In the news today I note that serial comeback-queen and Voodoo practitioner Peter Mandelson is attempting to become Prime Minister of the UK. Mandelson, as a life peer, is currently barred from standing in the House of Commons, under centuries old rules that say that members of one chamber in our bi-cameral system cannot simultaneously become a member of the other as well.
However, a bill is currently before Parliament which if passed would theoretically allow Life Peers to give up their peerage and thus become eligible to stand in the House of Commons. By convention, the Prime Minister of the UK has been a member of the Commons for the last one hundred years, when the then King refused to appoint a peer as PM saying it was more appropriate in modern times that he should come from the elected chamber, as opposed to the unelected Lords.
Should this bill allowing Life Peers to resign their peerage be passed? Quite probably yes. The House of Lords is an out-dated institution, destined for eventual oblivion: both main political parties are supposedly committed to its wholesale reform. It makes sense to allow its members to give up their peerages so that they can stand in an elected chamber – after all, in a few years’ time they are not going to have a chamber of their own. Moreover, one of the important disadvantages of the House of Lords is that it entrenches the notion of patronage in British politics. The majority of hereditary peers having been banned from the Lords back in the nineties, the chamber is now dominated by those who owe their seat there to the patronage of the current Government. Opposition parties are allowed to have a certain number of working peers appointed, but basically it is the Government who controls who becomes a peer and thus become a member of the Lords. Any measure that gets rid of appointees and replaces them with elected politicians must surely make Parliament more democratic.
Should, however, Mandelson himself become Prime Minister – even if it until no longer than next July? Let’s look at the record of this man:
July 1997 – Appointed Minister without Portfolio on Labour winning the general election. Given responsibility for the “Millennium Dome.” His management of the dome came in for constant criticism – Stephen Bayley, an adviser who was forced to quit by Mandelson, stated with unwitting irony: “If Mandy went down to a voodoo sacrifice in Brixton tonight, he’d come back tomorrow saying, `We must have voodoo sacrifices in the Dome’.”
July 1998 – promoted to Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
December 1998 – resigned as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry over a scandal involving an interest free loan which he had received.
October 1999 – Mandelson’s boyfriend contacts Brazilian “Voodoo” * priest Jose Lima Da Silva (aka “Zezinho”) to get rid of one of his arch-rivals, Charlie Whelan. Mandelson himself adds a short note to the letter. Eight days later he returns to government as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
*Technically it is not “Voodoo” but “Candomble” – a Brazilian practice which shares enough similarities to the former for a typical British journalist to confuse the two.
February 2000 – Charlie Whelan resigns from his political career – but goes on to forge a new career in the media.
January 2001 – Mandelson resigns again after he tried to do a favour for one of the Hinduja brothers – businessmen who were then under investigation for involvement in the Bofors scandal. Coincidentally the Hindujas were principal sponsors of one part of the Millennium Dome (qv).
March 2001 – Zezinho sells his story to the Mail on Sunday. It is implied that Mandelson and his boyfriend had met Zezinho in person sometime prior to October 1999, as it was alleged that they had been present at a ceremony in Brazil where a chicken was slaughtered.
2004 – Mandelson resigns from British politics altogether to become a European Commissioner.
2008 – retires from the European Commission and becomes a Life Peer, member of the House of Lords, and Business Secretary.
June 2009 – receives additional appointments as First Secretary of State (an honorary title), and Lord President of the Council (i.e. of the Privy Council – this position is usually given to the Leader of the House of Lords).
October 2009 – alleged to be contemplating wanting to return to the House of Commons and perhaps become Prime Minister.
So what we have here is a politician who resigned twice from senior Government positions in shady circumstances, yet somehow manages to keep coming back. Perhaps supernatural forces are calling him back to power – despite Mandelson’s best effort to scupper his own political career!
In Haiti, there is a practice of fetishizing politicians who have achieved temporal power, such as the President of the United States, on the basis that they must have some “pizzazz” about them to achieve what they have done. It strikes me though that if any recent British politician deserves that kind of veneration, it would be Tony Blair, not Mandelson. After all, Blair had a solid ten years as Prime Minister and was fairly successful at it. Mandelson’s career on the other hand has been decidedly volatile and haphazard – hardly what one would call prime ministerial.
In my opinion, Mandelson’s biggest fault is not that he practiced black magick – but that he practiced black magick so badly.
Alex’s Guide to the Best and Worst Ways To Help Haiti
The earthquake has gripped the world’s consciousness, and whilst it has caused some prime examples of the best of human nature to display themselves, it has also caused a lamentable number of side-effects. I have therefore taken it upon myself to draw up a list of best and worst ways to help the people of Haiti, which have been respectively spawned and spewed this week.
The Worst
1. Pay US Income Tax
The United States government has pledged $100 million to Haiti. The European Union has pledged $560 million. By working this out as a per capita rate according to their respective populations, the EU has pledged $1.14 for each EU citizen, whilst the US has only pledged $0.33 per US citizen. Statistics alone would indicate that US Income Tax is certainly not the world’s most efficient means of getting money to Haiti.
2. Pray for their souls
Don’t get me wrong. I am not hating on Christians generally – indeed many of the Charities doing the most for humanitarian relief are in fact Christian organisations (see below). But come on – what about this from Pat Robertson, the US Televangelist:
“Pat” apparently is not actually his real-name, but a childhood nickname derived from the fact that as a baby people liked to pat him a lot.
May I suggest that in the future he might consider changing it to Punch Robertson.
3. Buy Simon Cowell’s forthcoming charity single
Gordon Brown has apparently asked Simon Cowell to gather a bunch of X-Factor no-marks together as well as a few celebs in order to record a charity single. Oh please! Has Brown no taste? Surely if he wants to court popularity with the British electorate (and boy does he need to) surely he should be asking Rage Against The Machine to record a charity single instead???
The Best
1. Make an immediate donation
Here is a selection of sites where you can make a donation by credit card:
2. Write off Haiti’s Debts
According to the charity Christian Aid, Haiti as a country owes $890 million (approximately £550 million) in unpayable debts. Most of this is to the IMF. It is frightening to think that the great and the good have been calling for world financial institutions to cancel third world debt for at least twenty years or more, and it still has not happened to a discernible extent. Whilst it would be great if this happened in the case of Haiti, it is only the second best solution, because although it would make the country $890 million better off, it would not actually represent actual money in their pockets.
3. Buy Lionel Richie’s forthcoming charity single.
Lionel Richie and Quincy Jones are planning to re-record “We Are The World” twenty five years after it was first released, and are getting a load of American stars to perform on it. I actually liked this tune (which Richie originally co-wrote with Michael Jackson), so I think I will bag myself a copy. Much better than the crap Simon Cowell is bound to come up with.
“But Alex,” I hallucinate that you are imploring me. “Why be mean to Simon Cowell when he is trying to be nice this time? Why not buy a copy of both Cowell and Richie’s single?” No, quite frankly. If I were of a mind to pay for two singles recorded for Haitian disaster relief, I would actually download Richie’s single twice.
3 Comments
Filed under Comment
Tagged as charity, haiti, lionel richie, pat robertson, rush limbaugh, simon cowell