Anthony Barnett (London, OK): It took a few years after they came to power to understand how New Labour under Blair, Campbell and Mandelson pioneered a form of presentation that was deliberately misleading and actively diversionary, without 'actual lies' being committed. Is a smokescreen dishonest? Is camouflage a form of fiction or the means to win a battle? Four years ago I examined what I termed "The Campbell Code" after the Hutton Report was published. The Code has three elements.
- It correctly understands that, in the age of software, presentation is substance - because appearances are also relationships they are part of the content of any policy.
- Presentation is therefore part of the war over content, as it will always be attacked by the vermin media who live by exposing failure - the vermin have to be controlled, policed, brutalised and counteracted.
- A warrior code is needed to win this war, its banner is “truth”. Whenever a policy-maker is caught out with a lie, or partial lie, they must immediately apologise or they will lose - because you can't beat the vermin when it comes to a cover-up.
But, “truth” according to the Campbell Code, is not something that we try to discover. It is not about reality, "It is a weapon without a soul or spirit of its own. It is a device to be used, focused, confined and disciplined, in order to deliver certainty and support".
Today, this is the operating procedure behind Mandelson's letter in this morning's Times, which strikes me as deceitful.
Before I say why, two other points, one really important and one about George Osborne that follows from it.
In today's Daily Mail Peter Oborne sets out the case that the whole lot of them are up to their necks in a profoundly corrupt 'restructuring' of British power,
The influence over the British political system by a relatively small and, in some cases, corrupt group of super-rich individuals is the single most poisonous legacy of Tony Blair's decade in government.
Until 1997, standards of public life in this country were a model for the rest of the world.... However, this respected system of government was deliberately destroyed during the Blair years with the reliance on a so-called 'sofa government' of unelected advisers and hand-picked cronies.... Indeed, the connection between ministers and big businessmen was placed on a uniquely undemocratic footing.
Instead of being regulated through officials, these relationships were often brokered through a new breed of public relations men who, normally in exchange for a large fee, would massage the links between the wealthy and the political class.
No one can begin to understand modern British politics without knowing who these individuals are and how they operate.
Oborne then names the top five: Alan Parker (£112m) who employed Gordon Brown's wife: Tim Bell (Thatcher's PR man made a life peer by Blair who successfully lobbied for the Saudis to prevent the BAE corruption case from proceeding); Roland Rudd (£30M), apparently close to both Mandelson and Russian oligarchs; Tim Allen, once Press spokesman for Tony Blair "who now has links with the Kremlin"; and Matthew Freud married to Murdoch's daughter Elizabeth (joint worth £160m), who flew Cameron down to meet with the press magnate off Corfu.
One of the aspects of the whole business which the better papers (see today's Saturday Essay in the Mail by Edward Lucas) are struggling to cover is that the oligarch network is dripping in fresh blood. Souls cry out as the yachts ply the sun drenched waters. But when I turned with interest to a major profile of Oleg Deripaska in today's Financial Times headlined "Close to the Wind" by Catherine Belton it was entirely about how the 40 year old multi-billionaire might not be able to pay back what he was loaned by the Royal Bank of Scotland and his over-leveraged business model, as if he was merely a regular guy who has badly over spent.
I recently quoted the New York Times on how the City was seen as a "flashy aberration pumped up by petrodollars from Russia and the Gulf". It is much more disturbing to see how this also applies to our political class as well, government and opposition.
The immediate damage will be suffered most by Cameron and the Conservatives. When Britain officially went into a recession George Osborne issued a statement but was not allowed on the air for interviews. This is ridiculous and will upset the strategy of "detoxifying" the Tories. Osborne ought to resign.
The more serious and lasting damage should be suffered by Brown and the Labour Government, whose members have been "palling around", as the saying now goes, with whatever the Russian is for mafia. This is the charge that Mandelson wants to extinguish and which his letter about the "the truth" of his meetings with Deripaska is designed to achieve. Will a craven MSM accept it at face value? Here is what he says,
Sir, During the course of this week a number of journalists have asked me about meetings with Oleg Deripaska.
During the weekend when I moved from Brussels to London and prior to me being admitted to hospital for an urgent medical procedure, a statement was released to the press which said I had had meetings with Mr Deripaska in 2006 and 2007. Some people formed the reasonable view, therefore, that my first meeting with him was in 2006. This is not the case: to the best of my recollection we first met in 2004 and I met him several times subsequently.
Anyone reading this would think that Mandelson had nothing to do with "the statement", and that it merely narrated that some meetings were held in 2006 and 2007. Mandelson then generously corrects the 'impression' that this statement was referring to his first meetings. Really?
I have not been able to find the actual statement, as such, on the web. But David Robertson of the Times reported,
Asked by The Times to clarify when Lord Mandelson first met Mr Deripaska, his press officer at the European Commission, Michael Jennings, replied on his behalf: “Mr Mandelson has met Mr Deripaska at a few social gatherings in 2006 and 2007. He has never had a conversation with Mr Deripaska about aluminium.
First of all this means that it was no 'mere statement', it was cleared by Mandelson who had it officially issued "on his behalf". Second, and more important, it was issued as an official account of when he "first met" the oligarch. It was not, therefore, merely "reasonable" to "form the view" that their first meeting was in 2006. This is what Mandelson's official statement actually stated! Who amongst us would not also now presume that a certain amount of metalically relevant language was spoken in the "several" meetings that date back to 2004.
And who would not conclude that Gordon Brown's newly enobled lieutenant was being misleading in the reply that he had issued about when he first met Deripaska? I don't know what you would call him. But you see here a perfect example of the debased and formalistic nature of New Labour's commitment to truth.
