I am no lawyer: but I am very interested in the 'Duty of Candour' principle. How far, one wonders, will it extend beyond follow-up after "emergency situations" and actions thereupon by the authorities, which seems to be the application for which it is being discussed.
Where I've encountered it before [in my Energy interests] is its application in Judicial Reviews. The principle is that, inevitably, the authorities enjoy a vast disparity of knowledge and information in such cases, and are required to cough it up, even to the extent of revealing advice given and received between officials and their counsel.
I can tell you, it puts the wind up civil servants and ministers - one of the reasons they have been trying to get the courts to be stricter over what gets heard under JR (as predicted here years ago).
Now of course we know that Whitehall etc have long found ways to live with FOI, so as not to have it cramp their style. But it still does, to some extent. Even so, FOI and JR notwithstanding, Whitehall and others still frequently dissemble, nay sometimes lie through their teeth, in official pronouncements.
So - just how much more comprehensive will be the scope of Duty of Candour following the passage of the Hillsborough Law? And how will we be able to invoke it against the bastards?
In a hastily arranged, self-serving interview just a day before the axe fell on Mandelson, he delivered what I called the other day his masterclass in the communication arts for which he is famed. Too late, obviously: but look at the clever ways his mind was working, in the attempt to restore the rapidly worsening position. Recall the context: he had already answered once on the subject, on that occasion simply saying he regretted having ever met Epstein. Early last week, however, he knew he'd shortly be confronted with a good deal more to answer for, see below. He just had to attempt to get ahead of it, to prime the audience with a pre-emptive range of exculpatory framings designed to head off what he knew was coming, and give Starmer a few handy words to use / lines-to-take (which Sir Kier duly did at PMQs).
The analysis is in 'fisk' format: the bold text is the transcript of Mandy's answers to some fairly obvious interview questions. I make only the slightest reference to his body-language: an expert on that could have a field day. Watch it for yourself.
"It was over
20 years ago …... much, much too long
ago to count for anything now.
"I find [my
words from back then] very embarrassing to see and to read, but as you say,
they were written before he was indicted.… and you obviously agree with me,
it was simply ages ago.
"But I just
feel two things now. One is, I feel a
profound sense of tremendous sense, a profound sense of sympathy for those
people, those women, who suffered, as a result of his behaviour and his
illegal, criminal activities;Clearly - see below, several times - M has selected ‘tremendous’ and ‘profound’ from the BS lexicon.And sympathy for women, oh yes, he’s on the side of the
angels alright. ... He was a criminal, you
know – we’re plainly all victims here.Sympathy for the women!
"… and
secondly, I regret very very deeply indeed carrying on that association with
him for far longer than I should have done … oh, I don’t know, it was a matter
of years after I met him …M knows – see towards the end of the interview – that this can’t be contained to
“20 years ago”, so he’s making a big, upfront thing of “regrettably continuing
the association”.Association?A conveniently abstract, thin, technical way of framing their relationship.Actually, we know it was
“best pal in all the world”, to whom M was giving advice even after E had
been convicted.
"… and I
regret very much that I fell for his lies; I fell, and accepted assurances that
he had given me about his indictment, his original, criminal case in Florida,
like very many people I took at face value what he said. ... Oh yes, I’m a victim alright – and just
one among a big crowd, too.We all
believed him.None of us rumbled
him.Nobody could have known.None of us.It’s all of us in the same boat.
"With
hindsight, with fresh information, years later we realized that we had been
wrong to believe him – he’s a charismatic, criminal liar, we now see, and I
regret very much indeed; ... Yes, it
was wholly impossible for us – us, I tell you, plural, lots of us - to have known or even have
suspected at the time.Oh, how our
wrongdoing haunts us, our wrongly believing!
"I felt it
like a – like an albatross around my neck since his death in 2018 or 2019,
whenever it was.... see, I don’t even follow these things very
closely.And it’s been awful for me,
awful, I tell you.
"I feel, I
feel a tremendous sense of regret, not only that I met him in the first place...Regret at ever meeting him was what M had
already placed on record some while ago.So now he has to go even further, in order to be seen recognizing clearly that he
needs to confess to even more, errr, regrets!
"…but that I continued the association, and I
took at face value the lies that he fed me and many others.... yes, I regret “continuing the
association”, that thin and technical matter.Oh, and I regret believing that stuff, as any reasonable person
would have done, and indeed did.
[M now shaking
off a suggestion of ‘informal, back-scratching, introducing people’] "It was not a business relationship … He
operated in a financial and business way, way, way above my level.... way,
way above.He was essentially out of
sight, beyond my ken.Nobody at my
humble level was ever in the know about, well, anything, really.
"He actually
was always saying, “would you like to see so-and-so, I’ve got this friend, I’m
having this dinner, would you like to come, alright, he was a prolific social
networker and a political networker, that is true; ... just such a helpful chap, he could arrange
whatever you wanted … oh no, I didn’t mean it like that. Errr, just such a helpful chap: how could I not believe him, or think anything bad of him?
"... but I would
just want to say this to you, er, Harry, ... you don’t mind me letting the whole world
that you and I are friends, do you Harry?And that I’m a down-to-earth, easy-going, ordinary, relatable, pleasant chap?
"… during
all the time I was an associate of his, I never saw the wrongdoing; I never saw
any evidence of criminal activity.I
never sought, and he didn’t offer any introductions to women in the way that
allegedly he did for others – perhaps it's because I am a gay man, you know.... see how open and upfront I am?And very naïve.And very trusting and innocent, like all
gays.And never even looking at any of
the dozens of nubile young women that always seemed to be fluttering around. Allegedly.Never even noticed them, myself.
"… perhaps
when I knew him, perhaps when I was associating with him those years ago with
my then partner and now husband Renaldo, we never, ever saw evidence or sign of
this activity which has since come to light.... definitely.How would we, when
we only had eyes for each other?
"That’s why
I feel so profoundly upset, er, by what has now been revealed about what he did
to women, and why I feel profoundly upset [looking very wronged] that I was
taken in by him and continued my association with him for far longer than I
should have done.Here we ago
again.We have all registered the point
about the new regrets, haven’t we?And
the association thing?
[Conned?] "I lived in London; I’m a Brit; he lived in
New York; he was an American.Perhaps if
I had been in closer proximity … [But you stayed with him!] I did in the early
years, yes, that’s certainly true.And
now I regret it. Now I regret it.... oh yes.Did I mention regrets?You know,
if you regret something, it’s the same as being absolved from it?
I regret
being taken in by him, as many other people do.But it was 10 years later, when he was Federally prosecuted, that people
suddenly learned what he had been up to for all those years. ... a full
decade later! I’d like you to take away
the idea I let 10 years go by between my “association-of-too-long” and the time
when anyone knew anything about anything. And did I mention there were lots of us?
"The Epstein
files?That’s not a matter for me.I don’t believe I am named in Epstein
files.I have no doubt at all that
there’s a lot of um, er, a lot of traffic, correspondence, exchanges between
us, absolutely.And we know those are
going to erm, er, surface, we know they’re going to come out, we know they’re
going to be very embarrassing, Here’s
the meat of the whole thing, and what M has been working up to, why he wanted to be interviewed: he knows a
shedload of shit is coming along shortly, and he needs to get ahead of it. Because it’s going to be “embarrassing” – but
we can all see, he’s embarrassed enough already: as embarrassed as anyone ever
needs to be, so this next stuff won’t really add anything we need to dwell on, ... because look, I’ve already admitted before anyone’s said anything, that I’m
embarrassed!We all are!And being embarrassed is like regretting – it
absolves you of your wholly understandable and really quite minor sins.
"… and they
[sic] know that I’m going profoundly to regret ... Here we go again. BUT - at least he avoids splitting his infinitives, even at this moment of peril. Good man!
"… ever
having met him and been introduced to him in the first place.Yes!
"But I can’t
re-write history.... so it’s deeply unfair of anyone to ask me
to do so: really, very unfair indeed.I’m the victim here, not just of Epstein, but of those demanding I
re-write history.Listen, I’m confessing
to everything I ever did – meeting, associating, believing, trusting, the lot. Yes, that's the charge sheet against me: believing and trusting. That kind of thing.
"What I can
do, what I can do, is express my profound sympathy for those who have were
badly treated by him; and secondly, I can accept, yes, I can accept …... you see, I really am able to be totally
honest and self-critical !
"… that I
continued my association with him for too long.Yawn.Yeah, we got it. Peter, we know you are very
contrite and very absolved.
"I haven’t
discussed it with either the President or the Prime Minister, and I hope I’m
doing a good enough job as Ambassador here in the United States to continue to
warrant his confidence.Errr …
"… All the
information we have about that dreadful, dreadful man, I wish I could remove
that blot [screws up face] he’s like, he’s like a sort of piece of muck
attached to my, er, shoes, which I find very difficult to kick away.But I will do it, I will do it.But I can only do it by first acknowledging
how much I regret having met him in the first place … Drones on ...
Muck on my shoes, eh? There's gratitude for you!
ND
_______________
UPDATE (see also earlier post): it now transpires that, having first been confronted by Bloomberg with his past emails, and a list of questions, Mandelson sent them promptly to the Sun - hoping that a preemptive 'friendly' Sun leak would be less devastating than what Bloomberg might do. OK: unsuccessful - but what a bold stroke (possibly repaying a favour?). Always plotting, always thinking creatively,always strategising
Being able to do strategy has something in common with being artistic, mathematical, sporty, philosophical or a natural leader. Most people could be made a little more adept at the associated skills and practices - maybe by good schooling or training, maybe by growing up around people who genuinely have the attribute - but fundamentally, becoming really good at any of them is a no-hope matter for most people.
That said, being a natural at any of these things doesn't mean being naturally good at them. It just means: being 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
_______________
UPDATE (see also next post): it now transpires that, having first been confronted by Bloomberg with his past emails, and a list of questions, Mandelson sent them promptly to the Sun - hoping that a preemptive 'friendly' Sun leak would be less devastating than what Bloomberg might do. OK: unsuccessful - but what a bold stroke (possibly repaying a favour?).Always plotting, always thinking creatively,always strategising
BTL the previous post, anon regales us with this quote relating to a pronouncement from US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent:
Donald Trump has reportedly asked the EU to levy tariffs of up to 100% on India and China, in order to increase pressure on Russia to end its war in Ukraine.
Well, the Polish situation demands some kind of response; else the next "unplanned" wave of Gerberas will be over Finland and Estonia. And I doubt NATO feels able to do much more than throw an aerial defensive screen around, say, Lviv - based firmly in Poland. Economic measures are all that Europe is really up to at the moment. The "coalition of the willing" is only looking at what it might do in the event of a ceasefire.
There is no doubt Russia is suffering economically just now (not to mention a growing shortage of gasoline and indeed water (sic) in the Donbas): and it might be made to suffer more. But it can suffer more! It's increasingly a war economy; and Russians are like that anyway (see this blog on many occasions).
Tense times. Who needs the feeble distractions of Rayner and Mandelson?
Friday morning at five o’clock as the day begins One final glance round the smart Whitehall flat Cursing the lawyers and kicking the cat She goes downstairs to the limo, clutching her handkerchief Now for the letter she knows she must write How did it all turn to shite?
She's (I'm just a working class lass ) breaching (Just a poor working class lass) the Code (What can you do when you've no old school tie?) Hitting the road after breaching the Code in so many ways
Starmer snorts as he wanders round in his dressing gown Picks up the letter the courier brought Standing in triumph; another great snort He laughs loud, and cries to Victoria “Whoopee! - our Angie's gone! How did she think she could have my job? Always just shooting her gob!”
She (I did it all for the kids) was breaching (Nice flat in Hove for my kids) the Code (I wanted everything money could buy) Tried to upload the establishment Code for so many years
Sunday morning at nine o’clock she is back in Hove Making a call to her old comrade Jez Join his new party? - let's see what he says ...
She's (What did I do that was wrong?) no judgement! (I didn’t know it was wrong) None! (Judgement's the one thing that money can't buy) Couldn't explode the establishment Code after all those tears Crushed by the Code (bye bye)
