Talk:Peter Mandelson

Close Relationship With Murdoch Whilst Head of New Labour's Media and Communications

Was Mr. Mandelson involved in intercepting voicemails and email messages during his time as New Labours Press Baron? Can anyone recall the names of the journalists he arranged to have sacked shortly after they filed negative copy about him? 212.139.107.102 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)twl212.139.107.102 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Mushy peas

So what's all this about this dude mistaking mushy peas for guacamole, and why is it not in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugyug (talk • contribs) 19:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Great Story but I think this was put about by Neil Kinnock as a bit of a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.234.2 (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Digital Economy Bill

As the Digital Economy Bill is about to destroy our ability to post an honest Wiki page, why are you bothering to Edit it anymore?

The bill gives the government power to demand the blocking of any website Under clause 11, which can be to (a) limit the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber; (b) prevent a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limit such use; (c) suspend the service provided to a subscriber; or (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.

This means they can effectively order your internet service provider to block access to certain websites and/or limit your internet speed

You think its' about stopping illegal internet downloads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.57.214 (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll start to worry when someone explains VPNs to the politicians...

The Dark Lord

With regards this nickname, I reference a Guardian blog on the election which shows a picture of a newspaper which the man himself has signed as 'the Dark Lord'. I'd take it that this is pretty irrefutable evidence for it's inclusion.[[1]]

We have Mandy in the article, which is perhaps his best known nickname, perhaps if someone had reliable citations and some content to add with it and could show the notability of the nickname there could be a case for inclusion, but no way not ever in the lede like you just inserted it. He has had so many nicknames, the comeback kid, the prince of darkness and so on that we could have a long list of them. Mostly they are just partisan political posturing and press attempts to sell their chip wrappers. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Missed this before I put it in the lede. If you read the references I cited, Mandelson is widely referred to in the press now as the Dark Lord. Indeed, he signed a newspaper as The Dark Lord earlier today while campaigning, which is what two of the references refer to. This is pretty strong grounds for inclusion. As to it's position in the article, there is nothing uncommon about a person of public interest having their nickname(s) in the opening paragraph.

As I said, never ever in the lede. Yes I have looked at the references, all a bit, Mandelson jokingly signed as the dark lord when asked to by a passenger on a train, doesn't make the nickname any more notable than the one that preceded it, which has been around a long time and is also not in the article , the prince of darkness, it is all a bit valueless, but lets wait and see what other editors think. What is the rational that has been presented behind this upgraded nickname? Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me it is okay to put it in the article seeing as it is referenced, but it needs to be deftly handled. Perhaps something like, "Due to his reputation as a 'wily political operator in the shadows of Westminster', Mandelson is sometimes referred to in the press as the Prince of Darkness or the Dark Lord. He has maintained a sense of humour about the nicknames, having said after joining the House of Lords, 'I used to be the prince of darkness. But being a peer of the realm I suppose I am the dark lord.' The reference for the quote also supports being a 'wily political operator' as the reason for the nickname. In any event, the nickname should no more be in the lead than Mandy is. The end of the first paragraph of the "Member of Parliament" section might make the most sense. -Rrius (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher was widely known by the public as “Maggie”. Her article does not mention that nickname (although some of the referenced article titles do). I would suggest the use of the Dark Lord as a nickname is used by an extremely small minority, typically those in politics or the political media. It may therefore be invalid per WP:UNDUE. Leaky Caldron 15:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it should be included at all. If there is support to include multiple press given nicknames, then far down (very far) with the other nickname, I think in the old days before the article was cleaned up and improved there was even a nickname section. I would also point out that an IP in this range has been repeatedly attempting to add this dark lord to the lede for months now. Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The nickname is already mentioned in the "Media relations" section in relation to his being a spin doctor, so the additional mention is wholly unnecessary. I think it has existed for a while without detracting from the article, so perhaps we should leave it there? In any event, Rob is right that it should absolutely not be in the lead. -Rrius (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, there it is, it sits pretty well there. I don't think it needs to be updated as it would perhaps move into undue weight territory. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Prince of Darkness mandy is mentioned here but not Dark Lord. Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Heres the News of the World attempting to give him two jags mandelson according to them "Angry government drivers have given Lord Mandelson the nickname after he fixed it so he has use of a pair of the flash motors". 25/10/2009 Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Lord Rumba of Rio, was popular for a while. [2] Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Article focus

The Dark Lord debate has brought into focus what has bothered me about this article for some time. Mandelson is known as an expert in the art of politics who was a key player in Blair's political successes and in holding back the coups against Brown. Instead of discussing that, the article spends quite a lot of words on the Deripaska, Mandelson's EU pension, and the copyright-law allegations. Reading this article, one would come away with this basic story: Mandelson was involved in some lefty causes as a young man, that was intermittently involved in Labour politics until the mid-1980s, and that he ran the 1987 and 1997 general election campaigns. Mandelson held various cabinet posts, but kept getting himself into ethics troubles. He then went to the EU Commission, bringing his penchant for ethical lapses with him, and squabbled with Pres. Sarkozy. Then, for no apparent reason, Mandelson returned to Cabinet, being given a life peerage, and where he was heavily involved in Cabinet business, became more popular with the Labour rank-and-file than the Deputy Leader of the party, and accumulated portfolios and status as time went on. Along the way, he managed to continued his habit of sparking controversies over his ethics.

That just does not seem like a fair summary of his life, yet I think it is a fair summary of the article. -Rrius (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There are issues with the article but it is hard to get an acceptable balance, LC improved it mostly to what we have now. Perhps after the election we could work on a rewrite as there could well be a few major changes. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of balance as it is that an entire part of what he is has to this point been left out of the article. Striking a balance will be difficult because talking about his political contributions invites all sorts of normative judgements about those contributions. It is still a thing worth doing, however. Since much of what Mandelson did during the Blair years (including siding with Blair over Brown for the leadership and the effects that had on his relationship with the latter) happened before 2001, it's not clear what effect the election will have on that. Also, an explanation of why Mandelson was invited back to the Cabinet in 2008 and how he helped stave off plots to defenestrate Brown during the last year and a half won't likely change much after the election. I could work up the 2008-to-present aspects, but I would need some serious help with the Blair-years info. -Rrius (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't support what would be a lot of changes at this time, please wait a week until after the election. The article is getting close to 3000 views a day, rising from around 1000 a day and the rise in page views is a likely affect of the imminent election, for this reason I don't support major work on the article until after the election. I also think all of that how he helped to defend brown from plots and stuff could be given a lot of weight, this could be said of all the ministers or most of them and is a normal part of their job. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if others support your view, we should still discuss the situation. Waiting until 7 May to edit the article does not mean waiting until that date to start discussing changes. It was never my intention to elbow in and make huge changes to the article without consensus, as should be evident from the very fact that I brought this up on the talk page rather than just adding information and from the fact that I said I don't think I'm equipped to do it on my own. In any event, there is no reason why we must wait until the election to talk about the contours of any additions or even to begin gathering sources and drafting language to be added later, let alone discussing in the first instance the advisability of what I propose. -Rrius (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say about his involvement in killing plots, but reliable sources verify that he was integral in seeing off plots, and some even detailed his role in killing the June 2009 plot. I'm also not sure what you think I want to do here, but I'm not talking about turning this into an article about his political machinations. Rather, I think his involvement in early New Labour politics should involve more than a list of Cabinet offices he held and the tidbit about the Dome. His return to Cabinet should reflect the essentially universal understanding that brining him back was meant to mollify Blairites and take advantage of Mandelson's political skills to secure Brown's leadership. It would make sense, in that context, to mention that he is in fact widely credited with helping put down revolts since his return. In the end, we're probably talking about a few hundred words for each period, not earth-shattering changes. -Rrius (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You see, we are in disagreement already, what is this killing plots issue? Do you want to add a lot of stuff about that? Look as I said, why not wait a week? Are you wanting to add that Brown has been kept in power by mandelson? I think you should need to be a bit careful asserting too much weight to that claim. It is also a bit opinionated, as I said all cabinet ministers are in that business. After the last attempted coup "Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, also issued a muted statement of support" [3] here "Lord Mandelson shrugs off reports of rift with Gordon Brown"[4] Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As to plot killing, you said, "I also think all of that how he helped to defend brown from plots and stuff could be given a lot of weight, this could be said of all the ministers or most of them and is a normal part of their job." I have no idea what that means. The best interpretation I can come up with is that you somehow think I want to dedicate a whole section to this, which is now what you are directly asking about. I don't know how you could read the last two sentences of my last contribution and have that question. Of course I don't. I think it is worth mentioning that he is widely regarded as having helped put down plots since he joined the Cabinet. I have no idea where you get the idea that I want the article to say that Mandelson kept Brown in power. That is a ridiculous overstatement, and I'm confused as to why you would attribute POV pushing to me when I made clear from the very start of this that my goal is to add to it a critical part of who he is: a deft political operator. Nowhere in any of what I've said have I given any indication that I think Mandelson single-handedly saved Brown. As to whether all Cabinet minsiters are in the job of saving the PM, that is plainly wrong. When Mandelson was on the phone trying to strangle a coup in his crib, he was on the phone with Cabinet ministers like David Miliband, whose resignation, call for Brown to resign, or silence would have been key to ending Brown's premiership. What's more, this is not "a bit opinionated"—it is well documented in the press, and in any event, it would be a cinch to provide scads of sources for "Since rejoining Cabinet in 2008, Mandelson is widely credited with helping stave off challenges to Brown's leadership." If there are sufficient sources to say he was lukewarm when the most recent one happened, that's fine, but it doesn't undo what happened before. Finally, why do you think it is necessary to hold off a discussion until after the election? I can see an argument for not making changes until then (I don't agree that readers should get a skewed portrait until then), but I cannot find a reason not to discuss and prepare. -Rrius (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for resignations

I added to the opening "due to actions of his which were subject to intense media criticism" re his 2 cabinet resignations. What must not happen is this doesnt get mentioned in the opening. Its called whitewashing and is in clear violation of our NPOV policy. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree totally with this addition, it clarifies and makes clear that both resignations were surrounded with controversy and in some respects scandalous. More importantly however it lays blame where due in an unbiased manner which is very much in fitting with wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.65.73 (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

How scandalous is his relations to Rupert Murdoch and the telephone hacking transcripts which most probably pass through his PR desk? Its up for valid discussion, is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.122.39.254 (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)