The Your Party Debacle

The left in this country doesn't need agents provocateurs to stuff things up, it's more then capable of doing that itself. And here are two more etchings for the incompetence ledger. A public briefing in the name of the Independent Alliance MPs against Zarah Sultana, a parliamentary group she's apparently a member of. And the resignation of Blackburn's Adnan Hussein from the "steering process" of Your Party. A favourable contrast to the Greens these latest developments do not make.

The fallout from September's public arguments got the Geiger counters twitching last month. Your Party "insiders" briefed the press that it was taking legal action against the directors of MoU Holdings Ltd. This was the company set up by Andrew Feinstein, Beth Winter, and Jamie Driscoll ahead of the launch of Your Party, and was to hold some money and data gathered during the initial phases of the launch. Sultana climbed on board in the summer with her quitting Labour, announcing she would co-lead the founding process of a new left party. This was the occasion she announced a mailing list, attracting about 850,000 sign ups. The starting pistol on the foundation process had been fired, somewhat to the annoyance of Jeremy Corbyn and the people around him. Then Sultana jumped the gun again two months later, announcing Your Party's membership was open. About 20,000 joined inside a day, until Corbyn intervened and said no, this ain't happening. There was a public row with legal threats flying about, reports to the information commissioner, and a great deal of rancour. Then, about two weeks after, the "official" membership portal was launched.

Here lies the problem. The details and monies of the first "launch" sat with MoU Holdings. To be "official", members would need to either join again via the new route, or wait until the information and cash was transferred over. Unfortunately, this is a far from a straightforward matter. Legally, the monies and data can't simply be given. It's not like writing a cheque and sharing the relevant passwords. MoU is liable for bank charges for processing refunds. Second, there are more costs associated with navigating the transfer of the sum, winding up MoU, and settling the resulting legal bills. When YP "sources" threatened legal action against the directors of MoU, claiming they were withholding funds and accusing them of having "gone rogue", that same someone was lying. They knew there were legal complexities, and why Feinstein, Winter, and Driscoll were not prepared to shoulder the costs. I.e. It was not they who initiated the premature membership drive. That was Sultana. To try and resolve the problem, the Independent Alliance MPs were invited to become MoU directors but they turned it down, knowing they'd be on the hook for the costs. The existing directors then resigned, with Sultana becoming the sole director. Undoubtedly an expensive decision for her, but a willingness to take responsibility for the problems her premature membership call caused. Something she deserves credit for.

On Thursday Sultana was able to transfer £200k from MoU to YP, and for this she was targeted for a hostile briefing. Issued in the the name of the IA MPs while she was on BBC Question Time, it was an act of deliberate sabotage. Corbyn has apparently disowned the statement. It says everything that was said previously. All MoUs monies should be ours, we demand an immediate transfer, blah blah, yeah yeah. A move designed to undermine Sultana and throw more discord into the mill of pain the nascent party has become. Who is responsible? One of Corbyn's close allies who want something between a personality cult and Labour mkII, albeit with less democracy? Someone who enjoys being important and at the centre of things, and can rely on Corbyn's indulgence? Or someone else?

The timing of Adnan Hussein's resignation makes for an interesting coincidence. He references "becoming drawn into very serious and damaging internal disputes on matters relating to organisational conduct and governance", a barely-concealed Islamophobia ("I am troubled by the way ... Muslim men have been spoken about and treated ...I witnessed insinuations about capability, dismissive attitudes and language that carried ... veiled prejudice."), and how YP was at odds with its billing - a "movement that welcomed diversity of background and thought." It also came hours after Novara Media put questions to him that he and others in the IA were minded to dump the new party.

To be honest, the independent MPs should be nowhere near this process. As a "source close to Zarah Sultana" was quoted as saying in the New Statesman, "this shows what a stupid idea it was to transfer control of the founding process over from a decision making body, appointed by Jeremy and containing a broad array of left-wing figures, to the six MPs, some of whom do not remotely share the politics of the 800,000 people who signalled an interest in Your Party". Quite.

For example, trans issues are not a shibboleth to be fought over like one's attitude to the dead USSR, but a live issue used by sections of the media in a crude divide-and-rule effort. The government have jumped on the campaign to attack trans health care, and have made the lives of trans people a misery, stoked up prejudice, and driven some to take their lives. These are direct attacks on our class in all its diversity, something Hussein had the cheek to invoke in his Dear John letter. Anyone who alibis this are unsuited to be an elected representative of a class-based left party, never mind play a leading role in its founding. The same is true of MPs who defend first cousin marriages, the criminalisation of abortion after 24 weeks, call on the army to fill in for striking workers, or have significant landlord interests. Collaboration and cooperation in parliament, yes. Friendly relations and persuasion to win them over, also yes. Roll out the red carpet and give them leadership positions in a socialist party? No. This is so obvious that no one should need to say it.

Unfortunately, we know who is responsible for this. And that's Corbyn. He's responsible for the people he's promoted to the heart of the new party, he's responsible for bringing the IA MPs into the fold while overlooking questionable and anti-working class aspects of their politics, and he's responsible for dragging his feet - even having to be bounced into starting a mailing list. The only thing preventing this from being a complete write off is that despite the shenanigans and stupidities, upwards of 50,000 people have joined - in the face of the serious alternative presented by the Greens. By all accounts, where regional assemblies are taking place members are showing up. And across the country, unofficial branches have convened. A dynamic independent of the centre's gatekeeping and the dithering is underway, and is refusing to be snuffed out by the idiocies leading figures keep inflicting on the project. Yes, it's hard to believe right now but this resilience shows Your Party, or whatever it will end up getting called, can come out the other side of these squabbles. It could overcome its over-dependence on Corbyn. It may yet realise its potential and have a great future ahead.

Image Credit

The Beginning of the End

By now, most politics watchers are habituated to the pratfalls and incompetencies of Keir Starmer's operation. What, just a year ago, was feted as a genius team headed by a once-in-a-generation politics virtuoso has blundered its way to some of Labour's worst-ever poll ratings. And then there was last night.

In case you missed it, the Number 10 briefed The Graun that fortifications have been erected around the Prime Minister. The trigger was tearoom tattle, with grumbling MPs preparing a leadership bid for the obsequiously loyal Wes Streeting. The Health Secretary allegedly has 50 frontbenchers ready to resign to force Starmer from office. Just as a similar strike did for Boris Johnson. This could happen as early as after the budget, if it goes badly. The (anonymous) "allies of Starmer" were quoted as saying that taking him out would ruin Labour for a generation. A silly argument, seeing as the leadership are managing that job themselves. Another Downing Street aide/McSweeney alter ego said if Starmer gets the heave ho, "the public will just think we’re no different from the last lot." You've got to presume they haven't knocked on any doors lately.

I can't speak to whether Streeting has lined up 50 volunteers ready to immolate their careers for his greater glory, but you can understand why the Downing Street bunker is suspicious. They read the same reports as everyone else. Streeting speaks to people. He's seen in the Commons tearooms. He does the CLP rounds, dropping in on special meetings and fundraisers. It's likely December has more than a few party Christmas dinners scheduled for him. And this is in marked contrast to Starmer who does none of this. Folks with long memories might recall how uncomfortable he found the 2020 leadership election, and since becoming leader he's avoided the gladhanding all party leaders have to do. As the dearly departed Angela Rayner happily zipped up and down the country and operated an open door policy for backbenchers, the "insiders" are bound to view Streeting's entirely normal activities for a minister through their own paranoid prism.

Pushing this story out Tuesday night was especially stupid when the media grid had Streeting out doing breakfast TV and morning radio on Wednesday. Though much overrated as a performer, he easily laughed the hostile briefings off. Even more foolish was amplifying Westminster grumblings into national news stories. Nothing says the Prime Minister is vulnerable quite like telling everyone how he's prepared to take on all-comers. It looks desperate, and feeds the impression of chaos and paralysis that supposedly separates them out from the Tories and Reform.

What is new this time was singling Streeting out for the unfriendly briefing treatment. It's worth noting that McSweeney's crew, who normally target prominent women in government, have now branched out to attack an openly gay man. Coincidence or pattern of behaviour? But for anyone who's spent a while following Labour factionalism knows, if there was a political objective behind McSweeney's machinations it was to make the party safe for a Streeting leadership candidacy. Therefore, asking the 11-dimensional question is justified. Was the attack a cynical exercise in creating a groundswell of sympathy toward Streeting ahead of the next leadership election, which now seems inevitable after next year's local elections? I don't think so. They thought boasting about undermining Jeremy Corbyn was a clever thing to do. And then there is idiocy of their Blue Labour strategy, minus the Laboury bits. I don't want to afford them credit for embarking on a plan with many moving parts.

Nevertheless, this is the consequence. Starmer's "defence" has made his position weaker. What was supposed to slap Streeting down has done the impossible and made him into a sympathetic figure. None of it has scotched talk of leadership challenges. And so a new, terminal phase of Starmer's leadership has begin by his own hand. This is all that's going to be talked about in the build up to the budget, after every "inadvertent error", unpopular decision, press briefing, and disagreement. On and on it will go without cease until the crypt finally opens and the corpse of Keir's career is interred.

Image Credit

Why Won't Labour Take on Elon Musk?

On how many occasions has Elon Musk used Twitter to declare war on Keir Starmer's government? How often has he stoked racism, intervened in British politics, called for civil war, and - not unsubtly - agitated for Labour's overthrow? At this point, enough times to warrant official action and sanctions against his cesspit of a platform you would think. But of the government, there's nary a response. Despite Speaker Lindsay Hoyle urging MPs to delete their accounts because of Musk's repeated failure to tackle abuse and law breaking. Instead, we have a government whose departments, as well as its MPs, continuing to use "X" as if all is fine, thereby feeding its petty hate machine.

Last week, further evidence, as if it was needed, was published by Sky News to highlight the platform's toxicity. Via a content analysis of posts channelled to nine fake accounts set up for the experiment, they found Musk's drivel, and right wing posts generally, elevated by the algorithm. Even when said accounts were crafted as left wing and non-political. Despite these left accounts only following leftist posters, half the material shovelled on to their feeds were from right wingers. For rightist accounts, only 14% of political content came from the left. Non-political/neutral feeds had a two-thirds/one-third split in content, with the right taking the lion's share. They also found prominent left wing posters had nowhere near as much reach as popular right wingers. It's a good piece of work that puts numbers to the algorithmic distortion Musk has built into the system since taking it over.

Yet it's tumbleweed from the government, even though Musk's behaviour constitutes overt interference in British politics that is corrosive of Labour's position. Why aren't they doing anything about it, leaving it to Ed Davey to push back and accrue political capital from doing so? Is it another manifestation of the Labour right's congenital cowardice when challenging racist and extreme right wing politics? Partly. Undoubtedly the politics-free vacuum that is Morgan McSweeney has sucked in advice about not going to war with the press, and especially the right wing press. They will hound you without cease. Inhabiting the zone of non-punishment is what a sensible government should do, whereas attacking editorial lines or, heaven forefend, legislating against ownership concentration in the media is asking for trouble. This courtesy, founded on fear, is extended to social media firms.

There's more to it than that, though. The US right take a keen interest in Britain, and complaints from Trump's team - aided and abetted by fifth columnists of Tories, Farage, and Telegraph hacks - have successfully mounted a serious assault on the BBC. Pushing back against Musk, despite his falling out with the tangerine tyrant, would upset the delicate management of Trump that Starmer has committed his government to. They understand the "special relationship" is all one-way, but cannot do without it. The second more broadly is Labour's relationship to American tech bro capital. They want them to invest heavily in UK state infrastructure because the consequences of doing so helps depoliticise politics to the advantage of Starmer and friends. Embedding such technologies across the state sector also gives that section of capital a reliable partner in Labour on this side of the Atlantic, and - most importantly to the ministers involved - it lets them put "headed up large-scale AI implementation" on their CVs, and from their post-politics opportunities as tech execs, consultants, advisors, etc begin opening up. Nick Clegg's seven-year stint at Facebook is the model, during which he enjoyed a £2.7m annual salary, a £14.8m sum from cashing in his Meta shares, and another £16m of stock he's held on to.

With the chances of netting a similar prize by letting LLM oligarchs run riot with Britain's public services, Labour's curious refusal to enforce the law, criticise Musk, or even take their social media business elsewhere makes a lot more sense than everyday pragmatism. Especially when it's now obvious that the party could reap some much-needed political credibility from doing so.

Image Credit

The Right Wing War on the BBC

The resignations of Tim Davie, BBC Director General, and Deborah Turness, the corporation's Head of News was some unexpected Sunday news. The trigger, as if you didn't know, were accusations of bias and unfavourable editing of an edition of Panorama. 'Trump: A Second Chance?' was found by an internal review to have misled viewers after showing a clip that spliced together two parts of the speech Donald Trump gave to his supporters on 6th January, 2021 prior to their storming the Capitol. As James Ball rightly noted, while the actualité was off, the substance was true. Trump did rile up his rabble, and he did try to prevent the constitutional passing of the presidential office to Joe Biden. But the truth doesn't matter. The White House has been crossed and there had to be consequences. The departure of Davie and Turness was the price to be paid.

I've occasionally written about the BBC and the role it plays in British politics. The ideal of fact-based reporting, impartiality, and balance have always been values worth striving for. These are the chief props around which the corporation's illusio is draped. But like most official ideologies, these are for the little people - those who produce BBC programming, and those that consume them. As Tom Mills argued a while back, as an institution its leading cadres have always been clear which side the BBC is on. It cleaves to the state, is always guarded in its critical reporting, and takes its political coverage cue from the right wing press. Even though they're in such an advanced state of decay that their collective editorialising reaches niche as opposed to mass audiences.

Despite this, and having been led for the last five years by a close ally of the Tories, being overseen by committees of Tory appointees, and Turness's own efforts to skew news story selection to "win over" Reform supporters, the right in this country want to see the BBC destroyed. The media interests BBC news coverage does so much to emulate want an end to a non-commercial competitor. They want it gone so there's more eyeballs on their programming, more markets, and more opportunity to shape output through the pressure of advertising. They want to rid the airwaves of the idea of journalism, and reduce news coverage to the abysmal level of GB News-style propaganda. The BBC, like the NHS, also demonstrates that organisations based on state funding independent of markets can be successful. Which is anathema to the small-minded but hyper-class conscious elites that dominate this country's media production.

What now? There is an opportunity for the government here. The BBC Board will appoint the next Director General, and considering its present make up another establishment worthy with solid links to the right wing press and/or the Tories would be a likely pick. However, though the body is arm's length there are ways and means Keir Starmer and Lisa Nandy, as culture secretary, can engineer an outcome congenial to them. There are plenty of former Blairites orbiting around the consultation/CEO/directorship circuits available for the role. It is in their interests to have someone at the helm that would nudge the BBC's steering wheel away from amplifying right wing talking points and give the government a bit of a break. But as we've seen time and again, this Labour leadership's first instinct is to appease the right. In my view, Starmer is more likely to acquiesce to the appointment of another right winger than get anyone committed to the BBC as an institution. After all, giving in to what the oligarchs want is the grown up thing to do.

Image Credit

The Man Who Would Liquidate Labour

In the week, The Times published polling that suggested large number of Liberal Democrat and Green voters would be prepared to support Labour if they were the party best positioned to block Reform from winning a seat. 57% and 46% respectively, to be precise. Crazily, 39% of Lib Dems, 34% of Labour, and 19% of Greens would even vote Tory to keep Reform out. Something Nigel Farage would be grateful for as a lash up between the two is likely, considering the Tory adoption of outright racism, and Farage's new found love for the Tories' oligarch-friendly economics.

Of interest were comments from The Graun's political editor, Pippa Crerar. Reiterating one of Westminster's worst-kept secrets, she said that this polling backed up Morgan McSweeney's view. I.e. That people will vote Labour come what may to keep Farage out of office. The implication is clear. The political direction of the government doesn't need to change. "Even if they hate us, they hate Farage more," said Sweeney McMorgan, a close ally of the Prime Minister's chief of staff.

As recently noted, politically he's no nore a genius than most Labour MPs. He ran Liz Kendall's ill-fated Labour leadership push on a Blairite ticket that he thought would prove popular. And when the parliamentary party were despairing about whether they would ever get their control back, his clever-clever strategy was to build a leadership campaign based around lies. Not once did he offer a political justification, because like the milieu he sprung from he was incapable of doing so. He knew how to ban people from running as Labour candidates, once he had control of the party apparatus. He knew how to expel people. McSweeney also knows how to gloat publicly about what he's done. But win an argument? Do a politics? Not so much. That's why he bounced Keir Starmer into hiring Peter Mandelson, so he could ring up Washington and pick his brains when lies and and bullshit couldn't cut it.

McSweeney's fondness for it's us or Farage underlines his stupidity. This strategy worked so well for the Democrats in the US, and the SPD in Germany. And with Labour attacking its support base and driving them away to the likes of the Greens, there's no reason to believe the result here would be any different. If, for instance, you're a trans person, why would it matter to you whether the government denying you your rights and your health care are Labour or Reform? Or if your disability support is getting cut? Or if housing is out of your reach? Or if their stoking of racism is a matter of degree and not of kind?

None of this matters to Labour's leadership. Should the party get wiped out, a miserable, penurious fate of multiple directorships and nice executive jobs await. Nick Clegg-style options will be available to some of them. Even better from the standpoint of British capital, Starmer's disastrous leadership is on the verge of liquidating organised labour as a political force. Something worth a shower of damehoods, gongs, and knights garter.

The problem McSweeney has that he is willing to push this, but Labour MPs are less keen. They can see the polls. they can see the disintegration of Labour's base tracked in by-elections. They know from their own dire voter ID data the leadership's hubris has opened the door to their nemesis. And they also know that no party or Prime Minister has ever recovered from the terrible ratings that have been posted this year. They should remove Starmer, McSweeney, and this useless cabinet of the crooked, the criminal, and the crap if they want to stand a chance.

Baudrillard Vs Advertising and Fascism

Folks may or may not know that I'm currently reacquainting myself with the work of Jean Baudrillard as part of a research project around hegemonies/anti-hegemonies/counter-hegemonies. Having recently polished off his The Agony of Power, I've returned to Symbolic Exchange and Death - the ground zero for all his thoughts about simulation, the death of reality, and the end of the social. Not only am I getting on much better than when I first had a crack at it 25 years ago, it's proving itself to be a thoroughly enjoyable and relevant read.

Some remarks may come about the book in the near future, but for tonight I'm handing the reins over to the Acid Horizon comrades as they chew over and have a few laughs with Baudrillard's work.

Preserving the Wealthy

I doubt Rachel Reeves wanted to lecture the country on the state of the public finances over their cornflakes, so what she had to say must have been important. Right? Her curious little speech on Tuesday morning, flanked by sharply folded Union Jacks in the Downing Street media room, basically said tax rises are coming - without explicitly saying tax rises were coming. Her warning was coded under layers of "years of failure", "difficult circumstances", and "poor productivity". This matters because one of the promises Labour made in its otherwise throwaway manifesto was no taxes on "working people". A promise made, a promise about to be broken.

Contrary to what politicians think, most of the British are electorate are not mugs. They are also quite capable of listening to justifications for unpopular or painful policies, and accepting them if they believe there is no alternative and they trust the government of the day. So limbering up to break tax promises wouldn't automatically put a black mark against the Labour's name, provided most people thought they were doing an okay and competent job. Unfortunately for this government, this is far from where the public are.

On the mess Labour inherited, most people would agree the Tories made a hash of things. In the abstract some would even accept the "tough choices" Labour promised to get matters fixed, albeit that pledge had less to do with getting the economy chugging and was more about managing political expectations. What the public weren't and aren't prepared to accept were self-evidently cruel, stupid, and counter-productive decisions. For instance, in her Tuesday morning address Reeves rightly attacked the Tories for their austerity programme, which led to crumbling public services and sucking demand out of the economy. Yet isn't the latter what she did with her Winter Fuel nonsense, and what would have happened with her plans, now largely abandoned, to hammer disabled people? Labour's stubbornly catastrophic polling shows that, as far as the electorate are concerned, they have traded away their right to look serious, and no amount of grown up cosplay and wittering about fiscal rules will change their mind. Their minds look made up, and Labour inhabits the same political place of pain John Major did after Black Wednesday, Gordon Brown after the election-that-never-was, Boris Johnson during Partygate and Pinchergate, and Liz Truss following ... Liz Truss. That is until the party retires its leadership. Then it might claw its way back to prominence.

The other problem is that, just like the Tories that came before them, Labour is seemingly determined to make "working people" pay for the country's difficulties. Leaving aside the fiscal rules, even if state finances resembled household finances, there was no hint whatsoever that Reeves was preparing to make further inroads into wealth. Be it propertied, sitting idly offshore, zipping through the City's speculative circuits, or materialising as dividends or rents. She might want to raise tax receipts to "modernise" the state, but at base what her speech previewed was a scheme for preserving the exact same class relations that exercised Nigel Farage's foray into economics.

Image Credit

Nigel Farage's Tory Economics

That Nigel Farage, he's proven himself a dab hand at politics. Having replaced the Conservatives as the main party of the right, at least in the opinion polls, he said he was coming for Labour. And a number's been done on them too. Their figures are the worst ever while Keir Starmer's personal ratings sit somewhere between Liz Truss's and Vladimir Putin's. Even more unbelievably, it's only recently that the very clever politics brains the Prime Minister employs have come to the conclusion that challenging Farage's politics might be a good idea. Having spent the last few years caving to his framing. The result? Farage riding high on a bubble of popular support. Sure, Reform are stealing a march on the politics of anti-immigration and race, but can they convince as many people that they - the party that successfully defended the sovereignty of sterling - care about the pounds in their pockets?

It's telling, but not surprising that the champion of Brexit chose the City as the venue for his big economics speech. The symbolism will not be lost on the oligarchs who are now assessing Farage's suitability as the political custodian of their interests. And it's these people, not the downtrodden little men that comprise his usual audience, he wanted to address. The most eye-catching item in his list of promises was not the rowing back of the ridiculous tax cuts promised previously ("they were only ever aspirations"), but his desire to put the screws on young people. "The minimum wage is too high", and poor businesses are suffering. Cutting it would boost aspiration. Either that, or employers' National Insurance Contributions should be cut by lifting the cap at which they should be paid. It's a good job Reform's imaginary army of enthusiastic young people are imaginary, otherwise they would be in the process of evaporating.

Farage said he would abolish George Osborne's - and now Labour's child benefit cap. But only for British nationals, and only if both parents were working. In other words, those most in need would lose out. He also wouldn't be drawn on whether to keep the triple lock on pensions, which usually indicates that yes, they are thinking of tinkering with it in some way. A reminder that the state pension here is still weaker than it is in Ireland, Germany, France, Denmark, etc despite the upratings the lock has delivered these last 15 years. While we're on pensions, having consumed many a Telegraph editorial, Farage thinks he can clamp down on spending by attacking the "gold plated" schemes public sector workers apparently enjoy. Also, disabilities are "over-diagnosed", so more penny pinching and cruelty is being plotted against the most vulnerable people in our communities.

Gruel for the little people. But treats for the rich. The pledge to reverse Labour's land tax on the rural rich made the cut, as did a promise to abolish inheritance tax on family-owned businesses. He argued that Britain operates a punitive tax regime that drives successful people abroad. Out of the ether, he pulled the example of £100k/year "young professionals" leaving these shores. He knew none of his adoring stenographers would ask him how those fleeing abroad would take those jobs with them. There were the ritual assaults on net zero, and he took aim at diversity and inclusion policies. Recalling his time as a metals trader during the 1980s, he said no one cared about race, religion, or gender on the famously diverse commodities floor. There were, after all, blond white men, bald white men, dark haired white men.

What is striking about his speech is the dropping of anything approaching the populism, however you define it. Farage has made a solemn vow that regardless of the rhetoric and the chaos, he has no plans whatsoever to reshape Britain's political economy. Which isn't a surprise, seeing as his party are as much affected by the crisis in mainstream politics as the rest. What he presented is pure and simple Tory economics, a programme openly dedicated not to driving GDP growth, increasing employment, and doing the things responsible helmsmen of British capitalism are supposed to do. This is the economics of strengthening class relations by throwing more people off social security and onto the job market without support, while driving down the wages and conditions of young people who subsist on the minimum wage. It's not difficult to work out who benefits from this. The political of Farage's economy also owes more to the miserly managerialism of Rishi Sunak than the bombast of fellow "populist" Boris Johnson. As per the last Tory government, Farage is promising a smaller state not to meet his ideological peccadilloes but to try and manage the politics. People demand less if the state is underfunded, run down, and barely works. For all intents and purposes, Farage has stolen the Conservatives' prospectus. Reform is set on becoming a Tory home from home.

At the same time, this leaves Farage vulnerable. We've seen in recent weeks that overt racism can damage Reform. Most of the public aren't on board with his anti-Net Zero drivel, and Farage's murky finances and penchant for Russian talking points are hanging round his neck like a 300lb albatross. This City speech is also a political liability, as he unambiguously paints which side he is on. And it's not the one most of his support think it is. Pathetically, both Labour and the Tories have attacked his plans as "unworkable" and spun a weave of boring, technocratic reasons why they won't work. But Farage has made himself uncharacteristically vulnerable by painting a target on his rather large weak spot. He's conceded populist ground where, should they choose, the Greens, the left, and the labour movement can have him.

Image Credit

Exiling Andrew

How was your week? It probably wasn't as bad as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's. Gone are his titles and honorifics, his position in the royal family, the imprimatur of the British establishment, and his 30-room grace-and-favour "lodge". He remains, for now, in the line of succession but the purge of Andrew is every bit as efficient as the deletion of problem DJs and celebrities of yesteryear from the BBC archive. All that remains is his vice-admiralty of the Royal Navy, and its days are numbered. According to the Sunday papers, a half-million pay off, an annual stipend from the King, and accommodation out of the public eye on the Sandringham estate is the shape of his exile. As crushing this is for him, there wouldn't be many people who would sniff at these spoils of disgrace.

It was oft-noted while the Queen was alive that she was ruthless in preserving the family firm, but this goes beyond her treatment of Diana, Sarah Ferguson, and the well-publicised fallings outs and failed reconciliations with Prince Harry. Andrew, somewhat protected by his mother's most-favoured-son status is not so indulged by big brother. His sacking and disowning is almost on par with the expulsion of Edward VIII/the Duke of Windsor 90 years ago, though hopefully Andrew won't further embarrass his family by cosying up to fascists.

There has been unanimity between the King and the leaders of his most loyal political parties during Andrew's filleting. For Keir Starmer, being seen to back tough measures against Andrew will, he hopes, bury memories of Peter Mandelson and his unfortunate Jeffrey Epstein connections. And for Kemi Badenoch, the Tories still have to pretend their political standing matches their constitutional relevance. More importantly, they are one because Andrew's relationship to Epstein and the harrowing allegations levied by Virginia Giuffre was a blot on an institution already on the skids, and further embarrassments were likely. There have been lurid stories about Andrew's sexual escapades while working as an overseas trade envoy, dodgy business transactions, and unhelpful questions over his murky income arrangements. And there is the drip, drip of further revelations. Like uncomfortable emails, and more secrets ready to spill from the Epstein files.

The King was not prepared to tough any of this out, and so for the family's greater legitimacy much water needed putting between the royal household and Andrew. The thoroughness of the break is demonstrative of Charles III's seriousness of purpose. Getting pictured with an alleged sex offender at family gatherings or on the palace balcony would tarnish by association, and raise questions about how much the King and golden boy Prince William knew, and when. Likewise, for the mainstream parties, with their reputation and political roles in abject crisis, there was no question of them not rallying around the crown and endorsing the King's tough measures.

What does this unwelcome episode for our sovereign tell us? That, unlike his Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, he is aware of the monarchy's precarity and has a firm grasp on public opinion. Certainly more so than dear m'ma. But this is an institution in retreat. Defending it by offloading a liability is quite easy, if personally painful. The challenge is winning over new support and securing the future. An altogether much harder task.

Image Credit

Local Council By-Elections October 2025

This month saw 79,149 votes cast in 35 local authority contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. 24(!) council seats changed hands. For comparison with September's results, see here.

Party	Number of Candidates	Total Vote	%	+/- Sep	+/- Oct 24	Avge/ Contest	+/- Seats
Conservative	37	12,544	15.8%	+0.5	-11.6	339	-6
Labour	30	9,904	12.5%	-1.9	-9.9	330	-6
Lib Dem	36	19,722	24.9%	+8.7	+3.7	548	+8
Reform	37	23,414	29.6%	+3.7	+24.2	633	+10
Green	29	6,336	8.0%	-5.7	-3.0	218	-1
SNP*	2	1,598	2.0%	+0.4	-2.0	799	0
PC**	0						0
Ind***	25	3,940	5.0%	-4.5	+0.1	158	-5
Other****	7	1,691	2.1%	+1.3	-0.2	242	0

* There were two by-elections in Scotland
** There were no by-elections in Wales
*** There were six Independent clashes
**** Others this month were Caterham Residents (131), Guildford Residents (565), Heritage Party (97), Our West Lancashire (704), Rejoin EU (81), Tunbridge Wells Alliance (105), TUSC (8)

Congratulations to the Labour Party. This is the first time since last November that they didn't come bottom of the month's contest. Instead, they got to share that ignominy with the Conservatives. Losing six seats apiece, Reform and the Liberal Democrats surged. The former the catch-all protest party, as heavily trailed by the media. The latter, it seems, tha catch-all tactical choice to keep Reform from winning.

October was also notable because for the third time ever, Reform lost a seat defence. The Lib Dems scooped one up from them in Bromsgrove. But before there are any celebrations, the yellow party dropped one to them near Ipswich. No sign of the tide going out for Reform yet, despite its well-publicised difficulties in local government.

Is November likely to tell a different story? It's possible the Tories could do worse than Labour, but things being as they are this month will look like last month, and all the months of the past year.

2 October
Brentwood, Hutton South, Ref gain from Con
Cheshire West & Chester, Strawberry, Lab hold
Isle of Wight, Lake North, Ref hold
Maidstone, Harrietsham Lenham & North Downs, Ref gain from Ind x3
Wigan, Wigan Central, Ref gain from Lab

8 October
Hart, Yateley West, LDem hold

9 October
Bath & North East Somerset, Widcombe & Lyncombe, LDem hold
North Northamptonshire, Lloyds & Corby Village, Ref hold
Redcar & Cleveland, Skelton East, Ref gain from Con
Teignbridge, Kenn Valley, LDem gain from Con
West Lancashire, Aughton & Holborn, Oth gain from Lab
Wychavon, Bretforton & Offerton, Ref gain from Con

16 October
Babergh, Copdock & Washbrook, Ref gain from LDem
Preston, Ashton, LDem gain from Lab
Reigate & Banstead, Meadvale & St John's, LDem hold
South Ayrshire, Ayr North, Ind gain from SNP
Spelthorne, Staines, LDem gain from Grn
Surrey, Camberley West, LDem gain from Con
Surrey, Caterham Valley, LDem hold
Surrey, Guildford South East, LDem gain from Oth
Tandridge, Whyteleafe, LDem hold
Trafford, Broadheath, Con gain from Lab

23 October
Birmingham, Moseley, LDem gain from Lab
Colchester, New Town & Christ Church, Lab hold
Fenland, Whittlesey North West, Con hold
Portsmouth, Paulsgrove, Ref gain from Ind
Somerset, Dunster, LDem gain from Con
Somerset, Glastonbury, LDem hold
Torridge, Milton & Tamarside, LDem gain from Ind

30 October
Barnet, Hendon, Con hold
Stevenage, Roebuck, Ref gain from Lab
Stirling, Stirling East, SNP gain from Con
Thanet, Garlinge, Ref gain from Ind
Tunbridge Wells, St Johns, LDem hold
Worcestershire, Bromsgrove South, LDem gain from Ref

Image Credit