Bewitching Blair Project

GEOFFREY Robinson now claims that Peter Mandelson has concealed the truth about the matter of that 373,000 loan. Not to mince words, it seems as if Mandy lied.

Whereas he told us all that Robinson had almost forced the money upon him, Geoffrey tells us that Mandy came to him cap in hand.

Robinson, who seems a genial cove and is the proprietor of the increasingly brilliant New Statesman, advises the Prime Minister that Mandy is a disruptive influence, the chief cause of the "destabilising" of the Blair Government and the provoker of feuds with Gordon Brown.

"Peter is the cause of many of these problems... Peter knows exactly what he is doing"...

This is strong stuff. And it does have the element of a fascinating drama.

Mandelson was presented to us by the pundits a few years ago as the indispensable Mr Fixit who helped New Labour win the election. Without Mandy, the whole "Project" would founder. But, in fact, Mandy has shown himself to be accident-prone and inefficient. The Dome - Mandy's pride and joy - has been a disaster.

Mandy is not making much of a fist of the Irish situation either, and his presence there is baffling to many of the politicians north and south of the border. Mandy seems to most people to be a spiteful, inefficient, rather second-rate politician.

What is it about Mandy that makes Tony Blair rely so strongly on him?

My own belief is that it is a scarcely definable sexual chemistry.

I don't mean that Tony is aware of it in himself, and I'm not saying that the PM is gay. Something, however, lingers from Mr Blair's experience of an all-boys' public school. He is bewitched by Mandy.

Geoffrey Robinson is right to say that the Government would be much stronger without this silly queen.

Blair has been ruthless about picking up and discarding friends - including Mr Robinson, from whom he received some munificent holidays.

But he cannot bring himself to part from Mandy, who is doing him real damage. Curiouser and curiouser.

opinion would take an illiberal view. Esther Rantzen won widespread applause for her view that Hindley should even now be put to death for her part in the Moors murders.

The truth is, however, that we do not in this country determine the verdicts of trials or the length of sentences by consulting vindictive old ladies like Miss Rantzen; nor by opinion polls.

If we did, there would probably be suspected child-molesters hanging from every lamppost. I hope that Myra Hindley is released. All the submissions made by those who know her suggest that she is a completely reformed character.

No one actually believes she could be the slightest danger to anyone if she were to return to life outside jail. The only arguments for keeping her in are sadistic and stupid. We release other murderers after much shorter times, including terrorist bombers.

For me, the argument is not one about Hindley. It is one about ourselves. Do we want our society to be fuelled by hatred?

Hindley has served her term as laid down by law. That is the end of the argument. Nothing - nothing at all - could ever undo the evil of the Moors murders, and, one suspects, no one knows that more than she does.

The Home Secretaries who want her locked up for ever are simply pandering to the cruellest and basest elements in our midst.

Ode to Lottery

CAROL Ann Duffy, the poet, has been awarded 25,000 per annum for three years from the Lottery fund.

The reaction of some other authors has been less than generous.

Millionaire Margaret Forster says, "If there is award money, it should go to libraries and schools," whereas, AS Byatt opines that "subsidising writers directly is not very helpful".

Fatty Byatt is so rich that when she won the 20,000 Booker Prize she merely put the money towards a second swimming pool. In her view, giving money to poor poets who could not afford a bag of chips is not helpful.

Poets throughout the ages have been subsidised.

Carol Ann Duffy is a good poet and if anyone deserves public money, it is she. Most of the great poets of the 19th century had Civil List pensions - namely, public funding. And why not? Poetry lasts longer - dare I say it? - than the Dome.

Myra Hindley and the vindictive old ladies

MYRA Hindley has already been in prison for 34 years, nine years longer than was originally envisaged by her trial judge.

The Lord Chief Justice has said that it is very unlikely that the Home Secretary will retain his powers to set murderers' sentences. It now looks as though Hindley has a strong chance of proving that her prison term, extended by successive Home Secretaries, is an infringement of the Human Rights Act.

It is inevitable that in a case of so horrible a crime, majority opinion would take an illiberal view. Esther Rantzen won widespread applause for her view that Hindley should even now be put to death for her part in the Moors murders.

The truth is, however, that we do not in this country determine the verdicts of trials or the length of sentences by consulting vindictive old ladies like Miss Rantzen; nor by opinion polls.

If we did, there would probably be suspected child-molesters hanging from every lamppost. I hope that Myra Hindley is released. All the submissions made by those who know her suggest that she is a completely reformed character.

No one actually believes she could be the slightest danger to anyone if she were to return to life outside jail. The only arguments for keeping her in are sadistic and stupid. We release other murderers after much shorter times, including terrorist bombers.

For me, the argument is not one about Hindley. It is one about ourselves. Do we want our society to be fuelled by hatred?

Hindley has served her term as laid down by law. That is the end of the argument. Nothing - nothing at all - could ever undo the evil of the Moors murders, and, one suspects, no one knows that more than she does.

The Home Secretaries who want her locked up for ever are simply pandering to the cruellest and basest elements in our midst.

Remainder of the day

THE Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture has come up with an original idea for raising 10,000.

For this sum, or something like it, you can bid at an auction in December to have yourself included in a novel by Rose Tremain, Kathie Lette or a number of other well-known authors.

Many of us would feel like victims of torture if put into a novel by Kathy Lette and would pay not to be mentioned in any book. Those who, for example, appear in Adam Nicolson's History of the Dome - now sadly remaindered - must wish that they could have their names expunged from the record.

Please, if you run into Nicolson, don't make too much of a thing of his book being remaindered. His friends say he is bitterly upset at the humiliation - it is on sale for as little as 2.50, having been 19.99.

"It is tragic that his book is being burnt as briquettes by some readers," said a friend. "He loved the Dome and it was the proudest day of his life when he and his kids met Tony on Millennium Night."

Copyright 2000
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.