SHARED OPINION
I don't care what they say, what Mr Mandelson gets up to is unnatural
FRANK JOHNSON
Tom Utley, the Daily Telegraph colum- nist, wrote the other day: 'I disapprove of homosexuality.' The International Herald Tribune reported that the Telegraph received 600 letters in support of Mr Utley and ten against. The Tribune quoted Charles Moore, Telegraph editor, as saying that he did not think 'people are queer bashers, but I do think people are mildly anti-homosexual'.
I understand Mr Utley's attitude. There is something which is now modish which I too think is unnatural. That is: Mr Mandel- son. I think it is unnatural for a Labour politician to go around saying what he said to some Silicon Valley computer salesmen when he visited California: 'We are intense- ly relaxed about people getting filthy rich.' Most of us were brought up to believe that Labour was incensed about people getting filthy rich. That was the natural thing for Labour people to think. Otherwise they would be the other way inclined: they would be Tories. The reason we had a two-party system was that one party was relaxed about People getting filthy rich and the other was incensed about it. If we have two parties relaxed about it, which we would if Mr Man- delson had his own way, we would not have People divided naturally into two parties. It is still common for a husband to be a Tory and his wife Labour, and vice versa. Mr Mandelson seems to want same-ideology couples. Children would become confused.
I realise that I am being Mandelphobic. But, as Mr Moore would say, I do not think People are Mandelson bashers, but I do think people are mildly anti-Mandelson. I expect to receive about 600 letters of sup- Port and only about ten against. Some readers may think in that case, my making public my disapproval of Mr Man- delson is not very brave. I would reply, that brave is what I am. It is brave to admit to a certain amount of Mandelphobia in deca- dent central London, which is where I live and have my social life, apart from the Occasional weekends in Wiltshire and few days in Tuscany — both of which are really Tutlying parts of Greater Chelsea. teo, Mandelsonism is rampant. They think he's wonderful. By 'they' I do not mean bucolic natives of Wiltshire or Chi- antishire. They obviously can't stand him. I Mean the long-weekenders from London who are the backbone of both regions. A Labour politician who says he is relaxed about people becoming filthy rich is consid- ered to be one of them at heart. It is assumed that he doesn't particularly want the filthy rich to be Essex people. Other- wise his long weekend would be spent on Canvey Island rather than near San Gimignano. So he must be all right.
`We had Peter to stay the other week- end,' is now a traditional cry from Marlbor- ough to Siena. Somehow one does not think that they are talking about Peter Stringfellow. I realise that the filthy rich cannot be expected to spurn any politician who is relaxed about them, and if it is a Labour politician so much the better. But what of those of us whose hobby is not wealth, but politics? We have a right to enjoy our ancient sport of watching two parties doing horrible things to one another and to their supporters, and to take sides; rejoicing when we see the filthy rich made poorer, or in my case since I am a Tory, even richer — something I used to like see- ing, not because I particularly like the filthy rich, but because it upset Labour.
In certain circles, then, we Mandelphobes are a minority. Still, I try to keep my Man- delphobia within bounds. Earlier this year Sue Cameron, who occasionally writes about the civil service for The Spectator, told me that Mr Mandelson was popular with, and admired by, the higher mandarinate in Whitehall. This struck me as being so inter- esting, and contrary to widespread belief, that I urged her to write it for us, which she did. My journalism triump- hed over my Mandelphobia, as I hope it always will. Not that commissioning Miss Cameron's piece will save me from him in the end. He is said to be very vengeful. From what one hears of his complaints and threats, in his dreams he must imagine pre- siding over some final Nuremberg of Man- delphobes in which we are tried for crimes against him and humanity — which two con- cepts he apparently regards as synonymous. In the list of defendants, however, I assume that I am low priority. That is, a long way behind Paul Routledge, author of his forth- coming hostile biography; Gordon Brown; Matthew Parris; various Notting Hill waiters who allowed his polenta to get cold; and the Labour party. His final triumph over me will be to take the view that, with enemies like that, who needs enemies like me?
Acouple of weeks ago the Daily Tele- graph's Peterborough column reported that Harry Evans, the former British newspaper editor, long resident in New York, presided over a public discussion in New York about his book on America in the 20th century. He asked the panel whether 'sex in the White House amounts to a constitutional crisis'. Peterborough reported that the audience groaned; that there were cries of `please, no'; that Professor Arthur Schles- inger, a panelist, spoke for all by asking, 'Is it not possible for six people to have an intelligent discussion these days without mentioning the word "Monica"?'; and that `a punctured Evans apologised, wound up and headed to the second row for a sympa- thetic cuddle from [his wife] Tina'.
I was especially interested in this item because, as readers may remember, a year ago we published here a piece mildly mock- ing Mr Evans whose departure from some publishing job had prompted some ungen- erous comments in the New York press. Mr Evans demanded of me publication of a vast, itemised letter of denial, an apology and damages. (He got the first, but not the other two.) So I looked forward to the letter he would write to Peterborough. It would surely explain, at three times the length of the Peterborough item, that (1), far from groaning, the audience greeted his remarks with cries of 'brilliant', 'truly creative', and `about time someone said it'; that (2), far from criticising him, Professor Schlesinger, said that it was an honour for a relatively humble historian of the United States such as himself to be on the same platform as the greatest historian of the country since Parkman (i.e. Mr Evans); that (3), far from being merely sympathetic, the cuddle which his wife gave him was amatory, indeed erot- ic, because theirs is the perfect marriage; and (4), that he should receive a very, very, long apology, the wording to be approved by himself, and exemplary damages.
But no such letter has appeared. I cannot believe that Mr Evans accepts that Peter- borough's item was accurate. Perhaps, after his experience of threatening me, he has mellowed. Perhaps, on reading this, he will threaten me again.
Previous page
