If you had never heard of Peter Mandelson before these last few days, you certainly will have now.
I have known him for over 40 years, as he had taken on modernising the
communications and presentation of my party just before I was first elected to Parliament in 1987.
There has always been two Mandelsons.
Last year, in a radio interview, I pointed out that, in my view, his strengths were also his weaknesses.
He could glad-hand, he could – for some – lay on the charm.
He had an eye for what would work politically and, ironically, where
political dangers lay.
But his darker side of schmoozing and networking; of the quiet voice, and often a sneer, led him to be dubbed the “purveyor of the dark arts”.
Or, drawing down on the Harry Potter books, the evil darkness of Voldemort.
That “Prince of Darkness” trait may, for him, have sometimes seemed a badge of honour.
Now, it’s clearly a badge of disgrace. Yet it also reminds me that this is not simply about the political arena.
This is not an occasion when we should see politics and politicians as being different to the rest of the world.
Sadly, this sorry saga has revealed not only the dark side of global wealth and the influence it exercises over so many in high places, but how sleaze and criminality in one area can so easily spill over into another.
In this case, the tragedy of young women caught up in trafficking and procurement, spilling over, though a spider’s web of connections, into to other forms of criminality and putting our national security and economic well-being at risk.
It seems a long time ago now since the interview undertaken with Emily Maitlis for BBC Newsnight kicked off the inexorable collapse of the reputation and respect for the then Duke of York.
The release of thousands of communications and videos by the FBI and Department of Justice in the US have shed a terrible light on the extent of the power of one man, and, like bluebottles around a waste bin, the desire of so many (who should have known much better) to want to be in that orbit.
Thereby connecting with and profiting (in one way or another) from association with Jeffrey Epstein.
The move from questions about Mandelson’s connection with Epstein but without credible evidence of wrongdoing, to this week’s justifiable anger and cries of betrayal as it emerged that, as Business Secretary 17 years ago, Mandelson had likely communicated vital and private government information .
No wonder the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown is livid. No wonder – when he suspected there was a problem and had already raised the issue back in the autumn, following the dismissal of Peter Mandelson as British Ambassador to the US.
No wonder those, like me, who were no friends of Mandelson but may have respected the role he played in bringing a critical modernising zeal to the Labour Party, now see their own suspicions vindicated.
So, what, if anything, should the prime minister, and those around him, have to answer for?
Thankfully, none of the appalling revelations – from sleaze to releasing private information – are connected, in any way, to Keir Starmer.
The issue is, therefore, one of judgement once it was known that Mandelson had retained links with a convicted paedophile under house
arrest and awaiting appeal.
But so many people who knew exactly what Keir Starmer knew at the time applauded the decision to send him to Washington, precisely because of
the traits which were (and are) part of his personality.
Bear in in mind that Peter Mandelson did not just emerge out of the blue.
Easy with hindsight (and there is much of it about) to recognise – as some did at the time – that Peter’s history and connections made appointing him as ambassador a risky business.
His antecedents are a critical part of the history of my Party.
His grandfather, Herbert Morrison, was leader of the London County Council and then, in the post-war Labour government, the deputy to
Clement Attlee, the Prime Minister.
Herbert Morrison had played his part in the War Cabinet, and even attempted to subvert Clement Attlee the moment the Labour landslide victory became apparent.
Now there is omen from the past!
So back to Epstein, who is, after all, the spider at the centre of this web. Much of what he was involved in was about international finance. It was about the world’s aristocracy.
It was, in short, about the worst of human nature.
As someone who was brought up a Methodist, I believe that within all of us lies the good and the bad, the dark and the light.
Which is why we need the framework of a functioning democracy; the checks and balances to protect us from the predominance of evil.
It is why we should stop for a moment and reflect on how we ensure that individuals cannot exercise such power – whether they be the owners and puppeteers of global technology companies, the manipulators of global capital or the demagogues of political extremism.
The lessons of critical thinking, of asking questions and requiring answers even of our friends, really does matter.
The hunting game of “who knew what and when” should not be about whose head rolls next, but about how we learn the lessons; what processes we put in place and how we make the safeguards work better in years to come.
Let the criminal process take its course, and then let us ask the question as to why similar processes are not now taking place in the United States?
