Comments on: Mandelson v. Marr: Master class or disaster class – you decide

By: robskinner

robskinner — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:07:27 +0000

Sorry, I came late to this one.
I'm not a fan of Mandelson's supercilious style, and have criticised his interview evasions on my blog (http://tinyurl.com/m3qyb) but this time I rather admired his gutsy performance. The way he asked Marr what Blears had actually said was a masterstroke. Can't say I was convinced that Brown never wanted to move Darling, but no one could have turned the reshuffle into a PR triumph.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:08:50 +0000

It was a masterclass from start to finish. I hate this government and what they have done but you have to give it to Mandelson – one serious operator both behind the scenes and in front of the camera.

By: Stuart Bruce - Wolfstar

Stuart Bruce - Wolfstar — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:47:04 +0000

@wadds but surely that was the point? Marr wanted to talk gossip and rumours, and Mandelson wouldn't let him. He wanted a conversation about real issues and facts. You can't not rebut if the journalist is spinning half-truths. Mandelson was the one who tried to engage in conversation and Marr failed. You're right the loser was democracy, but 110% Marr's fault.

By: Stephen Waddington

Stephen Waddington — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:53:37 +0000

It was a poor interview, by any measure, and added nought to the debate. There was no winner, and the only loser was democracy. Politicians need to engage in conversation, not rebuttal.

By: emily

emily — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:05:03 +0000

So horrible to de-robe the country's key political journalist like that. Why?

By: Paul Hutchings

Paul Hutchings — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:31:31 +0000

Mandelson is accomplished but not very human. He's the kind of person you'd want directing a funeral – efficient, smooth, cold.