Media

According to the Spectator’s literary editor, Peter Mandelson wrote the most boring book review ever published by the Spectator. I imagine he did. You don’t read the Mandelson memoir; you wade through it in leaking gum boots. The lack of illumination is nothing compared to the faceless prose. Mandelson cannot evoke the personality of Alan Clark’s or Chris Mullin's diaries. Form is crucial in that memoirs justify and diaries observe. Clark’s love of Mrs Thatcher and his self-importance match Mandelson’s love of Blair and his preening conceit that there was a ‘Third Man’ at the heart of New Labour's tenure in office - Mandelson spent most of it in exile.

As Peter Mandelson has us knee-deep in Kremlinology already, it's worth pointing out this insight from Mary Ann Sieghart in the Independent: 'It was quite clear in 2008 and 2009 that Brown was going to lead Labour to defeat, whereas a messy leadership contest was by no means certain ….  Mandelson by then knew that Labour would lose under Brown. 'Surely you know we can't win with Gordon as leader?' a colleague asked him last year. To which the reply was, 'Do you think I'm mad? Do you think I don't realise that?' But Mandelson was convinced that Labour couldn't win a majority under any leader. His big strategic mistake was to overlook the possibility of winning enough parliamentary seats to be able to govern in coalition with the Lib Dems.

Ed Balls has been on the phone to Mehdi Hasan of the New Statesman. ‘Nothing to do with me Guv,’ is his response to the Independent’s story about briefings against Andy Burnham. Balls has gone to great lengths to re-invent himself. Ever since the Damian McBride scandal, the former Education Secretary has tried to banish the bully-boy reputation he built as Gordon Brown’s protégé. Masks barely obscure the face; but, to be fair to Balls, his opponents benefit from recalling his unpalatable past. During the New Statesman’s leadership debate, Ed Miliband said: “It’s just like being back in the Treasury, Ed!” So it’s plausible that the anti-Burnham briefings may have been aimed at two targets. Balls thinks so.

John Redwood has written a typically thoughtful piece, questioning the government’s arch cuts rhetoric. He writes: ‘Ministers would be wise to tone down the rhetoric of massive cuts. They need to mobilise, energise and reform the public services. Labour made clear in their marathon moan in the Commons yesterday into the early hours of this morning that they are out to talk the economy down, highlight alleged huge cuts in jobs and services and campaign with the Unions against sensible change. The government needs to be smart and careful in its choice of words to bring about the improvements in quality and performance needed.’ Ministers sound terse and defensive at present.

With ill-repressed horror, James Macintyre reports that the remnants of New Labour fear that Diane Abbott might win the Labour leadership, courtesy of the preferential vote. Mildly amusing I suppose. If Ed Balls would be a catastrophe of Footian proportions as leader what would Abbott be? There are no historical parallels.   I can’t see this latter day Rosa Luxemburg enticing Labour members. But if she does, then David Miliband, that auteur of absurdity, is to blame. Abbott’s weapon is communication. Unlike her four opponents, she doesn’t sound like an under-manager at Furniture Village. She is accessible, particularly on television – and the hopefuls will be up before Paxman tonight.

The boat the Israelis peacefully intercepted was called Rachel Corrie  - named after a young American protester accidentally killed when  offering herself as a human shield in Gaza. Her name became immortalised, some 30 songs have been written for her, a London play named after her and a film last year. But another Rachel, completely forgotten, is Rachel Thaler - a 16-year-old British citizen murdered by a Palestinian suicide bomber in 2002. Only one British publication has ever mentioned her: The Spectator.

All kinds of hoohah about last night's Question Time, for which Downing St refused to put up a panellist because of Alastair Campbell's involvement.  If he was replaced with a shadow minister, they said, they would happily get involved.  But, as the excutive editor of Question Time explains here, the Beeb wasn't prepared to go along with that.  So Campbell got to lord it up in front of the cameras. For the reasons outlined by Guido and Iain Dale, it was probably a slight mis-step by the coalition – but not one, in itself, that will have any important rammifications for them or the public.  For while it's not the government's prerogative to decide on the entire Question Time panel, it is their prerogative to choose whether or not they join it.

One of the most interesting questions is whether the Tories and the Lib Dems will be able to move from the talking points to the action points. Besides Ken Clarke, Francis Maude and William Hague none of the ministers have any previous government experience. They know government from the outside, from the sidelines, from parliamentary questions but not from the inside. It will be really interesting to see how the Cameron-Clegg government copes not just with the issues where they can set the agenda - like police reform - but where the Goverment is mugged daily by reality - like Pakistan or Yemen. I suspect they will find Labour acted not so much out of incompetence but in desperation. They will also find that because a government wills something does not make it so.

The first press conference of this new era was a definite success. The body language between Cameron and Clegg was good. When Clegg called Cameron ‘Dave’ it sounded very natural. Cameron’s argument was that the two parties could have come to a confidence and supply agreement but that would have been ‘uninspiring’ and could have broken down at any time. What the Prime Minister didn’t mention is that the coalition agreement ties the Lib Dems into cuts as well as providing stable government. Clegg was excellent, as in the debates he is helped by being a little bit taller than Cameron. He defused any tension when Andy Bell reminded Cameron that he had dismissed him as his favourite joke with a bit of humour.

I’m sceptical of the value of newspaper endorsements. Readers are often irritated by being told which way to jump - if you’ve read the letters page of the Times recently you’ll know what I mean. However, the weight of Fleet Street support for the Tories is significant. In addition to the usual suspects, the Sun, the Times, the Financial Times and the Economist have all defected from New Labour since 2005. Today, the Evening Standard joins them, endorsing the Conservatives in a general election for the first time since 1997.