He has been described as the 'Prince of Darkness' and much worse,Â Peter Mandelson's shrewd and calculating political, financial manipulation is always going to attract scrutiny in his memoirs but his insight into the inner sanctum of political power is what political speculators and commentators will dissect over the coming months.
I will not focus on the finer details of his book in this brief article but instead I would like us to look at the media and outside reaction to the memoirs which Peter Mandelson himself has said is being taken apart by people who haven't read his book.
So what conclusions can you draw from the media's quotations and the ensuing reaction without reading the book yourself?
If the book has caused controversy then then that was it's intention and prime objective was whilst clearing up grey areas of his own involvement in Labour's tenure in government and his role in bringing Labour to power would be a sideshow to this.
All interpretations of his words has been factored in even if Lord Mandelson publicly speaks out against them. You may not like Peter Mandelson but to underestimate the mind and cunning of this man is utter folly.
When criticising his former colleagues who held the reigns of power for so many years you must ask yourself why he is criticising them (both negatively and positively) and to why has he chosen the specific method of criticism and to what ends.
He is obviously trying to distance himself and his reputation from the actions of certain individuals but is selective in this as to not draw attention towards himself in order to evade attack.
In return he is also attempting to polarise himself with anything which could be perceived as achievement and that manifests itself in more than one way. He would like to be seen as the architect that kept chaos from pervading the government regardless of the specific decisions made.
This could be said of all political memoirs but all political memoirs are not written by an individual who has risen to such a level of influence whilst remaining unelected by the public into his later positions.
An achievement that cannot be put down to luck.
You may think my assessment is vague and flattering to Mandelson and the former criticism is as intentional as the controversy sparked by Peter's memoirs but the latter actually condemns 'Mandy' as some call him.
To exert influence via negative criticism directly or indirectly (i.e. Blair's perception of Brown as mad, bad, dangerous etc.) of former colleagues is one thing but when those former colleagues were running the country and the thrust of the criticism levied against them reveals a government where key figures in power are clearly not fit to be in power and their actions behind closed doors do not mirror the veneer which you yourself have engineered for the public then your role in such a charade is what you are accountable for.
But was this also factored in?
We will never know.