The party’s over, we’re going home

The Cian Edge
“Live that you wouldn’t be ashamed to sell the family parrot to the town gossip.” – Will Rogers

It was with great anticipation last week that I attended a talk by Andrew Rawnsley who was in Edinburgh as part of the line up for the book festival. I have been enjoying his latest tome, The End of the Party, The Rise and Fall of New Labour over the summer and marvelling at the level of detail with which he examines that fascinating political machine. With the use of direct quotations he recounts the tantrums, infighting and backstabbing that, in many ways, defined British politics since the Labour landslide victory in 1997.

Of course, we only know that these traits have defined the nations politics because of books such as this and leaks to the media from within government. If the politicians had their way such information would stay locked away behind closed doors in the corridors of power. This would allow them the freedom to continue to convince to the public that they are what they pretend to be when making statements on television, radio or on your doorstep.
Andrew Rawnsley, sitting casually before us on this occasion, exudes a kind of smug confidence that makes him a little difficult to like. He is clearly possessed of so much information and insider knowledge that he feels a certain power from it. The first question put to him by Iain Macwhirter, the chair of the event, was the reaction to the publication of his book during the recent British general election.
Lord Peter Mandelson was particularly scathing in his criticism of the publication calling it “malicious”. Rawnsley responded to this accusation by adding that Number 10 was also spinning wildly against the book and laughed that both attacks were somewhat undermined by the corroboration of the facts within the pages 10 days after the release by Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling.
He also claimed to have received a number of calls from cabinet ministers thanking him for revealing the truth about what had been going on in the previous 13 years. 10 weeks after attacking Rawnsley, Lord Mandelson released his own memoirs and hit the television circuit to promote them in a very vigorous manner. This fact brought howls of laughter from the audience which Rawnsley lapped up with great delight.
I have been laughing out loud regularly over the course of the summer reading about the backroom antics in Downing Street and Whitehall and, when she will listen, reading my favourite passages aloud to Helen. Although also amused, she has been telling me in no uncertain terms that the book is nothing more than gossip.
It may be true, but it remains gossip in her eyes. Her statement holds a good deal of merit and it set me to thinking just why I want to read about the petty, foul mouthed squabbles that were an almost daily occurrence at times between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. This point was put to Rawnsley who responded that examining the “relationships between politicians and world leaders are essential for understanding how we are governed”.
This is a very good point but I can’t help thinking there is something deeper in my craving to know. Perhaps it is the nosiness that drove me into journalism in the first place but, in fact, I think it is the desire to know that politicians are human after all.
The gulf that exists between the real people and the public persona politicians project is extraordinary. Seeing it laid out on the page before me constitutes a reality check which is almost essential if I am to retain any interest in politics. I was once admonished by a political correspondent in Dublin for my love of Phoenix magazine.
She described it as being “everything rotten in both politics and journalism rolled into one”. Then and now, however, I would argue that such a publication is a very important read to anyone who wishes to know what is actually going on in the country. The media machines employed by governments to peddle their message have become so powerful that they have almost begun conspiring to constantly mask the truth.
The awful hole in my argument comes when it comes to using this truth revealed by publications. In some extreme cases it may lead to the end of a political career. This will be one politician out of a job but it is difficult to see a wider benefit.
Maybe others in the same position will alter their ways slightly and work harder to avoid being caught engaging in similar activity. Maybe legislation will be introduced or rules changed as has happened in Britain in the aftermath of the expenses scandal but in general very little will change. The culture of politics will remain the same and being armed with insider knowledge will not really make a practical difference in changing it.
Towards the end of interview Andrew Rawnsley addressed a question from the audience as to his attitude to politicians. He told us that he believes they are “not venal shysters. Most do get into politics out of a genuine sense of public service.” He did pose a question that interests him on the same subject however, “are the people [who get into politics] damaged before or damaged by power?”
The event ended to rapturous applause and as I stood to leave a loud, wailing boo broke out from the row of seats across from me. As I leaned forward to see what the commotion was I saw a middle aged, middle class woman, with eyes red with tears and rage, glowering at the figure of the departing journalist. She screamed a loud expletive as he left the tent and I wondered what had enraged her. Did she believe that the book was just gossip or was she frustrated that even armed with the information she could effect little change at the heart of how politics works? I judged from her attitude to the author that it was the former.
I went to the signing tent and queued to have Andrew Rawnsley sign my copy of the best-researched book of dependable gossip I have read in a very long time.