Saturday, 13 December 2025

Wes Streeting's "Change of Course"

If Wes Streeting is the answer, is the question 'can Labour do even worse?' I ask, because the previous round of hostile briefing/leadership speculation has whetted the appetite for more. Saturday saw a big Times splash on two coded criticisms Streeting made of Keir Starmer and the Number 10 operation. This government is too technocratic, and presents itself as "the maintenance department for the country." He later added that ministers shouldn't do the broadcast rounds with a "shopping list" of achievements because they do not capture the popular imagination. A friends of Wes, enjoying the shield of anonymity, added that Starmer is steering the country into the catastrophe of a Reform-led government. Only a new leader and a change of course can avert the coming cataclysm.

Nothing to dispute here. Since Starmer became the leader of the Labour Party, he has dispersed the party's coalition of voters. A process that has accelerated in office. Not because of inevitable disappointments, but thanks to stupid and counter-productive strategies. Who, for instance, did Rachel Reeves think would be impressed by taking winter fuel payments off most pensioners? The bond markets? The very ones who were quite happy with her recent fairly Labourish budget? Likewise, the effort at leapfrogging Reform to nullify refugees and channel crossings as a toxic issue is not winning anyone over, nor keeping what's left of Labour's support from dwindling further.

Does Streeting offer a break from this? It's all very well talking about a "change of direction", but in Streeting's case past behaviour is the best indicator of future behaviour. Is he going to stop the race to the gutter? Will he abandon Starmer's efforts to water down the European Convention? I doubt it. Streeting turned on trans people when he believed it was politic to do so, and he can barely conceal his contempt for normal people - most recently, resident doctors - who stand up to him. He's made no bones about being private health's man in the NHS, drafting in Alan Milburn to show their business is his business. He has the dishonest streak customary on the Labour right, and is the Blairiest of Sir Tony's epigoni in cabinet. Is this really what Labour are putting their hopes in?

True, Streeting doesn't sound like a wooden top when he speaks. But politically, there is no difference between him, the hapless Prime Minister and, if we're brutally honest, the other leading contender for the job. Labour's problem is political, and therefore theirs is a crisis of politics. Swapping out the PM for Streeting won't make any difference, because he's committed to the exact same trajectory. If things carry on as they are, in years to come Starmer will be remembered as Labour's last ever election winner. If Streeting makes it to Downing Street, he'll become the leader that took the party to its worst ever defeat.

Image Credit

Sunday, 7 December 2025

Ferry Corsten presents Gouryella - Surga

We're not far off from the top ten tunes of the year, the list absolutely no one hankers for among this blog's regular readers. There is a very good chance this gentleman will feature, as he does nearly every year. Until then, here's a wee ditty of his from 2019.

Saturday, 6 December 2025

The Darkness of The Dark Forest

Commenting on the first book in a trilogy is a perilous affair. Not all of the author's ideas or characters are fully developed. The impact is staggered across the subsequent volumes. The vision and the achievement of the work has to be taken in the round. These were the gist of many replies my review of Liu Cixin's The Three-Body Problem provoked around various the corners of the internet. Having now read the sequel, The Dark Forest, if anything the story takes a turn for the worse. This middle book is very middling.

To summarise where we left off, a Chinese radio scientist advertised the location of the Earth to a nearby predatory alien civilisation. Their world is threatened with destruction by their suns, and have launched an invasion/colonisation fleet in our direction. Owing to the distances involved they will turn up approximately 400 years after the close of the first book. The 'Trisolarians' are assisted by the sophons, microscopic supercomputers they sent to Earth at the speed of light to mess with physics experiments, preventing significant technological advancement, and to put the preparation of the planet's defence under total surveillance. Also assisting the aliens are groups of humans who, for a variety of reasons, would rather see our species destroyed or placed on reservations under the extra-terrestrial boot. Thanks to some plot-convenient violence to how quantum entanglement operates, both can instantaneously communicate with approaching fleet and the home world.

Spoilers follow.

The Dark Forest is about how Earth meets this threat. The narrative orbits around the efforts of the wallfacers, experts selected by the UN to come up with strategies for stopping the invasion. They are not to write their plans down, nor converse with others about them. They are granted unlimited resources and the authorities are expected to obey their orders. The sophons cannot read minds, and so they can only guess at what the facers are doing. However, several turncoat humans have appointed themselves "wallbreakers". They shadow their opponents, figure out their plans, and confront them when they have done so. And surely, one-by-one, the facers' schemes are rumbled. All except for Luo Ji, a washed up social scientist turned astronomer who for some reason the Trisolarians are trying to murder.

In the second half of the book, Luo wakes up after a couple of centuries in cold sleep. He comes to in a science fictional future: wireless power transmission, vast underground cities, colonies on other planets, and a hefty space fleet. While all this is amazing to Luo, it's the result of applying already-understood physics. There have been no qualitative breakthroughs since the aliens shut down all our particle accelerators. Nevertheless, the world is confident that they can take on the Trisolarians. And by way of a demonstration, a thousand-strong battle squadron of ships are set to rendezvous with a probe the aliens have sent ahead of their fleet. What could go wrong?

Unfortunately, instead of suspense all Liu's leaden prose conveys is tedium. Not that this necessarily matters for genre SF. It never did Arthur C Clarke's or Isaac Asimov's sales any harm. Like its predecessor, Dark Forest goes big on the big ideas, and I suppose for those not versed in the usual tropes they can appear spectacular. For example, this book has leant its name to the so-called dark forest hypothesis, one of the "solutions" to the Fermi Paradox. I.e. If there are aliens, why are they not here? Liu's answer is they're there alright, but they keep themselves to themselves lest they be espied and destroyed by another civilisation. Kill them before they can kill you is the pessimistic resolution of the great silence. Luo demonstrates the truth of this supposition. Sending out a signal that purports to come from a star 50 light years away, several decades later it goes nova. Astronomers spotted a fast moving object slam into the star. Someone out there wasn't taking any chances.

The real problem with Dark Forest is its misanthropy. Liu betrays a rather dim view of his fellow humans. We are cast as irredeemably credulous, stupid, cowardly, and cruel. In the present, the wallfacers are feted as rock stars who can do no wrong. Forget the cynicism that is the lot of contemporary culture, including Chinese culture, it's like we've all become participants in personality cults - but we mean it. This enthusiasm manifests itself in a hysteria against "escapism". The masses push for and successfully see laws implemented forbidding states and individuals from building their own ships to flee into the cosmos. We're all in it together as the herd insists we keep our eggs in one basket.

All of these collective flaws come to a head in the space battle. As the probe comes to a halt, the thousand warships line up in formation for the show down. What we get instead is a massacre. Thanks to the Trisolarians' hoodoo physics the probe becomes a wrecking ball that smashes through the engines of the lined up ships, causing them to explode one after the other. Evidently, our descendents had learned nothing from ocean-going navies, let alone three-dimensional space combat video games. Some ships at the margin of the massacre are able to escape and chance it on an escapist, interstellar run. A good job they remembered to pack the cryogenics. But before they do, they butcher each other so the victors have enough supplies and parts to keep them going for a centuries' long voyage. And because of the defeat, everyone on Earth, everyone panics and starts treating Luo as the second coming. They're soon disappointed as he concentrates working on a project seeding the solar system with dust, which will help determine the coordinates of the Trisolarians when they arrive. He's condemned as a fraud while civilisation falls into despondency.

The rendering of these dramatics are rather amateur. Clunky, mechanical, grating, none of this was worth the eventual pay off. It's not just that the writing is poor, the plotting obvious, the whole book - much more than the first - oozes condescension. The dim view of human nature and the patronising 'we are but children who know nothing' sentiment was a real drag, as was the implicit endorsement of putting trust in the abilities of out betters. Humanity here is not a civilisation trying to defend itself, it's the backdrop, a collection of bystanders that can only cheer or cry.

Obviously, this is not a recommend. But despite itself, two books into the Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy I am masochistically invested enough to put myself through the final installment. Read this as a warning and save yourself some time.

Image Credit

Thursday, 4 December 2025

Delegitimating Labour

Not only are the right wing press in this country poisonous, they're petty-minded. Their latest victim is Rachel Reeves. The story, in case you missed it, has morphed from who-knew-what-and-when regarding the level of tax receipts prior to last week's budget into the realms of the absurd. Reeves pretended the situation was dire, when in fact tax revenues were better than she led the press to believe. Her early morning news conference several weeks ago was superfluous as were, some have contended, Reeves's freezing of income tax thresholds, sundry other measures that have raised more funds from the wealthy, and that have left the poorer better off. As Reeves has a track record flush with dishonesty and lies, the criticisms of her probity have weight.

From there, however, the Tory papers have gone off the deep end. Combing through Reeves's life for any old rope, they have disputed her claim that she was a teenaged chess champion. As Adam Bienkov puts it, "... while Rachel Reeves claimed to have been the "British girls under-14 [chess] champion" she was in reality merely the "Under 14s British Women’s Chess Association (BWCA) Girls" Champion."" Because the Chancellor's claim to chess fame wasn't, as far as they were concerned, the correct championship this is further shocking proof of her duplicity. It makes you wonder where these formidable powers of forensic investigation were when Boris Johnson was in office.

Yes, this is a stupid non-story. But it's tied to an effort that is deadly serious. Despite Reeves and the dogmatic commitment to her fiscal rules, her efforts at stressing British capitalism's present state of play as non-negotiable, the repeated genuflections to Treasury orthodoxy, and her enthusiasm - since rescinded - for making the most vulnerable pay for the crumbling state, this is not enough for the hyper-class conscious editorial offices of the right wing media. Last year it was the land tax Reeves's budget saddled the wealthy with. This year, it's levies on owners of super valuable properties, and increased taxation on dividends and rental income. In all, very small beer. Chump change for the vast majority of those affected, but it's not about rich people not being able to afford it. For right wingers, a key principle is at stake: Reeves has committed the cardinal sin of taxing unearned wealth. This, in case anyone needs reminding, is the lynchpin of class the world over. Here, for a ruling class accustomed to having things their own way for 50 years, even a tiny encroachment on land, rents, dividends, is unconscionable. Where might it end? What might be a couple of pennies now could be pounds later, and then something much worse. Pushing back hard now is about showing Labour who are in charge, and what is and isn't permissible.

Ditto for the other sections of Reeves's budget. Take the lifting of the child benefit cap, the signature (if belated) policy achievement of this government. The right have gnashed their teeth and ran headlines along the lines of a 'budget for benefits street'. But what motivates them is less the ending of performative cruelty, or even the wedginess of this issue. It has and will continue to provide fuel for their beggar-thy-neighbour posturing and "investigative" reports on young women becoming baby factories on taxpayers' cash. More dangerous for them is the clear demonstration that state action, with the stroke of a pen, instantly improved the lot of hundreds of thousands of families. If governments can do this, why can't they do other things like provide enough social housing, ensure the NHS is properly funded, fix dilapidated schools, and so on. After the Tories worked very hard to reduce political horizons in the aftermath of Corbynism, Johnson's rash levelling up promises, and the huge state intervention the Covid crisis called forth, Labour threatens to undo this with its "largesse".

Lastly, for a section of British business, this is symptomatic of Labour's unreliability. That is unlike the Tories, Reform, and the Liberal Democrats, via the trade unions Labour remains - despite its own best efforts - a party rooted in organised labour and its associated interests. Because it has one foot outside the constitution of permissible politics, it has a base and a set of aspirations it must satisfy that aren't always aligned with the politics of class rule. Keir Starmer and Reeves have spent years selling their project as one in which business runs through their leadership like Blackpool through a stick of rock, but the exigencies of government plus the mess the Tories bequeathed them means that Labour would, as far as class conscious sections of capital are concerned, always deviate from the bourgeois straight and narrow. This is a fear the ruling class has had since Labour became a force in British politics, and that hasn't changed even now the party is dropping to bits. For some of them, attacking the party in the most hysterical terms, pedantically scrutinising what Reeves did when she was 14, all the sheer absurdity and oil tankers of bile shows they're not content to box Labour in politically, but would rather this party, this interloper in their politics, be squeezed out for good.

Monday, 1 December 2025

Going Beyond Corbynism

On Saturday evening I was in a foul mood. Throughout the day, on social media and YouTube, from text messages to WhatsApp updates, the news was the Your Party founding conference was the shit show everyone thought it would be. Inconvenient amendments not being heard, members being barred from conference - some, but not all, were SWP supporters, the forced removal of a Stand Up to Racism stall pn the orders of "a Scottish woman called Karie", an apparent diddling with the naming options before conference, and Zarah Sultana's own boycott of the first day promised a catastrophic waste of time. And then on the second day, things got ... better.

On single leadership vs collective leadership, the latter won. On keeping the ban on dual membership, Team Jeremy lost. On enshrining trans liberation in the constitution, that vote was won. All these might have been tighter or lost if the secretive organising committee hadn't ham-fistedly imposed themselves on proceedings on the previous day. And in ballots over the weekend, measures emphasising local branch democracy and initiative, anti-cuts principles, trade union relationships, and positioning YP as an explicitly working class socialist party all passed. The only thing Corbyn got his way on was the ridiculous Your Party name. It was good to see him strike a contrite note in his interviews, and likewise Zarah Sultana apologise to conference for her role in making the founding of this party a mess. In all, despite the overdramatic protestations of Corbyn superfans, something was achieved. If YP was in the toilet following the last round of bilious fallings outs, the membership scooped the project out of the bowl as the party's would-be elites yanked hard on the chain.

There are still unresolved issues. Who gets to be the leadership now? With MPs and councillors barred from the incoming executive committee, this is an opportunity for the party to put forward a new generation of leaders. Corbyn will forever remain YP's figurehead, but there's now a chance the party can transition from one-man-band status to something other than his needy dependent. And though existing self-declared Leninist outfits are not barred, what kind of relationship they should have in the new party is in the new committee's gift. Keep them as is, require them to fold into party platforms, re-impose the block? Whoever the leadership will be and whatever they decide to do, the membership have already demonstrated good sense. The chances of the SWP or the other little Lenins taking over or wrecking it through sectarianism is thankfully, for once, remote.

To be sure, Your Party is taking risks organising this way. As others have pointed out, in politics having a stand-out figure is a boon. Ask Reform. Ask the Greens. Without that, how can YP capture the public's eye? This is now especially difficult as September's stupidities have ensured Zack Polanski is hogging much of the space that was YP's for the taking. Where there are still openings is where the left are much stronger than the Greens. I.e. In the workplaces, in community organising, in street movements, in solidarity campaigns. We build from there. Owen Jones argues that time is of the essence, and that's true. But he also knows from his labour movement history and that building the political capacity of our class isn't dependent on elections. There are other ways, and the existing collective experience of YP can counter Labour and the rise of Reform outside the ballot box. It's not the mainstream way of doing things, but then again YP is not a mainstream party.

Doesn't collective leadership and the recall of lay officials suppose permanent factional struggle? Yes. But if the project is organising our class as a political party, it cannot be any other way. The working class is as diverse as it is vast, and anything aspiring to this role has to be a clearing house for experiences and opinion. Discussion, debate, the freedom to form platforms and factions around positions, all these are necessary for formulating strategy. The way forward is not going to be handed down from superhumans living on a higher plane. A democratic workers' party is a noisy party, not a personality cult, not an agreement of diplomatic silences, not a narrow mono-idea sect. This is the challenge YP's membership has set. Which demonstrates a level of political maturity over and above the caricatures attributed to the left - even, sometimes, by itself.

Politics is not easy, especially class politics. Nor are there any guarantees. YP's membership have chosen a difficult path, but in the circumstances, it was the right path, the only path. Drawing a line under the mistakes and idiocies of the last few months means moving on from Corbynism. With all the dust having settled, it's clear this is what Your Party has started to do.

Five Most Popular Posts in November

Finally got my posting skates on last month, so here's what attracted most attention.

1. The Your Party Debacle
2. The Man Who Would Liquidate Labour
3. The Beginning of the End
4. From Reform-Lite to Reform-Plus
5. Bon Voyage, Iqbal Mohamed

In at one was the in-fighting in Your Party. Do I need say more? Yes, but more comment is coming later today reflecting on the weekend's conference. TL;DR in case you're not around to read it: better outcome than expected. In second were further observations about the flimsy, know-nothing politics of Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister's right hand man if you've been living under a rock. His project might not be the destruction of the Labour Party, but he's certainly acting as if it is. In at three were the rumours about Wes Streeting planning to coup Keir Starmer in the aftermath of the budget. Which was always an unlikely proposition this side of the coming wipe out in May's council elections. At four was a condemnation and explanation of Labour's adoption of far right policies on refugees - something that is bound to do nothing but harm to their electoral prospects. Bringing up the rear is another YP story, this time the welcome departure of Iqbal Mohamed. Not all resignations and splits are bad!

Second chances? I'll give this piece on wealth taxes another shot in the spotlight. And for science fiction nerds, how about this take on Caspar Geon's The Immeasurable Heaven.

December is here, so treat this place like an especially fun advent calendar. This coming month I'm expecting more Your Party stuff, more science fiction reviews, a still-gestating piece on Jean Baudrillard, the usual politics thrills and spills, and the post absolutely none of you are waiting for - my top ten tunes of the year. It's tradition! As ever, if you haven't already don't forget to follow the (very) occasional newsletter, and if you like what I do (and you're not skint), you can bung a few quid and help support the blog. Following me on Bluesky, Facebook, and for what it's worth, Twitter, are cost-free ways of showing your backing for this corner of the internet.

Sunday, 30 November 2025

Zarah Sultana's Your Party Speech

No time for writing tonight, so here's the speech Zarah Sultana gave to the second day of Your Party's founding conference. Some reflections to come tomorrow evening, but if you want the full fat version you can find proceedings here and here. Interesting to compare the watch numbers with those attracted to Labour's conference live stream.

Friday, 28 November 2025

Local Council By-Elections November 2025

This month saw 41,477 votes cast in 25 local authority contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. 18(!) council seats changed hands. For comparison with October's results, see here.

Party
Number of Candidates
Total Vote
%
+/- Oct
+/- Nov 24
Avge/
Contest
+/-
Seats
Conservative
          25
 7,171
    17.3%
  +1.5
      -5.3
   287
    -3
Labour
          23
 4,502
    10.9%
   -1.6
    -13.8
   196
    -6
Lib Dem
          20
 5,324
    12.8%
 -12.1
      -5.6
   266
   +1
Reform
          24
11,432
    27.6%
   -2.0
   +17.5
   476
  +8
Green
          14
 5,484
    13.2%
  +5.2
     +6.7
   392
     0
SNP*
           2
 2,135
     5.1%
  +3.1
      -7.5
 1,068
   +1
PC**
           1
   659
     1.6%
  +1.6
     +1.6
   659
     0
Ind***
          16
 4,213
    10.2%
  +5.2
     +6.8
   263
    -1
Other****
           5
   657
     1.6%
   -0.5
      -0.2
   131
     0


* There were two by-elections in Scotland
** There was one by-election in Wales
*** There were four Independent clashes this month
**** Others this in November were Alba (83), Equality Party (45), Heritage Party (27), Lingfield and Crowhurst Residents (457), Sovereignty (45)

What a month. Almost three quarters of all the seats that were up changed hands. You want electoral volatility? Council by-elections have them! On top of that, November sticks out for three reasons.

Reform lost vote share on the month-to-month comparison, which is a most infrequent occurrence since Nigel Farage came back as leader and the party started climbing up the polls. They'll keep piling on the council seats in local contests, seeing as they reflect the shift in public attitudes. And will likely do so despite their well known difficulties in local government. Their slight decline is merely a sign that their vote share is more or less stabilising month-to-month.

Then we have Labour's vote, which must be the party's worst performance outside of anomalous months where only a handful of wards face by-elections. Is this rock bottom or is there further to go?

And lastly, congratulations to the Greens. This is the first time, in monthly by-election tally terms, that they've not only come third place, but have out-polled the Liberal Democrats and, crucially as per Zack Polanski's stated position to replace them, Labour. Some might say this is a freak result, but politics being as it is keeps throwing up such outliers.

Pooled results from council by-elections don't matter ... or do they? Leaving aside the caveats that come from interpreting these results, such as the consequences of local issues and local preferences, and thet fact older people are even more likely to vote in them (or, to be more accurate, working age people are even less likely to participate) and their tendency to support the right wing parties, it does paint a picture of what's going on under the hood. And what the state of the engine is telling us is that Labour's base is evaporating. Just as yours truly has been saying for the last five years as Keir Starmer's Labour has moved to adopt policies that would attack its people. If you salt the earth, nothing will grow. A reality that Labour still shows little sign of waking up to.

Santa will bring us the gift of 20 by-elections in December, so expect something of a rinse and repeat of this month's results.

4 November
Burnley, Lanehead, Ind gain from Lab
Burnley, Queensgate, Ind gain from Lab

6 November
Fife, Buckhaven, Methil & Wemyss Villages, SNP gain from Lab
Harborough, Fleckney, Ref gain from Con
Newark & Sherwood, Balderton North & Coddington, Ref gain from Ind
Newark & Sherwood, Castle, Ref gain from Ind
South Derbyshire, Seales, Ind gain from Lab
Tandridge, Westway, LDem gain from Con
Tandridge, Lingfield, Crowhurst & Tandridge, Oth hold
West Devon, Okehampton South, LDem gain from Grn

13 November
Canterbury, Wincheap, Grn gain from LDem
East Lindsey, Chapel St Leonards, Ref gain from Con
Gwynedd, Bethel a'r Felinheli, PC hold
North Somerset, Long Ashton, Grn hold
Vale of White Horse, Ridgeway, LDem hold

20 November
Cheshire East, Macclesfield Central, Grn gain from Lab
Dumfries & Galloway, Stanraer & The Rhin, Con gain from Ind
East Sussex, Ashdown & Conquest, Ref gain from Con
Redcar & Cleveland, South Bank, Lab hold
Stratford-on-Avon, Quinton, LDem hold
Stratford-on-Avon, Salford Priors & Alcester Rural, Ref gain from Con
Trafford, Hale, Con gain from Grn

27 November
King's Lynn & West Norfolk, Hunstanton, Ref gain from Ind
Pendle, Barnoldswick, LDem hold
Sunderland, Hetton, Ref gain from Lab

Image Credit

Thursday, 27 November 2025

Hegemonies, Counter-Hegemonies, Anti-Hegemonies: The Theory and Politics of Social Control and Resistance

A call for papers!

The Midlands Conference in Critical Thought will be held on 21st and 22nd May 2026 at the University of Warwick. The call for abstracts closes on 21st January. They need to be submitted via Word, should not exceed 500 words, and should be sent to midlandscritical@gmail.com

Below, you will find the details of the stream I'm convening at conference. The full draft roster of the 15 streams can be found here.

Hegemonies, Counter-Hegemonies, Anti-Hegemonies: The Theory and Politics of Social Control and Resistance

Phil Burton-Cartledge, University of Derby

In an age marked by climate breakdown, stagnating living standards, and capitalist resilience, what does philosophy and social theory have to say about social stasis and social change? Is the 19th century revolutionary project outlined by Marx and elaborated by the tradition that bears his name exhausted? Do the new social movements that emerged in the 1960s still retain their radical force? Has radical politics since been blunted/incorporated by a capitalism of total subsumption that recuperates resistance and repurposes critique as fuel for sign systems, as per the provocations of Jean Baudrillard? Do we live after critical theory, or at this moment of seeming triumph for billionaires, oligarchs, and the states and institutions that serve them, is their system brittle and at the risk of breakdown?

The nature of our conjuncture, of a world where the old are always dying and the new are struggling to be born requires us to constantly ask questions about power and resistance. Especially as our civilisation is menaced by existential risks, environmental challenges, and an oligarchical ruling class uninterested in social peace and human sustainability. If not this, then what?

MCCT 2026 offers an opportunity for activists and thinkers from an array of traditions and research interests to address the question of social change, what a better society might look like, what resources and tendencies are already present that point in this direction, and how we could get there.

This panel welcomes contributions from philosophy, social and political theory, sociology and political science, international relations and social policy, as well as reflections from outside of academia. Papers that engage with the configurations of social control, such as the operation of hegemony, the workings of ideology, the inertia of social momentum and the compulsion of “necessity”, the constitution of governance strategies, and work around social reproduction theory and radical care have a home in this stream. As do contributions on the political economy of class and capital in the age of AI hype, the changing character of party systems, the possibility of cultural and political breakthroughs, capitalist mutations and systemic adaptation, appropriations of radical energies, and engagements within and between different theoretical traditions that grapple with these questions.

Image Credit

Wednesday, 26 November 2025

Postponing the End

After a bad time of it, what with rumours of plots and a seemingly rudderless approach to state finances, bar the preservation of the wealthy, by this government's standards the budget Rachel Reeves delivered on Wednesday was a good one. Obviously not for those of us who want to see huge inroads made into wealth, or the crisis in underfunded public services and state institutions addressed with the seriousness their decrepit conditions warrant. But a good budget for warding off a leadership challenge. A mix of mild but welcome social democratic measures, above all the well-received abolition of the two-child benefit cap, helps ensure that Reeves and Keir Starmer can have a relaxing Christmas knowing their Waterloo has definitively been postponed until after next May's local elections.

As for the rest of the budget, I'm content to let Owen Jones and James Meadway do the heavy lifting on what the rest of it means.



Image Credit