressive" is a vote winner.
"if we're talking about "gay slurs" (not my words)"
Not my words either, or anyone else's that I can see. And I'm not at all sure that we are talking about sexuality: I was trying not to assume that you were deliberately making a reference to it, though I didn't and don't quite see what else you meant. Perhaps you could treat me as near-terminally hard-of-understanding and spell it out for me?
And Mandy does? Aha-ha-ha-ha. Its the way he tells 'em. Mandy's the problem, not the solution, don't get me wrong, I like the guy, he's a terrific liar and he always gets away with the most outrageous things and no-one questions it because he does it with such aplomb and very few people can do that. He shouldn't be running the country though, the little scamp.
I've never understood why being outed is a "slur", but Gordon and his camp certainly think it is.
It's like he has a death wish.
I consider the new reformed House of Lords (a la Labour, i.e. Tony's and now Gordon's cronies) to be "via the back door".
Don't you, or is this another Labour reform you are proud of after twelve years?
Or have I answered my own question?
Could you explain that a bit, please? At present it reads like a covert reference to Mandys sexuality, and an innuendo about Browns. This may or may not have been your intention.
I really do not understand what he has on Brown that made him (Brown) bring him back into government via the back door.
Or have I answered my own question?
This is just a battle of the policy wonks - who cares which party can lay claim to the mantle of "progressive" politics. The man on the street doesn't know what "progressive" means and prefers politicians who talk straight.