Airstrip One

The Mandelson Affair - What does it mean for British Foreign Policy?

For those of you who are not British, Peter Mandelson was a medium level cabinet minister who resigned - I won't go into the story too much, you can read about it here. Put it this way it's dominating the news at the moment. But what does it mean for foreign affairs?

The Election

Mandy was known as a svengali with magical powers over the mind of the electorate. I think this is massively overestimated, he did a poor job in 1987 - even if Labour did look more professional - and his disdain for the print media and traditional electioneering made the 1987 far more painful for Labour than it needed to be. He did get good at managing the press but Blair is not short on that type of person. As far as winning the 1997 election, I could have managed their campaign, actively sabotaged it and they still would have won with a comfortable majority. It was eighteen years of the other guys being in that won Labour the election.

The other argument is that this will reflect badly on the Labour Party. Last time Mandelson resigned, over mortgage fraud, the government's opinion poll lead went up! This probably won't happen this time but they have a fairly consistent lead of 15%. While you must never assume a British election is in the bag, the Conservatives need more than this to win.

The Foreign Perspective

It was an open secret that Mandelson coveted the Foreign Office, and I think it highly improbable he will get it now. What does this mean? Probably less than it seems. The British Foreign Office (FCO), like the Treasury, tends to cream off the brightest civil servants and also tends to have a culture of its own. These two departments are far less deferential to ministers than others. I am always amused at how the Cabinet's leading "Euro-Sceptic" is Gordon Brown while the leading enthusiast is Robin Cook. The positions were precisely opposite when they became ministers four years ago (although Cook then was more Euro-sceptic then than Brown is now). Now it just so happens that the Treasury is historically Euro-sceptic (Europe costs too much) and the Foreign Office is traditionally pro-Europe (the "Foreign Office is there to represent foreigners" as Austin Mitchell, MP, said).

If Mandelson's views were radically different from the FCO's, which they aren't (he was part of the Atlantic Council and is Vice President of the European Movement), he would still have been swallowed in their culture. Just as Robin Cook was.

Northern Ireland

Mandy was much credited with "getting the peace process moving", which he didn't it was far more of a credit to the SDLP and the unionists around David Trimble - with an initial push from the previous Prime Minister, John Major. I still think it was misguided, but there you are. What will his absence do there?

His replacement, John Reid, seems at first sight a good choice. A competant minister he has experience of bedding down a devolved government in Scotland. His Catholicism will create far less of a fuss amongst the Unionists than many expect, although Ian Paisley will say something typically moderate on this. Paisley may be honest and genuinely religious but he is hardly a poster boy for the mosaic that is unionism. But where will Reid stand. He is more of an unknown quantity than most assume. During the 1980s he was one of the most outspoken pro-IRA MPs. On the other hand his stint as a junior defence minister has left him a lasting affection for the army (he supposedly used to use any excuse to visit the army when he was in charge of transport and the Scottish Office.) He is a genuine wild card who could seriously upset either side. Watch for this.

No Difference

I really believe that there will be no appreciable difference from Mandelson resigning as far as British foreign policy goes. But then as you probably assumed that before you read the article there was no point in writing it, was there?