Mandelson fights back

All Mandelson's managed to do it prove that he can't rise above the personal. This whole canard about the reduction in inheritance tax in particular seems to be played again and again - as if that's the most pressing thing on our minds!

For all his attempts to retain ownership of the word "progressive" it's worth remembering that 'progress' is largely synonymous with 'change' and his continuing mantra that centralised government (which I suspect he regards as interchangeable with Socialism) is the answer is in no way, shape or form a 'progressive' answer.

Perhaps they can fight it out in a villa in Corfu or even on a russian oligarch's yatch. There is not much difference between Mandy and GO with possibly the latter having the edge on social conscience.

Whatever New Labour is busted.

Evan deserves huge praise for his efforts this morning to keep Lord Mandelson on track. He still singularly failed to get any answer about *how* Labour would save money - though he did at least get an acknowledgment that money needs saving, which is more than Gordon Brown seems prepared to do.

It's hard to believe that all the running is being made by a twice disgraced unelected spin master, and not by the man who is supposed to be Prime Minister. It reminds one of the days when soviet leaders " took ill "and were never seen in public again.

Undoubtedly but I don't watch BBC News any more. It is widely reported and felt to be left biased. I find ITN more balanced.

Doesn't matter what Mandelson says or does everybody knows he is a dead man walking along with his motley hoppos.

They had thirteen years to look after this country and its interests.

They blew it. Not worth wasting breath over.

One fifth of the nation's young (under 25) population now without a job.

Mandy can't fix that.

Just listening to it.

The PM's PM says 'BBC will help spread the message'.

Where has he been? That is what the BBC does for the left. Oh yes, he has been in Europe, where these things are reported differently.

Cynical, Moi.

Is this the best that Lord Mandelson can come up with? Pitiful. I guess the word "better" is his favourite word today!

The Labour party's attack on Tory plans on Inheritance Tax strike me as odd and I am constantly baffled why interviewers don't make the point I am about to make.

Labour THEMSELVES are reducing IHT by the introduction of the transferable nil rate band between spouses. If increasing IHT allowances is the terrible crime that Labour are making out, why are they themselves doing it?

I heard Mandy on Radio 5 this morning. Totally unable to accept any responsibility for what has happened. The country's finances are in a mess, Labour's plans were based around the economy expanding for ever at a rate that logic was shouting was unsustainable, with today's expenditure to be financed by tomorrow's income. When the inevitable happened there was nothing left in the cupboard to bail them out.

Still what is his defense of this? The pathetically whiny "it would have been worse under the Tories".

I find it very funny that the Tories are trying to present themselves as the progressive party, while at the same time trying to be the party of tax cuts.
Osborne said yesterday that people were 'over-taxed' and the government has 'over-spent' (his words) while saying that they would then keep to these levels while Labour would cut everything. Seems odd to me.

Mandy has a point, he usually does

The arrogance of Lord Mandelson is breathtaking...he repeatedly refused to answer any questions trying instead to belittle the interviewer and his only defence for the appalling state of the country was that it would have been worse under the tories... This man, twice disgraced, is now the de facto leader of this country..how on earth did we get to this position?

I think a few responsible privy counsellors should be at Balmoral urging the queen to do her duty and dissolve this totally reprehensible government....

11. At 10:25am on 12 Aug 2009, beardedshrimper wrote:
I find it very funny that the Tories are trying to present themselves as the progressive party, while at the same time trying to be the party of tax cuts.
Osborne said yesterday that people were 'over-taxed' and the government has 'over-spent' (his words) while saying that they would then keep to these levels while Labour would cut everything. Seems odd to me.

Mandy has a point, he usually does
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And that point is ?

There is no surer sign of Labour failure than when they personalise everything.

The issue is not about who is or is not progressive: whatever that means, to coin a well-used phrase.

The issue is who can sort the economy out?

Who can reduce the size of the state?

Who can bring the banks to heel?

Who can stop the massive debt ballooning?

Who can increase taxes without damaging economic recovery?

Who can get the unemployed back to work?

Any politician who addresses these issues in a constructive and rational way without getting into slapstick might be worth voting for. Party is not an issue, left and right is not an issue, looking good is not an issue, political or economic dogma are not an issue.

What we need are measures that work: if the political class are unable to provide them then they should move aside for those that can.

I was hopeful that Mandelson would be a little more forthcoming in his Today interview.

Despite repeated questioning, he was unable to say how Labour plan to reduce the massive public borrowing beyond the sketch provided by the Treasury. The Treasury figures seem to show a 6 percent structural deficit.

Banging on about what the Tories (or LibDems) may have done, had they been in office, is a waste of time. After all, many commentators were warning of the massive public, corporate and private debt way before 2005... Labour ignored them. Other parties may have taken action then, avoiding some of the excesses weived through.

So it's pointless talking only about what others may have done once the crisis struck.

We are where we are. We need some radical thinking to get us out of a hole.

We now have 2.44 MIL unemployed. How many of those have been shaken out of public services - and how many simply lost as private companies can't make a living?

Just finished listening to the interview and a couple of things struck me.

Firstly, it is very clear that labour has no plan for ever getting the public sector under fiscal control. They seem happy to lose the next election whilst pretending that they have some secret plan to cut the deficit, and then kick back and watch the tories struggle to get the country out of the mess labour left behind.

Second, my major problem with the labour party throughout the last ten years has been the same - they talk about spending as if it is some achievement. Spending is only ever a good thing when it can be justified by the results, and I really can't see what we have got for the extra hundreds of billions the government is now spending. Mandy was asked very clearly in the interview what impact he was hoping a new initiative would have and he completely refused to answer, apparently just spending the money is enough and you don't need to worry about whether it works or not.

Laura,
Mandy referred this morning to 500,000 jobs this gov't has saved by it actions. Is there any proof for this? or is it more spin? This point is repeated over and over by Labour people and it is just accepted as fact by commentators and interviewers.
If there is proof I would gladly accept it, however my brother's job wasn't one of those half million saved jobs.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The Dark Lord Mandleson isn't interested in fixing the country he just wants the title PM to add to his collection. Gordon Brown isn't interested in fixing the country he got the the title he backstabbed to get now he is just scrabbling not to go down as the worst PM in history(too late there Gordo). Labour aren't interested in fixing the country they are just trying scrape the last bits of expense they can from the bowl before it gets taken away. Tory's are riding a wave of what they think is popularity in reality is just they haven't been in power for 12 years their mistakes have slightly been forgotten. The only way out of this mess is a rainbow parliment I know it would be ineffective and get nothing done but it would show Labour and Tory they do not have a god given right to rule between them taking turns every 10 or so years

heard mandelson this morning on radio 4 and what a pathetic self-rightous twit.
did not answer a single question put to him.

Mandelson (and Brown for that matter) are always going for political pointscoring. Despite their words, they are the ones who fail to provide body to their financiel plans. And they are currently in power.

Osborne and Cameron do do not avoid the issues,and they provide plausible arguments to back op their points. Far more mature and intelligent.

I beiieve that the serious voter would choose the latter.

Mandleson is just confirming, if it ever needed to be confirmed, that he is, and always has been, the "Puppet Meister" behind the New Labour Project. His power over the party has never diminished, regardless of his location, unelected status, who the nominal PM has been or the temporary rise of various aspiring PMs in waiting. He towers intellectually over the rest of the hapless Brown and his cabinet..and probably most of the Tory team. He can command more supportive coverage than any other politician from the media, including the BBC, for any attack he wants to make on the opposition. He will focus on Osborne and the economy to divert attention from the Iraq Inquiry, Afghanistan and other inconvenient outstanding issues. The Tories and Lib Dems can't beat him at his game and would be well advise to simply refuse to play it. Brown, Balls, Harman, Johnson will simply trail along in his wake hoping to be one of his accolytes during the election campaign.

I really don't care two hoots what Mandy says. Experience teaches that you simply can't believe a word of what anyone in the present government says, so what's the point of listening to them in the first place?

Mind you, I'm not naive enough to think the Tories are going to be much better. But it will be interesting to see what they do after the next election and whether it bears any resemblance to what they're currently promising to do.

I don't want to see a mudslinging contest from now unitl next June, but the Tories are getting away with murder. They have no policy ideas whatsoever, other than the same old guff from the 80's & 90's. To be fair the Labour party don't appear to be any better and the Lib Dems? Well it's still a wasted vote.

I am glad though to see the Labour party fighting back against the public school boys that seem to monopolise the Tory front bench. They have and always will look after their own. I have little doubt they will win the next election, and with a massive majority. However, with or without a credit crunch, they will cut spending to all front line services, apart from those that benefit them and their rich backers and friends.

Laura

Why do journalists supinely allow Peter Mandelson to set the agenda all the time?

He also seems get let off more lightly than anyone else with tame questioning, and it's happened again today. Political reporting should be more than just acting as his mouthpiece.

Last week we had some balance. Now Mandelson is back we are getting the same old stuff.

It'd be interesting to hear the insiders view of why he seems to mesmerise the media, rather than more slavish reporting of his every utterance...

typical ZaNu-Labour smear and be personal, something that has happened relentlessly over the last 12 years and the media have allowed it to escalate.

Even when you have been in a train crash

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Laura,

I can't understand why the media and other Politicians don't see what the general public see about Mandleson.

If you ask anyone on the street they will tell you that noone trusts the man.

He has proven to be lacking in integrity and having twice had to resign, most people are incredulous that he is back where he is. We can all admit he is a consumate media performer and has interviewers tied up in knots. But like a man whom everyone knows to be an inveterate liar, he will never be believed again.

Mandleson can come on the TV or radio and say whatever he likes between now and the election - but noone will be influenced by him, his reach simply does not extend beyond the bubble.

By the way, keep up the good work. It has been most refreshing to have a different point of view on the BBC's political blog.

All the best,
Steve

Tory hyporacy? Public Sector investment verses cuts?

The Civil Service department I work for is cutting 500 (40%) UK jobs. Not under a future Tory government but NOW.

I thought the interview was a joke.

4. At 09:28am on 12 Aug 2009, kaybraes wrote:
It's hard to believe that all the running is being made by a twice disgraced unelected spin master, and not by the man who is supposed to be Prime Minister. It reminds one of the days when soviet leaders " took ill "and were never seen in public again.

=====================

Exactly, well said. This is the point that I can't believe isn't followed up on. It's one thing having people vote for Bliar and getting Brown instead but it's another thing entirely to drag criminals into the cabinet via honourary peerages and bypassing the deomcratic process completely - who then by various twists of fate wind up in charge of the country!

Britain is a joke for allowing this to happen. Mandlesnake's motives always have been and always will be determined by self-interest and his hunger for power, and anyone who disagrees or stands in the way is, it seems, in his mind, fair game for assassination by media.

If Mandelson and Osborne want to have an argument, let them decide it in the ring over 12 rounds on pay-per-view TV, with proceeds going to the NHS. Winner gets another week on Oleg's yacht.

All this posturing in the press over semantics is a complete waste of time and serves only to briefly distract the public's attention from the disaster that is our current government. Less than 300 days to go! :)

This is the old "New Labour" Trick of if you can't attack the policy attack the man.

George Osborne now needs to stay above Meddlesome's level and keep pushing the policy

Surely all this infighting is so childish. Osborne's speech was superb, Mandleson's excited tour of the media studios evidence of that. Surely the answer is to hold an Election? Save a fortune.

When it comes to Mandy we should'nt be shocked that he cant tell the truth, lets face it he's got the sack a couple of times for that reason.
To think that this country is now being looked after by a failed liar more or less says everthing about Labour. Roll on the election. and as an after thought, would love it if Mandy gave up his lordship in a quest to be the leader of the labour party and failed, oh what a chuckle that would be.

The Government have little choice but to attack the Conservatives on "they would handle it much worse" as, across the board (not just the economy), they have nothing in their own record to stand on. Hence the desperation of Mandelson to switch the focus of the discussion.

In reality there is much in Osborne's argument that there are big savings to be had in public sector reform. Everywhere in the public sector I have direct experience of (and in fairness quite a few large private sector companies as well) is massively inefficient, with high levels of overmanning, duplication, low activity levels, poor organisation, lack of strategic planning, ineffective people management and poor commnication. Making inroads into this requires large scale organisational change, which is painful and slow. Whether the Tories would, once in power, have the willpower to address this remains to be seen

Why do journalists continue to let politicians get away with blatant lying during interviews? Mandelson said that Labour had spent £5bn on creating jobs and improving job prospects for those out of work (I won't quibble with the amount) and that this was the same amount that the Tories would "remove from the economy" by cut backs in public service.

This is plainly and simply a lie.

Not that the Tories may (or may not) spend £5bn less on public services than Labour, but what is factually wrong is that this is money removed from the economy. Or - conversely - that Labour is somehow magically adding £5bn to the economy through this job creation policy.

The money already exists in the economy - it's just in our pockets rather than the government's, which is where more of it should be.

Can no journalist bring politicians up on factual inaccuracies like this?

What connection does Mandelson have with the ordinary working man? This person spends his holidays mixing with the worlds rich and powerful . He pretends to be a socialist because he can afford to. This of course equally applies to most of the Oxbridge graduates who now 'govern' our country. The term 'champagne socialist' has never been more applicable.

Re. Laura 17. No there is no substance to the claim that the Government have created/saved 500,000 jobs. Even if eventually over the course of the recession these policies were to create that numbers of jobs, it is far too early now for any difference to have emerged, given the long lag time associated with any policy measure on employment - save of course for a few additional spin-doctors taken on by the Labour Party to try to save their bacon.

#28 and that is a very big question, that Peter Hitchin tried to explain.

Why is he allowed so much air time and others not ?

and that is just as big a question if you believe in democracy otherwise you get people turning to the BNP.

Some would say that the guilotining of this blog and the rise in moderation of comments particulary if you raise issues about the mods
is all part and parcel of the same anit-democrate process that has been underway for the last 12 years under Zanu-labour

Hi Laura

Great, stimulating blog again. Though I suppose the Peter and George double act has to take a lot of the credit for the subject matter.

I heard the Evan Davis interview on Today today, and I really appreciated Evan's skill as an interviewer. Mr M is supposed to be the master of the interview, but several times in 10 minutes tiny pieces of silent air-time spoke volumes; Mr D landed several "punches" that rocked Mr M on his heels. He came back, but usually with a hissy-fit Labour jab about "being allowed to answer the question" or similar. And when he started talking economics Evan took him apart. Mr M's attempts at econo-speak were shown up as great dollops of ignorance. Either he had not been briefed properly or he really is as intellectually shallow as he appeared. Perhaps, like Mr Brown, he has never been good at numbers? His references to Mr Osborne were childish - he might as well have called him "smelly pants" or "fat head." But maybe that was more obvious in the context of an interview in which he lost overall control, and couldn't develop his silly theme.

Anyway, I am hugely impressed with Evan's performance, and equally impressed with your Blog. Couldn't you change the blog title to include your own name? Please?

#31 your comment is sexist and HH will be upset, ah the tories should put up a woman that means they could not be attacked , ur well they would as it would not be HH type of woman and all the policy issues that would create

#24, dependabledennis wrote:
".... I am glad though to see the Labour party fighting back against the public school boys that seem to monopolise the Tory front bench. They have and always will look after their own. I have little doubt they will win the next election, and with a massive majority. However, with or without a credit crunch, they will cut spending to all front line services, apart from those that benefit them and their rich backers and friends."

Dependable,

I agree there are too many privately - or selectively - educated folks on all the parties' front benches. In the end, what you look for is cost-effective delivery against promises. My beef with the Labour administration is that there have been too many initiatives, too much money and too little focus on genuine effective outcomes.

I don't like politicians getting too cosy with any parts of business, whether corporate leaders or unions. Follow the trail of ex-Ministers who rapidly end up with decent salaries within companies they just happen to have been in contact with while in office... I certainly don't impute corruption - just too cosy a relationship.

I find it extraordinary that people still bang on about any party favouring their rich backers and friends.

Remember how Brown cosied up to his chum Blank at a cocktail party, in order to get LloydsTSB to "take over" HBos, while the PM casually waived any competition rules? (Thereby drastically hitting Lloyds shareholders - who happen to include major pension funds? Of course they don't count because it's only private companies who need to build pension funds - public services sadly depend on future tax-take.)

Tony Blair flying out to Australia like a performing flea to get Murdoch on side with his "plans"? BSkyB didn't do badly within the UK environment for a decade, did it? And the same ex-PM free-loading all over the place for cheap holidays. And Mandelson buzzing around the rich like a fly around cow-pats?

Front-line services do NOT need to be hit in order to reduce public spending. It just needs a bit of good housekeeping to cut out quite unnecessary aspects of spending. And a mindset that doesn't immediately think that you need masses more people to introduce some fairly small changes.

I'm confused. As someone who doesn't have the greatest grasp on things with regards politics, but how is the country being 'run' this week by someone who hasn't been elected by the public? Likewise, how is the same person the unofficial Deputy PM? Can anyone now be part of the government as long the PM wants, therefore shaping the policies for the country even though they haven't been elected by the public? That doesn't strike me as making much sense to me.

1. Attack the Question. 'That's a very silly question, how can you justify the use of the words, "above the law"?'

2. Attack the Questioner. 'How many years have you spent in government?'

3. Compliment the Question. 'That's a very good question. I'd like to thank you for asking it. Let me reply by asking you one.'

4. Unloading the Question. Most questions are loaded. They are full of assumptions such as 'A lot of people have said that you consider yourself above the law'. There are two possible replied to such loaded questions: a) 'Name ten.' b) 'Surely in a nation of 56 million people you can find a few people who will say anything, no matter how irrelevant, misguided, or ill-informed.'

5. Make It All Appear An Act. This approach only works for live TV interviews: 'You know, I've come to the conclusion that I don't agree with what you suggested I should answer when you asked me that question downstairs before the programme began. The real answer is...'

6. Use The Time Factor. Most interviews are short of time, especially live 'on air' interviews. Reply: 'That's a very interesting question, and there are nine points that I should like to make in answer to it.' The Interviewer will say: 'Perhaps you could make just two of them, briefly.' You say: 'No, it's far too important a question to answer superficially, and if I can't answer it properly I'd rather not trivialise it.'

7. Invoke Security. 'There's a very full answer to that question, but it involves matters that are being discussed in confidence. I'm sure you wouldn't want me to break a confidence. So I'm afraid I can't answer for another week or two.'

8. Take Refuge In a Long Pointless Narrative. If you can ramble on for long enough, no one will remember the question and therefore no one can tell if you answered it or not. ...I summed it up...: if you have nothing to say, say nothing. But better, have something to say and say it, no matter what they ask. Pay no attention to the question, make your own statement. If they ask you the same question again, you just say, 'That's not the question' or 'I think the more important question is this:' Then you make another statement of your own. Easy-peasy.

Yes Prime Minister II, pp. 67-8, and Lord Mandy with Mr Davis this morning...

"beardedshrimper wrote:
I find it very funny that the Tories are trying to present themselves as the progressive party, while at the same time trying to be the party of tax cuts."

I find it funny how someone seems to think that a progressive party would automatically oppose tax cuts.

A progressive party is one who is focused on change and reform. The Tories have suggested that they want to "change" the way that government spends money (and lets be honest this country probably loses billions to government waste because of outdated or badly thought out processes).

A party that properly reforms the way that government money is wasted COULD save billions and I think most people would be happy to see the billions saved given back to the taxpayer in the form of tax cuts.

Personally I doubt the Tories will be able to cut waste in the way they are suggesting but I certainly hope that they can. However, the companies who get billions from over inflated government contracts won't be so happy.

Why are we subjected to what a unelected, twice disgraced politician has to say on behalf of an unelected prime minister. The media appear to think that the pu8blic are interested in what Mandelson has to say whereas he only speaks for himself and his own vested interests.

ronnierack

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

What I find utterly bonkers is that rather than have experts who have spent their life studying economics make these decisions, ultimately it is up to us voters to decide, despite the vast majority of us readily admiting to having little knowledge of the subject.

A pretty absurd way to run a country. The only comfort, I guess, is that with both parties being 95% identical, it will make little difference which one gets elected.

Don't want 'progressive', whatever that means.

I want sound, common sense Government built on sound economic policies that, in time, pay for the public services we can actually afford. Without a thriving private sector creating profits, jobs, rising incomes and, hence, tax revenue, the rest in complete bunkum.

Some hopes with either of these losers.

A lot of people have made comment at to the easy time people like Mandy have when it comes to interviews, I can see Mandy at the start of the interview in his own slimey way 'listen chummy, dont you dare ask me any hard questions and leave the yacht out of it or you wont be privvy to any more political scoops so just watch it' Everybody knows that there will be cuts no matter whos in charge but never answering the questions will just make the public wonder who is telling the truth. The trouble with Mandy is that hes been caught telling LIES before and been sacked for it.

My my............ I am VERY pleasantly surprised that the BBC has allowed such a swath of anti-left comment to be posted on this Blog... most unlike the pro-Labour BBC.
As for the Mandleson interview... I echo what many others have already said:

Why is this un-elected, twice disgraced Lord appear to be running the Country?
Why is he allowed to state such inaccurate statistics and so-called policies ... and WHY do no BBC interviewers appear able or capable of challenging him.

Come on Evan, I expected better of you.

As mandy has soo many jobs, chairmanships, will he select a few of the 30+% uninploued school leavers and give them some of his jobs?

After all he wants someone with 3 C's at A level to become doctors / surgens so when not chair persions?

I listened to Evan Davis' interview this morning, and thought that as usual Peter Mandelson proved just how sure footed he is in jousts with broadcast journalists. If it wasn't a knock out, Mandy clearly won on points - as he did the last time Andrew Marr went 10 minutes with him.

What people don't like about him is his arrogance, combined with his condecending tone. Actually, he is very "Thatcheresque" in his technique, and when you think back to Robin Day's interviews with the Iron Lady their tone and insistance on getting their points across we similar, and just as successful.

Both major parties need to realise that the public ain't stupid. Cuts are required in public spending. Whoever comes to power in 2010 will have to take decisive action on public sector pensions, and weald the axe to parts of the big spending ministries - notable defence, education and health. The only mainstream politician who is being remotely honest is Vince Cable - and I would trust him ahead of either Osborne or Captain Darling to run the economy. Sad thing, as has been said earlier, is that under our undemocratic electoral system, a vote for the Lib Dems is a wasted vote.

39. At 12:17pm on 12 Aug 2009, bertrambird wrote:
Hi Laura

Great, stimulating blog again. Though I suppose the Peter and George double act has to take a lot of the credit for the subject matter.

I heard the Evan Davis interview on Today today, and I really appreciated Evan's skill as an interviewer. Mr M is supposed to be the master of the interview, but several times in 10 minutes tiny pieces of silent air-time spoke volumes; Mr D landed several "punches" that rocked Mr M on his heels. He came back, but usually with a hissy-fit Labour jab about "being allowed to answer the question" or similar. And when he started talking economics Evan took him apart. Mr M's attempts at econo-speak were shown up as great dollops of ignorance. Either he had not been briefed properly or he really is as intellectually shallow as he appeared. Perhaps, like Mr Brown, he has never been good at numbers? His references to Mr Osborne were childish - he might as well have called him "smelly pants" or "fat head." But maybe that was more obvious in the context of an interview in which he lost overall control, and couldn't develop his silly theme.

Anyway, I am hugely impressed with Evan's performance, and equally impressed with your Blog. Couldn't you change the blog title to include your own name? Please?

---------------------------

Good post. Actually this is the way to interview Mandelson. I see quite a few bloggers still want the interviewer to metaphorically wring his neck and shout answer the question! (well maybe not all bloggers want the metaphorical bit!) These ministers now respond with "if you will let me answer the question" as a standard ploy and if need be will simply play out for time.

Silence in an interview implies a lack of rapport between the two. Have you ever noticed how politicians are on first name terms with the interviewer (and they may well despise each other in real life) even though the interviewer addresses them by their title? Mandelson is comfortable with saying as little as possible, so with a pregnant pause he will be forced to fill the silence with something he did not intend to say in the first place. Nick R employed this tactic about a month ago. A disjointed interview also comes across with the interviewee appearing unconvincing - in my personal opinion, I think Lord M is brilliant at sound bites, is poor in interviews and quite possibly hates the whole experience.

Laura,

I am enjoying not only the content of your blog, but also the frequency of submissions.

You are doing a wonderful job - thank-you.

Lets face it, it really doesn't matter which MP's we discuss or who said what to whom. The fact is the political system in the UK is broken and should not be repaired. Its time for a new way, I'm sure there are many more democratic systems in place in this world that work.
The only saving grace for the UK is the Royal family and if we look at pound for pound value, I think you'll see they are far more pro-active towards the greater good than those 'democratic politicians' we all so love to quote.

Mandelson makes politics (of the good old Punch and Judy variety) fun.

He clearly cares - largely about winning for winning's sake, I concede - but (unlike whingeing HarHar last week, seeking only to promote herself) Mandelson is taking the fight to the Opposition.

If I thought that the next General Election would be "Vote Brown, Get Mandelson" then Labour could count upon my support - for the first time in my voting life.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

IMO you always know when a goverment have lost it when they have to resort to personall attacks as they can't think of anything constructive to say about their policys. Mandlesons comments remind me of being back at first school, very childish and petty and more reason to call an election to get rid of this childish and incompatant goverment.

This week is the week that democracy in the UK died. We have for the first time in god knows how many years an unelected, but selfappointed leader. What next, Mandelson for King???????

I heard the interview and I regret to say tha Evan didn't manage to get one over on that Mandy. I personally would have (verbally)ripped him to pieces with his lies, arrogance and seeming (I know whats good for you)attitude. It may be childish but 10 minutes of repeating the same question over and over until a straight answer is given will soon make a politician look like a fool (remember Paxman and Howard). I find Mandy the sum of all that is wrong with the political classes today, sacked twice then off to a cushy EU job with the brazilian boyfriend (don't hear much about that in the media do we?), then brought back with a peerage as there is no seat in the land (even a rock solid Labour fiefdom) that would elect him. Remember him asking for Guacamole mushy peas)in the Hartlepool chip shop.
When oh when will someone in the fawning media do a proper demolition of this snake?

I will start with the most obvious analysis.

Mandelson hitting back.......

1. Peter Mandelson has proved his credentials over the years having been part of the New Labour movement.

2. What is there for Mandelson to hit back about considering it was New Labour who took us on this rollercoaster ride of boom & bust.

3. There would be no need for any of this if Gordon hadn't thrown our money in to a nice hole of severe public debt over the good years.

The dividing lines remain the same. It's not about the cuts that are to come as I think the public has accepted this fact, although at times I wonder if our government has. What this debate comes down to is Mandelson using his wealth of cunning & deviousness to avoid the issue of his boss destroying our country in the first place.

I no longer trust anything that comes out the mouths of the New Labour hierarchy, they will not be receiving my vote any time soon. I'm prepared to see how George does, especially considering that he will most likely be our next Chancellor.

However, the one man I would trust most is Vince Cable, which has also been mentioned previously. He made sense, he has the right ideas and experience to restore our economy and it's the economy we need to focus on. It's not just about public finances, it's about the people's finances.

I can think of the many times the public were constantly told about the ever increasing debt they had in mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc. So why is it that nobody keeps tabs on the government?

I'm no Chancellor but I certainly know how to budget and plan my expenditure. I think it's time these Chancellors get a dose of the real world the rest of us live in and learn how to live within the means they have like the rest of us learn to do.

And to finish this off, why can't Gordon fight his own corner?
Why is Mandelson setting all the policies and dividing lines to take New Labour to the next election?
Why can't New Labour learn anything from themselves?

New Labour are in self-destruct mode and I hope they get to the end point quickly because in my eyes both the Conservatives & Liberal Democrats offer more credible alternatives to a government that is now completely and utterly washed out, the funny thing is that they don't even see the leaks, holes and water coming on board. They would rather pretend it's not there then cover it up by bringing in Management, IT & PR consultants who are paid bucket loads of money by the tax payer to convince you that you're wrong. Well, the public are learning that it's the government who are wrong so bring on the next election and let the public have their say on how successful these dividing lines appear to be.

It is quite astonishing that we have someone in charge of this country, who has twice had to step down from a public position due to dishonesty and deception. What does this look like to the rest of the world and what does it say about this country. It is also shocking that the party in power, places someone who represents us all in the UK, with such a distrustful past. He quite clearly cannot be trusted about anything he says as he has demonstrated in the past. Do politicians really think we have such short memories?

At 10:40am on 12 Aug 2009, boabycat asked about the half a million workers that New Labour have saved from the dole queue - I would like to know about the 2 million pensioners they repeatedly claim to have removed from poverty.
I find it unacceptable that such spurious claims are repeated as fact again and again when all the indicators show that there are significantly more pensuioners in real deprivation now than when New Labour came to power 12 years ago.
Its high time reporters started doing their jobs properly instead of regurgitating party political PR.

I'm getting tired of politicians performing pin-top comparative angel innumeration on tactical subjects, such as heard this morning.
Where is the vision to stand up and say 'This is where we need to take the Country', get agreement through the polls, and go make it happen? I dont mean shave 5% off public spending or give an extra 50K in estates tax, but to identify what we want to create, identify if/how public spending is the best way to do it, and resource it appropriately - but make sure it is part of the vision so people will accept it. The question should not be 'enough helicopters are too expensive so we'll let the army have what we can afford but still expect them to do the job', it should be 'we have to go to Afghanistan, it will take this many helicopters, here they are'. If you cant/wont afford the helicopters, change your vision, dont put yourself in a position where you will be involved in activities that need them.
I suspect we all have the feeling that all parties vaguely want the same short term outcomes but I doubt any of us could say what great plan they are part of, or what their vision for the future is.
Rant over - feeling better already...

Looks like the Tories are in danger of being drawn into a fight of Labour's choosing.

The real points on this issue are:

1) This mess happened on Labour's watch.
2) Labour have already lied, claiming cuts were unnecessary
3) The choice is between tax increases and spending cuts (I know where my vote is going). There are no other choices.

Labour have overspent by a massive amount with or without a recession and have lost the credibility needed to form the next government. Don't let them spin/slide off taking responsibility for these things. Whoever is in government next it must not be Labour. New slogan, anyone? Vote ABL (Anyone But Labour).

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#41 fairlyopenmind wrote:

"...Tony Blair flying out to Australia like a performing flea to get Murdoch on side with his "plans"? BSkyB didn't do badly within the UK environment for a decade, did it? And the same ex-PM free-loading all over the place for cheap holidays. And Mandelson buzzing around the rich like a fly around cow-pats?"

It's funny now that the Conservatives are scenting power and mixing with the Murdochs they're already planning to shut down Ofcom - the only organisation to have prevented BSKYB from doing exactly what it wants in the UK market.

Also, regarding Mandelson, that's no way to refer to a certain Russian oligarch!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

17. At 10:40am on 12 Aug 2009, boabycat wrote:
Laura,
Mandy referred this morning to 500,000 jobs this gov't has saved by it actions. Is there any proof for this? or is it more spin? This point is repeated over and over by Labour people and it is just accepted as fact by commentators and interviewers.
If there is proof I would gladly accept it, however my brother's job wasn't one of those half million saved jobs.

==================================================

This is the type of headline soundbite favoured of politicians but which is completely unprovable one way or the other because it uses false logic. So this one is spin, as in figures presented favourably but plenty of room to argue with the basis of the figures.

It is likely that the number of employees working in companies which have thus far taken advantage of one of the many treasury schemes put in place as part of the 'financial stimulus' like the deferred taxation referred to by the dark lord is 500,000 or likely many more.
Someone has then said lets assume all, half or some other made up (they will have a reasoning behind it but they cannot know it's true) percentage of these companies would have failed had we not done this and this becomes the number of jobs saved.

It cannot be proved to be directly the reason, and by the counter it cannot be proven that it wasn't since it didn't happen.

Neither does it not mean any of these jobs will not be lost in future, it does however give opportunity for the companies to look for alternative or new markets or make adjustments that avoid trading insolvently (like making some people redundant but not all).
It was actually a good idea - since many companies are made insolvent by HMRC due to failure to pay taxes - it would be bad PR in a recession to have HMRC issuing winding up petitions on companies suffering cash flow problems and making people unemployed during a recession, this is something a government can do and in this case did. Of course this may just have deferred the job losses until the deferrment runs out.

My brother has also just lost his job but it has nothing to do with the recession just that he has been outsourced to India and it would have happened anyway recession or not as it was an efficiency saving.

When you read efficiency savings it means people, any politician telling you otherwise is lying to you.

All that Mandy has proved on the Today programme is that NuLiebour don't have a plan how to get out of the huge debt pile that they have racked up

The fact that Mandy gets angry and personal reinforces his very weak position

Roll on the report into the collapse of MG Rover

67. At 1:48pm on 12 Aug 2009

In my previous reference to Mandle-Foy, I am left wondering which word upset the Leftist moderators.

Was it Pompous, Psuedo Socialist or Jaxi?

I suppose I will never know.

Maybe we should let the public decide.

Send your vote to [Personal details removed by Moderator]

Just ask Mandelson how he will close the gap between govenment revenues and outlays, estimated by the OECD at 7% of GDP on a strucutral basis (i.e. at trend growth or normalised growth), or 100 billion pounds, or 4,200 pounds per person working in the private sector (all per year).

Of course, in addition, the state debt should be brought down from its future level of 100% of GDP, or 63,800 pounds per person working in the private sector. And we're nt talking about the public sector pensions funding deficit estimated between 2/3 to 100% of GDP, or 42,500 poounds per person working in the private sector in the optimistic case.

For a reference to the OECD estimate of the UK's structural buydget deficit see:

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8004567.stm

#68. At 2:06pm on 12 Aug 2009, extremesense wrote:

"... It's funny now that the Conservatives are scenting power and mixing with the Murdochs they're already planning to shut down Ofcom - the only organisation to have prevented BSKYB from doing exactly what it wants in the UK market."

Extremesense,

To my way of thinking, it would be totally rediculous to close down OfCom. As technology enables multiple distribution channels to be used, more and more companies will be drawn into the marketplace. There will be inevitable ups and downs, with some companies trying to hoover up struggling ones - potentially trying to create closed markets.

Though I'd say that the scope and outreach of OfCom has become very extensive - maybe too stretched.

I just hope that the main focus of all parties over the coming years will be on getting value for money from every taxed (or borrowed) pound.

That would be a decent legacy to leave to our children. As long as the children are constantly taught that governments can only give "social support" because they take money away from other people.

And I really don't like it when governments talk about tax-concessions. You know, that "I'm increasing the threshold before tax kicks in" stuff. All it means is that they allow individuals or companies to keep more a tiny bit more of their OWN money!

Despite all the burden of regulation and legislation, the UK produces people with great creativity and drive. But all that red-tape stuff can easily stiffle ambition.

However, the current government's mind-set appears to be that individuals are really "units of production" for the benefit of the "State". So Mums become units of production who should go back to work, so other units of production can be employed (by public or private funds) to bring up children... Does that make real social sense?

People on low incomes were offered a 10p tax rate. (Although that kicked in below the level of the national minimum wage... How does THAT make sense?). Then get told that, as long as they jump through hoops and follow rules that even the government employees don't fully understand, they can get back the money they lost.

Why did Brown never consider making a 10p rate contingent on people earning LESS THAN so much each year? It would have been easy to apply.

If you earn £100k, £250K, £1MIL why should you gain from the 10p tax break? So all that bravura nonsense in the Houses of Commons, when the poorest were penalised, so Gordon could reduce the "standard" rate of tax like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, was totally unnecessary.

It's a sick system.

Brown's legacy wll be the Tax-Credit system. Complex. Unworkable. Not understandable to anyone with a simple bachelor's degree. Wasted a fortune. Why? Because it was better to have the State teat being sucked on than just leaving money in the pockets of those who earned it.

Odd that! I thought that New Labour would get a grip on - and help develop - a potentially great future for the UK. I never believed it would be a stranglehold on real productive growth.

I have a soft spot for Mandelson. He reminds me of plenty of people I have worked with or for. Smooth. Slick. Verbally competent in a supplicant media environment. But a lot of guys like that, trying to climb the pole in commercial organisations, get torn to shreds by CEOs who can't be doing with pretty words. Show us the public service productivity figures, Mandy. It matters not a jot what another political party may or may not have done, had it been in power. What I have seen is extracted money sprayed around, as though the "quantity" had any equivalence to the "quality".

Mandelson forever bitching on against Osborne is becoming so tedious

As ever the best form of defence is attack which means he can get out of answering questions on would he would do?

500,000 is the number he keeps on quoting. That is the number of jobs this government said were available for month after month and the same number is now quoted as the number of jobs saved through their policies.

To avoid the question of spin they could at least have changed the number somewhat. Recyling the same numbers I suppose is easier to remeber under questioning.

Mandy criticises Ozzie's political cross-dressing? Mandy, who prefers the non-political version, no doubt!

The blessed St. George must prefer to dress very cross. Chain-mail, steel toecaps n'all. Kill the old drag-on. Next crusade, please!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It does seem a frightening act to streamline the public services, why the tories persist that only those who can afford health-care and education should be the choosen elitists is beyond many of the public voters.

Many a good average cost manager will tell you there's always room for savings and maybe so in many cases but the fact that the tories seem to cost cut directly to those on lower incomes, is an abusives habit that will in all likelyhood result in a hang parliament at the next G.E.

The regressive tories are not what Britain needs for stability nor growth.

I like the national health services, I like the fact that it's available to all, at the point of no cost and I bet Mr Obama would like a national health services to!.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Real peoploe want to get on with living, normality is their bread! they turn up for work and are perpared to do the consistent honour of standard operation on an hourly services until some over payed silver spoon fed elitist manager cooks the whole process up and puts everone on the dole.

You take the national health services, ever since it's creation the tories have found the national health services it's biggest issue at ever G.E.

The tories now! think their in the position to progressively regress the national health services back to the future of that dreaded poor law.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I've not actually heard or seen Peter Mandelson make any sort of positive or constructive comments about anything related the the governments activities or plans.

As he is now in charge, is heaping personal abuse on George Osbourne the sort of thing that he thinks needs to be addressed ? His political style, thinking and approach is a decade out of date.

Not that I'm a supporter of anything "progressive" - we've had 12 years of such nonsense and I've had enough. George Osbourne is also out of date with his comments as well. No wonder they spend time on yachts together!

The winner of todays "Breathtaking Lack of Self Awareness Award" goes to Peter Mandelson for his remarkable comment below about Alan Duncan :

"....is very fond of speaking a good game publicly but in private talking and acting quite differently, so I am not surprised he has been found out."

Perhaps Mandelson could make some comments about David Camerons mortgage arrangements then the irony would be complete.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

George Osborne shouldn't worry too much about the irrelevant views of the unelected Lord Mandelson. Instead, he and David Cameron should be concentrating on appealing to the voters at large.

It would be huge mistake to imagine that the electorate want 'more of the same', or that people are interested in which party will be the most 'progressive'.

What is needed now is a time to repair all the damage created by New Labour. We need a rapid dismantling of the Nanny State and Surveillance Britain and the restoration of sound economic policy (ie don't spend money we haven't got).

People are not impressed with change for its own sake or ill-considered gimmicks.

Rather than trying to convince us that the Tories will be more radical than New Labour, they would do better to promise smaller government, less taxation, less interference, less micromanagement, less monitoring, less box ticking, less targets, less political correctness, more independence for individuals, more value for money, more personal choice, more law and order, more equality for England within the Union, more honesty in public office.

Mandelson as we all know is a clever politician. However, I think the tories here are leading him into something of an elephant trap. Everyone knows the tories are much better at cutting public spending than labour - the country is going to have significantly lower public spending and the majority of the public accept this (and many of us actually want significantly lower spending as we are fed up with the constant nagging dictats of petty government and many of the so called 'services' are actually nothing of the kind). So this argument plays to the advantage of the tories. I am surprised Mandelson has fallen for it.

Go on Lord Mandelsson, Herbert Morrison would have been proud of you. Whatever they say about you on blogs such as this you are still the total politician and I'm so glad that you bat for Labour. Keep telling it as it is and don't give a damn for the "progressive Nu Compassionate Tories" they are as always a bunch of windbags!

#84 StrictlyPickeld

"Not that I'm a supporter of anything "progressive" - we've had 12 years of such nonsense and I've had enough"

Yes, you speak for many!

The Tories need to grasp the public mood. "Progressive" is NOT what people want. After 12 years of New Labour misrule, people want the damage to be undone and for normal service to be resumed as soon as possible.

In the BBC 4 interview, Meddlesome conceded that NuLabour would eventually have to cut spending in order to reduce the Government's deficit.

Meddlesome also accepted that the scale of the fiscal deficit is such that "in the medium term," Labour would be unable to go on spending and borrowing as it has been.

Yet the Treasury has set out plans to borrow an extra £700 billion over five years, taking the national debt to £1.4 trillion.

You could not make this up if you tried.

Roll On 2010: Meddlesome for PM, yeah right on

Nothing Mandelson says about Conservative policy can be proved by him, his outbursts are merely desperate attempts,by the mouthpiece of a discredited government, to discredit his opponents when really he knows that his Labour party has, and still is ruining this country.

#94

18 years of conservative dishonesty and grim still lay stained deep within our society.

John, what nonsense you speak!.

#93 me

Just to put a perspective on the amount:

£1.4 trillion = £1,400,000,000,000

By the way this is who will pick up the tab for the debt NuLabour have created.

Roll On 2010

94 johncrouch

"Nothing Mandelson says about Conservative policy can be proved by him, his outbursts are merely desperate attempts,by the mouthpiece of a discredited government, to discredit his opponents when really he knows that his Labour party has, and still is ruining this country."

=======================
Regarding 95, on the other hand, some of us agree with you !

derekbarker - perhaps you could enlighten us otherwise ......only some of us are not as clever as you and can't see it ..... it's interesting that your post contains no facts to support your view, just like Mandelsons statements.

#93 me

Just to put a perspective on the amount:

£1.4 trillion = £1,400,000,000,000

By the way this is who will pick up the tab for the debt NuLabour have created.

Roll On 2010

#97 strictly

Jeez! where do you want to start? THE MINERS' POLL TAX' state education falling apart, hospitals in disarray, massive crime numbers,high interest rates, unemployment static at 3million, communities rioting, tax rates set to suit the super rich, Aitken, Hamilton, Archer and so on and on!

Wow! you've stayed to long in the Anderson shelter.

"derekbarker wrote:
#94

18 years of conservative dishonesty and grim still lay stained deep within our society.

John, what nonsense you speak!."

So are you trying to suggest that we pretty much have a choice between Conservative dishonesty and New Labour who manage to be not only more dishonest but also useless with it?

Not a promising thought.