Incompetence rarely equates to a death sentence for a political life and only slightly more commonly does it put paid to a business career. A lack of what might be seen as common sense or sound judgment poses greater problems, but is sometimes survivable. But when the fates, in the shape of the media or political opponents, turn vicious, then the results can be fatal.
An affection for luxury and those who can provide it is one obvious weak point for the politician. It often affects politicians who, while earning relatively little themselves, can find themselves feted by the wealthy. Sir Winston Churchill had a taste for the high life that ran far ahead of his resources, but there were plenty of people prepared to indulge him with foreign holidays and cigars, and a media with little appetite, or ability, to probe the extent of the largesse bestowed upon him.
More recently, Boris Johnson much enjoyed the fortunes of others, partying in their Italian castles, holidaying in their villas and even allowing them to pay for the extravagant wallpaper in his Downing Street flat. Yet it was not the sometimes dubious company he kept nor the benefits he gained from some associates, nor even his inability to govern, that brought down the former prime minister, but his breaching of the rules he imposed on others during the Covid crisis.
No one would ever have accused Johnson of having sound judgment, and his talents veered more towards comedy than competence but, for a time – and still in vestiges of Toryland – he had a reputation as a skilful politician who should be forgiven his personal indiscretions. Peter Mandelson is certainly talented, and those who worked with him when he was trade secretary in the Blair government recall him as one of the most effective ministers to have held that post.
Until a few days ago, he appeared to be doing a good job as the British ambassador to the United States, but there have never been many doubts about his inability to bring the same level of wisdom and judgment to his personal life. That failing had already seen him forced to leave the Blair government over a loan from a millionaire chum and a second time after apparently doing a favour for an acquaintance in need of help over a passport, a matter involving a billionaire businessman.
What attracted him to the wealthy, island-owning, generous host Jeffrey Epstein is obvious, but continuing the relationship years after his guilt was proved is harder to understand. Most people would have been wary and those with a high public profile would surely have run for cover. Maybe Mandelson has built up an immunity to criticism, or maybe he just doesn’t think through the potential consequences of his rash behaviour. That would be ironic. Global Counsel, the advisory business he founded, claims to provide “a source of counsel and challenge to leadership teams”.
Yet only last year, when the full extent of Epstein’s crimes had been exposed, Mandelson campaigned hard to become the next chancellor of Oxford University. He lost that battle but, had he succeeded, the reaction of the students when the latest emails were revealed might have been far more dramatic than that of Sir Keir Starmer.
Suggested Reading
Where Starmer went wrong with the Mandelson debacle
It seems some politicians take risks in their private life without a thought for the potential effect on their public life. Jeffrey Archer writes fiction for a living but made the mistake of telling fictional tales in court, denying that he had paid a prostitute to keep quiet about their association. It landed the former MP and deputy chairman of the Conservative Party in prison, totally ending his political career, but not affecting his ability to sell books.
Ill-judged sexual encounters wreck many a political career, yet still some seem unable to resist taking the risk. John Sewel had enjoyed a successful academic career before getting involved with Scottish politics and being rewarded with membership of the House of Lords. In 2012 he became the deputy Lord Speaker. It caused some surprise when the holder of this office was pictured wearing an orange bikini top and leather jacket, partying with a group of prostitutes. He perhaps took indiscretion to a new level, however, by paying at least one of them with a personal cheque. Sewel left the Lords shortly afterwards.
The internet has provided many more opportunities for people to take potentially dangerous chances in their personal relationships. Those in public life might think that indiscreet posts to people they have only met online might bring the danger of exposure or the threat of blackmail, but still they keep on walking into these virtual honey-traps.
In other countries, there is often a more tolerant attitude to politicians’ private lives, but the British do maintain a very squeamish attitude on the issue. Knowing that, common sense would suggest the need to exercise caution, but common sense often seems the one quality most lacking in some politicians. It would not have taken a brilliant political analyst to warn Rachel Reeves, when she became chancellor, that it would not be a wise opening move to take away an annual payment that was made to every old person in the country. But she went ahead and did it and will never be forgiven, even though she has been forced to nullify much of what she proposed.
Common sense would have told Angela Rayner that, having been put under the spotlight over tax payments on one property, it would be wise for the deputy prime minister to be extra cautious over the tax she paid on another property purchase. Failure to do so is why she is no longer deputy prime minister.
Asked whether it would be a good idea for politicians to take lavish gifts from those who may or may not want something in return, the average person might conclude it would be sensible not to accept the generosity. Why do so many politicians not ask themselves the same question – or come up with the same answer? Some may figure it is worth the risk, but others just don’t seem to have the sense to even consider the question.
