Why Starmer Trails Sunak

Unlike Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak did get a new PM bounce. From ridiculous polls leads ranging between 29 and 39 points, the former chancellor has pulled the numbers back from extinction-level events to an absolute battering. So well done him. But more interesting are the personal ratings. Opinium report a preference for Sunak on the economy over Keir Starmer, and according to Redfield Wilton their survey said more would have the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister than the Leader of the Opposition. How to explain the discrepancies?

For one, Sunak is a known quantity. He's not as popular as he was, but for most he's remembered as the Chancellor who kept millions afloat as the economy shut down in the first wave of Covid. Never mind there were significant gaps and that the scheme was first touted by, horror of horrors, Jeremy Corbyn, he's the one who fronted it. Second, he was spared much of the sleaze from Boris Johnson's premiership. His role in the Party Gate saga was, as generally accepted by the press, a genuine mistake of wrong place at the wrong time and not one of egregious, reckless, and wilful rule breaking. His other difficulties, which include his holding a Green Card while a member of the government, his significant other's non dom tax status, and the initial paltry offering of energy bill support haven't attracted visceral loathing. And lastly, his political mistakes - the ridiculous and ruinous Eat Out to Help Out scheme, and his bringing back Suella Braverman haven't harmed his personal standing. Yet.

And Starmer? One thing his purge of the left, refusal to make the case for anything unless the public are already onside, and attempts to outflank the Tories from the right on policing, immigration, national security, etc. has accomplished is political distance from the Corbyn years. Unless you're gullible enough to buy into desperate Tory rhetoric, most people accept that Starmer is Corbyn's sequential successor. Nothing more. This is an advantage when it comes to being the repository of anti-Tory anger, but means the ridiculous poll leads are a reaction to what's happened and not enthusiasm for the Labour leader.

Does this matter when the polls are this wide? It does. Common sense and history suggests no governing party comes back from these kinds of deficits. But that's not entirely true. The early Thatcher years saw strong Labour leads under Michael Foot, including a couple of polls with a 30-point margin. But what did for him was not the "longest suicide note in history" nor the party's factional divisions, nor the formation of the SDP. It was that General Galtieri rode to Thatcher's rescue by invading the Falklands and kicking off an orgy of British patriotism. We know what happened next. It's a cautionary tale of events dear boy, events. However, 2022 is not 1982, and it's unlikely any singular event could pull huge numbers behind the Tories again as we saw a a couple of years ago. The rot has gone too deep, and the long-term decline has begun its inexorable grind.

For his part, Starmer and the shadow cabinet avoided looking smug as pollster after pollster put Labour at 50%+, and he is apparently in agreement with the left and everyone else that he's benefiting from not being the Tories. It's a big lead, but a soft lead. The question is what's he going to do about it. Perhaps use the occasion to lead public opinion, rather than tailing it? No. For the last month Labour's show pieces have been a playing down of expectations - an echo of the 'two Eds are better than one' austerity lite of the Miliband years, and ramping up the authoritarianism. Just Stop Oil protesters are the greatest threat to medical emergencies, not the lack of ambulance crews and overfull A&Es. Despite admitting to his allies that Labour is merely a default anti-Tory option, he's not taken advantage of the crisis moment where millions are receptive to alternative political messages. And now Sunak is the new kid on the block, the chance to consolidate Labour's vote has been lost. With the numbers as they are, it might not matter, but foolish is the political strategy that leaves so much to chance.

Frequently on the left, the equivalence between Starmer and Tony Blair is made. An understandable one, but mistaken all the same. This is because while Blair made sure Labour's promises didn't frighten the horses and, more importantly, the editorial offices of the Tory press, he also understood the importance of cultivating a positive case for New Labour. This was largely rhetorical and based on vague senses of change and hope - something adopted from the Clintons, and then recycled by Obama. The cultural zeitgeist played its part too. Starmer does not have this, nor has tried cultivating anything like it. To seal the deal, to capture anything like Blair's genuine popularity, he's going to have to show leadership. And that can only only come if he starts making the political weather and does it in such a way that says Labour has something worthwhile and positive to offer.

Image Credit

Revolution in Iran?

In the latest Politics Theory Other, Narges Bajoghili spoke to Alex about the eruption of protests in Iran and how such a huge movement seemingly erupted from nowhere. The discussion touches on the regime's response, and how the left in the West should respond to those who opportunistically seize on women's rights for their own Islamophobic purposes.

Give it a listen!

Politics Theory Other · “Woman, Life, Freedom” - On Iran's protest movement w/ Narges Bajoghli

Five Most Popular Posts in October

We got a new Prime Minister! Bolsonaro defeated! But what were the most popular screeds on this blog during October?

1. The Pointlessness of Plotting
2. Left Wing Ruthlessness
3. On Tory Pearl Clutching
4. Reinventing Toryism
5. Zombie Government

What a month. Doing the business in October was my analysis of the likely aftermath facing any successor of Liz Truss. No matter what the plotting, the divisions in the Tory party weren't about to go anywhere. In a rare (these days) post on the Labour Party, we had a butchers at Sam Tarry's deselection and argued that what the left counts as ruthlessness has to be different from the right's adminstrative shenanigans, otherwise it'll be self-defeating. Third up, we took apart a favoured rhetorical ruse the Tories often employ to make themselves look like the victims, and the fourth post was a gaze into the far future: are there signs among the current crisis suggestive of a strategy to overcome their long-term decline? And bringing up the rear is something of what is now a period piece: the paralysis of government under the about-to-be-toppled Liz Truss.

What's serving in the second chance saloon? Here's a couple. One on the current commentariat crusade against members having a say on who their party leaders should be. And then we have another media vendetta against Suella Braverman. Why have the press got it in for her?

Coming up this month will be some Labour Party stuff I've been saving up, a long gestating piece on Brexit, and after much promising my review of Mike Phipps's Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow. If you haven't already, don't forget to follow the free weekly newsletter, and if you like what I do (and you're not skint), you can help support the blog too! Following me on Twitter and Facebook are cost-free ways of showing your backing for this corner of the internet.

Image Credit

Ending the Bolsonaro Disaster

The end of the Bolsonaro experiment has come into view. A malignant blight on the Brazilian body politic, he stuffed the state apparatus with military and ex-military figures, which partially paid off with police deploying to prevent Lula supporters from making their way to the polls on Sunday. An environmental vandal who escalated the deforestation of the Amazon, making the climate crisis worse and green lighting the brutalisation of indigenous peoples. And, following the play book of right wingers from Trump to Orban, coarsened public discourse with the most disgusting scapegoating, boorish commentary, and attacks on anyone who had the temerity to criticise his criminal enterprise. Another thing he shares with the fascist regimes he's frequently compared to.

Since Bolsonaro came to office, he scrapped the anti-corruption unit behind Operation Car Wash. This revealed the looting of billions of dollars from public coffers by officials at all levels of the state, with a clustering of activity around the Brazilian state oil giant, Petrobras. Bolsonaro said the agency was no longer needed because his state was "free of corruption". He also doled out billions to Congress like a sweet bowl to trick-or-treat'ers to buy allegiances, and just like this country Covid procurement was a means of funnelling more cash into the bulging pockets of Bolsonaro supporters. Corruption in state contracts became routinised to the point of being a cost of doing business. And most appalling of all was the criminal negligence with which Bolsonaro handled the pandemic, with things getting so bad that the police accused him of spreading disinformation. He systematically undermined coordination between national, regional, and local state responses, attacked official social media campaigns, and peddled quackery as solutions to the Covid crisis. It was no accident it disproportionately hit working class people and racialised minorities - those most unlikely to support his grotesque government.

Bolsonaro would not have won office without the backing of key layers of the Brazilian bourgeoisie. At the outset, he was very clear about whose interests his administration would be serving and, of all the guff he promised his gullible mass voter base, this was one pledge he faithfully delivered. Inequality, already extreme by Latin American standards, widened under Bolsonaro's watch. It's so bad that even he was forced to act, with a 50% bump in welfare payments conveniently landing just prior to the election. This was after cutting spending on social security for the previous 18 months. He also raised the retirement age, and in another quid pro quo for his wealthy backers, set about attacking the labour movement.

His defeat at the hands of Lula and the Workers' Party is a stunning achievement in the face of Bolsonaro's efforts at undermining confidence in the election process, police interference with voting in PT strongholds, and a refusal by the electoral court's top judge to extend voting following reports of widespread voter suppression. All of the incumbent's advantages couldn't save him. And, much to Bolsonaro's chagrin, his allies in Congress and in industry have mostly spoken about the need to respect the result. No Capitol-style insurrection is to be tolerated, a point underlined by Joe Biden in his communique quickly recognising Lula's victory - a signal to the coup-minded that they don't have Uncle Sam's permission.

Despite striking a mighty blow for the left, the reason why many centrists are happy about Lula's victory - his popular frontist strategy - could easily become the incoming administration's Achilles Heel. There's nothing wrong with dragging bourgeois layers in one's political train if front and centre is a programme for empowering our class and elevating our movement. In such circumstances, they've accepted your terms. But it's quite another to tack right and effectively give them a veto over the politics. Lula having right winger Geraldo Alckmin, the former governor of Sao Paulo and Lula's presidential opponent in 2006, as his running mate typifies this. Unveiling the alliance at the beginning of the month, the rhetoric on abortion rights and police corruption/violence was significantly toned down. Significant stress has been placed on Bolsonaro's attacks on institutional legitimacy, with Lula co-opting arguments about business confidence and the need to calm the markets. And riffing off this, several trade unions have designed a corporatist plan similar to post-war West European tripartism - a recipe, one might argue, for disciplining rather than empowering labour.

Also worrying is the surge in Bolsonaro's support over the course of the campaign. In September, Lula routinely enjoyed double digit leads. Which one might expect when his opponent is a disaster zone. Yet despite the record, and the incredible scandals - such as paedophilia allegations against Bolsonaro, which were sparked by his own comments, the margin of victory was far narrower than many were forecasting in the Summer. The unpalatable truth is there was something about Bolsonaro that appealed beyond the core constituencies of fascists and right wing populists traditionally enjoy. Obviously, Lula must show no quarter in clearing out Bolsonaro's people from the state, but the more difficult task is fashioning a programme that brings millions more into the PT camp without watering down existing commitments, nor making the working class pay for cleaning up the damage of the Bolsonaro years. One that is easier said than done, but has to be accomplished if Lula wants to be in power, not merely in office.

Image Credit

Aphex Twin - Come to Daddy

It's Halloween!

Why are the Press Going for Braverman?

Not even the news that Liz Truss's phone was (apparently) hacked by Russian intelligence can smother the bad smell that is the political resurrection of Suella Braverman. Going into the weekend, we've had leaks of emails that are supposed to throw into doubt the "accidental" character of her security breach. You know, the one where she shared confidential information with a backbench friend and a parliamentary bag carrier who was not the intended recipient. More seriously, but counting far less where mainstream news outlets are concerned, was her decision to keep thousands of refugees illegally detained against repeated legal representations. Undoubtedly because tough posturing counts for more than imprisoning innocent people. Braverman is a liability for Rishi Sunak, but why has a section of the Tory press got it in for her? You'd think, after spending decades agitating for hardline immigration policies, they'd be happy to see her inclusion in the cabinet. What's going on?

First is the obvious dysfunctionality of Braverman re: the rest of the Tories. As far as their press are concerned, there's still plenty to be scared about where Labour are concerned. Keir Starmer has gone out of his way to court the press, and they have been mostly nice in return. But there are things that scare them, such as the day one commitment to trade union rights, an apparently serious pledge to decarbonise the economy, and the fact they won't be able to lean on Labour ministers in the same way they can the Tories. If keeping Labour out is the aim, Braverman is a persistent pain. It's not just the incompetence, it's the politics. The power of anti-immigration politics is much weaker than it was during the Brexit referendum. Braverman can help consolidate what's left of the Tory base, but it's a barrier to wider support as the electorate becomes more increasingly socially liberal.

What's at stake is more serious than simply winning an election. Liz Truss recklessly destroyed the teetering reputation the Tories had on economic matters. This comes after Boris Johnson's behaviour threatened a crisis of legitimacy, which occasioned the turning of much of the Tory press. Braverman's security breaches threaten to make Sunak's the third government on the trot to stoke a major crisis of state. The problem is if the security apparatus and the police can't trust the Home Secretary with confidential matters, that's a major problem for a reliable elite prop for the Conservative Party. This creates problems from an operational point of view, and makes it much harder for the Tories to rebuild the alliance it needs at the state functionary level if it's to recover from the damage caused by Sunak's predecessors. It's doubtful many in the press have thought this through, but do they need to when their instincts and vibes nudge them in this direction?

And there's the power of the press itself. We've seen this recently expressed in the hack attack on the Tory party's very limited internal democracy. The papers are a waning force in the land, but are determined to keep hold of their chief-making and agenda-setting influence for as long as they can. Power without responsibility, as the famous media studies book put it. By kicking up a fuss about Braverman and delivering pain unto Sunak's government, they're attempting to reassert themselves. Johnson flattered the press when he wanted something, but otherwise ignored them. Truss refused to accede to their wisdom as well, and so Sunak's Braverman problem is the means by which he learns that he has to pay them heed. Or they will make his life difficult.

Given the pressure on Sunak, surely Braverman won't last much longer. Having dominated the agenda of the government's first few days, she has got to be on course for the shortest serving Home Secretary ever, regaining the record set by Grant Shapps's six day stint before he took it from her two short weeks ago. Something to put on the politics CV, I suppose. But for Sunak, there's a simple choice. He can cling on to her as she gets shredded by more scandal until she goes, or he caves to the press - but opens himself up for future pressure. It's not an enviable position to be in, but Sunak's poor judgement is responsible for landing his government in this mess.

Image Credit

The Tory Death Spiral

On Wednesday I sat down with Gareth from the Death // Sentence podcast to talk about (what else?) the Tories, the book, and the Tories some more. The conversation might also be interspersed with some metal. Give it a listen and do drop Gareth a follow on Twitter here.

DEATH // SENTENCE · Phil Burton-Cartledge - Falling Down

Local Council By-Elections October 2022

This month saw 34,707 votes cast in 18 local authority contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. Eight council seats changed hands. For comparison with September's results, see here.

Party	Number of Candidates	Total Vote	%	+/-  Sept	+/- Oct 21	Avge/ Contest	+/- Seats
Conservative	16	9,984	28.8%	-6.0	-5.7	624	-1
Labour	15	11,404	32.9%	+4.2	+9.1	760	+1
LibDem	17	6,995	20.2%	+7.7	-1.8	411	0
Green	10	3,097	8.9%	-1.2	+4.1	310	-1
SNP*	0						0
PC**	1	291	0.8%	-1.8	+0.3	291	+1
Ind***	5	2,470	7.1%	-1.5	-2.0	494	0
Other****	5	466	1.3%	+0.3	+0.7	93	0

* There were no by-elections in Scotland
** There were two by-elections in Wales
*** There were no Independent clashes in October
**** Others this month consisted of Residents for Guildford and Villages (185), TUSC (45, 23), UKIP (55), Workers' Party (158)

Thinking about the collapse of the Tories' poll ratings, you could be forgiven for thinking they'd experience an outright rout on the by-election front. And yet, it didn't happen. While coming out of October with the net loss of one, they took seats from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens. In some of those cases local factors were at the fore, particularly in Labour's spectacular loss in Leicester. Does this suggest anything about the national picture?

Two things. As observed here many times before, consistent with older people's greater likelihood to vote this becomes even more pronounced at local by-elections. This has over the last decade advantaged the Tories given their disproportionate backing by pensioners. Hence their drop in support as reflected by council by-elections will be shallower than the polls suggest. Conversely, the backing for the other parties are also going to get dampened by this age effect. Second, older people are more likely to follow the local press and therefore be more aware of town hall shenanigans. Volatility here follows through with volatility in the voting. Therefore, when there's an unexpected swing away from the national polls chances are it's a comment on local performance and not what's going on in Westminster.

6 October:
Birmingham, Sparkbrook & Balsall Heath East, Lab hold
Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole, Highcliffe & Walkford, Ind hold
Ceredigion, Lampeter, PC gain from Lab
Eastbourne, St Anthony, LDem hold
Mendip, Butleigh & Baltonsborough, Con hold
Shropshire, Bridgnorth West & Tasley, Lab gain from Con

13 October:
Epping Forest, Waltham Abbey South West, Con gain from Grn
Gloucester, Tuffley, Con hold
Hartlepool, Throston, Lab hold
Leicester, North Evington, Con gain from Lab
Stockport, Edgeley & Cheadle Heath, Lab hold

20 October:
Broadland, Thorpe St Andrew North West, Lab gain from Con
Fareham, Portchester East, Con gain from LDem
Guildford, Tillingbourne, LDem gain from Con
Monmouthshire, Devauden, Con hold
St Helens, Moss Bank, Lab hold

27 October:
Derbyshire, Long Eaton, Lab gain from Con
Sandwell, Wednesbury South, Lab hold

Image Credit

Sunak's Braverman Gamble

I don't like egg. But if it must be served, my preference is on the face of pundits stealing a living by pretending to know things about politics. Rishi Sunak's hello speech outside Number 10 was one such occasion. Gone was the awkward delivery of his CCHQ address on Monday, this was nice guy Rishi. Relatable Rishi. Grown-up-in-the-room Rishi. Indeed, briefcase commentators - such as James O'Brien and Ian Dunt - used that exact phrase in conjunction with our new Prime Minister. The qualities they crave in a leader, which boils down to a suit, calm and fluent speaking, and vibes are all present. Following Boris Johnson's defenestration and the brief but destructive reign of Liz Truss, they can sleep easy at night knowing one of their kind of people is in charge.

Having got carried away on a reverie of fantasy, they were brought crashing down when Sunak's cabinet appointments began. In particular, the re-appointment of Suella Braverman, who was sacked/resigned in disgrace a week ago, as Home Secretary. At that moment, the hearts of a thousand centrist dads broke and illusions were shattered. They had convinced themselves, without any evidence, that he was a nice Tory who'd respect the rules of political decency. More fool them for their stupidity. He is as unconcerned with their normative expectations as any of his predecessors: power politics within the Conservative Party must always come first.

It's not hard to see why Sunak gave Braverman her job back. Christopher Hope suggests there was a deal over the weekend between the two. It's said she received six calls and a home visit from Sunak to bring her round, and to ensure she didn't sign up for Johnson's comeback bid. The job is the quid pro quo she extracted. If the story is true, it demonstrates Sunak's complete lack of nous. Braverman is of the party's far right, but she's not a leader among the Tory fringes as her dismal performance in this summer's contest demonstrated. It's doubtful her declaration for Johnson would have made any difference. She, like any other Tory with half a political brain, knew his return was a non-starter, but Sunak's desperation to avoid the chance of a membership vote meant she could name her price. It doesn't speak well of future judgement calls the new Prime Minister is going to have to make.

Unfortunately for Sunak, there are plenty among Tory ranks who think this appointment was a big mistake. The Times, who played a role in shafting Truss and Johnson as they undermined the basis of Tory legitimacy, have an axe to grind for as long as Braverman sticks around the cabinet. Surely he will face the same lack of discipline, the same shooting from the hip, and the same behind-the-scenes rows over immigration as his short-lived predecessor did. And she will prove to be a major road block to catching votes. Tory voters swinging towards Labour, the people Sunak needs to keep on board, find her politics grotesque. The days of political profiteering on the backs of immigrants are diminishing, even if the newspaper editorials give the opposite impression.

At the same time, while Sunak has unnecessarily saddled himself with the Braverman liability he's hoping that his cabinet is broad enough to get his programme through. On paper, it is an alliance of the hard right and far right. The return to austerity appeases those of a Thatcherite bent, and the hope is Braverman and Badenoch will produce enough anti-woke outrage to please the Tory papers and keep the red wall'ers on side. If you can't shield their constituents from cuts because the Westminster wisdom has it that these seats voted Brexit for bigoted reasons, they'll chew on some racisms and transphobias instead and be happy with that.

Unfortunately for Sunak, it appears he missed one of the key lessons of the Truss interlude: that if you threaten people's living standards, they will turn against you. He's not about to imperil the incomes of pensioners or deliberately stoke inflation further, but another round of austerity will impact on millions of votes the Tories need to keep to stand a chance at the next election. If this happens, no amount of state cruelty or inflammatory rhetoric will stop his party from getting the historic drubbing it so thoroughly deserves.

Image Credit

The Tories after Sunak's Coronation

It was a hard fought election, except it wasn't. With Boris Johnson realising the game was up before it started, Rishi Sunak finds himself appointed our new Prime Minister. And I, for one, am glad. This is because Penny Mordaunt is an unknown quantity as far as the public are concerned, but has always stood out as a relatively charismatic, competent, and normal figure - a rarity among the Tories, and the sort of politician a repeat of the Ruth Davidson strategy would benefit. Danger averted.

Unfortunately for Sunak, his first public appearance as Prime Minister "elect" was as wooden as anything Liz Truss attempted. But does this really matter? From the standpoint of the ruling class, there are three things that do. That Sunak will have a becalming influence on the markets, which appears to have been the case. The second is a programme that will make everyone but the British bourgeoisie pay for the crisis Truss's idiotic budget touched off. And third, he has to unite the party. In his closed speech to the 1922 Committee, he said the Tories were facing an existential crisis (yes) and needed a government that brings on the Tories' warring factions. A move that already shows a better handle on political realities than his predecessor. And, according to those present, there was a real desire for unity. Maybe there was for those who were there, but what about the dozens of Tory MPs who were not?

As discussed many times in recent weeks, managing the Tory party was never going to be easy for whoever came next. Johnson would have produced an absolute meltdown as the briefcases took their briefcases away. Mordaunt might have put noses out of joint because she did not command a majority among the parliamentary party, while Sunak lies between the two. Kemi Badenoch and Suella Braverman positioned themselves for jobs with declarations of support for him, suggesting both prefer ministerial office to impotent backbench posturing. But while reaching out to some on the right and including them in the cabinet is smart politics, there are others who won't be reconciled. There are the die-hards like Nadine Dorries, who (rightly) observes that Sunak lacks a popular mandate of any kind. While her relationship to Johnson seems anything but healthy, she is channelling an energy welling up from thousands of members who, not unreasonably, aren't taking kindly to an imposition of the candidate they comprehensively rejected. Indeed, the warning from the Bow Group that tens of thousands will leave the party is credible. How much this feeds through into the wider parliamentary party to cause Sunak trouble remains to be seen, but you can be sure it won't be long before Andrew Bridgen calls on him to step down.

A bigger problem is with Sunak's programme. We don't know how much of Jeremy Hunt's mini-budget he plans on sticking with, but given his desire to calm the money markets' animal spirits it's unlikely there will be many (if any) changes before this Friday. If there are, the policy direction will be regressive as per past behaviour. The failure of Johnson's levelling up wheeze was largely because Sunak was uninterested in using the state to drive regional economic development. It was Sunak - the wealthiest MP sitting in the Commons - who pushed for clawing back £20/week from Universal Credit recipients. Sunak oversaw the increase in National Insurance and had to be forced into offering a energy price relief. If anything characterises Sunak's politics, it's a determination to reverse politics to the time before Covid and Corbynism and get people into the habit of not expecting anything from the state. He wants to close the popular political imagination and scrub out the hopes and the memory that government can do things, like abolish homelessness, and provide a better welfare settlement - if it was minded to.

Sunak's mutterings about "economic choices" suggests another round of cuts are at hand, but this is where he could hit the buffers. The acquisition of former Labour seats in 2019 has made a layer of new Tory MPs either sympathetic to impoverished constituents, or to the consequences of neglecting them. Those in and around the so-called Northern Research Group will not be favourably disposed to more cutting, while the ERG/Johnson hold outs might find common cause around defending "levelling up". Sunak could avoid implementing another round of cuts if he chose. No one is forcing him to give billions of state cash to energy generation and supply, but there is an Overton window to be slammed shut and the politics to be managed. If this week shows this is his primary concern, it won't be long before the 1922 Committee's call for unity is ripped apart by the gnashing of teeth and chaos descends once more.

Image Credit