The contrast between Jim Wallace and Peter Mandelson speaks volumes

On Wednesday this week, I found myself in a House of Lords Committee Room paying tribute to my predecessor in parliament, the late Jim Wallace. At the same time, downstairs in the chamber, the Commons was debating the revelations around Peter Mandelson. The juxtaposition of the two characters could not have been more stark.

Jim was not just my predecessor as MP for Orkney and Shetland, he was also a mentor and a friend. We shared a flat in London during the week and occasionally we would chat late into the night, putting the world to rights. The conversations were usually eased by the consumption of some Highland Park or Scapa (what else?), so unfortunately our prescriptions for remedying the ills of the world were not as detailed in the morning as they might have been.

He was a man of phenomenal intellectual capacity and whose political instincts were liberal to the core. His strategic analysis of where the national interest lay in an ever more volatile world was always pretty much on the money (at least, to my liberal ears). Unlike many very clever people, however, he was sufficiently secure enough as a character not to have to tell people constantly about his cleverness. It made him genial and stimulating company which I will miss more than I can yet understand.

READ MORE: With Jim Wallace's death, it feels like we have lost part of our conscience

The late Jim Wallace, right, pictured with Scottish Government coalition partner Jack McConnell in 2003 (Picture: David Cheskin) | PA

A self-effacing politician

The obituaries and appreciations of his life and work have been unanimously positive in speaking about his personality and his achievements. Some have suggested that the breadth and depth of his achievements were somehow remarkable for someone who could sometimes be self-effacing.

I think that view somewhat misses the point. Jim was able to achieve all that he did in law, politics and the kirk because of his willingness to make any job he did about the outcomes rather than about himself. That allowed him to bring people together across the divisions of politics or religion and to shape them into a team with a common purpose. It was a gift that too few in politics have now and politics, as a consequence, is the poorer for it.

For Lord (soon to be Mr) Mandelson, it is ‘political obituaries’ that have been penned. While those for Jim have been exclusively positive, the commentary around Mandelson has been almost exclusively negative. They have concentrated on his love of power and his fascination with wealth. That fascination seems to have led to his craving for the company of the super-rich which, in turn, led to chaos within the Labour party – and not for the first time.

READ MORE: Keir Starmer apologises to Jeffrey Epstein's victims for appointing Peter Mandelson

The root cause of Labour’s problem

At the time of his appointment as UK Ambassador to the USA, some questioned the wisdom of the move. But, somehow, reasonable and well-evidenced doubts were swept aside and the seeds of destruction were sown.

With hindsight, it is difficult to understand why the foresight was not better. The root cause of the problem, I suspect, is the lack of core beliefs in the current Labour government.

There again you see the contrast. Jim Wallace had a political core to his values. He was never as flashy a performer as Mandelson, but I know whose legacy I would rather have.

Alistair Carmichael is the Scottish Liberal Democrat MP for Orkney and Shetland