Lord Peter Mandelson was an architect of the New Labour movement, serving in various governmental and party political roles from 1985 until 2010. Most notably, he was the Labour Party’s Director of Communications from 1985 until 1990. He remains a Labour peer in the House of Lords, with links to the current Labour government. He is currently running for the Chancellorship of Oxford University, Having read PPE at St. Catherine’s College, matriculating in 1973.
Cherwell: What stands out to you from your student life?
Mandelson: I was very happy as a student. I was more a college person than a university person, with two exceptions. One was Cherwell, for which I wrote a column. I enjoyed journalism and writing but I never wanted to be a journalist. The second exception was a branch-off Labour association – the Oxford Labour Students Association – with links to the city party, which I helped to form because I felt the mainstream Labour Club had become a dining/speaker club, essentially an extension of the Union.
Cherwell: What do you think of the Union?
Mandelson: I regret not joining it. It would have developed my debating and public speaking skills which would have been useful in my later career. But I loved the college and I loved studying and I was elected JCR president.
One of the first things I had to do was to lead an occupation of the senior common room over the level of rents. Some issues never change. After lunch, I led the JCR into the SCR where we proceeded to occupy – except that we weren’t quite sure how to occupy it. We didn’t know whether to sit in the chairs, remain standing, crouch on the floor or what. And we stayed there for a few hours. SCR members came in and had tea, picking their way between us and over us, all in very good humour. And as dinner time approached, I realized that we hadn’t actually decided how to conclude the occupation and we were all getting a bit hungry. But having voted to occupy in the first place, I didn’t know whether it required a vote to disoccupy so that we could all get to dinner. I made a short set of remarks, said it had been a tremendous success, led everyone out and went to the hall where we all ate ravenously. And then a compromise was found over rents, which I negotiated with the master Alan Bullock.
I was also active in the United Nations youth and student association. My interest in the rest of the world paved the way for my political career, a lot of which was spent in the rest of the world, as Trade and Industry Secretary, later Business Secretary, four and a half years as Europe’s trade commissioner. I have spent basically the last thirty years of my political life in the rest of the world. I feel I can draw on that experience in supporting the University if I’m lucky enough to become Chancellor.
Cherwell: Which political figure influenced you most at that time?
Mandelson: Roy Jenkins [the Labour and later Liberal Democrat statesman who was Oxford Chancellor between 1987 and 2003]. After I was elected to Parliament in 1992, I met Jenkins and he became a great mentor to me. I miss him to this day.
Cherwell: I imagine your family background, as the grandson of one-time Labour Deputy Prime Minister Herbert Morrison, factored into your political views.
Mandelson: Yes. It meant that as a student my politics had already been formed. Politically, I’ve always been Labour. I suppose the other aspect of my time as a student here was coming to terms with my sexuality. As a teenager, I knew I was gay, my parents were completely cool about that, and I was very settled. But when I came to the University, social life seemed so straight and in this atmosphere it made me think it would be much simpler not to be gay. This was the 1970s, when in society it was a lot harder to be gay. Even harder in the 1980s when the Thatcher government was actively anti-gay. But by the time I left university, I realized that I was happy being gay, and I left more confident and settled. I mean, the University was a good, respectful environment in which to come to terms with your sexuality. By the time I left, there was no more wrestling and I resumed what I regarded as normal life.
Cherwell: And normal life then became politics. In your political career you were instrumental in the creation of New Labour. What impact did New Labour have on you?
Mandelson: Nobody has ever asked me that before. Usually, I’m asked why I was instrumental in creating New Labour rather than the other way around. The process of creating of New Labour shaped all my political thinking and my political career. I was both a founder and a product of New Labour. People describe me as an ‘architect’ of New Labour, but actually I started working on the modernisation and reform and change of the Labour party in the 1980s, before Tony Blair became leader, when I was Labour Party Director of Campaigns and Communications aged 30, after I had been working in London Weekend Television. The impact New Labour had on me was nothing compared to the impact it had on the country. It changed the direction of the country after we were elected in 1997. It made so many things possible – the strengthening of the economy, investment in public services and reform of our health and education systems, the whole interest in climate change was turbo-charged by New Labour, in so many ways people were able to live differently together, through civil partnerships for example. The atmosphere and the culture of the country changed.
Cherwell: Blair once said to you “I think there are only two people who are genuinely New Labour – me, you, that’s about it.”
Mandelson: I think Tony was exaggerating because there were others who were New Labour. But I think the point he was making is that, in the Labour Party, there were some who thought that New Labour was useful in order to get elected, but once in office, you could revert. You could do something different, or you could be half New Labour and half traditional Labour in your policies. And I never believed that. I thought that just to be, you know, half New Labour and half Old Labour, you were unlikely to be successful Labour. It didn’t always make for a comfortable existence for me in the Labour Party, because I had to be at the cutting edge the whole time. I found myself at the sharp end in the 80s, onwards through the 90s, when Blair was turbocharging the modernization of the Labour Party and the government, I was always unerringly on the New Labour side. And for some people in the Labour Party, New Labour was like questioning their very identity or their religion – for example when we proposed to change the party’s constitution, and notably rewriting Clause Four. For some it seemed tantamount to taking Genesis out of the Bible. So it was always a struggle, but I didn’t shrink, I didn’t shy away from it, because I had strong values and strong convictions, and I never wobbled in those, but I knew we had to modernise Labour and be clearer for what it stood for.
Cherwell: One of the criticisms that was made of New Labour, and of your relationship with Blair and Brown especially, was that power struggles overshadowed ideological purpose. What would be your response to critics who say that and who might say that that might affect your Chancellorship?
Mandelson: Look we always had clear ends, clear objectives. We wanted to build out from those. We wanted to fulfill a vision of modern social democracy. That’s what united us. Yes, there were differences over the means to adopt in some of the policies, but this didn’t affect our broad direction or underlying purpose as a party.
I think you’ll find the same reflected in this University, its principles, its values, its purpose, are very clear. Everyone is united behind those. People will have different views on whether to modernise or reform the University. But its foundation, its collegiate system, gives the University its foundational character and above all enables it to fulfill its basic teaching purpose. I feel that strongly.
Cherwell: Why do you want to be Oxford Chancellor? It’s a very long-term and unique job. It’s usually a retirement gig, or do you view it as the next step in your career?
Mandelson: I am just finishing two terms as Chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University and I see this as a contribution I can make to higher education. I don’t see becoming Oxford’s Chancellor as a career step, but as something further and important to do in the last decade of my working life. It’s not a job so much as a role, which is an important distinction. It’s very important that the Chancellor doesn’t try to do the Vice-Chancellor’s job, second guessing or trying to be the Vice-Chancellor. The position is a ceremonial figurehead, to give guidance and advice to the University when asked and to be available to the colleges. This is how I see the role, as well as projecting the University internationally to attract academic talent, students, resources, and philanthropy.
Cherwell: What do you think of the way the Oxford Chancellorship is being framed as a party contest between you and William Hague?
Mandelson: I don’t know if people are doing that, I’m certainly not doing that. It’s certainly not a Conservative-Labour contest. The only big difference in policy between me and William Hague is Brexit and the EU. I regret the referendum, I feel strongly that we should have stayed in the EU and I think we have to rebuild the relationship. I’m putting myself forward because Oxford is a global university and I believe it needs a global Chancellor. My experience, knowledge, connections and network from the last thirty years are in the rest of the world. That’s what I want to bring to the University, to help strengthen and project the University globally.
I’ve also had huge experience as a strategist and an advisor to two Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and I think I can act as a trusted adviser for the University and the Vice-Chancellor in particular. As I have said, I don’t think the job of the chancellor is to be another Vice-Chancellor. I want to bring something different and additional to the University, supporting Irene Tracey in her role. To be fair, I think William Hague sees it in the same way. I want to be a good figurehead, lend dignity to the University, to support it internationally as well as offering a good bridge from the University to the present UK Labour government where inevitably I have a good relationship.
I want the new government to recommit to higher education in this country. Universities are the source of social mobility, opportunity, as well as a driver of economic growth. Our universities have been undermined over the last ten years. I want the new government to recommit to higher education and rebuild the finances of our universities. The present financing of universities is placing too great a burden on individual students. Universities are a public investment. The government should increase the teaching grant as well as offer maintenance grants to students from less advantaged backgrounds. They’ve got to put more money into research and science at universities as well as the humanities. The funding of universities must reflect their public value.
Cherwell: Do you support the increase of tuition fees to £10,500?
Mandelson: The proposal is to increase them slightly to reflect inflation. In the long term there has to be more public funding of our universities because I don’t think you can just keep heaping financial burden on the individual shoulders of our students.
Cherwell: What do you think of the 16% decrease in the numbers of international students last year?
Mandelson: This was the policy of the last government. It’s now growing, I’m glad to say because the government has now sent a good signal to foreign students and I hope they sustain this. Foreign students – undergraduates, postgraduates – have a lot to contribute to our universities. Nobody gains – either the universities or the country – from excluding them from UK higher education.
Cherwell: What is the biggest challenge for students today and how would you champion that?
Mandelson: I think there are two big sources of pressure. One is financial, which is much greater than when I was at the University, and it needs to be eased. The second pressure is social, all of which is magnified by the bombardment and occasional bullying you find on social media. We didn’t have that when I was a student. I think that there is more stress amongst the student population and this in turn puts pressure and demands on tutors and the university faculty who have to respond to this. But it is also necessary to bring the University back to its core academic purpose, and to bring students back to the reasons why they’re in this university, which is to pursue and generate knowledge.
Cherwell: As someone pro-EU, what is your stance on Brexit, and what do you make of recent discussions about freedom of movement for young people?
Mandelson: I regarded Brexit as a betrayal of Britain’s national interest, as a European country, as a country that believes in collaboration between sovereign countries and knows that many of the problems we have in the world are only going to be found in cross border solutions. Look at what’s happening in Ukraine. Look at the threat to Europe posed by Putin. Are we going to stand up and see off that threat by standing separately and apart as European countries? No, we have to show unity of resolve and action. Are we going to deal with the challenge of climate change separately and apart as European nations or by acting together?
There are so many areas of policy where we can only fulfill our true potential by acting together. I remain pro-European. And we’ve got to rebuild our relationship with the European Union. We’ve got to reduce the price we pay for being out of the European Union, we’ve got to mitigate the cost to the country’s trade and investment through discussion with the EU. I feel deeply that Brexit betrayed the future of our younger generation. They can travel less, work less, live less freely in their own continent, as a result of Brexit. Although it’s not reversible in the foreseeable future, we’ve got to look at different ways in which we blunt its negative impact. Allowing greater mobility of young people across Europe is something I would like to see.
Cherwell: What is your stance on free speech? That includes both academic freedom and student protest.
Mandelson: Academic freedom is absolutely fundamental. A university like Oxford can only function with the freedom to develop, express, and exchange ideas. I really dislike cancel culture, but equally I don’t believe in freedom of hate speech. I don’t believe in people being harmed or undermined by the actions and speeches of others. That balance is already protected by law, and the law should be upheld.
Cherwell: As Chancellor, what would have been your stance on, say, the Pro-Palestine encampment?
Mandelson: I supported the approach of the University which was one of tolerance and respect. What I didn’t support was an invasion of the Examination Schools which inflicted disruption and harm on students. I did not like the invasion of the University offices, the pushing of that young female receptionist to the floor as they swept in. That’s not how anyone in a university should conduct themselves. That’s not freedom of expression, it’s nasty bullying violence, and I don’t like it. Freedom of speech must respect everyone’s freedom including the freedom to sit final examinations without them being disrupted.
Cherwell: You’ve been called the ‘prince of darkness’ for your media relationships…
Mandelson: That was a long time ago. I’m now the dark lord! I still have the spirit of good journalism, of Cherwell, alive inside me.
Cherwell: …Is the media stance something you aim to change when you become Chancellor?
Mandelson: Any liberal democracy has to be supported by free media. Look, I’ve been on the receiving end of a free media which has been a threat to my freedom when, in 1987, the News of the World, during the first week of the general election campaign which I was directing for Labour, had on its front page an attack on my sexuality. I was very young, it was very destabilising. So, when some people talk about freedom of the press, that’s not the sort of freedom I support, to attack people and try to destroy their lives.
Cherwell: How are you running this Chancellor election campaign? It’s unique in that you have no policy platform and cannot say anything against other candidates.
Mandelson: It’s an election campaign like no other. It’s difficult to know or contact the electorate or to find out what their questions are. Perhaps Cherwell can help with this.
Cherwell: Final question: Why are you better than the other main candidates?
Mandelson: What we all have in common is a belief in and love of Oxford University. I will be a global Chancellor, I have a good track record of being a strategist and giving advice to two Prime Ministers, and I have networks both overseas and in the UK which can extent the University’s influence and increase its impact. This is my aim.
