Labour's Far Right Failure

I read with interest that, on Monday afternoon, Andy Burnham appointed Marc Sears as his special advisor. For those not familiar with his work, Sears was at UCL's policy lab where he studied "progressive voters". Their most recent report, published in May, found that among Keir Starmer's many failings was his refusal to articulate the sorts of politics Labour voters expect from their party in office. This failure saw Labour's erstwhile voters splinter among the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, and, to a lesser extent, the Liberal Democrats. And, to rub it in, they found very few Reform supporters - approximately two per cent - were prepared to vote Labour under any circumstance. Therefore, to reiterate the obvious, left wing voters have intertwining sets of interests and values and expect their parties they support to act on them. Political science ain't rocket science.

Part of Andy Burnham's appeal is his affected comfort with soft left politics. The opening fortnight of his premiership, the Downing Street speech, the care speech, the first address in the Commons, this is supposed to be the difference his leadership is making. And yet there is the same attacks on trans people. The same demonisation of asylum seekers, and fruitless boasting about the fall in Channel crossings. And this weekend we saw another one: political paralysis before a far right blockade/"protest" in Dover. The weakness of the government's response is so pitiful, you could be forgiven for thinking that Starmer wasn't turfed out a couple of months ago. Speaking in the Commons this afternoon, policing minister Sarah Jones "condemned" - and we should use that term advisedly - "intimidating and thuggish behaviour", lines lifted from Sunday night's Downing Street statement. There's "no excuse" for racists on the streets but, but ... "None of this is to minimise the valid concerns that law-abiding people have when they see vile criminal gangs exploiting the nation's generosity." Under questioning from Suella Braverman, she acknowledged that local people were "scared and angry" but not of far right squaddists running riot, but about small boats. This was completely different to the attitudes of fascist trouble-makers, she said, strongly implying that residents are fine to feel this way. In short, less a capitulation and more a regurgitation of Morgan McSweeney's drivel, the strategy that drove Starmer's premiership onto the rocks.

History tells us that expecting Labour to challenge the politics that has led to this shameful episode is too much. Even if the parliamentary party was overflowing with principled anti-racists, challenging the common sense Burnham's predecessor bedded down in British politics is too much like hard work. Refusing to scapegoat refugees, and pointing out how Britain's social problems are more deep rooted, more complex, and are ultimately located in systemic inequality and, therefore, class relationships is to invite the hounds of hell to the door. But even insipid liberal arguments of the "refugees welcome here" and "who's going to look after our pensioners?"-type are no-noes where this government is concerned. We're still in the moment of blokey politics, and Burnham is just about at the limits of showing a caring sensibility - doing so for outgroups, such as refugees, trans people, Palestinians, puts you beyond the pale of establishment politics. But more than that, Labour needs its scapegoats too. Bigging up undesirables and demonstrating one's efficacy by publicly doing them over is arguably the oldest strategy in politics. The incentive structure isn't there, and Labour rarely has the wherewithal to change the game anyway.

And this is where it will cause them problems. Far right thugs aren't about to change their politics if Burnham starts whistling an anti-fascist tune. Nor will the underlying dynamic change much if the police take more of an interest. 16 years of intermittent and inconsistent harassment by the authorities of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and his fascist street rabble hasn't done much to put them back in their box. But the perception of Burnham's lack of seriousness, of marrying every "condemnation" of the far right with legitimate concerns-ings will disperse the very fragile recovery Labour's base is undergoing. Just as it did for Starmer. And, because Labour is refusing to confront the far right politically, others will do. There is a long tradition of physical force anti-fascism in this country and, as widely acknowledged, it can take the credit for ensuring the far right were effectively suppressed in the 1980s and 1990s. We're not talking about No Nazis Here lollipops or anti-racist picnics in the park, but full bore violent confrontation. In the absence of anything else, and because the mainstream are actively feeding far right support, don't be surprised if this calls into being its counter. Just as fascist mobilisations in the 1930s and 1970s did. Is this what it will take to stop right wing extremism in its tracks, that elements of the left will reply with thuggish and intimidating behaviour of its own? That looks ever more likely as the mainstream keeps giving the far right a free pass.

The No Hopers Vs Andy Burnham

From Andy Burnham's point of view, he couldn't have asked for a better week. His daily list of announcements went down with nmst official politics watchers, leaving those complaining, like the Tories, like the Daily Express, looking distinctly fogeyish. His social media output, particularly his chat with John Healey about pub snacks, also did the business of going viral on Facebook and TikTok. And the reward has been immediate. A +13 for Burnham's personal ratings, which is higher than Keir Starmer ever managed, and the first polling lead for Labour since April 2025. Moreincommon report a four-point advantage over Reform, which is significant seeing as their polling has tended to flatter Nigel Farage in the past. Burnham's team landed the first week then and has offered a pleasing change where Labour's former support are concerned, provided one does not look too closely.

Yet some people are unhappy. Some of them being those people whose services Burnham dispensed with upon entering Downing Street. Starmer got his best press in years as all the tabloids splashed with his relaxed "leaving drinks" at a North London boozer. Putting a brave face on failure, in other words. Others wasted no time briefing their media mates that they're upset and will exact a blood price for being robbed of their ministerial birth rights. Out of the gate first was the recently defenestrated Darren Jones, who criticised Burnham's energy VAT cut as coming from his digital ID card plan ... which was unfunded anyway. What was supposed to be a gotcha moment made Jones look spiteful. And incompetent, seeing as he revealed the project he was managing was but a wing and a prayer.

It's worth noting that there was little to no bellyaching of this character when Starmer made Cabinet an almost entirely right wing affair, purposely carving out those who then had Burnham sympathies. A move that, scant weeks later, caused our former Prime Minister a ripple of embarrassment. Nor is the discontent of the disgruntled likely to make much head way in the medium term. None of them are particularly appealing, have heavily relied on others to do the factionalising for them, and of those among them who engineered Starmer's rise did so not through cunning or manoeuvre but by bare-faced lying.

And why would they want to rock the boat anyway? 379 MPs (95%) of the PLP nominated Burnham as their candidate. Whether motivated by values/policy, career aspirations, or a desire to keep their seat, that's not much for out-of-favour people to work with. Second, we might have had a comms reset. There are new and returning faces around the cabinet table, but politically what Burnham has done has taken Labour back to where the government was before Angela Rayner resigned and Starmer carried out his right wing reshuffle. Yes, he's appointed a couple of Campaign Group MPs to very junior roles, but this is hardly making Leon Trotsky the head of the red army. This is also a government that's just handed the execrable Ian Austin a job. What then is there to be miserable about? Are they upset at the continuity on foreign policy? The continuity on bashing immigration? The continuity of blaming young people for the lack of jobs? I doubt it. The only difference between them and Burnham's team are bruised, overweening egoism, a Blairite fetish for ID cards, and woefully underdeveloped media skills.

This isn't to say opposition won't start emerging in the PLP as disappointment/disillusionment sets in. But what with the policy and agenda and personnel decisions announced so far, a big announcement on sorting out adult/elderly care due this week, a summer tour of Jeremy Corbyn-style public rallies, a welcome and overdue spotlight on Reform's murky finances, and MPs heading off on their holibobs, there's no one around for the out-of-sorts right to listen. And no differences worth stoking a row about. And thanks to their leading positions in the ancien regime, when dissent becomes fashionable again who are going to look at the likes of Steve Reed, Rachel Reeves, and David Lammy and say "Yes! These guys are the answer!"

Andy Burnham in Downing Street

A new dawn has broken has it not? You could be forgiven for thinking these famed words of Tony Blair applies to our shiny new Prime Minister. Outside Downing Street sans the lectern and without the benefit of a crib sheet, Andy Burnham sketched out his plan for his premiership. Tomorrow we're going to see immediate measures to ease the cost of living and set out the direction of travel. Perhaps some of my suggestions might make the cut? This, in due course, is going to be followed by a ten-year plan. But the proverbial rabbit at lunch time was Burnham's pledge on homelessness. Channelling Jeremy Corbyn circa 2019, the first priority will be ending rough sleeping. In short, good speech. Great first impression.

The cabinet appointments were more a mixed affair. Seeing sackings handed out to Rachel Reeves, David Lammy, Liz Kendall, Darren Jones and "resignations" from others, like Steve Reed, were encouraging signs. Unfortunately, that's where the fun ended. Burnham defied the Fleet Street sages who were forecasting Shabana Mahmood in Number 11, and - rabbit number two - out popped John Healey instead. There are several ways the appointment can be interpreted. Unlike Keir Starmer's last reshuffle, that saw all the powerful offices of state filled by empty suits from Blairite central casting, Burnham's cabinet is poised to be more ecumenical in its political colouration. Healey is well-respected across the PLP, so for the operation it's a good "non-factional" pick. Lots of Labour love the military, and his standing wasn't harmed when he resigned as defence secretary over budgetary allocations. The question is what does this mean for the politics? On the one hand, the "surprise" might be suggestive of Burnham wanting a chancellor firmly subordinate to Downing Street. Which is a definite if one is serious about restructuring British capitalism. But on the other, it can suggest continuity. Healey is no stranger to the Treasury and did five years there under Tony Blair. Treasury brain is a thing in British politics, and one that reproduces its institutional pre-eminence in state institutions. Anyone thinking like this is a safe pair of hands as far as the common sense of British commercial and financial capital is concerned.

More continuity is found in keeping Pat McFadden at the DWP and, most disappointingly, Mahmood gets to stay on at the Home Office. Not what you would call a clean break. Making Ed Miliband foreign secretary gives him a big job that's unlikely to get the unhinged right wing press going. Indeed, this move might convince them it was their pressure that kept him out of the Treasury and ejected from from his energy brief. But it opens that up for someone keen to make a splash. At the time of writing, Wes Streeting hasn't been given a job yet. Yvette Cooper has been shuffled over to health, and room has been cleared for a somewhat triumphant return of Louise Haigh, who was punished under the ancien regime for being too independent and settling the Tory-stoked rail dispute relatively promptly. Taking the reins of the Cabinet Office means she will play a central role in Burnham's oft-floated devolution, including the relocation of some of the operation to the promised Number 10 North. Angela Rayner is back in housing, Jonathan Reynolds is at business, and Lucy Powell - this last year Burnham's representative at the top of the party - is in education. Hard lines again to Bridget Phillipson.

Hoping for the best but prepared for the worst is the mindset of many current and former Labour Party people this evening as the appointments news dribbles in. As Burnham said after winning Makerfield, this is his party's one chance to make everything right. Retaining some key Starmer-era figures in position, and a new chancellor famous for wanting more cash for the military points to the status quo that did the last government in. But, commenting earlier, former Blair aide John McTernan rightly argued that what matters are the first actions the new government takes. Starmer had a disastrous start, all of it self-inflicted. On Tuesday Burnham will set out his immediate decisions, and those will point to what kind of government we're getting. They will affirm whether or not the pre-emptive pessimism a lot of people are feeling is warranted.

Image Credit

On Burnham's Blueprint

There was one occasion during Keir Starmer's leadership that I felt a frisson of hope. That was during Gordon Brown's report back on his commission on the UK's constitution. Its devolutionary agenda and programme of, by Labourist standards, radical reforms set out a convincing plan of state modernisation. But because nice things aren't allowed in politics, nearly all of it was decanted into the memory hole. But not before Starmer had publicly endorsed the proposals.

And here we are again. Andy Burnham's speech at the People's Museum was very good. No more pregnant pauses between short sentences for sound bites, no more dead-eyed staring at the camera, no prevarication. From a delivery point of view, Burnham spoke like most people, and came across plainly, coherently and, at times, passionately. Labour MPs versed in the Blair-era school of public speaking would do well to study this speech. Though putting on a Manchester accent might be too much.

What matters most is the content. And as far as making the right signals went, the boxes were duly ticked. Devolution, which was trailed in the pre-speech period, got a strong push. Whitehall obstructionism will vanish as decision-making about economic strategy and education and skills priorities are to be pushed out to the regions. The centrepiece is Number 10 North, a relocation of significant government powers to Manchester. And, for the first time since Harold Wilson, Burnham will not be residing in Downing Street. What didn't get a prior shout out was his commitment to the biggest council house building programme ever. There was "public control" of utilities, and changes to business rates so smaller businesses, above all hospitality wins out. Public procurement will also require mandatory social value tests, so the majority of goods and services purchased by state institutions are sourced from within this country. The Preston model writ large, in other words. In all the talk was good, but does Burnham have the game to match it?

Burnham's "public control" formulation has attracted criticism. The Manchester model rests heavily on the Bee Network, where bus companies remain private and for-profit but operate under a regulated regime. They provide good coverage and regular service, and in exchange they have guaranteed markets supported by the public subsidy of the fare cap. This is what Burnham seems intent on introducing for the utilities. Here there is some Labourist pedigree. In his The Future of Socialism, the classic statement of post-war Labourism, Tony Crosland argued there was no need to make further inroads into private ownership because, effectively, the state had capital on a tight leash. The system worked for them, so why change it? Manchesterism is Croslandism, albeit with localist characteristics. The problem is, as Mathew Lawrence writes in his recent policy piece on the productive state, private capital in foundational parts of the economy run on different cycles of investment and return than state capital. Which makes them inefficient where end users are concerned, and therefore should be nationalised. So while Burnham's Croslandism might work for the relatively small scale of Manchester's bus network, expecting the same for much larger and complex utilities infrastructure might be wishful thinking.

The reluctance to nationalise is not hard to fathom. It's for the same reason that this government and its New Labour predecessor were far from keen - it's the message it sends to capital. Burnham, presumably, would like the inward investment to carry on coming. But far from the animal spirits of capitalist myth, in actuality it's cagey, brittle, and terrified that changes in the overall regime of accumulation will see it underperform or leave it out of pocket. Less Scrappy Doo, more Scooby Doo. Public control sounds good to Labourist audiences, while the refusal to nationalise shows Burnhamism isn't about to make substantive modification to class relations. Also why he continues to stress fealty to the fiscal rules. This is not socialism, it's a typical social democratic compromise with capital.

Second, the Greens criticised Burnham for not mentioning the climate. Which is an omission, given the weather we've just had. By way of a reply, you could say it was there between the lines in the stiff about building resilience and making Britain energy independent. But that is not good enough. Outside of Reform, the Tories, and Facebook oddballs, the vast majority of the public are on board on climate change and understand the need for the green transition. Talking about it openly puts the right at a massive disadvantage, and could consolidate parts of Labour's coalition that Starmer's leadership have frittered away.

The biggest question about this speech is will Burnham actually deliver it? Certainly, he sounds more sincere, and he knows how to fire up those with bits of Labourism left in their souls. But we've had one Labour leader who lied through their teeth as they made their pledges, and then over the years tipped each one into the wheelie bin. Burnham offers a vision, a road map to a reformed state, a better functioning economy, more opportunities and, unusually for a contemporary politician, a kinder future too. If Burnham delivers this plan he will have saved Labour's bacon and can look forward to winning the next election. If he abandons it for whatever reason and defaults back to where we are now, then he, his party, and his brand of politics are done.

Image Credit

Some Friendly Advice for Andy Burnham

Everywhere you turn, there's advice pouring from every media orifice. Indeed, there is a concerted campaign running through unnamed (naturally) Labour MPs, the right wing press, and former military brass saying what Andy Burnham needs to do when he enters Number 10. These boil down to throwing money at the armed forces while stripping social security from the unworthy poor, and under no circumstances must he appoint Ed Miliband as his chancellor. Forgive me for thinking these might be people who don't have the best interests of a Labour government at heart.

As Burnham rightly noted following the Makerfield result, the window he and his party have to make a favourable impression is short. Before announcing anything, we're very much in the vibe zone that precedes the concrete announcements due after he's gone and seen the King. And those vibes are mixed. As we saw, during the by-election Burnham did his very best Keir Starmer impression. And since, news that his old friend James Purnell is moving into Downing Street as his Chief of Staff suggests an office run from the right. As is the persistent rumour that David Miliband (remember him?) will be invited back as foreign secretary. For those hoping for a soft left administration, the rumours concerning the other Miliband have gone unscotched, there's the committent to moving more of Whitehall out to the regions, and Burnham has retained his pledge to donate 15% of his salary to worthy causes. This time in his constituency.

Evidently, even with these in play the weight of previous pronouncements and appointments are pointing to continuity with the trajectory Starmer and his helpers were taking the party on. Not good. There is a social democratic, socially liberal majority in this country, and that is only getting larger as business-as-usual fails to deliver. If Labour doesn't respond to it, that support won't give a Burnham premiership a second look as it goes off to vote for the Greens or prefers the despondency of abstention. And we know who benefits from that.

To begin putting Labour's coalition back together there are some things the new PM can do very quickly to avoid the ghastly, unforced idiocies Starmer's government inflicted on themselves. These would reassure Labour's current and potential future coalition that the party is on their side.

1. Go green. Obviously, appoint Ed Miliband to Number 11. That alone would win back a layer of former Labour support. It also assures many more that the green transition and tackling inequality is at the core of the new government's economic strategy. There are two other parts to this. The first is decoupling energy prices from gas. The best way to counter the rubbish Reform, Tories, and the press push about net zero is for punters to feel the benefits of renewables in their pockets. Second, take up the People' Emergency Briefing call for a Covid-style televised government briefing. The urgency after a week of extreme heat is there, Labour have a very good story to tell about the green transition, and straight away it seizes the politics agenda from a right set on spending the summer stoking more racist riots.

2. Sack Shabana Mahmood. In recent days she has announced new safe routes for refugees as, apparently, a concession to the PLP. Meanwhile, the rest of her Reform-lite proposals remain intact. A great deal pain for those at its sharp end, with no electoral dividend in exchange. Her rules should be scrapped.

3. A government can't stay on the front foot forever, but it has significant advantages where it comes to setting the news agenda. At the beginning of every week Burnham should have a live, televised press conference announcing a particular policy or reporting on some achievement. The complaint is often made that the decent policies Labour have implemented are symptomatic of bad comms. I think the political reason is more about not wanting to raise aspirations and avoiding media flak. As this is Labour's final drink in the last chance saloon, something more decisive is required.

4. Speaking of the media, ensuring that Ofcom impartiality rules are enforced on broadcast journalism. No more editorialising by BBC journalists. No more free passes for GB News. And while they're at it, no more turning of the cheek to Elon Musk. Take all government departments off Twitter.

Do these herald a socialist dawn? No, don't be ridiculous. These are, however, the sort of quick wins Labour should take to begin the reconsolidation of the support the outgoing leadership have spent six years jettisoning. They are a start, would build back the hinterland Labour in the country needs if it's going to undertake the necessary structural reforms, and rob the right of their political initiative. If what we get is sort of in this ballpark, then Burnham's premiership might last. If not, you don't need me to spell out the consequences.

Image Credit

A See Ya to Keir

I felt many emotions seeing Keir Starmer announce his resignation outside Downing Street on Monday morning. Not one of them was sympathy. For those who've spent the day celebrating the Prime Minister, demanding we respect the human frailties of a hard-done-to public servant, of Starmer's cracking voice as he struggled through the last few lines of his speech, there's a straightforward reply. Where was his respect and sympathy for the protestors ruthlessly designated as terrorists, for the refugees and trans people he's kicked up and down the country like political footballs, for the disabled people he terrified by threatening them with destitution, with the Palestinians whose genocide he abetted and publicly justified?

It's funny how tributes to Starmer studiously avoid all mention of these things. That offered by George Eaton typifies the trend. This Labour government is "surprisingly left wing" but is never "identified as such", framing the failure of Starmer as a matter of comms. As if left wing politics is about tractor production figures, and not challenging class power and expanding the realm of human freedom. Something that even post-war Labourism in its finest hours did. For every watered-down gain in workplace rights can be opposed by Starmer's chilling and dangerous clampdowns on collective liberties and personal autonomy. A legacy to be repudiated and undone to be sure.

Authoritarianism is just one thing Starmer will be remembered for. The other is his dishonesty. Boris Johnson was left holding Keir's beer has he brazenly lied throughout his time as leader. It began when Starmer unveiled the policy pledges that won him Labour's leadership, and then spent the next few years disowning every single one. No one, not even a Tory leader has so gracelessly abandoned the platform that got them into office. The signs were there early on, and some were sharp enough to draw the right conclusions. The two obvious ones were his refusal to come clean about his main donors during the leadership campaign who, quelle surprise, turned out to be wealthy businessmen. And his first foray into criticising the Tories over their Covid crisis management showed whose side Starmer was on. Weak, pathetic, and arguably peddled in bad faith, it was a studied effort in refraining from upsetting the apple cart. These proved to be the touchstones how Starmer would conduct himself in high office. Thanks to a combination of meticulous journalism and arrogant boasting, we have a good idea of the extent to which the people behind Starmer defamed and harassed critics, and manipulated outcomes with the full support and connivance of British politics journalism.

There is one aspect of politics Starmer did prove rather good at. That was the neutralisation and dispersal of Labour's solid bloc of left wing votes. It's no word of exaggeration that large sections of official politics lost their minds after Jeremy Corbyn's better-than-forecast performance in 2017, and even after 2019, 10-and-a-quarter million votes for a left programme were far too many. Starmer's tenure can be read as a ceaseless effort to take the coalition assembled by Corbyn and unpick it. Every abandonment of Starmer's socialist-sounding pledges, every betrayal, funnelled the official politics of opposition into narrower and narrower channels. With each one came despondency, of a layer here, a layer there falling away. The big break, of course, was Starmer's unqualified support for Israel's genocide against the Palestinian people. From opposition he cheered it on, and large chunks of Muslim and progressive opinion decisively broke with Labour. This culminated in a miserably thin manifesto, dubbed Change, that promised anything but, and Labour got the result it got. Fewer votes than Corbyn's Labour at its most damaged and self-sabotaging, and as with all governments the only way was down. Helped by Starmer going after pensioners' winter fuel payments from the off, making summer speeches about more pain to come, and then vigorously defending his right to the perks of office. Labour's coalition continued flaking, and now thanks to Starmer's arrogance and straightforward commitment to the authoritarian class politics of capital, the party for the first time faces a viable challenger to its left.

Those are the reasons why Starmer has folded. He lost the confidence of his colleagues because his ruination of Labour's vote means many members of the PLP were set on being one-term wonders. Who could have known that a strategy for dispersing your party's support would ... disperse your party's support? If Starmer is lucky, he'll only be remembered as the most dishonest and authoritarian PM in British political history. Because if the damage done cannot be repaired by his successor(s), Starmer's entry in the history books will be as the man who killed Labour.

Image Credit

Labour after Makerfield

Belated congratulations to Andy Burnham. As Simon rightly observes, Makerfield was an extraordinary by-election result. An increase in the size of the incumbent governing party's majority barely a month after Reform stomped over the constituency and won over 50% in the local elections. An exercise in solidifying a social democratic majority behind a Labour Party that has spent the last six years stymieing Labourist aspirations, pushing against working class interests, and doing its damnedest to disperse it as an electoral bloc. It also defied all expectations that forecast a tight contest, if not a defeat for Burnham. In the end, Labour won an absolute majority on an increased turnout. Most of those who turned up and voted knew what the stakes were and responded by sending back someone down to Parliament pledged to resolve them.

Extraordinary results require extraordinary circumstances. That was the real story of Makerfield. The local and regional party understood this was less about the label and more about the name. Andy for Us said all the posters. Keir Starmer stayed away, but he was very much present as a ghastly shade to be exorcised. The Burnham campaign were the plucky insurgents versus a clueless, careless Westminster. "Are you voting for Andy?" was the scripted canvassing question Labour supporters took to the doorstep, putting distance between him, his personality and standing, and the embarrassments of government. Burnham's political weight isn't thanks to his charisma, which he has in bucket loads compared with the voids around the cabinet's table, but his record. Once again demonstrating that political science isn't rocket science, ensuring the little things are seen to be done and are felt to be done is the root of Burnham's popularity. Riding subsidised, reliable buses into the city centre one can see the new wealth flowing into Manchester. The optics of 21st century Labourism are cranes dotting the skyline, the continued vibrancy of the city as a leisure destination and cultural capital, and getting the homeless off the streets and into accommodation. In reality, Burnham's much touted Manchesterism is a vibe consisting of localist Croslandism, a property boom, and frequently declared intentions to help the most vulnerable. But for enough Mancunians this is enough. Being seen to be successful and cultivating an impression that Andy is on their side won Burnham the seat.

To be fair to Makerfield's new honourable member, Burnham's two victory speeches, at the count and Friday's rally, show an understanding of the hows and whys of his win. His message about Makerfield being typical of London's neglect of the north is consistent with past positions. Most famously his populist and popular show downs with Boris Johnson on Covid restrictions. But the real rub is the emphasis he placed, in both speeches, on this by-election victory being his - and Labour's - last chance. Surely, Burnham must be aware that rowing back from his soft left persona in the opening weeks of the campaign is pregnant with the potential of political ruin, as a slippage in his approval rating attests. Burnham talks a good game with frequent verbal broadsides against trickle down economics and 40 years of Thatcherite abandonment. But will his actions match the impressions he's spent the last five weeks encouraging?

That depends on which Andy Burnham turns up on Number 10's doorstep, or puts a showing in should Starmer and/or others insist on a summer-long leadership contest. If Burnham is to thrive, if Labour is to survive, it means - incredibly - taking its cue from Lisa Nandy. "The era of centrist governments are over", she apparently declared at the Makerfield count. She's right. Labour's salvation lies in understanding its voter base, its coalition, and acting accordingly. Labour must marginalise its right wing, who are supplicants to the tech and finance oligarchies. And the party must learn how to think again. Makerfield spoke on behalf of this country's social democratic majority. They know "their" government can't work miracles, they're not expecting loaves and fishes, but they do expect to have a sense that it has their backs. That Labour politicians care about the people who put them there. They expect Labour to work toward building a better life for everyone, not just for a few MPs and advisors at the top of the party tree, and the rich people who pay for them. This is the instruction the electorate have issued to Andy Burnham. He, and the party, would do well to heed it. Otherwise ruin awaits.

Image Credit

Authoritarian Babyism

If you're lucky to be under the age of 16, congratulations! You will still be allowed to access this site from April next year. But if you want to watch more or less identical content on YouTube or TikTok, or the Prime Minister announcing decisions about your future, tough. If you're 16 or 17, you can join the army, pay tax, and (soon) vote, but hanging out with your favourite cool politics people on Bluesky after half eight at night is verboten. Once again, the government are proving that stupidity is the flip side of authoritarianism.

Keir Starmer admits that his mooted social media ban is doomed to fail. It won't prevent teenagers from accessing their favourite platforms, but it will stop some of the harms some of the time. Meanwhile in Australia, which is the Labour right's favourite model for how politics should be done, 60% of young people affected by their identical ban have found workarounds through VPNs or hanging out in quiet or obsolete corners of the internet beyond the ken of the IT police.

What damns Starmer's stunt in its own terms is that it goes against the evidence presented by the government's survey. The data says that social media can make young people anxious and more worried about what other people think about them, but across the 10-21 age range much higher numbers are given for the statements 'social media makes me feel included' and 'social media helps me feel connected to other people'. In the government's consultation exercise, 72% of young people themselves said they were worried they would miss out if restrictions were introduced. Ian Russell of the Molly Russell Foundation, set up after his daughter took her life after long exposure to algorithmically-pushed self-harming content, rightly said that a blanket ban is a cop out because it avoids forcing social media outfits to comply with British laws. Which, as we've seen with the government's attitude to far right and loyalist violence and their use of Twitter and Facebook to organise, looks very much like a pattern of behaviour rather than a coincidence.

Since Starmer came to office, it's incredible to think he's fronted a government even more authoritarian than the frequent outrages Boris Johnson committed against constitutionalism, the right to assembly, and freedom of speech. This ban is just another big man flex, thinking it will curry favour with parents for whom the internet and social media is a constant worry. Despite many of them growing up in the Wild West years of MSN and Yahoo Messenger, the first flush of internet dating, photo sharing, and ubiquitous pornography. And just like the Democrats' enthusiasm for banishing TikTok from the phones of US teenagers, social media is the primary means by which young people now get their news. Curtailing their access to their trusted news sources makes the management of information flows easier for government spinners. The perceived political benefits are not excluded from their equations.

But also, it speaks to another concerning turn. It is normal for teenagers to push against limits, break the rules, and occasionally thumb their nose at the law. By his own admission, Starmer said he "enjoyed a good time while at university" when asked about drug-related indiscretions. This state mandated coddling, at a time when crime in Britain has fallen off a cliff and, arguably, young people as so-called digital natives have never been so connected to each other through webs of weak ties, is utterly unnecessary. Starmer and Labour are cracking down on the freedoms of young people, and not the far right, nor white supremacist billionaires, precisely because no oligarchical interests will be harmed in doing so.

On Cowardice

Another night of rioting, this time culminating in the burning out of African immigrants from a Loyalist area of Belfast. This was called for by Tommy Robinson, amplified by Elon Musk, and backed by Rupert Lowe's Restore. And what is the British government's response? Exactly the same as the Southampton rampage. Hand-wringing, pious words, and a pitiful attempt to shame the far right into behaving decently. Yes, arrests were made and rioters got banged up, and the same will happen to some involved in the Belfast unrest. But the political response is weak. Keir Starmer is treating the rioters like so many criminal damage cases, while the instigators don't just continue to walk free, their call for race war on Britain's streets goes unchallenged.

Why? Once, I was willing to give Starmer and his government the benefit of the doubt. He's a bureaucrat, not a politician. He hasn't got the skills to articulate the politics of where most people are on racist violence. He is afraid of putting off the (mythical) voters Labour has lost to Reform. Yet, still, no robust push back against increasingly audacious fascist provocations. Even as Elon Musk and, effectively, his employee use their social media platforms to organise and mobilise. The government's sleeping at the wheel, under these circumstances, has to be something more than incompetence and complacency. It's stretching credulity to suggest their refusal to act on Twitter is because they think it's a valuable news outlet used by millions of people.

Politics is always a struggle between interests, and this is where the government's paralysis lies. It works at two levels. Starmer will not take action against "X" because doing so would jeopardise the special relationship. I.e. The military and economic dependence of the British state and the British ruling class on the United States, which finds itself variously expressed in Farage's fondness for Trump, Lowe's bootlicking of Musk, the myriad connections that once existed between the Tories and the GOP, and not forgetting Labour's Atlanticism and its cringing love for Clinton, Obama, and The West Wing. Papa Trump must therefore be appeased. Related to this are the flows of techbro investment coming in to the country. The system of tax breaks and guaranteed markets Britain's public services offer their wares are nice opportunities, but from Labour's point of view action against Musk's interests might frighten Silicon Valley off. Especially as its luminaries are billionaire oligarchs and have the arrogant, far right class conscious politics to match. And for leading Labour politicians themselves, as noted before, taking on the interests of big capital is unlikely to do much for one's post-politics career. Especially if they see Nick Clegg and, ahem, Peter Mandelson as their models.

In the end, the mystery of Labour's failure to take the far right on politically isn't a puzzle at all. Their cowardice has material roots. It's the class politics. It's always the class politics.

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

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

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

Labour's Political Paralysis

Following Labour's drubbing across Britain, we were told Keir Starmer was about to make the speech of his political life. The stakes had been raised as Catherine West of Catherine West fame did the rounds on Sunday saying she was going to challenge him if the cabinet didn't come together and pass the baton on to someone else. The Prime Minister needed to impress jittery MPs and signal a change of direction. The inside politics gossip faithfully transmitted by BBC and Sky stenographers told us that Starmer was impatient and wanted to abandon incremental change. Was he about to break with six years of plodding leadership and strike out on a new, exciting path?

No, of course he wasn't. His talk may have been a touch more spirited than other recent set pieces. He wasn't wearing a tie, after all. But there was nothing new here. Having watched more of these than most people, it was a classic of the Starmer genre. A few genuflections to his humble origins, and a re-announcement of policies already coming down the pipe. Scunthorpe steel works is going to get nationalised, subject to a "public interest test", and that will be in the King's speech on Wednesday. Nodding to John Major speeches of 30 years vintage, Starmer said his government would put "Britain at the heart of Europe". A bit of rhetorical red meat for unrepentant remainers, but in practice this is merely the return of Erasmus plus a mobility/work scheme for young people. And third there are to be more apprenticeships and guaranteed jobs so youngsters can start building their futures. He said he understood the frustrations of people who've experienced nothing but shocks and price hikes since 2008, he talked about keeping Britain out of active involvement in the war on Iran, how bad Brexit has been, and he made disparaging remarks about Nigel Farage. And that was it. Nothing to address the problems he outlined. No change in direction. And for all his fulminations against a broken status quo, this stall was retailing more of the same.

Yet, it appeared to see off the immediate danger of a challenge. West pulled back from casting herself as a stalking horse and instead would busy herself gathering names so that a new leader can be in post by September. A gambit, by itself, unlikely to succeed. Meanwhile, speaking at the CWU's conference Angela Rayner said we can't go on like this, and lamented the opportunity lost when Starmer blocked Andy Burnham from standing in Gorton and Denton. The afternoon has been a drip, drip of unimpressed Labour MPs making their views known. Joining Chris Curtis and Josh Simons, who'd already broken cover before the speech, were Blackpool's Lorraine Beavers and Newcastle's Catherine McKinnell, and then on Monday evening four junior ministers packed it in: Tom Rutland has resigned his environmental brief, Wes Streeting's bag carrier Joe Morris is gone, the Cabinet Office's Naushabah Khan said the party "needs a change on direction", and David Lammy aide Melanie Ward said the public's verdict last week "was clear". Additionally, Shabana Mahmood's coffer bringer Sally Jameson has called on Starmer to go. As of the very moment of writing, 75 MPs want a new leader.

The issue is whether this is what MPs in general want. It was notable that remnants of the Campaign Group were trying to talk West down from her challenge because they want time to get Burnham back into the Commons. A Streeting premiership is to be avoided at all costs. But also, no one in the cabinet at the moment is willing to go out on a limb. Presumably because their favoured successor is ill=prepared, or because the general mood among the PLP is against a contest, they're all being terribly loyal and sticking on-message. It's worth noting that most who've expressed their views and want Starmer gone are a mix of the usuals and MPs early in their careers.

Part of the paralysis is thanks to the limited range of possible successors. The Streeting vs Burnham/Raynor tale has narrowed minds as it has narrowed options, so there's little to no thought about skipping a generation. Al Carns is occasionally mentioned, but this has more to do with Labour's love for military machismo than whatever his other qualities might be. There are a range of capable others who are unlikely to get a look-in. Off the top of my head, Louise Haigh, Rosena Allin-Khan, and Sarah Owen possess soft left politics, have variously fallen foul of Morgan McSweeney's boys' club, are fresh faces where the public are concerned, and are considerably more dynamic than Starmer and the other "big beasts". The PLP might be short on talent, but there are some who are consistently overlooked.

Whatever the eventual leadership contest looks like, we're in the awkward position that Starmer is finished as far as the country is concerned. He spent the last six years disassembling Labour's coalition of voters and he and his allies appear genuinely shocked that they won't now pay fealty to his party. However, for reasons of convenience, cowardice, and careerism, the bulk of the PLP are reluctant to move on right now. And that could mean we're lumbered with the Prime Minister for a while longer yet.

Edit Obviously, the two minutes this post was up has tipped the scales. According to the BBC's Chris Mason, Shabana Mahmood and others have urged Starmer to lay out a timetable for his resignation. The lesson? On an active news day, never, never post commentary about it until the lead in to the 10 o'clock news is over.

Image Credit

A Reform Victory is Far From Inevitable

What a catastrophic set of election results for Labour. In Scotland, Anas Sarwar's branch office took a bold step backwards as support fell to 17 seats on 19% of the constituency and 16% of the list vote, breaking through the floor he sat at the 2021 elections. The electorate sealed their verdict on his miserable performance by voting him out of his Cathcart and Pollok seat, but thanks to the list system he'll be back when Holyrood reconvenes. Likewise in Wales, Labour smashed its terribly low expectations with a plunge from 29 seats to just nine, losing two-thirds of its vote and also consigning its leader, the hapless First Minister Eluned Morgan, to the political dustbin.

Labour's devolved government woes overshadowed a disastrous night for the Tories too. They went from 31 seats to 12 in Scotland, and from 16 to 7 in Wales. A fraction under 12% and 11% respectively, they look increasingly like an utterly spent force. Unfortunately, that's because a great deal of unionist energy is now stored in Reform's political batteries. On 34 seats and 29% of the vote, they are the second largest party after Plaid Cymru and will be the opposition, as well as the standard bearer for continuing the union in Wales. In Scotland they are tied with Labour on 17 seats, thanks primarily to the list system. Here it too is the ascendant voice of unionism, making the link between the preservation of the UK state and right wing extremism something the socially liberal SNP are sure to exploit.

Likewise, in England it was a pitiful night for Labour. Keir Starmer achieved its worst result in English local elections since it became a party of government. The low of 1,300 councillors lost by Jim Callaghan in 1976 was surpassed as Labour gave up 1,496 seats. The party relinquished control of 38 councils, and scored a projected vote share of 17%. No wonder more Labour MPs are finally breaking cover and calling on the Prime Minister to go without waiting for the would-be successors to get all their ducks in a row. As forecast by sundry pundits, councils in the north tumbled in Reform's favour, while right on cue a clutch of London councils fell to the Greens, along with two directly-elected mayoralties.

Though you wouldn't know it from Kemi Badenoch's upbeat countenance, the Tories' performance in England almost matched the Scottish and Welsh disasters. 563 fewer councillors will be paying in tithes to their local Conservative group. Still not convinced that this once-mighty party is in long-term decline?

It was, again, Reform's night. A projected 26% of the vote and 1,451 new councillors puts them head and shoulders above the other parties and, thanks to the dysfunctional verities of first-past-the-post, would get them close to an overall majority if this was repeated at a general election. 14 more councils fall under their sway, and undoubtedly deals will be done in other local authorities that will see them govern in coalition with others, such as Tories and/or localist independents. There is no cordon sanitaire in British politics! The Greens inched ahead of Labour and took second place, with a projected 18%, 441 more councillors and five councils - again more or less matching forecast expectations and turning in the party's biggest ever win.

So much for the new state of play, but what about the underlying politics? John Curtice's position, that a decline on last year's vote share would represent a stalling of Reform's chances, regardless of how many councillors they picked up, was borne out on Thursday. Their share is down four points on the 2025 elections. But taking differential turnout into the equation, it's possible these results flatter Reform's level of support if a general election was to be held imminently. Which, of course, is not going to happen.

To restate the argument, polls consistently show that Reform, like the Tories, are demographically dependent on older people for their support. There are several reasons for this. This matters because it is well known older voters and particularly the retired are more likely to fill out their postal ballots or turn up at the polling station than the bulk of working age people. Therefore, the right has an important advantage going into elections. By way of an example, if retired people has stayed at home on EU referendum day a decade ago then Remain would have won. Where second order elections are concerned, most voters believe these "matter less" than general elections. Turnout goes down across the board, but the reduction is disproportionately greater for younger cohorts, strengthening the advantage of the right.

In Reform's case, its 29% in Wales and 15.8%/16.6% tally in Scotland are likely to overstate their real level of support vis a vis a general election. Ditto for England's projected 26%. And yet that figure is roughly in line with what pollsters report from their balanced samples. Does this suggest differential turnout is a mirage? Polls are always models and are, at best, only indicative. They are trumped by votes cast and, arguably, the analysis of those votes. Second, pollsters know this themselves which is why numbers given are caveated by margins of error. Dealing with the effects of differential turnout, I would suggest that the reversion from the right's second order election advantage to the weaker one it enjoys at general elections could reduce the Reform (and the Tory) score by two to three points as other cohorts turn up to vote. Not a massive amount, but one that matters when politics is this close run.

For the same reasons, there is a strong case that in England, perhaps less so in Scotland and Wales thanks to the SNP and Plaid Cymru, the Greens' 18% is an underestimate of where the party actually is. To have scored so highly, outperforming Labour (who suffer a similar disadvantage) and the Tories (who don't) is all the more remarkable considering the Greens' working age/young base is comparatively less likely to show up. A confirmation that Zack Polanski's Green-left populism is the right strategy for the right time.

Obviously, this comes with further caveats. Above all, geographical variation. Reform's 29% in Wales suggests the party is proportionately stronger there than elsewhere. Though looking at it from a right bloc/liberal-left bloc perspective, it's a 41%/58% division, which is wider than the same 43%/51% division for the English local elections (the untidy splits denote independents/others). Seat variation also matters. Bradford, for instance, saw Reform take 23 seats on 26%, but the Greens just seven on 22%. Nevertheless, the direction is clear. We, rightly, hear concerns about the danger from the right, the damage they do, and the atavisms they enable. They could win an election. But the numbers and the political direction shows greater numbers and the greater potential for mobilisation to their left. Reform and the right can be defeated. They are not inevitable.

Image Credit

Wallowing in the Gutter

"Today we announce a new policy." These were the words Zia Yusuf used to introduce Reform's intention to set up networks of "detention centres" for deporting tens of thousands of people at a time. Their precious promise? To ensure none are situated in constituencies with Reform MPs or local authorities run by the party. They will, by and large, be placed where there are Green councils or Green MPs. In doing so, Yusuf was able to win the attention wars for the morning of Bank Holiday Monday in the most repugnant way possible.

There is a mass market for political thuggery, but that market doesn't extend beyond the 15-20% of the electorate that are the party's base. And it might give its softer "I'm not racist, but ..." some pause ... before they vote for Reform anyway. It does, however, limit their appeal beyond this. Strategically speaking, ahead of a set of local elections that look poor for the Tories and cataclysmic for Labour, it might be read as a call to turn out their supporters. A bit of racism, plus a poke in the eye for clueless middle class do-gooders that don't live with the consequences of mass migration. This is the vibe Reform are trying to ride. The problem they could encounter here is boosting the support for the Greens, which already has had some success with the "it's us or Reform" framing. Of course, Reform know this too. They've reasoned that in places not like Gorton and Denton, left wing politics and defending migration is much less palatable than themselves, and will put disaffected centre-leaning voters off from lending them their support. A strategy Reform thinks could cement divisions on the broader left they can capitalise on. We will see.

Reform are also teeing up for another summer of shouting loudly about immigration. Improving conditions in the Channel means more small boat crossings, and with it another round of tabloid hysteria. Months of right wing efforts at re-stoking the 2024 summer riots lie ahead. Unfortunately for Reform, and for everybody else, the cost-of-living crisis is to spike as the American/Israeli stand off with Iran remains unresolved. This, not Labour "getting tough" on immigration, is why immigration has fallen down priority list. And because the Gulf isn't about to sort itself out, and is looking more fraught at the time of writing, it's not likely another round of scaremongering is going to work as a distraction from a crisis cooked up between Washington and Tel Aviv. And that's a problem for Reform, because they have nothing that can address this crisis and, as Keir Starmer mentions every time he's near a TV camera, Farage wanted the UK to back the US-Israeli war on Iran in the first place.

Reform has plumbed new depths for British politics. A reminder to Labour's clever, clever strategists that it can never out-right wing an extreme right wing party on race and immigration. But, like the Tories before them with their awful Rwanda deportation plan, Labour have stirred the pot by scapegoating refugees and refusing to challenge the lies put out by the press, cultivating an inchoate, atomised, reactionary mob who find embers of collectivity and connection through spite and by punching downward. Who'd have thought jabbing an endless river of toxins into politics might have resulted in something entirely malignant that, in turn, threatens to consume them. They made this politics possible, and I might have said serves them right. If the results of their poison didn't threaten us all.

Image Credit

Stuck with Starmer

Another week has rolled by and Keir Starmer is still Prime Minister. The Peter Mandelson affair grinds on, with a vote of inquiry into whether Starmer misled the Commons has been tabled by the Tories, and now ministers will spend their Monday evening ringing round the PLP to ensure they vote the right way. And the overwhelming majority of them will. After all this parliamentary party has happily voted for cuts to disability payments, so they're unlikely to find fault with the administrative procedures surrounding the affair. Tuesday also brings us Morgan McSweeney's appearance before the Foreign Affairs Committee, which may entail more squirming and discomfiture. All of which is about muddying Starmer's responsibility for appointing Mandelson in the first place.

You've got to ask how much longer can the farce of this premiership stagger on for. Over the weekend, Starmer said the next election would be between Labour and Reform and he's the man to lead that campaign. He went on to say that the "patriotic values of tolerance, decency, live and let live, diversity, are under challenge like we’ve never seen before." He should know,. His government is at the forefront of stirring the pot.

Unfortunately, Starmer's manifest unsuitability and dishonesty is something Labour are stuck with. Such are the consequences of the party's Faustian pact with the Mandelson-led, and City-funded coterie who Starmer played front man for. The election victory was brought at the price of stripping the party of the remnants of its social democratic soul, and now all the electorate can see is something abominable. A veritable picture of Dorian Gray without the witty prose. The question about who would replace Starmer is as unresolved now as it was when the NEC blocked Andy Burnham from standing in Gorton and Denton. MPs, despairing at Starmer, are now apparently warming to the King of the North's seizing the Iron Throne. Yet the path back remains as convoluted as ever. Meanwhile, Wes Streeting is still damaged goods because of his Mandelson associations and oligarch-friendly politics. And Angela Rayner is still waiting for her tax issues to go away. Matters are so bad that Ed Miliband's name continues to float around the lobby gossip columns.

I'm almost reminded of that weird moment in British politics when Theresa May's position had completely disintegrated but, at the same time, because none of her rivals wanted to inherit the tough job of negotiating a Brexit deal and selling it to a deeply divided Tory party, she was afforded a strange but time-limited autonomy independent of the warring factions. A very weak sort of Bonapartism. But I said almost reminded. In all essentials, Starmer and his possible successors are on the same page politically. Streeting offers no change at all, the same dead-eyed joyless politics that treat the interests of the rich as sacrosanct. Rayner and Burnham offer more character and less racism, but that's their lot. Most of the PLP and ever-so-wise commentators think change means dumping Starmer and getting someone else in, but this just isn't going to cut it. Nothing less than a political turn around and a complete reinvention in office will do, but with these heirs apparent and this PLP? It's would be a kindness to book them into a Swiss clinic now.

Image Credit

Bureaucratic Theatre

Last weekend, I almost wrote about how Keir Starmer was looking safe despite the coming catastrophe of losing Wales and getting wiped out in the English local government. That was before the toxicity surrounding Peter Mandelson's appointment resurfaced. Presenting like the Spanish Inquisition, from nowhere we learned that Starmer wasn't told that the former US ambassador had failed his security vetting in January 2025 and that the Foreign Office cleared Mandelson anyway. Olly Robbins, the civil servant in charge, was promptly sacked when Starmer found out. There has since followed a who-knew-what-when game involving confected and performative frothing over procedural matters, and an effort to absolve the Prime Minister of all responsibility.

In the Commons on Monday, Starmer apologised for appointing Mandelson. But then spent the next half hour recounting the timeline. He was adamant that he wasn't told about the outcome of the security check which, rather stupidly, was undertaken only after the announcement of the appointment. This has now been changed. The problem being, and for which Starmer has not provided an answer, is that The Indy ran a lead story on the checking's failure last September and had contacted Downing Street about it. Starmer side-stepped the this question from Kemi Badenoch, hiding behind the "all process was followed" excuse. Even if this was true, didn't this query involve further discussion in Number 10 at the time? It's difficult to believe this did not reach the ears of certain senior people.

Whatever the ins and outs of process, no one is likely to believe Starmer apart from those who want to. Easily Boris Johnson's equal when it comes to matters of the truth, Starmer's leadership is so fully compromised by an economy with the actualite that everything he says should come with a warning and a lengthy fact check. His strategy to come out fighting is all about burying the problem in boring procedure to avoid blame. Reams and reams of articles going over the prescribed way of doing things and making it look like a dysfunction of arcane Whitehall machinery. This, however, is nothing but a shield. Starmer knew who Mandelson was, his history and record, his disgraces, and his close friendships with billionaires, above all convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Starmer wasn't to know about Mandelson's treachery, but there was plenty of other things that suggested giving him the top ambassador's job was stupid. And he was appointed anyway, following Mandelson apparently lobbying Morgan McSweeney for the post and as reward for services rendered. Despite Starmer's insincere apology, he's never proffered an explanation for employing him in the first place. Because he hasn't got an acceptable answer, hence why we're getting treated to the unique tedium of Starmer's bureaucratic theatre.

Image Credit

Angela Rayner's Alternative

As everyone knows, last week it was Angela Rayner's turn to upset Labour's apple cart. And it was all going so well. Her speech has been extensively reported and commented on, and there's not much that needs adding. Rayner's positioning for the inevitable leadership putsch following the locals! She's venting the frustrations of the grassroots! She's angling for a cabinet return once HMRC have pronounced on her tax affairs! She's reminding us that she exists! All of these positions were argued out in sundry outlets, and all of them are true.

As for the content of her speech to Mainstream, there's not much the average Labour member, or MP for that matter, would find disagreeable. Among Rayner's remarks was a worry that the party and the movement was facing a terminal crisis, "... we cannot go through the motions in the face of decline. We are running out of time." She's right. The traditionally myopic parliamentary party has not failed to notice the surging Greens and how Labour regularly trails them in surveys by two pollsters, but this just reaffirms the hostility canvassers are getting on punters' doorsteps, the diminishing band of volunteers up for this, the rapid emptying out of constituency meetings, and the feeble performance in council by-elections. What she doesn't mention, naturally, is her own role in overseeing the process that has hollowed out the party and pruned its roots.

Still, there was something quite significant that she said. Arguing against the ever-rightward push on immigration, she said that Shabana Mahmood's policies were "un-British" because of their unfairness that amounted to moving the goalposts. They were "not just bad policy but a breach of trust". Rayner could have gone a step further on from liberal moralism and noted how they were bad politics as well, but perhaps that would have been too much of an open challenge at this stage. Nevertheless, everyone got the message.

Including other Labour MPs. One nameless interlocutor said "The public support for what Shabana is doing is enormous, it’s probably the most popular thing the government is doing." Except it's not. Labour have thoroughly imbibed the politics of cruelty while driving immigration figures down. And the thanks they get for this? None whatsoever. Nothing Labour can do, nothing in Mahmood's programme of grinding refugees into the dirt can win over the "very real concerns" brigade of Reform voters. But what it can do, and is doing, is alienating further Labour's support on the left and in the centre. You know, the latter being where elections are won - at least according to the gospel of St Tony. Rayner, thanks to coming up through the trade union movement, understands better than cabinet yuppies that this doesn't play with the class she came from. Social conservatism is actually about defending and bettering the life chances of working class people, something one of Blue Labour's paragons affects to understand, but mysteriously, somehow, always provides an excuse for a very middle class racism, delivered at a remove by the boot of the state. Something too many Labour minister relish the chance doing, as long as they can pin the blame for this on "it's what the voters want".

However, word is abroad in Westminster circles that Mahmood is far from happy with these criticisms, and has said she'll quit if her attack on refugees and immigrants is diluted by Starmer. The latter's shifting mood is, apparently, not only because of Rayner's intervention but the realisation that the party might need those left and centrist voters after all.

In truth, given the US/Israeli attack on Iran and the inevitable consequences of retaliation and escalations - oil, gas, and fertiliser shortages, galloping energy prices, this all seems like a ridiculous sideshow. It's telling that having taken place more than a week after the beginning of the war, Rayner's speech did not reflect on it nor its impact in any meaningful way. And here is Rayner's problem. Yes, she is savvier than most of her (former) cabinet colleagues. Yes, she has a better understanding of the shape and sociology of Labour's support. But, apart from less overt racism, what is she offering apart from alternative vibes? Remember, Rayner was happy to ditch the left when it was politic to do so. She sat back as the Labour right gutted the party of its actual, living links to working class people, and even kept quiet when they systematically barred her allies in Manchester and the North West from selection. Rayner is a snappy, charming speaker and a charismatic figure, but politicians whose actions have contributed to a crisis rarely prove to be the ones capable of solving it.

Image Credit

Labourism and Social Conservatism

"Social conservatism has always been part of Labour!", so wrote Connor Naismith last week. Seeing that Labour suffered humiliation in Manchester, he argues that there are "voices" who are laying the blame for the defeat on Blue Labour. "Traditional values", they say, need junking if Labour is going to dust itself off and return to winning ways. As a self-identifying supporter of this trend, Naismith has gone into print to defend it.

There are two parts to his argument. Firstly, social conservatism is embedded in Labourism. The party's forward march and its reformist zeal was driven by the need to protect what he calls "the moral economy". That is taking home a wage enough for a family to live on, the sustenance of "communal discipline" (i.e. solidarity), and localism. Social conservatism is social glue, and every radical programme needs that if it's going to succeed. Speaking of the 1945 Labour government, he says "They built the NHS and the welfare state not to dismantle the British way of life, but to fortify it. They were radical in their means because they were conservative in their ends: the health, dignity, and stability of British families."

Therefore, purging social conservatism is like amputating a limb. Labour and Labourism are radical because they are conservative. Social conservatism respects people where they are, imbues places with meaning, and gives relationships substance. It is a rooted politics based in the every day, and one aimed at preserving what is good while making things better. Labour would be foolish to abandon anyone who aspires to such.

The second part of his argument is why Labour in such a state. Naismith says that Labour has abandoned its vote. The breaking of the so-called red wall " ... was because gradually, over decades, the party’s centre of gravity shifted toward a metropolitan liberalism that felt increasingly judgemental of parts of the tradition that founded it." What does this actually mean? In British politics discourse the term "metropolitan liberalism" has distinct connotations. It's right wing shorthand for "things we don't like", such as equal rights and affording racial and sexual minorities recognition and respect. I don't know how long Naismith's been in Labour for, but in my nine years of knocking on doors in Stoke-on-Trent, from the dog days of Gordon Brown to Jeremy Corbyn's Waterloo, no one told me they weren't voting Labour because it supported gay rights. Or offered help to the disabled. What I got instead was a lot of "you're all the same", you "don't listen", some anti-immigration bile, and even an occasional "you've abandoned the working class". For much of the previous 30 years, that last comment was absolutely right. Who oversaw a greater decline of manufacturing than Thatcher? Tony Blair. Who did nothing to enhance collective rights in the workplace? Tony Blair. Who continued the undermining of sate institutions by subjecting them to the market? You get the idea. This was not thanks to metropolitan arrogance, though there was plenty of that around, rather it was because New Labour was open about its contempt for the labour movement, its aspirations, and presented itself as a reliable custodian of British capitalism and manager of its class relations - for capital's benefit. And when this anti-working class agenda was challenged by Corbyn's leadership, we know what happened.

Naismith's class-blind history aside, he really gives social conservatism too much credit. When we look at the toerags and fools who present themselves as Blue Labour, it's telling that this club are a) middle class, b) white men, and c) have absolutely no standing or roots in the wider labour movement. Read Maurice Glasman - I have - and it's obvious that the "economic radicalism" that is supposedly the flip side of this very, very moral politics is merely a rhetorical nod. A never-articulated alibi for a miserable dismalism of scapegoating, and stop-the-world fogeyness. If only Blue Labour was a careful plea to understand the interests of our class, its (long-declining) culture of collectivism, and putting that at the heart of policy making and the vision for a better future. Instead, what we have had under Keir Starmer is a racist effort to out-Reform Reform, the rolling back of trans rights, and until recently a noted reticence to take on bigotry. Very middle class Labour MPs and well-heeled friendly journalists defended all this because this was their idea of what social conservatism was, and they were merely giving voice to values shared by the salt-of-the-earth. Meanwhile, polling of working age Britons has found this ventriloquism is a poor impression of what they say and think. The Labour working class base was imploding because other parties were actually speaking to their interests and their actual values. It was them talking the language of respect and reciprocity, while Labour imitated the spite, the division, and the small mindedness of their opponents on the extreme right.

Thirdly, Naismith's definition of social conservatism is empty to the point of meaninglessness. If Naismith is impressed by the class cultures of old, what policies are he and his party following to promote a new collectivism appropriate to the actually existing working class? The answer to that, of course, is very little. Instead, along with racist and transphobic divide-and-rule politics, we've seen the same commitment to labour market flexibility, of letting capital run riot in the NHS, and the handing of a veto to business over crucial aspects of their much trumpeted, and much watered-down Employment Rights Act. The danger, the existential threat to Labour lies not in the call for the party to be less racist and binning off Blue Labour, but in its refusal to act as the political fulcrum of the class that made it. And this is why that class is now turning elsewhere.