I was disappointed to learn that Peter Mandelson’s book, The Third Man, was not about cricket. Having overcome this, though, I tried to read The Times’ extracts from it.
And I couldn’t. Every time I made the effort, my eyes just glazed over before the end of a paragraph.
Insofar as I can make out, the book is not really about politics at all - in the sense of addressing question about how public life is or should be organized. It is more like celebrity gossip - and as Barbara Ellen says, not even new gossip.
The difference is that readers of this guff can sanctimoniously deceive themselves that they are taking an interest in affairs of state whilst looking down on readers of Heat magazine or viewers of Big Brother.
But the reality is that the two have much in common - they‘re pressing their face against a window, hoping for a glimpse into more glamorous lives.
Except for one thing. It could be that Mandelson-style gossip has nastier consequences. It displaces substantive discussion of politics - about policy - from the media. And it turns people away from politics, thinking it is mere tittle-tattle about dullards.
The counter-argument here is that the animosity between Blair and Brown has had genuine political effects. It led to worse government than we’d have had if their relationship had been less hostile.
This claim, however, is not self-evident. It requires arguing: what good policies were not followed because Blair and Brown hated each other? What bad policies were pursued? What was the causal mechanism?
For every ton of story about Blair and Brown, we seem to get barely an ounce of answers to these questions.
Indeed, it is possible that their relationship did not have significant adverse effects . It did not stop New Labour winning two big election victories, in 2001 and 2005. And it is not just hostile relations that can undermine good government. So too can very close relationships, which can lead to groupthink. New Labour's cringeing subservience to big business, its attack upon civil liberties and tolerance of increasing inequality had deeper causes than merely Blair and Brown's failure to get on.
But what if this is wrong, and talk of the Blair-Brown feud isn’t mere tittle-tattle, but really did affect all our everyday lives? Isn’t there an implication here?
If the quality of government can be materially diminished by its leaders dysfunctional characters and relationships, isn’t this a case for reorganizing government to make it less dependent upon individuals - to downgrade the significant of “leaders”?
This, though, is an inference no-one seems to be drawing. But then we want politicians to fulfil the same role as Kerry Katona - to give us something to gossip about.
And I couldn’t. Every time I made the effort, my eyes just glazed over before the end of a paragraph.
Insofar as I can make out, the book is not really about politics at all - in the sense of addressing question about how public life is or should be organized. It is more like celebrity gossip - and as Barbara Ellen says, not even new gossip.
The difference is that readers of this guff can sanctimoniously deceive themselves that they are taking an interest in affairs of state whilst looking down on readers of Heat magazine or viewers of Big Brother.
But the reality is that the two have much in common - they‘re pressing their face against a window, hoping for a glimpse into more glamorous lives.
Except for one thing. It could be that Mandelson-style gossip has nastier consequences. It displaces substantive discussion of politics - about policy - from the media. And it turns people away from politics, thinking it is mere tittle-tattle about dullards.
The counter-argument here is that the animosity between Blair and Brown has had genuine political effects. It led to worse government than we’d have had if their relationship had been less hostile.
This claim, however, is not self-evident. It requires arguing: what good policies were not followed because Blair and Brown hated each other? What bad policies were pursued? What was the causal mechanism?
For every ton of story about Blair and Brown, we seem to get barely an ounce of answers to these questions.
Indeed, it is possible that their relationship did not have significant adverse effects . It did not stop New Labour winning two big election victories, in 2001 and 2005. And it is not just hostile relations that can undermine good government. So too can very close relationships, which can lead to groupthink. New Labour's cringeing subservience to big business, its attack upon civil liberties and tolerance of increasing inequality had deeper causes than merely Blair and Brown's failure to get on.
But what if this is wrong, and talk of the Blair-Brown feud isn’t mere tittle-tattle, but really did affect all our everyday lives? Isn’t there an implication here?
If the quality of government can be materially diminished by its leaders dysfunctional characters and relationships, isn’t this a case for reorganizing government to make it less dependent upon individuals - to downgrade the significant of “leaders”?
This, though, is an inference no-one seems to be drawing. But then we want politicians to fulfil the same role as Kerry Katona - to give us something to gossip about.
It's clearly the Dark Lord's attempt, on behalf of the party, to shaft some of the up and comers and to lay the blame for the previous 13 years on the shoulders of two men, in order for Labour to rise, Lazarus like, from the ashes.
Posted by: jameshigham | July 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM
I'm not sure that politics was ever personality free, but I do find the idea that people might voluntarily choose to read this or Alastair Campbell's own fish-and-chip-wrappings-to-be fairly amusing.
I think that it is laughable to suggest that either Campbell or Mandelson might serve up a really emotionally and intellectually honest account of new labour, rather than tossing off some junk that merely earns its authors a nice sum and possibly settles a few scores (if the reader is really lucky).
Posted by: ian | July 18, 2010 at 02:42 PM
I also thought it was about politics and all the dirty stuff that the world has but I was disappointed.
Posted by: Mark@Life Insurance | July 18, 2010 at 04:09 PM
pressing their face against a window, hoping for a glimpse into more glamorous lives
Completely wrong, at least for Big Brother. More like pressing their faces against a rats' cage, for a retch-inducing stare at the filthy, miserable creatures inside.
Posted by: Larry | July 18, 2010 at 05:31 PM
Politics itself has never been personality free, but anyways they can always glimpse for a more glamorous life. I only wish Blair and Brown could finally settle this, it's so irritating. Haha.
-The Growth masters.
Posted by: TheGrowthMasters | July 18, 2010 at 06:42 PM
"But then we want politicians to fulfil the same role as Kerry Katona - to give us something to gossip about."
Yes, that's right. This is because we don't want public life to be organised. We have no interest, let alone enthusiasm, for political ideas. Basic, pragmatic management of services and infrastructure is what we want, not to be following a Great Leader into the sunrise.
Posted by: Peter Risdon | July 19, 2010 at 10:35 AM
"If the quality of government can be materially diminished by its leaders dysfunctional characters and relationships, isn’t this a case for reorganizing government to make it less dependent upon individuals - to downgrade the significant of “leaders”?"
I'd say that it's far more a case for less government all together.
Posted by: Falco | July 20, 2010 at 01:30 PM