That said, being a natural at any of these things doesn't mean being naturally good at them. it just means: able to swim in that pool. And many swimmers in the strategy pool turn out to be bad strategists.
Lots of situations and organisations need strategy: and there's a tendency to grab at anyone who seems to be a swimmer in that pool, and/or for people who can to thrust themselves forward. But really good strategists are few and far between: so it's not infrequent for a mediocre, or even poor strategist to be directing things, and it not even be realised for quite a while. What's needed is the leadership to say, decisively, "yes, we need a strategist - but not a crap one". Obviously, Starmer is no such leader.
Among high-profile genuine, but deeply flawed UK political strategists of recent years I would number George Osborne (often lambasted hereabouts for being no more than mere student-politico grade); Dominic Cummings (whose only thought after the very successful 2019 election campaign was "turn government upside down" instead of "deliver actual results from Brexit", making him just a self-indulgent blue-sky obsessive); and of course Peter Mandelson.
Like many of this kind, Mandelson is really interesting. Long-term C@W readers will oft have seen me praising his political creativity and deep understanding of how the levers of power can be used in imaginative ways. I don't resile from any of that. But throughout his well-documented career, he has made gigantic mis-steps galore, often rebounding directly and very personally upon himself, notwithstanding his ability sometimes to deliver superb strategic advice to those he is gazing up to at the time, from the, errr, grovelling position he adopts.
His actions in advancing his own cause or defending his won position - often when seriously up against it - have frequently been purposeful and genuinely adroit, albeit pretty transparent to anyone paying close attention (and sometimes to the whole world). I could list many examples; and particularly enjoyed his very clever handling of what he knew was going to be a ghastly series of revelations the moment the latest Epstein cache hit the media. Getting ahead of it as best he could; lots of well-chosen exculpatory themes, remorse, blame upon others, "being too trusting", willing to be open & honest about it all, "bigger boys / nasty lawyers dropped me in it" etc etc. Ultimately a doomed effort, of course, but a miniature masterclass. (I might even come up with a fisk of his recent performances.)
So: Mandelson - good or bad strategist? My summary would be: technically brilliant; genuinely creative; mostly succeeding when taking on a difficult task on behalf of / at the behest of someone else; oddly lazy in his own cause (a bit paradoxical, admittedly - but I could elaborate: and it's a trait I have noted in others).
It's a big topic. Other first thoughts?
ND
8 comments:
What will be revealed next? Something dodgy about a mortgage again? Taking gifts and freebies while an Ambassador?
But sheriously, would a clever strategist still have ties to that thumping crook Toni Blair?
According to Guido, a candidate to replace Mandelturd is Lindsay Croisedale-Appleby. She is, I assume, a niece of Sir Humphrey.
I actually thought Mandelson (who I detest) was a pretty good choice for Washington. But being Epstein's best mate doesn't quite have the cachet it once had.
Epstein as I understand it specialised in running a gigantic moveable honeytrap hotel for the great and the good, a role which he seems to have enjoyed - see Stephen Hawking in his chair surrounded by half dressed babes - and his madam was the daughter of a Mossad agent herself. The question is, what was Mandelson's interest? Maybe it was just fellow-feeling for another mensch.
Way back I worked for a firm that had some 'strategists'. May be my coarse ignorance but I thought they were mainly BS artists apart from one wise old hand. Sure there is a lot of high falutin management text written on strategy but my feeling is that strategy is the handmaiden of good tactical skill guided by nouse rather than the other way. Far too much glitter given to the word 'strategy'. Strategy is nothing without tactics - and Mandelson did do tactics.
I reckon Osborne had some idea but Cummings always seemed a hot house plant. Mandelson, clever chap and a good tactician but I feel he lacked bottom (forgive me), always rather shallow and liable to be very very dodgy. Needed a regular bath in Jeyes Fluid to enter polite society.
Thought it amusing him sent to Washington, a good fit in some circles and conveniently out the way of being a nuisance back home. Let us hope there is a very very deep dark well to chuck him down and never ever hear from him again.
May I humbly suggest the manscaping act of "back, sack, and crack" be renamed The Starmer? It seems to fit his political actions.
I tend to think 'strategy' has become a magic word, where meaning has been replaced with marketing.
At heart, it's "we're at A, but we want to be at B, and there are these known challenges along the way, what have we got in our toolkit to get there?" - nothing spectacular about it.
Inventive uses of tools? Sure, they can be spectacular, but in many cases spectacular isn't what you're looking for. You want a Fred Dibnah, not a David Blaine, but the demand is for David Blaine's with furrowed brows as to why the giant chimney has been made invisible half way up, rather than being a pile of bricks on the ground as the actual plan was.
And Mandelson was too fond of the great life, he never met a billionaire whose money he didn't fall in love with. Yachts. Islands. All the twinks he could desire. So much nicer than the old days when all he had was a ropey 'tache. He was always more Miami Vice than Islington Allotment, and that type is always a disaster waiting to happen in politics.
Never believe any rumour until it has been denied three times.
Anybody outside the magic circle of UK politico-media "experts" could have predicted that this latest recall of My Noble Lord Fumblebum would end in tears. Indeed, many did. 2 Questions........ Why are the UK politico-media "experts" so tone deaf ? & all this stuff about Epstein, his clique of child abusers, & his well connected chums has been well documented for years.....Just why have these latest revelations surfaced now ?
Post a Comment