The Mandelson-Starmer-Robbins Sideshow

Let me sum up. Everyone seems fascinated by the Mandelson-Robbins-Starmer circus. You all know the bare bones of the story. Indeed, I do, even though I can barely bring myself to read any of the massed articles on the subject. Some of our readers objected to my dismissal of children’s books a few days ago, “Never heard of it”: but I take never-having-heard-of-something to be the root of scientific criticism. Perhaps it is my weakness, not to have heard of things, but at least you have an honest critic. And not-being-able-to-read-something is still a basis for good political sense.

Anyhow, the summary:

• Mandelson was in Monty Python language, “a very naughty boy”. And here details cluster and become vague: Jeffrey Epstein, a dressing gown, a loan for a partner, perhaps other privileged information, anyhow, association with a ‘paedophile’ who happens to be, after his death, caught up in all sorts of elite and established American corporate-entertainment-sexual scandal. No one can get the story straight. But it is a crooked story from the beginning. Human-all-too-human. We can be amused that Mandelson has received his comeuppance: to a point. But not entirely. He should be retired, and allowed by Gove to submit quarterly summaries of the political situation to the Spectator from his villa or converted barn.
• The Foreign Office vetted Mandelson for his position as ambassador to the United States of America – the most important international role, blah, blah, blah, but also the land of Epstein and Gates and Trump and Musk, so a safe pair of hands, will fit in perfectly, sir. Political pressure was put on civil servants to 1) let Mandelson become Ambassador even though 2) he had failed the vetting.
• Starmer knew about this, or didn’t know. Who cares. He sacked Olly Robbins, a Civil Servant, an act even the enemies of Robbins are willing to admit was a bit rough. And now there is an inquiry and a lot of ‘He said’, ‘She said’, ‘Ooh’ and ‘Ah’ in the press.

As usual, it is good to have some perspective. I get a bit from Lord Acton and Nietzsche.

Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Acton was, as I have said before, the apex liberal and apex moralist of the 19th century. He thought we should judge politicians. But I doubt he would have thought Mandelson required much judgement. An unimportant mistake may have been made: there is no evidence anything went wrong in America. If you think that Mandelson is a political liability, whereas before you thought he was a political blessing, then get rid of him: ease him out, let him retire. He is a bit corrupt. Well, well. That is politics. Is he on trial for criminal conspiracy, or treason, or anything like that? No? Well, be quiet.

Friedrich Nietzsche said a lot of things. He was not so much a moralist as a historian of morality. Acton was a Catholic, whose Catholicism was complicated, and perhaps contradicted, by his Liberalism. But Nietzsche was a Protestant whose Protestantism was complicated and then intensified-to-destruction by Greek philosophy, a taste for philology and a sense of history, plus para-Wagnerian intensity and quite possibly some other disorders – and this blend enabled him to sketch a history of morality. This history of morality is one in which there was a transformation of 1) strength = good and weakness = bad, thanks to, mostly, the Jews and their sublime hatred, resentments and whatnot, into 2) the Christian religion and its conviction that strength = bad and weakness or at least meekness = good.

We don’t have to agree with Nietzsche. But he was repeating a point made in other registers by many great thinkers. Something changed. At first, a spade was a spade, or a bloody shovel; but then it became an implement for the beautification of the garden: it was euphemised. We discovered – we humans – that saying it as it is is not liked. Don’t call a spade a spade, except as a joke. You can say ‘shovel’ if you want. Especially if you are a stand-up comedian. But otherwise, let’s all call cocks ‘roosters’, tyrants ‘kings’, mobs ‘the people’, our fractious political system ‘democracy’, war ‘defence’ (except in Trump’s America), criminals ‘victims let-down by the system’, civil war a ‘conspiracy theory’ and our cultural breakdown ‘British values’.

The relevance of this? Mandelson was a twisted head from the start. A politician, but a modern politician. Thus involved in the complicated introversions whereby a concern with social justice coincides neatly with everyone getting filthy rich; indeed, where social justice is exactly the same thing as everyone getting filthy rich. Qualification: in theory everyone getting filthy rich; in practice, you and me, Jeffrey, getting filthy rich.

It is a waste of moral energy to worry about Starmer or Robbins or Mandelson.

It is politics.

There was political pressure from the top to get Mandelson in.

Then there was a different sort of political pressure from the sides to get Mandelson out.

I have read some commentators picking their teeth and using Listerine before saying that it is shocking and the entire system of vetting needs to be overhauled. There needs to be more transparency. And so on.

Give me a break.

Nietzsche spoke about great politics. Well, this Mandelson-Robbins-Starmer stuff is not great politics, by any stretch of the imagination.

Transparency is not on order, and never will be. All that we can hope is that everyone learns something, and improves – not out of fear of being found out, but out of conscience or education or virtue. Long run stuff. Until that happens, all of this is bread and circuses, and everyone involved is as culpable as everyone else.

It is a lot of modern pots calling the modern kettles a charming shade of corrupt pastel grey-green.

Look.

It would be good if anyone actually cared about truth. But I think that if anyone cared about truth there would be no inquiry, no fuss about this: almost none of it would have happened. We are being forced to witness a maelstrom of silly opinions and minor grift about other people’s minor grift. A sad, poor form of reality television for Londoners.

Another point.

Boris was forced out not for his major follies but for his minor ones. And it looks as if everyone is trying to get Starmer out in the same way. And they got Mandelson out in exactly the same way. This is poor stuff. Perhaps it is good to get people out. But not like this. If I put on my cooler, more politically scientific hat, perhaps I could say in learned manner that it is one of the idiosyncrasies of British politics that the press culture allows for a sort of wild petition to remove politicians, and how this preserves some sort of order. Perhaps this is wonderful, marvellous, and a sign that Starkey’s constitution is going to survive, no matter what. But it is very poor, low stuff, and, I think, discourages anyone who might improve politics from getting into it. It means almost everything is dominated by irrelevance.

Is it good to have a system entirely devoted to preventing people doing what they are meant to do? The universities are now designed to prevent academics from teaching. The army is now designed to prevent soldiers from fighting. And Westminster seems to be designed to prevent politicians from politicking. Or, the politicking now involves massive amounts of hypocrisy and committee-pleas and trial-by-ordeal, where the ordeal is being subjected to media vilification.

James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.