Sunak's Attack on the Covid Inquiry

When Rishi Sunak was coronated as the leader of the Conservative Party and conscious of his immediate predecessors, he said his government would embrace "integrity, professionalism, and accountability". After the events of the last few days, even dyed-in-the-wool Tory supporters would have difficulty maintaining this facade. Since last week when the Cabinet Office notified the police about more alleged rule-breaking by Boris Johnson, Sunak has been extremely reticent about handing government material over to the Covid Inquiry. The is an inquiry his government set up, appointed the personnel, and determined the remit of. So opposed Sunak is that he outright refused to hand over requested material, stating that much of it was "irrelevant" and would inconveniently compromise confidences, high level discussions, etc. etc.

The government was given until 4pm today to furnish the Inquiry chair, Baroness Heather Hallett with the relevant WhatsApp messages, diary entries, and everything else. Sensing an opportunity to embarrass the Prime Minister, even at the cost of his own self-preservation, Johnson unilaterally declared he'd be making available the evidence he has that Sunak would sooner keep under wraps. The deadline came and went, and there was no document dump. Instead, the the government announced it was taking the Inquiry to court to prevent the release of the messages. This is a complete waste of time for two reasons. Baroness Hallett has acted entirely within the powers Sunak granted her inquiry. She is the arbiter of what is and isn't relevant under the powers the Tories determined, and no judge is going to find her at fault. Second, the government don't have to fire up the lawyers anyway. As Paul notes, Sunak could intervene to "refine" the terms of the Inquiry. There would be a political hit, but surely not as damaging as the theatre of dragging it out in court.

I've long argued that Sunak is politically flat-footed. He doesn't know the state of play on the backbenches, how to or when to play up to the yellowing grassroots of the Tory party, nor when to put his briefcase forward. Except when the situation is glaring and obvious. Is taking on the Covid Inquiry one of those occasions? Yes and no. Sunak copped it for last week's Cabinet Office argy-bargy among Johnson supporters, and so turning around and now to protect him and his allies might take the sting out of the internal opposition. If that means falling in the polls, keeping his troops quiescent for now is a worthwhile trade off.

But there are wider concerns to worry about. During the acute phase of the pandemic, as is well known Johnson was resistant to taking measures that would have saved tens of thousands of lives. But he was not alone in this. Nearly the entirety of the Tory party whittled away at the restrictions circumstance forced upon the government, not least our current Prime Minister and his recklessly stupid Eat Out to Help Out scheme. Or, as Matt Hancock rightly put it, "Eat out to help the virus get about". The conversations about that policy, around Sunak's very early attempts to cut short the Jobs Guarantee scheme, and what really drove their haste to ease restrictions as quickly as they could get away with finds almost the entire senior cadre of the party, briefcase or not, on the hook for the public health disaster they exacerbated. The last thing Sunak wants is for his own wilful ignorance and lack of seriousness splashed across the front pages day after day.

Lastly, there's the question of authority. Sunak believes his position in the party is weaker than it actually is, and therefore has to be seen to face down every demand made of him. Here he's not just copying Johnson's premiership, but Tory statecraft in general. At least since the blessed Thatcher entered Number 10. No reverse gear, my way or the highway, the 40-year authoritarian turn in politics finds a hapless Prime Minister putting his fingers in his ears and refusing to budge. Because in his mind, once he's said no to something - workers' pay rises, helping with the cost of living crisis, uprating benefits last year, and in this case abiding by the law - going back on it would be fatal to his premiership and finish his career off. And, for once, Sunak's dull instincts do not betray him. John Major and Theresa May were hopelessly hindered by ending up as authoritarians without authority. If Sunak is not seen sticking to his guns, then his fate won't be entirely dissimilar to theirs.

Image Credit

Five Most Popular Posts in May

May has been and gone in the blink of an eye, but the subjective experience of temporality cannot erase the fact 23 blog posts were added to this corner of the internet. And these were top of the pops by audience views.

1. Politics after the Local Elections
2. Writing about Keir Starmer
3. Untangling Reevenomics
4. What is National Conservatism?
5. Nick Cohen and Media Solidarity

The local election results grabbed the excitement of the internet-travelling public last month. The Tories forecast a loss of a thousand councillors, and Rishi Sunak exceeded expectations. Well done that man. Labour did well and, as argued, are on course to win the next election outright on the basis of these results. But the ghost of opposition's future manifested in very good night for the Liberal Democrats and Greens. As long argued here, Keir Starmer can't rely on the progressive bloc of voters that constitute Labour's new base if he takes them for granted. In at number two was my cry of despair after spending too long staring into the cynical void that is Starmer's politics. On reflection, ignoring him and focusing just on the Tories and other things is unsustainable. Labour are going to shape politics for the next decade for good and ill, and so crying off from the task of tracking, analysing, explaining, and opposing is impossible if you're a socialist scribbler. Not that my hiatus from Starmerism lasted long anyway. Speaking of which, in at three was Rachel Reeves's speech unveiling her economics. One that surprisingly caused a stir among some Twitter users for whom Labour are identical to the Tories and to suggest there might be differences is akin to endorsing Starmer and his works. The National Conservatism conference came in at four. The highlight of which has to be Jacob Rees-Mogg admitting voter ID was all about suppressing votes. And a late entry comes in last in the shape of Nick Cohen, his wandering hands and the solidarity shown to him by his media colleagues. Classy.

Here are a couple of posts that didn't make the cut. In what might possibly be the last post I write about Stoke-on-Trent, we had a look at Labour's victory there. And, given its importance, Starmer's speech on the NHS was quite important, actually. Both for what was said and what is unsaid.

With the second chancers out the way, what might we look forward to in June? The Covid inquiry logjam comes to its conclusion today, so no doubt something about that and its reverberations. Boris Johnson will be back as the Privileges Committee hands down its verdict. I still want to write something about the recent success of the Green Party. And events, dear boy ... will have its hand in the content this blog dishes up.

As ever, If you haven't already don't forget to follow the free weekly newsletter, and if you like what I do (and you're not skint), you can help support the blog. Following me on Twitter and Facebook are cost-free ways of showing your backing for this corner of the internet.

Image Credit

Betraying Remain

There are moments when the scales fall from the eyes and what is desired or admired is shown up to be anything but. Today was the occasion when the penny dropped for continuity remain. Their former champion, Mr Second-Referendum-with-an-Option-to-Remain took to the pages of the Daily Express to pledge there would be no return to the European Union, no customs union or single market, and no freedom of movement on his watch. Dear oh dear. Some might pretend that even now, Keir Starmer's embrace of Brexit is all a ruse and that after five years of trying to make it work he'll take us back into the EU, but credulity can only be stretched so far.

As with Starmer's proclamation on matters Europe, the role he played in splitting the Labour Party and trying to reverse Brexit are far down the memory hole. He writes that during the campaign he found plenty of Leave voters wanted the same sorts of things he did: "a better health service, better jobs, better wages, more security, a sense of control over their lives and their communities." A pity he wasn't as keen on upholding their votes when he spent the subsequent three years telling leavers they were wrong and he knew better than them. But when there is a leadership to win, disrespecting a referendum vote and shepherding one's party down the path to an historic defeat were but trifles next to his ambition.

But this isn't just about buttering up the declining Express's Tory-voting readership. It's an effort to close Brexit off as a political issue. Starmer wants to concentrate on Tory mismanagement of Brexit, the betrayal over levelling up, the grandiose promises, and the damage inflicted on the economy. This becomes much more difficult if the question of Brexit is reopened, despite polling registering record levels of Bregret. With the Tories flailing and consumed by more Boris Johnson mess, what would be helpful is something for them to rally around. As their war on woke efforts resonate with few people who aren't Tory journalists, re-opening Brexit would be like manna from heaven. Memories of Starmer's second referendum campaigning would be revived and Labour would have a more difficult time of it. Why turn into a long hard road when an easier, smoother shortcut to office is available?

This isn't without cost. Neutralising Brexit to the right re-opens it to the centre and the left. While the campaign to rerun the referendum had ulterior motives between 2016 and 2019, that wasn't the case for the hundreds of thousands who marched, who protest voted in the EU election debacle, who supported overturning the acceptance of Brexit in the Labour Party, and who backed Starmer on the strength of his European credentials. In the scheme of things, it is reasonable for Starmer to assume that dunking on this constituency will have fewer immediate consequences than antagonising leave opinion. And that's true. If losing council by-elections to the Liberal Democrats and the Greens is the butcher's price, that's entirely acceptable. After the election is when it will become difficult as continuity remain becomes an oppositional current, and one both these parties can exploit. But that's a problem for then.

Image Credit

Nick Cohen and Media Solidarity

At long last the sexual harassment allegations against Nick Cohen are out in the open. And that the New York Times had to be relied upon to lift the lid everyone on politics social media has known for years says everything about the solidarity among the country's top hacks, reporters, and opinion column writers. Establishment feminists have decided they're more establishment than feminist and have ridden to Cohen's rescue, while (albeit more low key) prominent industry women have signalled likewise. Another case of class beating out gender, you might say.

There are fewer closed occupations than journalism at the top papers and broadcasters and the situation has only got worse these last 30 years. Oxford leans into this, proudly boasting that "Oxford's student newspapers and radio stations have long been the training ground for some of Britain’s most successful journalists and broadcasters." A position at Oxbridge will plug aspirant journalists into the networks and affinities that can be worked to get a position in one of the London newsrooms. The old local press and regional TV are shrinking, and the paths from cub reporter running stories on off-licence robberies to anchoring national news shows have largely vanished. Add to this the politics one needs to get on - a semi-coy centre rightish/centre leftish outlook to start off with - narrows the already attenuated point of entry even further. The result of common entries, common contacts, common experiences, and common outlooks is groupthink over what are and aren't the most important issues, what is the truth and what isn't, an entitled attitude and, with all of that, a strong sense of a common identity and consensus about what their professional interests are.

This manifests itself in two ways. A fierce defence of what they take to be the status quo of politics: moderate (sounding) Conservatism and Milquetoast Labourism, and an antipathy toward anything that upsets the settled character of two-party politics. This is partly because, in politics journalism, success and promotion depends on the relationships one cultivates among ministers, shadow ministers, rising stars, bitter-but-connected losers, and old soaks on the backbenches. Being too enthusiastic in holding politicians to account is not the done thing if one wants to play the game. And if the masses suddenly intrude, as they did with Corbynism, the media will treat it like an abomination. This experience not only showed how the political mythologies they had created were just that and that they knew nothing about what they were employed to understand, Corbynism directly threatened their jobs as mouthpieces for/influences on leading politicians. Small wonder that some within the coterie are for limiting mass participation in politics altogether. They have an interest in keeping it a game for elites.

The second are attempts at operating a closed shop by expelling/blocking "outsiders". In recent years, there have been renewed efforts at excluding new left wing voices from the mainstream. We saw this with campaigns against Novara Media people taking up slots on TV that belonged to acceptable journalists as of right. Owen Jones with his outpost at The Graun has been similarly targetted. The megaphone transphobia of supposedly liberal journalists, and the incessant antisemitism campaign waged by the same are efforts attempting to close the upper echelons of the media even further, as well as making clear the costs of refusing to toe their party lines are higher in terms of commissions lost, promotions missed out on, and CVs filed in the bin.

Cohen figures here because of services rendered. He happily attacked the left and filled an entire book with straw men to make his media buddies feel comfortable cheering on Iraq and other military adventures. His was useful in the centrist assault on Corbynism, thereby playing his own part in saddling us with the Tories for another five wasted years, and has weighed in on the trans bashing. Because nothing speaks truth to power like piling on a vulnerable, under-attack minority. As a key figure in centrist media culture, he is seen as too useful to be brought down by his wandering hands and indiscriminately-offered dick pics. And so the performative solidarity shown by the liberal and centrist press pack with the MeToo movement is, and will always be trumped by the affections and feelings of real solidarity with a sex pest - as long as they use their individual position and prominence to protect their collective position and prominence.

Image Credit

Untangling Reevenomics

Rachel Reeves hit the headlines last week after flashing her swanky first class pass on the plane to New York. But the reason for her trip was of more political import. Speaking at the Peterson Institute in Washington DC, Reeves outlined what the economics would be like under an incoming Labour government. Again, following Keir Starmer's NHS speech, this was more an exercise on contouring the policy to come rather than promising anything concrete. An approach we'll see repeated on social security, education, and the other "missions" before promises are made ahead of the next election.

What did Reeves have to say for herself? Her speech, which is expanded on in her pamphlet for Labour Together calls her approach "securonomics". This is based on two positions: a recentering of the nation state as the centre for economic policy making, and a move away from the deregulated phase of globalisation to one overseen by greater state management - based on multilateral agreements, and particularly a convergence of and greater cooperation between liberal democratic states.

Praising Joe Biden's economic policies, she approvingly notes that the United States has

A more active state, pursuing a modern industrial strategy, is selecting the areas where America must guarantee its ability to produce what America needs ... Your government is working in partnership with a dynamic open market, where the state does what a government does best. Making and shaping markets that are essential to America’s resilience and future prosperity. Meanwhile, the free market does what only it can do - innovating, competing, creating wealth.

Translating this into the UK means "good jobs, decent pay, strong public services and an end to relentless increases in the cost of living." Okay, but how does this differ from the Tories? Aren't they, on face value, for these things as well? Reeves's economics, she argues, differs because it starts with where Britain is and what its strengths are. The model is not the Singapore-on-Thames beloved of the Tories nor the idea of Germany, which used to so beguile George Osborne. Rather, the model is Britain - but better. For Reeves, building on Britain's strengths requires state promotion of green energy, life sciences, professional services, universities, remaining strategic industries, as well as promoting "financial resilience" for every household.

This requires state activism. Reeves talked about industrial strategy and her "green prosperity plan", as well as institutions like a Norway-style "national wealth fund" and the much-vaunted GB Energy, which is often sold as a state-owned renewable energy entity but is in actual fact a repackaging of the Private Finance Initiative - but for green electricity generation. This is also where Starmer's plan to fix public services comes in: Reeves sells the putative programme as the "removal of barriers that hold people back". This is premised on sorting out the NHS, childcare, more vocational education, and employment support "to get people back to work". In this light a Labour government would be working toward easier and better trading relationships with the EU when the trade deal is reviewed in 2025.

The speech got some excited. Martin Kettle for the Graun gushed that this was a vision for social democracy and was a break with Blairite thinking. Stacking in his argument's favour is the idea the politics should shape the economics, though in Reeves's hands state intervention is just technocratic common sense. No need for the socialist gloss as per Tony Crosland. It's economically efficient, and has little do do with social justice which even the Blairites used to invoke for their own purposes. Multilateral cooperation sounds nice, until you look at foreign affairs custom and practice and see it as a realisation of the West (and Japan) pooling their efforts to remain at the top of the global economic tree. And, not mentioned by Kettle but noted here a while back, a move to tripartite industrial governance with the state, business, and the trade unions each having their say about economic policy. Though into this corporatist mix Reeves adds universities as one of the "partners". Interesting.

There are other items in Reeves's speech and pamphlet that do sound decidedly Blairish. She wants to see "dynamic markets" and more competition, which means breaking up concentrations and monopolies. I'll believe that when I see it. She wants some deregulation, such as reform of the planning laws - in line with Starmer's recent desire to see more building on the green belt. There's a promise of reforming corporate governance to tackle the short-termism of shareholder value, and a change to business taxation to encourage longer-term investment. If the latter sounds like a bung ... But perhaps the biggest tell, and one that will assuage the UK's economics establishment is her continued commitment to Bank of England independence. That's going to be music to the City's ears. As a former Bank economist, of course she'll be their woman in Number 11. That, more than anything, says no matter what happens with governance, state strategies, and industrial councils the core relations between the Bank, the Treasury, and the City are going to weather the next Labour government and that the priorities of finance and commercial capital will continue its hegemony over the policy preferences, personnel, and habits of the core state apparatus. To throw things into sharp relief, even someone as awful as Kemi Badenoch favours breaking up this cosy relationship. Then again, even when the Bank was under political control did post-war Labour governments challenge the power of the City, or did their best to cultivate it?

Assuming Labour accomplishes its restructuring of the state (or does it half-arsed, which is more likely given custom and practice), this will open up political opportunities and dangers for the labour movement. Reeves is apparently relaxed with a return to collective bargaining and the extension of workers' rights, but as we saw with post-war trade unionism partial integration into the state incentivises labour movement growth and firmly weds union officialdom to industrial priorities. Let's be clear, it's better for trade unions to be in that position than what we have now. It creates a space for labour movement consolidation and for that reason alone means there's a qualitative difference between Labour and the Tories, but let there be no illusions. What Reevenomics offers is a more favourable terrain for struggle, not a land of milk and honey.

Image Credit

Local Council By-Elections May 2023

This month saw 96,635 votes cast in 39 local authority contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. 11 council seats changed hands. For comparison with April's results, see here.

Party	Number of Candidates	Total Vote	%	+/-  Apr	+/- May 22	Avge/ Contest	+/- Seats
Conservative	35	28,573	29.6%	+1.4	-1.5	816	-5
Labour	37	30,767	31.8%	-18.0	-10.0	832	-2
Lib Dem	32	19,689	20.4%	+6.9	+5.6	615	+4
Green	23	9,906	10.3%	+7.5	+3.2	431	+3
SNP*	0						0
PC**	0						0
Ind***	13	7,351	7.8%	+3.3	+2.7	565	0
Other****	4	349	0.4%	-0.1	+0.2	87	0

* There were no by-elections in Scotland
** There were no by-elections in Wales
*** There were four Independent clashes this month
**** Others were Communist Party of Britain (150), Liberal (10), Reform UK (75), UKIP (114)

By-elections-wise, not actually a catastrophe for the Tories. Yes, they lost out on the popular vote and dropped another five councillors, but compared to the massacre at the local elections these set of results aren't too bad. Labour however underperformed on the same showing, leaving May with two fewer by-election seats - the first time Labour have ended the month down for about 18 months. Does it indicate anything? Probably not, it being more a case of just how the by-elections fell. But what if it did?

If this is the start of something, it is likely to only impact by-elections only. The Liberal Democrats and Greens matched their local election tallies, and are doing well mostly at the Tories' expense. What is possible is by-elections might increasingly become occasions for both parties to increase their councillor count with Labour doing less well. Partly because there's little enthusiasm for Labour, but also - as we'll see in something I've got on the back burner about the Greens - there remain plenty of annoyed former Tory voters who won't be voting Labour as a protest, never mind in a general election.

4th May
Brentwood, South Weald, LDem gain from Con
Cambridge, Castle, LDem gain from Lab
Cambridge, Coleridge, Lab hold
Cambridgeshire, Arbury, Lab hold
Cambridgeshire, Soham South and Haddenham, Con hold
Cannock Chase, Cannock East, Lab gain from Con
Cannock Chase, Hednesford South, Grn gain from Ind
Dudley, St. Thomas’s, Lab hold
Durham, Chester-le-Street East, Lab gain from Con
Essex, Laindon Park and Fryern, Lab hold
Gloucestershire, Highnam, Con hold
Hampshire, Purbrook and Stakes South, Con hold
Kent, Sheppey, Con hold
Kingston upon Hull, Central, Lab hold
Kirklees, Ashbrow, Lab hold
Knowsley, Prescot North, LDem hold
Lincolnshire, Eagle and Hykeham West, Con hold
Manchester, Ardwick, Lab hold
Milton Keynes, Central Milton Keynes, Lab hold
Newcastle upon Tyne, North Jesmond, LDem gain from Lab
Norfolk, Swaffham, Con hold
North Tyneside, Camperdown, Lab hold
Nottinghamshire, Kirkby South, Ind hold
Pendle, Vivary Bridge, Con hold
Peterborough, Park, Con gain from Lab
Preston, Preston Rural East, Con hold
Reading, Park, Grn hold
Sheffield, Manor Castle, Lab hold
Suffolk, Felixstowe Coastal, LDem gain from Con
Suffolk, Priory Heath, Lab hold
Surrey, Walton South and Oatlands, LDem gain from Con
Three Rivers, Chorleywood South and Maple Cross, LDem hold
Westmorland and Furness, Old Barrow and Hindpool, Lab hold
West Oxfordshire, Ducklington, Con hold
West Sussex, East Grinstead Meridian, Con hold
Worcestershire, Malvern Chase, Grn gain from LDem
Worthing, Central, Lab hold

17th May
Stroud, Painswick & Upton, Grn gain from Con

22nd May
Isles of Scilly, St Mary's, Ind hold

25th May
North Yorkshire, Eastfield, Ind gain from Lab

Why Has Unite Endorsed Gerard Coyne?

The starter's pistol fires and they're off. In the race for Labour's selection for West Bromwich East, coming up on the right we have Sarah Coombes, former media spinner for Sadiq Khan and constituency worker when it was Tom Watson's manor. And vying to elbow her out of the same lane we have Gerard Coyne, twice failed candidate for General Secretary of Unite, creature of the once all-powerful right wing WestMids machinery, and a firm favourite of Labour First. Both Coombes and Coyne have party estabishment support and trade union endorsements, as you might expect. But readers might be surprised to learn that Coombes, who has no labour movement track record I'm aware of, handily beats Coyne in union nominations. Unison, GMB, CWU, they're all on the Sarah train with four other unions. Meanwhile, the man who's made a handsome living from the union movement could only muster the support of two: USDAW (as per type) and ... Unite.

Yes, you read that correctly. The union that, during the Len McCluskey years, tried its damnedest to dig out Coyne's tick-like attachment has turned around and given him their blessings in his bid for Parliament. For our friends over at Skwawkbox, it's more evidence of the union swinging to the right under Sharon Graham's leadership. I'm no so sure. For one, right wingers - particularly since "partnership" and "service" unionism came to prominence in the late 1980s - aren't typically in the habit of running on programmes emphasising the building of industrial muscle, and then delivering on that promise. While the big disputes have taken the headlines, Unite along with the GMB and the new small independent unions have won impressive victories across the country. Graham has turned away from amateurish lobbying of Labour to putting Unite's resources into workplace activism, and hundreds of thousands of workers and workplace power is in a better place as a result.

This comes with its downsides. McCluskey's very hands-on approach to Labour Party politics might have pleased some, but it by no means played well in all corners of Unite where there is a long tradition of syndicalism, apolitical economism, and even Conservative support. In 2021 during the crunch election to succeed McCluskey, Steve Turner was (mostly) the choice of the left as the best man to defeat Coyne's right wing bid while Graham used her organising nous and, arguably, greater appreciation of Unite's grass roots, to beat both of them. Her message that Unite should focus on industrial matters instead of party politics was certainly economistic, but it resonated with layers of the membership who (rightly or wrongly) perceived the previous general secretary as more interested in the Westminster circus than winning disputes. Graham had her eye on the ball, her opponents didn't.

How does this relate to Unite endorsing Coyne? You don't need to scratch out an unconvincing argument that Graham is a closet right winger. For a start, this presumes what happens in the labour movement is determined by Westminster and PLP politicking and that it has little agency of its own. In act, it's the other way round. A result of one part economism, two-parts consolidation. As Skwawkbox has reported extensively and critically, the new general secretary has been securing her base and conferring positions on her allies. Making sure Unite returns her at the next GS election and that it sees through her confrontational approach to industrial relations is her priority. What Keir Starmer and Labour are saying doesn't matter much as long as they don't veer onto her turf. Unite's nomination of its former bete noire is what one might expect if the political balance of the Parliamentary Labour Party is way down the list than, say, ensuring a contender with name recognition and a decent following among the union's membership is pensioned off to Westminster. Not a plot, not a capitulation to Starmer's Labour nor a cosying up to a much reduced WestMids Labour First. Unite's backing of Coyne is a simple case of removing a potential threat from contention.

Image Credit

Remembering Tina Turner

Probably the most cliched tribute anyone will ever think of, but is there a better way to celebrate Tina Turner than loudly playing her best known hit?

Boris Johnson: Another Fine Mess

Just when you think you're done providing Boris Johnson content, along comes some more. Except this time, a good case of popcorn is best advised. News broke earlier that the Cabinet Office have referred the former Prime Minister to the police. Yes, I had to give it the double take as well.

In preparation for the upcoming inquiry into the appalling mishandling of the Covid crisis, the Cabinet Office had sight of Johnson's private diary entries. In them he apparently recounts holding not insubstantial gatherings at Chequers in defiance of the Covid rules. These events were not employees or for work, as per Johnson's rote defence of his rule breaking shenanigans in Number 10, but shindigs for friends. Johnson's lawyers have written in to say they were lawful and no rules were broken, but the civil servants preparing the papers had no choice but to hand his submissions over to the plod. The Met and Thames Valley are now flicking through the evidence.

What's surprising about this affair is not that there weren't parties. Everyone in the country has grown accustomed to the idea that rules merely exist for Johnson to break them. No, it's that news has not come out about them until now. Obviously, as a respecter of due process this blog will refrain commenting further until more details are in the public domain. But it's worth noting this story handily becomes public knowledge just as Rishi Sunak is under pressure over his handling of Suella Braverman's latest stupidity.

Bad timing, however, for Johnson. Next month the Privileges Committee will return their verdict about the former PM's lockdown lawlessness. Already, Johnson's hope for a tap on the wrist suffered a blow after Margaret Ferrier's appeal against her 30-day Commons suspension for breaking Covid rules fell flat on its face. You might recall Ferrier took the train while she had Covid at the beginning of the first wave of the pandemic. A no-no certainly, but she didn't move heaven and earth to avoid accountability for it - unlike someone else. Given her punishment, the pending recall petition and inevitable by-election, the smart money isn't on Johnson scraping by with a lesser penalty. Throw the Chequers gathering into the equation and the mood accompanying the Committee's deliberations couldn't be worse.

Writing on Twitter Tuesday evening, friend-of-the-Tory-stars Christopher Hope reports of a "gloomy mood" among Tory right wingers. The "Whitehall blob" is to blame. “We are like being gobbled up like we are in Pac Man” chuntered one anonymous backbencher. Actually, no. When Johnson won his thumping majority the Tories were the masters of their own political destinies. They were too big for Labour to lay a glove on them, and yet here we are. The Tories are in trouble entirely because of their own doings. Johnson didn't have to break lockdown rules. Liz Truss didn't have to trolley the economy. Sunak didn't have to re-appoint Braverman, or decide doing nothing would be the hallmark of his government. The Tories might be in long-term decline, but rather than dealing with their crisis of political reproduction they've have chosen to ride it into opposition from whence a rapid recovery is unlikely to come. If there is a conspiracy, rather than prattling about civil servants having the knives out for them the Tories would do well to reflect on the patterns of stupidity and self-destruction their party births with unerring regularity.

Image Credit

Patients and Profits

In his famous address to the Albanian people, Enver Hoxha said "This year will be harder than last year. However, it will be easier than next year." Stirring words and ones Keir Starmer might have quoted while discussing the recurring winter crises in his much-trailed NHS speech earlier on Monday. As health is one of his "five missions", what was said here is almost guaranteed to go into Labour's next manifesto.

Starmer spoke about the scourge of health inequalities and the reversal of life expectancy under the Tories. He identified the "three big killers" and what Labour wants to do about them: reduce cardiovascular disease by a quarter, diagnose 75% of cancers while they're still stage one, and drive down the incidence of suicide among younger people. Also repeated was what he called the biggest expansion of NHS training in the organisation's history, funded by the removal of the non dom tax status. And the latest idea got an airing: the sharing of waiting lists so patients could opt to be treated at hospitals with shorter waiting lists. This would be underpinned by a more collaborative culture across the NHS, which was coming into being before Matt Hancock kyboshed it. This might help manage he backlog crisis around the edges, but is hardly a major policy announcement.

Indeed, that was not the point of the speech. Starmer wanted to hammer home the message that what the NHS needs more than money is reform. He identified the "three shifts" that would structure the remodelling of the NHS. The first would be moving care out of hospitals and into the community. What he called the 'neighbourhood health service'. This would entail improving GP access and make it more sustainable. This means moving away from the practice model and its gradual replacement by salaried GPs who would be deployed to serve all communities. In other words, a possible end to the GP shortages that particularly afflict inner city working class areas. Appointments would be "modernised" with an end to the 8am rush, and a pledge to bring back the family doctor. Clearing hospital backlogs by integrating health and social care would be a priority with joined up care in the community and a commitment to reverse the crisis in the care industry with a foundational fair pay agreement.

The second shift is movement away from treating sickness to prevention. This is a return to one of the objectives of the New Labour years with its keen emphasis on public health strategies. Starmer argued this had cost, or rather savings implications by taking weight off the NHS as well as heading problems off at the pass. He promised a revolution in mental health treatment, which would include 8,500 new community-based mental health professionals, dedicated support in schools, and four week maximum wait guarantee. The other new announcement, which was the placing of vaping, junk food, sugary snack advertising after the watershed and banning their marketing at children was lumped in here.

The third shift was technology, and specifically the rolling out of a digital service on a par with all the other digital services we take for granted. He condemned the wasted opportunity of the NHS Covid app and suggested he would like to see similar apps developed further to transform our relation to the NHS. Looking forward to using them to book appointments and making appropriate self-referrals, while ensuring patients had control over their data. This would enable us to make better choices and access faster care. He also spoke breathlessly of using Artificial Intelligence for the scanning of results, which are quicker and more accurate than doctors sifting through x-rays by hand. He wanted an agile NHS, one that had incentives to innovate but greater planning about the introduction of technologies.

In all, taken at face value this is the sort of thing you might expect a would-be Labour Prime Minister to be saying about the NHS. The main thing is a public service that works, and one crucial to Starmer's programme of repairing the popular legitimacy of the state. But there were a couple of questions for which there were no satisfactory answers. One got aired four or five times by reporters: what about the money? We know the Tories' refusal to pay the market rate for medical staff has the happy consequence of pushing the NHS toward becoming residualised. Strikes disrupt the service, people leave, everything gets worse and more opt for private treatment, leaving the queues and the exhausted, demoralised staff to those who are unable to pay. A boon for private health, certainly. Starmer said very little about pay, except for an approving aside on the New Labour years and how much nurses pay improved then. It's not that the Labour leader, Wes Streeting and the rest don't know pay need addressing, it's that they prefer a politically easy life. By being non-committal, the implacable Tory press can't use whatever figure to tie Labour up in knots over its spending plans and add to the narrative that the NHS is an unfillable money pit. Instead, that can is kicked down the road nearer to the election and all we hear between now and then are the new targets, the sexy technologies, and the overall direction of change.

The second issue is privatisation, which didn't get an airing today (apart from a vague gesture toward partnerships). That probably has something to do with how ill-received it was last time. And the small matter that using private providers to treat NHS patients is not really spare capacity as such. As is well known the likes of Streeting have received plenty of cash from for-profit health interests, but that doesn't mean the continued residualisation of the NHS is on the cards. During the Blair and Brown years, Labour became the preferred party of some sections of British capital because parts of the state were put out to tender and profits made from delivering government contracts. In line with Starmer's technocratic bent, these firms, in all likelihood, will be invited, or "partnered" into a reformed NHS providing some of the services the ambitious renovation demands. All under the likely guise of offering their "expertise". There is more than one way to skin a cat, and there is more than one way of making sure state money ends up in private coffers. Outright privatisation won't happen, but a new set of contracting-out relationships that provide firms guaranteed incomes and guaranteed profits will.

In all, Starmer will be happy with the reception his speech received. It is Labour-enough sounding to settle activist jitters of those worried his moves to the right include abandoning traditional Labour ground. It will have frustrated the Tories and their press because there are few angles from which this can be attacked from the right. Reading between the lines health unions can cut through the Starmerist cypher and glimpse the prospect of better pay deals, an end to the recruitment crisis, and less pressure, and those ever-so-philanthropic private health interests can see where they fit into the picture.

Image Credit