Five Most Popular Posts in May

What a scorcher! No, not just the month but the traffic on this blog! If you're inclined to believe the very basic Google stats package built into this platform, we had almost a million page views last month. Unfortunately, because this has been the pattern for a while it's not a sign of my breaking through into the big time. More a matter of generative AI repeatedly crawling though the pages looking for new words to chew on. I hope it makes them choke. And so, because the stats package is useless I have little idea of whether I'm addressing an audience that could fit into a seldom-seen phone box, or multitudes. Anyway, onwards!

1. The Road to Wigan Keir
2. Should the Greens Stand in Makerfield?
3. Andy Burnham's Second Coming
4. It's the Differential Turnout, Stupid
5. Labour's Political Paralysis

The evaporation of Andy Burnham's soft leftism as he entered the fray of the Makerfield by-election got the top spot. Though now we see he's decided PR might be a good idea after all, and would go into the next Labour manifesto. And there are also suggestions that he's quite keen on a progressive alliance between parties. His re-entry into national politics has proven itself a tale of vibes and counter-vibes so far. In second was the debate in and around the Greens about whether they should stand a candidate - my argument was that the party should demand something in exchange for either standing aside or running a low key campaign. Third, it was Andy Burnham again on the occasion of his Makerfield announcement. In at four were some suggested rules about interpreting the results of the local elections in England, and in at last was the impasse Labour was in at the beginning of the month - a hapless leader, but no one in the PLP being in a position to remove him.

As a believer in second chances, for the second time the spotlight returns to ... this post's predecessor. Tony Blair has said a few things, and what's interesting about his essay is the no frills assertion of what's best for the ruling class, and damn everyone else.

Looking ahead, right now I have no idea what I'll be talking about. But if past behaviour is any indicator, look back at May's content for what will likely crop up in the month.

Image Credit

A Rare and Unusual Intervention

Tony Blair's essay about what's gone wrong in the Labour Party has been widely read and discussed, and earned decent length ripostes from Wes Streeting, Andy Burnham, and Keir Starmer. The cage of Labour statecraft was well and truly rattled. Still, if you've read one Blair essay you've read them all. There was nothing new here that he hasn't already said in a thousand-and-one other rare and unusual interventions. Blair is a massive fan of ChatGPT and its like, but even he doesn't need to engage their services when a cut and paste from his archives does the job.

Blair was right about one thing, and that's the absence of strategic direction at the heart of this government. A point so obvious that even my cat knows it. But apart from that, the 5,700-word screed is interesting for one reason: for unapologetically laying out the empty world view of the ruling class. Something that "this shows Blair has moved to the right" takes fall far short of. In the piece, Blair says that welfare needs cutting (of course he does), military spending boosting, net zero ditching, state intervention and regulation pared back, and more government funds made available for AI development. On world affairs, he says Britain needs to carry on sucking up to the United States. And does so with an argument identical to that pushed by Peter Mandelson during Donald Trump's Greenland bullying at the beginning of the year.

Central to Blair's argument is that rudderlessness comes from a lack of policy. That is what drives the politics. But politics, which is always a clash of interests, counts persuasion among its properties. While lecturing others about doing politics properly, this is entirely absent from the essay. What the state should be doing, the backing of AI, and continued subservience to the US under Trump are treated as self-evident truths. They certainly are to Blair, because having trousered tens of millions since leaving office his personal, private interests are now entirely aligned with the class interests of the super rich, whose ranks he long aspired to join.

There are two forms of ruling class politics that dominate the powers-that-be. The technocratic managerialism personified by and incompetently manifested by Starmer and his cabinet of right wingers is what "sensible" and "grown up" politics is. Living in the real world means never changing the fundamentals, keeping the present class settlement as is - even though it's breaking down - and fiddling around the edges and selling that as "change". The alternative is just letting it all hang out in the open. The establishment's euphemism for this is populist right wing politics, but it's just the rule of oligarchic capital transacting in full view of everyone. The endless enrichment of the already rich is its programme, and the scapegoating and culture war rubbish are its politics of distraction. Neither, you'll note, come anywhere near to Gramsci's view that ruling hegemony requires intellectual, political, and moral leadership. Both rest on what was established by Thatcher and Reagan, and consolidated by their successors. One perspective says this is the way of the world, while the other almost goads everyone outside the private jet class to do something about them. There is no effort to persuade, let alone mask the realities of class rule.

Blair's essay manages to bridge both camps, making a technocratic case for big power bullying, the oligarchical interest, and what needs to be done to consolidate both. Not in terms of winning an eroding popular consent for this state of affairs, but simply letting ruling class interests run riot. AI for perfecting new forms of exploitation, more markets to keep the balance titled for capital over labour, and the bombs and guns to continue enforcing their grip on global affairs. Blair used to say class politics was old hat, but here he is proffering a manifesto for open class warfare. One comfort zone that he's always been more than happy to inhabit.

Image Credit

Local Council By-Elections May 2026

This month saw 168,788 votes cast in 57 local authority contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. 31 council seats changed hands. For comparison with April's results, see here.

Party	Number of Candidates	Total Vote	%	+/- Apr	+/- May 25	Avge/ Contest	+/- Seats
Conservative	55	31,741	18.8%	+2.1	-0.8	577	-2
Labour	46	20,056	11.9%	+0.7	-4.8	436	-10
Lib Dem	51	34,190	20.3%	+10.6	-2.3	670	0
Reform	57	47,699	28.3%	-5.9	+5.2	837	+15
Green	55	27,140	16.1%	-8.8	+5.4	493	-1
SNP*	0						0
PC**	2	472	0.3%	+0.3	+0.2	236	0
Ind***	15	6,560	3.9%	+1.6	-0.5	437	-2
Other****	3	930	0.6%	-0.4	-1.6	310	0

* There were no by-elections in Scotland
** There were three by-elections in Wales
*** There were two Independent clashes
**** Others this month were Great Yarmouth First (866), SDP (49), TUSC (15)

With 52 council by-elections taking place on the same day as the English local elections, the pattern of results were likely to be similar. Reform the clear winners, and not great times for the main parties. It wasn't fabulous for the Liberal Democrats and Greens either. Decent vote shares by their standards, but breaking even and dropping one seat respectively were the scores on the doors.

This by the way is the third consecutive month Labour haven't been able to break the 12% barrier. There is the abysmal, and then there is the abyssal. For all the Starmerist talk that the party would never be forgiven if it ditched the PM and had a leadership contest, the numbers suggest otherwise. If Labour wants to survive it can't but get shot.

Next month is pretty much a Wales special. Thanks to the big Senedd gains enjoyed by Plaid Cymru and Reform, many a new MS have vacated their seats. That means 13 by-elections, which (I think) is a new Welsh record. Also, Reform are defending seven seats so it'll be interesting to see wha happens to them. Could their winning streak of seemingly endless net gains come to a halt?

7 May
Basingstoke & Deane, Oakley & The Candovers, Ind gain from Con
Brentwood, Brentwood West, LDem hold
Cambridge, Trumpington, LDem hold
Cannock Chase, Hednesford Pye Green, Ref gain from Grn
Chelmsford, Broomfield & The Walthams, Con gain from LDem
Cherwell, Banbury Calthorpe & Easington, Ref gain from Lab
Cherwell, Bicester West, Ref gain from Ind
Chesterfield, Staveley North, Ref gain from Lab, Ref gain from LDem
Crawley, Three Bridges, Lab gain from Con
Dudley, Wollaston & Stourbridge Town, Ref gain from Lab
East Hertfordshire, Little Hadham & The Pelhams, Con hold
Eastleigh, Chandler's Ford, LDem hold
Exeter, Heavitree, Grn hold
Gloucestershire, St Mark's & St Peter's, LDem hold
Great Yarmouth, Caister South, Oth gain from Con
Guildford, Onslow, LDem hold
Halton, Daresbury, Moore & Sandymoor, Ref gain from Lab
Hastings, St Helens, Ind gain from Lab
Hertfordshire, Flamstead End & Turnford, Con gain from Ref
Hertsmere, Bentley Heath & The Royds, Con hold
Horsham, Itchingfield, Slinfold & Warnham, Con gain from LDem
Knowsley, Roby, Lab gain from Grn
Leeds, Adel and Wharfdale, Con hold
Leeds, Morley North, Ref gain from Ind
Leeds, Temple Newsam, Ref gain from Lab
Lewes, Newhaven South, LDem hold x2
Mid Sussex, Hurstpierpoint, LDem hold
Newport, Rogerstone North, Con hold
Norwich, Wensum, Grn hold
Powys, Llandrindod South, LDem hold
Reading, Caversham Heights, Con gain from Lab
Reigate & Banstead, Earlswood & Whitebushes, Grn hold
Rochford, Downhall & Rawreth LDem hold
Rochford, Hawkwell East, Ref gain from Oth
Rother, Rye & Winchelsea, Ref gain from Lab
Rugby, Bilton, LDem gain from Con
Salford, Cadishead & Lower Irlam, Ref gain from Lab
Sheffield, Beighton, Ref gain from LDem
Sheffield, Firth Park, Lab hold
Somerset, Mendip Hills, LDem hold
St Albans, Sandridge & Wheathampstead, LDem hold
St Albans, St Stephen, LDem hold
Stevenage, St Nicholas, Ref gain from Lab
Stratford-on-Avon, Bishops Itchington, Fenny Compton & Napton, LDem hold
Surrey, Warlingham, Ref gain from Con
Tunbridge Wells, Sherwood, LDem gain from Lab
Tunbridge Wells, Southborough & Bidborough, LDem hold
Welwyn Hatfield, Welwyn East, Con hold
West Northamptonshire, Hackleton & Roade, Ref hold
West Suffolk, Abbeygate, Grn gain from Con
Wokingham, Wokingham Without, LDem hold
Wolverhampton, Wednesfield South, Ref gain from Lab

21 May
Dorset, Bridport, LDem hold
Fylde, Kirkham, Con gain from Ind
Lancaster, Castle, Grn hold
Malvern Hills, Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick, LDem gain from Ind

28 May
Swansea, Fairwood, LDem gain from Con


Image Credit

Nigel Farage and the Politics of Corruption

On the saga of the £5m Nigel Farage has trousered from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne, we've been issued with no end of excuses. Reform tried denying it was any business of the Commons, seeing as the money was wired before he decided to stand in the general election. Parliamentary standards disagreed. Then Farage said it was for the security he'll need for the rest of his life, being a divisive public figure and all. Then the story switched to its being a reward for his years of dedicated campaigning. Coincidentally, Farage started voicing enthusiasm for crypto shortly after the bung dropped into his bank account. And now, Reform are claiming that news of the gift is courtesy of Russian hacking, evidence of which is not forthcoming.

This is not the first time Farage has stood accused of receiving funds for political favours. Indeed, what characterises his relationship to money is its brazen transactional character and consistent repetition. A foretaste of the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do relationship to the law we would expect during the nightmare scenario of a Reform government. But what are the political uses of such corruption, seeing as it's a common feature of the extreme right, here and abroad?

As already hinted, there is the shock and awe element, of being seen to be political teflon. I can imagine some canvassers hitting the doors in Makerfield and getting depressed that Farage's £5m kickback has not booted Reform's chances out of contention. As per Trump and what we've seen in the United States, allegations of corruption from political opponents go nowhere because, in many cases, they're rightfully perceived as being little different. Additionally, this can be threaded into narratives - spontaneously elaborated in the Facebook groups and retailed by GB News - that Farage is getting singled out and targeted for telling the "truth" about this country. The right in this country, whether in its Tory or more extreme forms, will not waste an opportunity to play the victim.

More important is the message Farage's corruption is sending to his class. Accepting money from here, there, everywhere signals that Reform is open for and to business. Farage himself, like Boris Johnson before him, covets cash and this ensures a congruence between his politics, the interests of the most reactionary elements of the ruling class in this country, and the globalised oligarchs. A bonfire of regulations, the dismantling of Labour's new, meagre protections on workers' and renters' rights, and the final destruction of the NHS as a free-at-the-point-of-use system fit nicely with those ruling class views that think we have it easy and need putting back in our box.

Yet this is not without risks. Farage is carrying on as if certain elite interests can shield him from consequences indefinitely, but this is not so. There's the obvious problem of investigations into rule-breaking. The £5m bung, for instance, puts Farage at risk of a Commons suspension and potential by-election in Clacton. One might be tempted to think he could walk it, but this is where the politics of corruption could bite back. While true not many Reform-minded people care about the provenance of his income and what he does to ensure similar gift giving continues into the future, but there are people outside the Farage fandom that do care a great deal. Brazen corruption could negatively catalyse and mobilise opposition to him and Reform which, considering their levels of support, could be hard to fend off. Imagine, for example, if the rest of the political establishment dredged up an independent anti-corruption candidate akin to Martin Bell's successful challenge to Neil Hamilton in Tatton during the 1997 general election. Could Farage see off Martin Lewis?

Risky or not. corruption is baked into extreme right wing politics. Farage can no more resist cash offers than he can the politics of scapegoating. The cash flow is the guarantee that Reform will stay in oligarchical pockets, and the closer we get to the next general election the more those taps will gush.

Image Credit

The Road to Wigan Keir

Well done Andy Burnham for resolving the question of whether the Greens should stand in Makerfield. He's spent the entirety of this week providing very good reasons for not supporting his candidacy.

It began even before Labour's NEC greenlit his challenge. No sooner had Caroline Lucas counselled the Greens to stand aside because of Burnham's position on electoral reform, he came out as an opponent on proportional representation. "Fairer votes" means the disproportional wonders of AV Plus. Which, with uncharacteristic haste, the government is about to restore for mayoral contests ... just in time for a Manchester mayoral by-election, should one be needed. Then Monday came around. Having said very warm things about the EU and admitting he'd like to see Britain back in eventually, he 180'd and said we shouldn't undo Brexit. Getting two u-turns in for the price of one, Burnham committed himself to Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules. Very different from the Andy Burnham of last September, who dared utter sacriligeous words about the holy wisdom of the bond markets.

He was just getting started. A couple of months ago, Angela Rayner gave a speech that criticised Shabana Mahmood's cruel immigration policies as "un-British" - an intervention Burnham apparently endorsed. This week, he's now a supporter of this doomed attempt to out-flank Reform on the right, and went further at his by-election/leadership campaign launch by demanding net migration be driven even lower. And to round things off, in double quick time Burnham has gone from being a defender of trans rights to accepting the establishment attack on trans people. In other words, everything that was wrong about Labour a week ago are now his policy positions. The only difference that exists between him and the Prime Minister is over who should be in Number 10. From the soft left, it's been a short, sharp road to Wigan Keir.

I suppose some tendentious rationales can be concocted for these about-turns. It's a Reform-leaning seat, so it's time to deploy the Blue Labour strategy that's proven a stunning success everywhere else. There's extra press scrutiny, so time to stifle the leftish vibes given off by "Manchesterism" so one can emote fiscal orthodoxy and fealty to Treasury shibboleths. Reform's problematic plumber might go in for cheap point scoring come any hustings, so socially liberal approaches to immigration and trans people has to be ditched. Or you could see it as Burnham adapting himself to the Labour selectorate. Plenty of MPs bear a grudge from his refusal to go along with their anti-Corbyn wrecking, and further back for breaking and critiquing the Blairist orthodoxy on health. And these days, the Labour membership are much more middle class and managerial than at any other time and are, by and large, habituated to life in a rudderless political husk. Either way, Burnham's pitch is the traditional Labourist marriage of perceived expediency and political cowardice.

This does raise serious questions about what Burnham's Labour is going to look like. At first contact with re-entry into national politics, the great hope of the soft left has capitulated across the board. The criticisms that allowed him to cultivate a prince-across-the-water persona as Keir Starmer stumbled from one catastrophe to another have evaporated. He looks as clueless and as spineless as the man he would replace. If Labour don't change tack, if Burnham carries on like this assuming he wins the by-election and subsequent leadership election, the crisis afflicting the party is sure to persist. Except, without taking stock and changing direction, the new leader will guide the party into its final, terminal phase.

Title Credit

Image Credit

Where Now for Politics?

Come and hear me speak in Birmingham this Wednesday!

Should the Greens Stand in Makerfield?

Now that Labour's NEC have given Andy Burnham the okay to stand in Makerfield, the Greens have got to decision to make: should they stand? The party put out a statement saying they were doing just that, and the ball had started rolling on candidate selection. This was followed up with Caroline Lucas saying that she hoped the decision to stand "wasn't true" and this was a moment to "put country before party" and give Burnham a clear run. Not only to minimise the risk of Reform getting in, but to secure "fairer voting", something Burnham is a long-standing advocate of. By chance, they're appearing on stage together in a fortnight's time.

Lucas presents a compelling case encouraging the Greens to sit this one out. But, as one Green spox put it, which version of Burnham is going to turn up? For instance we hear that he's about to drop his bid to rejoin the EU, ostensibly to court and/or neutralise Reform support in Makerfield, while the Telegraph writes that he stands by his pledge. Which is which? Those with long memories might recall his being all over the place during the 2015 Labour leadership contest - has he changed?

There's going to be a lot of pressure on the Greens to stand down. For one, there's the usual vote-Labour-or-get-Reform "argument" that worked out so well in Gorton and Denton. Though, in this case, the Burnham factor means there's more heft to it. Then there are the expectations of the Greens' new members and voters, a good chunk of whom are effectively refugees from Labourism. Not a few of them will share Lucas's positive views of Burnham, as well as her diagnosis of the stakes. If a Green candidacy is seen costing Labour the seat under these circumstances there might be a price to pay.

In my view, if the local Greens are minded not to stand they shouldn't sell their cooperation cheaply. What Labour seem determined to learn the hard way is that its monopoly on left wing votes is long over. If the Greens are to cede them ground, then Labour needs to work to make it worth their while. Burnham should be challenged on Green priorities to make public promises on them. What springs to mind is the aforementioned electoral reform, but I would also add wealth taxes, action on low pay and precarity, more action on solar and wind, and ending the race to the bottom on immigration and asylum. If he cannot commit, then that suggests any Labour Party he ends up leading will be marked by the same rudderless malaise we've seen under Keir Starmer. Go on, Andy. If you want the Greens to stand down then give them a reason.

Image Credit

Andy Burnham's Second Coming

I remember the time when the resignation of a senior government minister would corner political news and comment for days. But writing on the evening after Andy Burnham's announced his bid to return to the Commons, who's talking about Wes Streeting stepping down any more? Well, I am. His was a curious letter, starting off with a out-of-place "the results are in" joshing, and then rolling off recent NHS achievements, including the welcome news that waiting lists conitnue to fall. He went on to the substantive stuff; how he was frustrated by the government making the wrong calls and stuck in low gear deliverism before saying he had lost confidence in Keir Starmer and was off. But he did not then reach for the starting pistol, or the 81 MPs needed to launch a leadership bid. A read of his own chances, or knowing what was coming later?

Then tonight, Josh Simons, hitherto famous for overseeing dodgy doings while he was director of Labour Together, announced he was vacating his Makerfield seat in Manchester so Burnham could have a run. Burnham has confirmed he will seek the permission of Labour's NEC to be the candidate. And, interestingly, the chatter from Downing Street is that Starmer is not minded to block his candidacy. Things are about to get very interesting. And by 'very interesting', we means it's doubtful he'll remain in Number 10 by the end of summer.

Can Burnham can take Makerfield? The seat has been Labour's since it was formed in 1983, and Simons does have a decent majority of 5,400. But things were far from peachy at the local elections. Here, Reform ran away with victory, scoring almost 50% of the vote while Labour collapsed to 24% and the Greens scraped 11%. Although it was a different political time, Burnham did storm the mayoralty in 2024 with 63%. And the areas around Wigan, where Makerfield is situated, was particularly strong. As argued previously, there's a good chance the locals have flattered Reform. And Burnham has several other advantages: strong name recognition, a good local record for a Labour mayor, and a bit of an anti-Starmer cache. Punters there will know they're effectively voting for the next Prime Minister, which could boost him. Burnham is not guaranteed to win, but notwithstanding the local election numbers, there are more anti-right wing voters in the constituency to be mobilised. He's got to be the favourite to win it, assuming the NEC sides with him.

Which brings us back to Streeting. That Angela Rayner was cleared of wrongdoing by HMRC took some wind out of Streeting's sails on Thursday morning, but he is not a stupid man. He can read the same polls as the rest of us and how unlikely he would win a leadership election against virtually anyone, including Starmer himself. Perhaps he'll put in if Burnham successfully returns to remind the selectorate that he exists, but he's still young for a politician and, under a different leader, has the chance to reinvent himself as a convert to soft left Labourism. Especially if Burnham is serious about his promises to move Labour more in this direction. A case of his being down, but by no means out.

Image Credit

Touring the Crater

"Friends of Wes" have briefed the press that he's going to resign as health secretary on Thursday and trigger a leadership contest. Who pre-announces their resignation? With that fun and games to look forward to, I offer this piece of old news. On Saturday Alex Doherty interviewed me about last Thursday's election results for Politics Theory Other. Here's what i had to say.

As per usual, if you appreciate Alex's work in producing one of the best politics podcasts around, you can support his work here.

Politics Theory Other · Labour's election disaster w/ Phil Burton-Cartledge

Image Credit

Demanding Deliverism

Last night it was looking a bit wobbly, but this evening Keir Starmer appears to be safe - following a most excruciating day. Four ministers have taken their leave of government, and presently 92 MPs have said it's time for Starmer to shut up shop. Tellingly, no cabinet member has broken ranks or resigned. Shabana Mahmood, who apparently told Starmer last night that it was time for him to agree a timetable is still "getting in with the job" of trying to out-Reform Reform in the Home Office. And without anyone leading from the top of government, the clutch of resignations are not moving him. In fact, it's prompted a round-robin counter letter from 110 MPs (and counting) who back Starmer.

What are the complaints of our former ministers? This morning, Miatta Fahnbulleh resigned from her minister of religion post, saying that the government had not acted with "vision, pace, and ambition", nor that Labour had governed in a way that was "clear about our values and strong in our convictions." She went on to say that the public's verdict on Starmer's leadership was unmistakable: he had to go. There wasn't much of a critique in Fahnbulleh's letter, except she drew attention to the winter fuel debacle and the shameful attack on disabled people as "mistakes".

Our second resigner was safeguarding minister Jess Phillips. Her letter was pretty damning and attacked the plodding complacency of this government. She talked about how groomed children can be blocked from making naked images of themselves and that this technology could already be rolled out, were it not for Number 10's indifference. Phillips added that Labour governments are "precious" and "I'm not sure we are grasping this rare opportunity with the gusto that's needed." That's why Starmer has to give way. Fun fact, to my knowledge Phillips is the only MP who has her photo on official Commons correspondence.

She was followed approximately an hour later by Alex Davies-Jones. She said results in Wales and the rest of the UK were "catastrophic". No disagreements there. But she is impatient. "Now is the time for bold radical action", she declares. I guess Davies-Jones is not too familiar with Labourism's history. Labour needs to be seize opportunities after 14 years out of power, and "I implore you to act in the country's interest and set out a timetable for your departure."

Last was Wes Streeting ally, Zubir Ahmed. In a display of attempted gravitas rarely seen among Labour MPs, he writes "... as I raise my gaze above the daily work of ministerial life, it is clear to see that whatever the magnitude of individual achievements and progress, they are now being dwarfed and undermined by a lack of values-driven leadership at the centre." He provides flavoursome anecdotes from Scottish doorsteps, and condemns the "noise" from government that "became the midwife" of another SNP government. And to round it off, Ahmed revives the old country-before-party mantra and hurls it back in Starmer's face.

How handy, how coincidental that these "uncoordinated" letters covered all corners of Great Britain. But they are all weak sauce politically speaking. But one letter, coming from the pen of the only soft left figure here, ventured a political criticism. The others are all about distractions and not enough deliverism. For the centre and the right of the PLP fundamentally agree with Starmer that the problem is less one of political direction and more a case of not getting there fast enough. Which indicates they haven't learned any lessons at all, and their urgency stems from the imaginary KPIs they have flashing in their heads. One has to ensure the CV is suitably burnished before 2029 returns them to something like normal life.

It's now widely reported that Streeting will be meeting Starmer on Wednesday morning ahead of the King's speech. But for what purpose? He might have the required 81 MPs needed to trigger a contest, but seeing as a substantial body of PLP opinion are against having one, would Streeting run the risk of alienating swathes of people who might otherwise be favourably disposed toward his candidacy? We'll find out tomorrow afternoon following the announcement of the legislative programme. Though, Ed Miliband is reportedly now prepared to run if Streeting forces a contest, which would be amusing and a sure fire way of seeing the darling of for-profit health interests off.

Image Credit