Monday, 9 February 2026

What is the Point of Keir Starmer?

This is the worst 24 hours of Keir Starmer's leadership! Or, as the Simpson's meme has it, this is the worst 24 hours of Keir Starmer's leadership so far. The day didn't start great for the Prime Minister. Still reeling from Sunday's departure of our chum Morgan McSweeney, from out of nowhere the head of the dire Downing Street press operation, Tim Allan, threw in the towel. Whether this had something to do with weak vetting, who can say. He once handled press in this country for one Vladimir Putin, so perhaps it's merely a coincidence. Things carried on looking shaky for Starmer, before Anas Sarwar lobbed a bomb from afar. The Scottish Labour leader was calling a press conference to tell the PM to pack his bags. It looked like curtains, especially as rumours swirled that the Welsh First Minister, Eluned Morgan, was set to follow. Matters were uncertain.

Until they weren't. She denied reports, and then cabinet member after cabinet member came out to offer Starmer their backing. It ranged from a lukewarm "he doesn't need to resign" from Wes Streeting to the usual boilerplate from everyone else. You know, "he led us to a landslide victory", and "change takes a long time!", and "we have wonderful new breakfast clubs". Writing at the end of the day, it appears that Starmer survives. For now.

Ironically, this position of precarity confers on him a new reason for living. For Sarwar, calling for Starmer's head is calculated to salvage Scottish Labour's chances before this May's Holyrood elections. He's hoping that some oppositional cache will fall to his crew. I'm not so sure. After all, the few dozen Labour MPs who splashed their support for Brexit across their 2019 literature found it didn't save them. And the fact Starmer dumped Richard Leonard out of office so Sarwar could take over. Few other-party-curious Scottish Labour voters are likely to forget this, and will see it as cynical politicking. Something the SNP will no doubt remind punters of at every opportunity.

For the rest of the party, it's in no would-be leader's interest for Starmer to go. Wes Streeting has decided not to wait for the humble address and released his batch of toe curling messages between him and former best pal, Peter Mandelson. Likewise, Angela Rayner, who saved the government from an embarrassing Commons defeat last Wednesday, has to wait for the HMRC to give her "controversial" tax affairs a clean bill of health. And even those not immediately in the frame need someone to carry the can for the battering due at the Denton and Gorton by-election, and the May local and devolved elections. No new leader can afford to start their premiership with two crushing defeats.

Therefore, Starmer has use again. For Mandelson, via McSweeney, he was the marionette that would win the party back from the membership. He was then the empty suit animated almost entirely by oligarchical interests. And now that his days are numbered and the Labour right have suffered an historic embarrassment, he remains the tool of others, a meat shield whose sole purpose is to take the electoral beating coming the government's way. And when that's done, with Starmer lying bleeding and broken on the floor, that's when the up-and-comers will step over his body. Perhaps one of them will be kind enough to roll him into a ditch, but most are likely to not linger at the scene lest the miasma of poor judgement and failure clings to them.

Sunday, 8 February 2026

A Farewell to Morgan McSweeney

What a fantastic week. Peter Mandelson toasted to charcoal, the government being forced to make public all communications about him, the possibility of massive reputational damage hitting Wes Streeting when private messages between the pair come out, and capping it off Morgan McSweeney falls on his sword. Rare are the times when the doings of the worst people in politics catches up with them, but this is one such spectacular occasion.

It's not true that McSweeney was the most malignant presence in the contemporary Labour Party, because we found out that he willingly, happily had his strings pulled by Mandelson. We've learned that Uncle Peter had a hand in nodding through and barring candidates for selection ahead of the general election, displaying the customary contempt for data protection laws that the Labour right normally has for their own party rules. And that Mandelson effectively reshuffled the cabinet after Angela Rayner's departure, ensuring a leadership team more right wing and authoritarian than anything Mandelson had a hand in during the New Labour years.

That McSweeney, like large chunks of the Labour right, lionised Mandelson is common knowledge, but why? As argued here previously, McSweeney is no genius, and was only ever an "operator" when he was secure in a position of unaccountable power. McSweeney was Mandelson's apprentice, and only ever approached his master in cynicism and mendacity. His actual achievements are somewhat lesser, and among them one can count hollowing Labour out before it entered government, relying on antipathy to the Tories and the split right wing vote to win an election, and securing a weaker public endorsement than Jeremy Corbyn managed in 2019. It is under his direction that the party's support has eroded to a historical nadir, to the point where Labour's actual liquidation is on the cards, and McSweeney's relentlessly racist push on immigration has boosted the extreme right.

Obviously, none of this happened without the nod from Uncle Peter. But there is a significant difference between the two. Mandelson, like Blair and Gordon Brown, were political. Working their way up and through the party in the 1980s demanded skill, of knowing the balance of factions, the importance of the unions, the strength of the fiefdoms in the apparat, how to play to constituency parties and, where necessary, deploy political arguments to secure quiescence from opponents and find new allies. This isn't to say Labour was a nice place, far from it. But it was an institution that was significantly more than a bureaucracy for organising campaigning teams, which is what the party has become. New Labour was not inevitable, and Blair, Brown, and Mandelson had to win political fights to win the leadership and push it further to the right. The problem was they created a desert and called it peace. By battling and clearing out the left, and reducing trade unions to piggy banks that would occasionally complain but never rock the boat, successive generations of councillors, MPs, internal office seekers, and party full-timers came of age when the party was becalmed. Even in the Iraq War did little to nothing to challenge the leadership's writ.

This was the Labour Party McSweeney joined in 2001. He did the unglamorous hard yards of carrying bags, drawing up countless road groups, knocking on doors, all the things that party campaigning staff are expected to do. And, as we know, he organised campaigns too. But internal struggle? He undoubtedly listened to what Mandelson told him, heard all the stories of 1980s shenanigans from the John Spellar/constituency bore wing of the party. There will be a copy of John Golding's The Hammer of the Left lying around somewhere, but he never actually lived it. And that showed when the 2015 Labour leadership election rolled around, and his campaign - the Liz Kendall effort - mustered only four per cent of the vote. He, nor Kendall, hadn't realised that New Labourism had no base in the party outside of sections of the PLP, the bureaucracy, and the leaders' offices of a couple of tame unions. The lesson McSweeney took from this was not to wage a political struggle to make these positions popular, as the evidence of his own eyes showed he was completely clueless on this front. Instead, to defeat the left and return Labour back to its rightful professional/managerial leadership cadre, there was only one thing for it: lying.

If McSweeney has a genuine talent, it's as a con man. Because McSweeney and mates couldn't resist telling all and sundry about how clever he was, we know he ran Labour Together as a Janus-faced operation. Outwardly a soft left can't-we-all-just-get-along kumbya outfit, in reality it was a front for organising hit jobs on left wingers, left wing publications, of providing friendly media with copy targetting party members and the leadership, and once Corbyn was gone it, despite denials, ran Keir Starmer's leadership campaign - a confidence trick in which every single one of his pledges turned out to be a lie. And once McSweeney was at the top of the tree, the power of the bureaucracy was turned against the left. No persuasion, no alliance-building across party constituencies. Nothing but a petty-minded, vindictive pursuit of real and imagined enemies. There was never anything "genius" about any of this. Wielding power against the small and weak is the easiest thing in the world.

The rest is history. They say that if you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies come floating past. Many people across the labour movement have waited decades for Mandelson's cadaver to bob along with the current. And dragged in his wake is the fast festering foulness of McSweeney's former career. But unfortunately for the survivors of this last week, the damage these pair have done is so great, the dispersion of their natural constituency and core support so advanced, that something else is teetering on the bank further upstream and looks certain to topple into the water. And that is the swaying, barely-living figure of the Labour Party itself.

Image Credit

Wednesday, 4 February 2026

From Your Party to the Greens

Had a chat with the Byline Times podcaster and producer, Adrian Goldberg yesterday. We talked about Your Party, the changing character of British politics, the Greens, and why I decided to join them.

Tuesday, 3 February 2026

Suitable for the Job

One thing ends now. And that's further speculation about the Peter Mandelson scandal now the police are "investigating a 72-year old man from London" over allegations of misconduct in public office. What we're not going to stop talking about is the Peter Mandelson debacle, and who was responsible for his elevation to one of the highest offices of the British state. This isn't a hard question to answer. The buck stops with Keir Starmer. It doesn't matter how hard he disowns Mandelson, the Prime Minister appointed him US ambassador. This is a charge he cannot escape from. The question then is how much Starmer knew, and when. It's this that determines whether "Mr Rules" himself should get chucked, or be pushed into falling on his sword.

The Times's Patrick Maguire has argued that this is possibly the greatest political scandal since the Profumo Affair. I'm not so sure. The Tories handing out Covid procurement contracts to their donors springs to mind. As does the wrecking campaign, subversion of democracy and undermining Labour's election efforts by the Mandelson-friendly Labour Together faction and their allies. But to be sure, allegedly leaking market sensitive information that financier pals could profit from while government was grappling with the meltdown of global capital circuits is right up there. And it is reasonable to suppose that Starmer knew nothing of this. To him, Mandelson was just a grandee that hung around the party, and whom his advisors and subordinates looked up to as The Master.

What he did know was that Mandelson was associated with Epstein, courted the global oligarchy, counted many a billionaire as paying clients and associates and, of course, had to resign in disgrace from government twice. With such a history behind him, any government with modest centre left ambitions - and Starmer's ambitions for his government are very modest - would surely steer clear. But this is the Labour Party and, of course, this is Britain. For Mandelson's meat puppet, the overrated Morgan McSweeney, what was scandalous about his mentor were ample qualifications for his putative suitability in the court of King Donald. They had a mutual friend in the late Epstein, he was totally on board with Britain being a lapdog state and saw eye-to-eye with the Trump White House on foreign policy. He was good at sucking up to the rich and powerful and, unbeknownst to Starmer and McSweeney, the Epstein files suggest Mandelson was the match for any of Trump's circle for corruption,. Minus the brash crudity. For McSweeney, elevating his mentor meant he would never be too busy to advise on what the Starmer government should be doing. And for Starmer, a man experienced with ensuring Labour never strayed far from the right and proper interests was in situ to secure the US relationship.

Starmer might not have had much interest in Mandelson until fairly recently. But from the inner party shenanigans and through McSweeney, we knew Mandelson was interested in him. When he took McSweeney's advice and appointed him ambassador, his story publicly became intertwined with Mandelson's. It becomes a question of Starmer's political judgement, which has been poor since the first day of this government. The Mandelson revelations should be the final word on the Prince of Darkness's career at the top of British politics. And, by right, it should call time on Starmer's stay in Number 10 too.

Image Credit

Monday, 2 February 2026

The Unmaking of Mandelson

Why, it's the eighth day of the week, the scandalous-revelations-about-Peter-Mandelson day! Since grovelling on Laura Kuenssberg a month ago, he must have known more dirty washing was waiting in the filthy, bottomless laundry basket of the Epstein files. And over the last few days, it started snowballing. First, Epstein's funding Reinaldo Avila da Silva - Mandelson's husband - training in osteopathy came out. Then there was the £75k payment Mandelson "couldn't recall" receiving directly from his best pal. And then the real meat to this piss weak gravy: paging Epstein advance notice that the European Central Bank were bailing out the Euro to the tune of €500bn - while he was in Downing Street. Suggesting to Epstein that JP Morgan, who he subsequently did contract work for, should threaten to burn down the bond market to force the government he was part of to retreat on bankers' bonuses - while he pushed against the policy from the inside. And leaking market sensitive messages between ministers and spads so Epstein could anticipate decisions and make repeated killings. His reward? Epstein backing him for a $4m job. Funnily enough, none of this appeared in his Milquetoast memoir, The Third Man, which he was writing at the time.

In what looks like an open-and-shut case, following multiple complaints to the police the plod are now involved. The weight of evidence, and now his disowning by Keir Starmer, media incredulity, and the likely popular anger will surely mean this won't be a partygate-style whitewash. Then again, this is Britain. The problem is that publicly holding Mandelson to account could bring out all kinds of horrors that frightens the establishment. Who has benefited from being friends with Mandy? Have the projects he's been involved with, from Progress to continuity remain organisations to Labour Together and our chum Morgan McSweeney been variously compromised by this close associations? How did Mandelson use his influence while enjoying life as a EU trade commissioner to make sure the bloc's decisions reflected the billionaire interest - and did Epstein and other financiers make a wedge from the inside track he might have provided them? And, of course, what did and didn't Starmer know about his malfeasance when he was appointed the US ambassador. We're not talking about associating with the world's most notorious paedophile and sexual abuser, which even my cat knows about, but the other stuff that, to all intents and purposes, looks like treason for the benefit of his swollen bank accounts.

To be sure, Mandelson will have received a few sympathetic text messages from some mates in and around politics. He is the exemplary manifestation of the rot that is British politics. His peddling of centre ground nonsense and the importance of moderation, all that is now confirmed as self-serving drivel. Empty words that greased his way into the echelons and confidences of the masters of the universe. He is the logical culmination of the career politician, attracted to government office not because of any commitment to a set of values or public service, but simply for power, position, and profit. Which suits those who wield real power fine. There's a reason why no one gets rich from fighting for socialism. And despite this most damning of disgraces, for some who sit in the cabinet or aspire to, for decades Mandelson was their model. Achieve high office, and leverage that for big pay outs in the lucrative elite career circuit afterwards. Which begs a further disturbing question: what is being done now by ministers and politicians to secure preferment and nice jobs later?

Image Credit

Sunday, 1 February 2026

Five Most Popular Posts in January

Time for the monthly round up about the previous month's doings! What was hot in January?

1. Why I Have Joined the Greens
2. What is the "Stakeholder State"?
3. Farewell Labour
4. Trump's Venezuelan Oil Piracy
5. Playing the Supplicant

In at one is the move from Your Party to the Greens. I'm sure my adventures in the party will get the occasional blogging treatment. This was followed by an examination and take down of the stakeholder state, which is self-serving managerialist twaddle used by suited politicians and spads to make sense of their rarefied existences. Served up by the disgraced Paul Ovenden, because no matter what you do as long as you remain a faithful servant of the political establishment you will always be awarded with media opportunities, new jobs, etc. In at three was the disgraceful barring of Andy Burnham from the Gorton and Denton by-election. A short-sighted decision that's going to cost Labour dearly. At four was the US raid on Caracas and the kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro. And where was "Mr Rules" Keir Starmer? Nowhere. Which was followed up by an explanation, at fiev, of why the British state and its ruling class happily prostrate themselves before the US.

What's getting the second chance treatment? How about two posts. Seeing as he's in the news over serious corruption allegation made by the FT, here's a piece about Peter Mandelson. And following that is Starmer's "toughness" vs Trump's Greenland theatrics.

I am quite enjoying not blogging as much. Getting books read. Watching things. Going out. This thing called life is alright, you know. 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 and Facebook are cost-free ways of showing your backing for this corner of the internet.

Image Credit

Friday, 30 January 2026

Local Council By-Elections January 2026

This month saw 21,185 votes cast in 10 local authority contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. Six council seats changed hands. For comparison with December's results, see here.

Party
Number of Candidates
Total Vote
%
+/- Dec
+/- Jan 25
Avge/
Contest
+/-
Seats
Conservative
          10
 3,190
    15.1%
   -4.4
      -6.2
   319
    -1
Labour
           9
 3,146
    14.9%
  +5.5
      -2.2
   350
    -2
Lib Dem
          10
 3,790
    17.9%
   -2.7
      -3.9
   379
   +1
Reform
          10
 5,369
    25.3%
   -5.7
   +14.8
   537
  +2
Green
           7
 2,988
    14.1%
  +5.9
     +8.4
   427
     0
SNP*
           2
 1,693
     8.0%
  +2.5
      -1.6
   847
     0
PC**
           0
   
    
  
     
   
     0
Ind***
           4
   339
     1.6%
   -3.0
    -12.0
    85
     0
Other****
           6
   407
     1.9%
  +0.6
     +1.5
    68
     0

* There were two by-elections in Scotland
** There was one by-election in Wales
*** There was one Independent clash
**** Others in January consisted of Advance (161, 57), Derbyshire Community Party (50), Flint's People's Voice (79), Scottish Family Party (35, 25)

Happy new year! At least it is for some of the parties in this month's round up. Looking at the polls, the Conservatives are enjoying a very modest recovery. But that is yet to filter through to council bye-elections. Not a terrible outing by their recent standards, but that vote average keeps trending lower. And this is in a set of contests that have historically favoured the Tories. They can squeeze some comfort from how Labour did even worse, though they bounced by from December's catastrophic showing and still out paced them on the vote average. As well as seats lost. So a pretty miserable start to 2026 for them.

As the Liberal Democrats routinely outperform the big two parties these days, they walk away with a decent showing and a net gain of one seat. Though that vote tally is largely thanks to a couple of big wins. Reform, unfortunately, is the party most consistently able to pull off good results, and this month was no exception. Two seats gained and top of the pops, yet again. But this month is the sharpest vote share decline they've registered so far. I'm inclined to put that down to doing really well in December when the other parties could barely be bothered. Lastly, and entirely coincident with my joining them, the Greens scored their highest ever aggregate vote share. Undoubtedly it would have been higher had the party stood in more seats, but with nearly 200,000 members to shout about it's likely more seats will get contested this year.

One thing that didn't get mentioned in the annual round-up was something I was keeping an eye on. I.e. With the rise of Reform and increasing prominence of the Greens, are we seeing fewer independent and 'other' challenges? And the answer was, in 2025, yes. In 2023 there were 122 independent and 97 'Other' candidates contesting 209 elections. In 2024 211 and 112 respectively who stood in 384 polls, reflecting the huge number of councillors who were elected to parliament and subsequently resigned. And last year it was 174 and 92 in 350 contests. A big drop. Is this sign of a trend? Only by waiting and watching will we find out.

February is also going to be a quiet month with 10 by-elections scheduled. No Reform, Green, or SNP defences, and six of them were last won by Labour. I imagine the year isn't about to get happier for Labour in local government.

15 January
Gosport, Bridgemary, Ref gain from LDem
York, Heworth, Lab hold

20 January
Amber Valley, Codnor, Langley Mill & Aldercar, Ref gain from Lab
Derbyshire, Horsley, Grn gain from Ref

22 January
Cheshire West & Chester, Willaston & Thornto, Con hold
Cotswolds, The Rissingtons, LDem gain from Grn
Fife, Glenrothes West & Kinglassie, SNP hold
Flintshire, Leeswood, Ref gain from Lab
South Norfolk, Central Wymondham, Con hold

29 January
East Dunbartonshire, Bearsden South, LDem gain from Con

Image Credit

Tuesday, 27 January 2026

Why I Have Joined the Greens

While defections are in the news, there's another that might be worth reporting on. My own. Yesterday I cancelled my Your Party membership and signed up to the Green Party. The local party meets next week, and I'm looking forward to becoming actively involved. For those interested in such things, here's the politics bit.

Binning off Your Party wasn't a difficult decision. Joining that was more a duty than anything approaching enthusiasm. Never has the left outside of Labour been handed such a golden opportunity, only for it to be squandered by prima donnaism and control freakery. Without re-litigating what happened in depth, Zarah Sultana should not have unilaterally launched the membership. The timing was right, but had she acted with the pre-party collective and abided by its ad hoc discipline the momentum would have still been there when it did go live, which was about a fortnight later. But once the die was cast, Jeremy Corbyn and his minions should have swallowed it - just as they did in the summer when Sultana announced that the new party was happening - and rode the wave. Doing so would have avoided bad blood and, most crucially, would have built on the 800,000 that signed up the mailing list. A party of more than 200,000 was in reach ... and Corbyn blew it because his helpers would rather run a much smaller, tightly controlled outfit that guaranteed them a living. Labour Party mk II not in name, but certainly in form.

And things have not improved. Despite handily winning positions aligning Your Party with an inclusive conception of class and democratic organisation, it's as if the conference votes never happened. Exclusions of members of left groups still stand, and candidates for the Central Executive Committee have been barred if they are suspected of paying subs to another organisation. Funny how there were never any complaints when the likes of Michael Lavalette, for example, was travelling around the country stumping for the new party and encouraging people to sign up. This is a violation of the spirit of what was voted on in November, and a big up yours from the unaccountable cabal that runs Corbyn's show to the membership. It now looks like this bar will be affirmed, assuming that Corbyn's slate of loyalists and idolaters sweeps the members' CEC ballot. Which it is likely to do. On top of that, there is the utter stupidity of the party's name, which alone demonstrates Corbyn's lack of political nous. And, let's be frank, Sultana's absence of political judgement. From childishly calling the awful Tory London Assembly Member Susan Hall a "boomer", boycotting the first day of her own conference, wanting to "nationalise everything", and being unnecessarily spiky toward the Greens is just daft. No confidence in the Corbyn clique, no confidence in Sultana, and no confidence in the prospect of Your Party becoming anything other than a shrine to St Jeremy. It didn't have to be this way.

But the Greens? It's doing rather well, and unlike Your Party has not bungled its opening. As the class composition of this country has changed, as recounted in the book, countless talks and podcast interviews, and on this blog on many, many occasions, politics has shifted too. A shift that the Greens are handsomely benefiting from.

Key to this is the growing importance of immaterial labour. In the post-war period in Western societies, the expansion of the state saw millions of workers taken out of private employment. Their jobs were less about producing material goods for private profit, and shifted toward producing services the public consumed. Education, welfare and social services, health care, the administration of the growing state at all levels. To use the old language, large sections of the work force were paid a wage to reproduce the conditions of capitalist production. They were tending to the gaps in the system, paving over the cracks, cleaning up the messes, making people broken or maimed by the system better, looking after those it discarded, and preparing generations of children for life under it. Alongside this the increasing complexity of production and the division of labour created similar roles within businesses. The expansion of management, the need for planners, logistics workers, technical specialists, office workers, cleaners, service-oriented work has come to absolutely dominate most advanced economies in terms of people employed and volumes of capital tied into and produced by services. Alongside this, postwar affluence kicked off mass consumption and the rise of privatised leisure activities. The casualties of this, at least in Britain, was declining church attendances, the withering away of the millions-strong political parties, and an erosion of working class community culture - which accelerated following the Conservative attacks on and defeats of the labour movement in the 1980s. But the expansion of immaterial labour selected for certain traits. In service work based on the production and maintenance of social relationships, sociability, knowledge, patience, and care were the key forces of production increasingly mobilised by the emerging post-industrial economy. Despite the privatisation of many state services and the intrusion of commodification into all facets of life, this "immaterialisation" of labour has continued apace.

The consequence for culture and politics has been profound, but to stop this from becoming another book, there are two key developments that are reaching fruition now. Because the nature of labour has changed with the object of work being the production of social relations, care, knowledge, social roles, etc., which in turn places a social premium on relatedness and sociability, this has resulted in a long-term tendency toward tolerance. Or, in other words, the gradual replacement of social conservatism by social liberalism. Each generation becomes increasingly comfortable with difference as they are socialised into and experience life as an immaterial worker. The generational differences we see in values surveys are not a reflection of lefty schooling or an essential tendency toward conservatism as we age, but a class cohort effect. There is a direct link between class, of being socialised into and working for a living in the post-industrial economy, and accepting socially liberal values as the everyday commonsense. Generation Z are the most radical, most socially liberal generation so far. And are likely to surrender that title to the younger people coming after them. The mores are cumulative, and we're now at the point where social conservatism is a minority outlook, and one that shrinks by the year.

The second consequence of this is overtly political. Faced with a politics that tries screening out the interests of the rising layer of workers, a typical mass response is disengagement and abstention, but for others it's a marked tendency to vote centre left or left. The first coming of Corbynism and, for a period, the rapid passage of the Labour Party from a husk to a true mass party - and then the 2017 general election - was the first mass electoral flex of the political conscious sections of the new working class. Though Corbyn lost badly in 2019, his real achievement, buried under the self-serving rubbish about the worst result since the 1930s, was hitching Labour to a new political articulation of class relationships. And one the party needed to build on for sustainable success. Unfortunately for Labour, it elected Keir Starmer whose project ever since has been to disperse this coalition to the point where his party courts extinction. But that dispersed support doesn't simply disappear. This is not 1997, it does have somewhere to go. Your Party looked like it could have been it, until they derailed themselves. And so, the Greens. A socially liberal party with left wing positions on a raft of issues that speaks to the class interests and outlooks of immaterial workers, stands up against the scapegoating and racism of the mainstream, and being the only party that really takes climate change, energy challenges, and the green transition seriously, Zack Polanski's leadership and his adroit interventions have catalysed and coalesced mass support around the Greens.

As argued here previously, there are two types of Green Party. The so-called realists, who elevate members to high office and inevitably disappoint - much to their cost. Like the German and the Irish Greens. And those parties that go down a Nordic path, that are to all intents and purposes Green-Left radical parties. This is currently the trajectory GPEW is on - the Scottish Greens being their own, somewhat different, thing - and is likely to draw in more members and more supporters on that basis. Far from the petit-bourgeois party as labelled by the little Lenins, the Greens are being taken over and getting filled out by our class, our rising class, and are inhabiting it as an instrument of our collective interest. It is a party that is becoming, a symptom and driver of a wider politicisation. It is occupying the position Your Party could have taken, but rejected. As Labour under Corbyn was one moment in developing the generalised political consciousness of a class, this is another. That task has fallen to the Greens. These are my reasons for joining. And why you should too.

Image Credit

Monday, 26 January 2026

Desperate for the Limelight


Not another one! Having blogged on many occasions that Nigel Farage would never be so daft to take on Suella Braverman, on Monday he unveiled Reform's latest star defector - Suella Braverman! There she was giggling on stage as if she was doing something very naughty, she launched into a hypocritical rant about how awful her old party was, how most Tory MPs would be better off sitting as Liberal Democrats, etc. Snore, bore, we've heard it all before. Braverman moaned about being politically homeless for "two years" - but obviously was comfortable enough to stand as a Conservative candidate at the last general election. In reality, what she couldn't stand was being out of the limelight. As Kemi Badenoch took over, there was little backbencher Braverman could do to attract attention as the new leader took the party even further rightwards. And now she's back in it. Top billing in politics news, knocking the Andy Burnham fallout off its perch, hundreds of comments on Conservative Home, and she can look forward to framing the front pages tomorrow morning with her and Nige striking the old chums pose.

Farage justified taking her on because Reform have got to fill out "the experience" the party so far lacks in government. One might wonder if recruiting a bunch of clodhoppers responsible for the disasters of the worst administration in British political history is wise, seeing that many Reform supporters turned to the party because they were fed up of the chancers Farage's recruitment drive keeps scooping up. For Braverman, she has the licence to say many of the racist things Sarah Pochin can't and can do this far more effectively than Farage's other misfits and turncoat failures. A useful idiot in the truest sense, the danger to Farage comes not from offending a liberal opinion that Labour, more than anyone else, has contrived to snuff out, but in reminding the more racist-minded core support of Reform that the woman who promised and failed to deliver the abominable Rwanda scheme is now making a living off the back of their party.

The Tory response was silly and apolitical, suggesting - at least initially - that Braverman's defection had something to do with poor mental health. When, in fact, all she's suffering from is incurable narcissism. By blowing up her membership, Braverman can enjoy her 24/48 hours as if she's relevant again. But Reform in the Nigel Farage show. Yes, she can say racist things, but she cannot be allowed to have more exposure than the party's dear leader. Her trajectory is on the Lee Anderson track, once a noted gobshite the media could not get enough off, and now a strangely cowed, strangely silent presence. Like a Sleeper bloke anonymously strumming in Louise Wener's background. Cutting through and being a face again won't be helped by further Tory defections as they seek their moments in the sun, and the prominence existing Farage minions, such as Zia Yusuf, and Laila Cunningham feel they've earned ahead of the conveyor belt of carpet baggers. A dictatorship Reform might be, the toxins and petty jealousies clinging to each imported recruit is sure to give the party bilious stomach cramps sooner or later.

Image Credit

Sunday, 25 January 2026

Farewell Labour

Mark it on the calendar. 25th January, 2026. The date the Labour Party called it a day.

I have no brief for Andy Burnham. Politically, he moved from the right of Blairism to somewhere adjacent to the soft left. How serious this was never properly got tested. During the Ed Miliband years he was recognised for championing a national care service and turning against privatisation in the NHS, something his erstwhile chums on the Labour right have never forgiven him for. But also, in the 2015 leadership election, his pitch was all over the shop. Trying to keep the soggy centre moist while appealing credible to Labour rightists, once Jeremy Corbyn entered the fray there was nowhere for Burnham to go. Except for adventures outside the Commons when the Manchester mayoralty came up. But, to his credit, Burnham respected the members' vote. And as mayor, he has delivered a competent administration, not rocked the boat, and stood up to the Tories during their efforts to stiff northern England as Covid raged out of control.

Burnham also has that which many a Labour front bencher aspires to - authenticity. Burnham beats all other Labour figures on approval ratings because, unlike many a member of the cabinet from humble beginnings, he avoids coming across as managerialist, he avoids their practised 10-yard stare, and comes across as genuinely warm and relatable. Something that used to endear Angela Rayner to many punters, until her self-inflicted downfall. He impressed many because he stuck up for Manchester while Keir Starmer tailed the government on pandemic management. And so, when he announced his intention to seek the nomination for Gorton and Denton and return to parliament, he had to be stopped.

The Labour right love procedure when it hides political manoeuvres, which is exactly what they did. Burnham cannot be allowed to run because it would cause an expensive mayoral by-election and the party is brassic. How handy. How convenient. With Lucy Powell the sole voice of dissent and, it appears, the only NEC member with a grasp on political realities, the Labour right, the Starmer loyalists, have declared their party done. They didn't just veto Burnham's eventual leadership bid, they snuffed out the only real chance Labour had of avoiding a catastrophic, historic defeat at the next election. The government can give as many councils permission to cancel elections as they like, the bloodbath this May cannot be avoided. But with Wes Streeting now the obvious frontrunner to replace Starmer, at least most of the Labour right will keep their jobs and prominence for a few more years.

And so, Burnham denied means liquidation is a step closer. A parliamentary seat that, at any other time would be a shoe-in is likely to fall, and Labour's political decay continues apace. With Your Party dead on arrival, the Labour right have gift wrapped more of the party's voters and handed them over to the Greens. Burnham was a chance, the chance to turn things around. Instead, the NEC have engaged full steam ahead toward inevitable disaster.

Image Credit