Mandelson’s optical illusion

Peter Mandelson has given an interview to the Economist in which he asserts that what was thought to be a U-turn by Gordon Brown over spending   is, in fact, nothing of the sort; it is simply a change of “optics”. 

The interview is a development of the theme launched by Mandelson in his Progress speech last week, in which he sought to present Labour as a party of “wise spenders, not big spenders”, who did not believe that you could solve problems “simply by throwing money at them”.

It had never been Labour’s plan, you see, to maintain spending at its former stratospheric levels; it was always intended that it would be reduced.  And that is what is happening now.

But what about Gordon’s  stance of “Tory cuts versus Labour investment”?  Hasn’t he abandoned that?  

Good heavens, no.  Allow Lord Mandelson to explain:

“[It is the Prime Minister’s] firm belief that we need to maintain investment and spending rather than adopt the cuts the Conservatives are advocating.

“But he is equally making clear – and did so before, during and since the budget – that we need to bring down the deficit.”

You may think that, actually, it’s not all that clear.  You may even think that those two statements look like mutually-contradictory hogwash.  But that is where the “optics” come in. 

Because Mandelson is referring not, as you may think, to devices for dispensing the copious slugs of the hard stuff that you will need before you can be persuaded to believe such monumental baloney, but rather to political prisms to enable you properly to perceive the elegance of Labour’s carefully crafted and wholly consistent economic masterplan.

Yes, concedes Mandelson, there has indeed been some confusion over Labour’s spending proposals.  But that is not the fault of Gordon Brown, but that of journalists, who are “not making the truthful distinction between what the Prime Minister is saying is necessary now and what he believes we should do over the medium term.”

So I hope that’s all absolutely clear to you now. 

But if it’s not, and you’re still confused, perhaps you should try polishing your optics.