Across the pond

After listening to the man himself on the Andrew Marr BBC television show I don’t want to make any corrections to what I said in my earlier blog today about Lord Mandelson’s role in Gordon Brown’s reshuffle. He dismissed everything as the tittle tattle that passes for journalism. He and Ed Balls had been laughing together about the press stories of a row between them. He continually blocked the gentle but presistent questions put by Marr. Despite what we have all been reading Hazel Blears was quite quite happy with the way Brown had dealt. He knew because he had talked. He managed to ignore totally Marr’s quiet assertion, that he also had talked to Blears and got the opposite impression.

The mask of the master of spin slipped only once. When he said, while defending Brown:

I can assure you that the cabinet are united against him.

Which, predictably is now a headline on the Daily Mail site.

I continue to believe those political reporters who have detailed Mandelson’s crucial role in gettting Brown to change key elements in his planned reshuffle.

And I continue to believe that the Daily Mail story that Tony Blair is encouraging the rebels is not true. The Independent in a long story an hour or so ago, reports that he has been shocked by the behaviour of his former aide, James Purnell. Which is entirely in character.

And I continue to believe that what we have been seeing in the last few days is not an orchestrated plot.

Mandelson insisted today the if Brown resigned the new leader would have to hold an immediate general election, which Labour would lose because it would lead to a battle for the leadership, which would expose the splits in the Labour Party.

This is a view that has been held by many ministers and MPs. But in the last few weeks in the last few weeks, an increasing number of ministers and MPs have warmed to the idea of the affable Alan Johnson, as an ideal caretaker PM, who can steer Labour who can unify the party and start to win back the trust of the voters.

Because make no mistake about it, the Labour Party is split and all the electorate know it. But no-one is quite sure how many now want Brown to go before the election. And, in this Mandelson is quite right.

If Brown does not resign voluntarily he will not be ousted by a letter from even one hundred MPs. He will not be ousted until a credible figure stands against him.

The two most credible potential candidates, Alan Johnson and David Milibrand, have not plotted against him. Both are capable of the job. But neither of them is hungry for supreme power. They are the kind of MPs who are absolutely not in politics priimarily to win glory and make money for themselves. They are not devious schemers.

To add to the current confusion, The Guardian today has reversed its bold editorial of a few days ago, condemned the rebellion as a shambles, and now states that Brown should hang on for a year.

I doubt whether that is possible. And I fear Brown may also live to regret, of all his recent decisions, his recall to the cabinet of Peter Mandelson.

He used to be called the Prince of Darkness, but I would like to re-christen him as the High Priest of Devious Scheming. Which is fine when you are working behind the scenes, but when you do it on television, it tends to show.

If other people get the impression that I have got from the events of the last few days, that Mandelson is now calling the shots, not Brown. He explained the leaked emails to Gordon Brown, as being helpful advice. He was telling his friend Gordon, to be true to himself. He was, in otherr words, behaving like a psycho-therapist, which happens to be the new profession Peter Draper, the ex-colleague to whom Mandelson sent these emails.

As it happens, I know a bit more about pscho-therapy than Mandelson, and my own view, is that a dignified resignation now, would be the best treatment for Gordon’s own personal mental health.

And I also think, contrary to the views of most political journalists, that a proper election for a new leader, would not lead to party members destroying each other. It would bring out into the open the widely differing political views in the present party. It would bring out into the open the battles that have been goinig on behind the scenes and involve the wider party membership in choosing between them.

That could be a healing process. Much bettter than the Star Chamber which is trying to single out the worst offenders on MPs expenses. Much better than behaving like Lord to be Sugar, and showing how tough he is by firing people every week with a smile on his face.