Another reality-check: Rayner approves data centre!

 ... against fierce local opposition - and in the teeth of, yes, housing as potentially being an alternative use for the site.  It's the controversial Brick Lane Data Centre which, in a delightfully pointed insult, offers 4 (four) units of social housing.

What makes it exquisitely amusing is that none other than Housing Secretary Angela 'Stamp-Duty' Rayner has been the one to put her name to the government order overriding lower-tier authorities that would have withheld approval.  One can just imagine the agonies she will have gone through; but, hey, that's the price you pay for the privilege of slipping back into the Cabinet room, eh?  Them's your orders, girl, and leave your scruples at the door.  Still, at least she was able to push a junior minister out in front to make the actual announcement (in her name).   Happily, Parliament is not sitting. 

What I find doubly amusing is the way puzzled progressives can't understand how a data centre can be needed simply to speed up City financial transactions by milliseconds (which is one of the justifications for a DC in the East End).  Surely, they, cry, this is some kind of capitalist joke?  - nobody needs to make even quicker financial transactions ... do they ..?   Well, I have a first-hand story about this for another occasion: bottom line, it's all a lot more real than the ignorant could ever imagine.

On the subject of Them's your orders, girl ... with the fatuous 'consultations' on the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields being about to close, we are all greatly looking forward to Miatta Fahnbulleh being forced to walk the same plank and approve one or perhaps both of them in the next few weeks (doubtless on one quiet Friday evening during the Recess, with another junior minister out in front).  It'll be fun to watch her squirm.

ND

Arday: hard not to laugh

There's a light mood in Schloss Drew this weekend.  The Jason Arday affair is possibly even funnier than Keir Starmer 'resigning' when his legacy is as golden as he and his loyal backbenchers loudly proclaimed.  

As the story rumbled inexorably towards the front pages, progressives reflexively dropped everything and rushed headlong towards the sound of gunfire.  On arriving at the battlefield they immediately hurled themselves into digging mighty entrenchments - nay, positive tank-traps - as a prelude to what they fondly imagined would be a swift and decisive counter-attack.  Unfortunately, the deeper and more frenziedly they dug, the more they became buried in the shit from their own shovels.  Far from any prospect of burying a handful of inconvenient little fabrications, they must now confront the uncontainable, volcanic eruption that is their man's stupendous output of truly creative confabulation.  We are plainly dealing with a decade's worth of deceit from (to switch idioms) an ocean-going liar.  I look forward to receiving a letter from Carter-Fuck on the subject.

Some years ago I sat on the jury of a lengthy Old Bailey murder trial.  One of the sadder aspects was that alongside the two murderers in the dock was the mother of one of the perps, who had fabricated an elaborate but laughably transparent alibi for her son that was contradicted by his own defence case.  Inevitably, she was banged up for attempting to pervert the course of justice.  In mitigation, her Counsel could only offer the excuse that nobody had ever believed her in the first place.  In the ranks of the more reflective and self-critical progressives there's a growing suspicion that we are in similar territory with Arday: did any grown adult** who'd been exposed to more than a couple of lines of his fantastically fabricated life story ever believe a word he said?

Which then leads the sadder-and-hopefully-wiser wokists to wonder - what kind of perverse, inverse racism they have themselves been guilty of?  Patronising, or what?

It all adds to the gaiety of the nation.  Enjoy your weekend!

ND

_____________

** That said, it is Cambridge academics we are talking about

Peak Farage? There's a good case to be made

Back in April I mused that we'd perhaps already seen Peak Reform.  Things haven't gone at all well for them since the May local elections: successive by-election flops; Restore eating their lunch; the Farage Finance scandalette; and the Clacton Binface fiasco.  Etc.  Is anyone listening now to their noisy Ceuta bandwagon as it crashes down the cobbled streets of their target constituencies?

Anyhow, here's a piece supporting - and personalising - the Peak Reform conjecture:  it reckons we might have seen Peak Farage lui-même.  The GE could be a while yet, and if Farage's moment has come and gone, who else have they got?  Which is pretty much the main issue: how do you field 600 credible candidates when you can't muster 6, and when your party leader can't deal with anyone with half a personality?

Meanwhile, the great charlatan at the head of the Green Party is increasingly looking as silly and irrelevant as we know him to be; and YourParty gets ever more a caricature of itself - see some of the closing paragraphs cited below[1].   And Badenoch's persistence, stamina and recent sure-footedness (plus or minus a 'reformed' neo-N) seem to be quietly paying off, albeit from a catastrophically low baseline.  I have long held that both Labour and Conservative parties have all the hallmarks of genuinely enduring institutions - at least to an extent that needs to be overlaid on pretty outlandish claims that they are both toast.   A large popcorn order is called for, before prices go through the drought-driven roof. 

What do we think?

ND

_______________________

[1] See this sad little passage from the Chair's minutes of the most recent YourParty  'central executive committee' meeting.  

... This isn’t what I want to be writing to you about, but it is unfortunately the case that some members of the CEC took the view that I should be removed as Chair. I don’t agree with them ... What disappoints me is that before these [administrative points] could be considered - before we could get on to the agenda - much of the meeting was lost to points of order seeking to remove me.  By the time we finally got going, after a vote to remove me had been defeated, several members had left ...

Stop laughing at the back!   She's a kind, nicely-spoken middle-class white lady, only doing her best to advance the Revolution:  

Burnham's 'devolved tax & spend' - what does it mean?

Being cynical, what it probably means is - more vague feelgood stuff.  But assuming the 'details' we've been given are the bare bones of what's being proposed, it looks like:

• Local authorities will get to keep more of, and spend, 'taxes raised locally'
• LAs will be able to borrow more
• But somehow this won't just make a handful of high tax-base areas disproportionately better off, nor leave low tax-base areas stranded

Have I got that wrong?

If not, then ... how is that any different?  Or at least, different enough to merit gushing stuff like "the biggest shift of power out of Whitehall and Westminster" (Burnham) or "phenomenal, it really is a sea change, it's monumental" (Mayor of West Midlands)?   Right now, central government comes up with some kind of "needs-based" assessment and distributes grants etc accordingly from those 'taxes raised locally', acting as a kind of equaliser.  Won't we end up at the same place, albeit after perhaps a couple of years of chaos and unexpected consequences?   

Does it mean that, whereas today if Barchester wants the A99 to bypass the town centre, it has to lobby Westminster for tax-payers' money to build one, tomorrow they'll just have to pay for it themselves because nobody else is going to anymore - so maybe they'll just decide they don't want one after all? 

Burnham swiftly ruled out Houchen's smart, cheeky riposte of saying that with his new share of the income tax pie he'll give everyone on Teesside an income tax rebate! 

As for borrowing more ... FFS, how many more Birmingham / Northampton / Croydon / Thurrock bankruptcies does Burnham want?  In 2011 the cretinous Osborne took off the very prudent constraints on what speculative 'commercial' dealings LA's were previously allowed to get into, and that hasn't ended well at all.  And we haven't even mentioned the increasingly dire incompetence and corruption of whole swathes of local government, both elected members and employees.  I mentioned Houchen somewhat favourably above, but in most other respects, his Teesside fiefdom is a poster-child for outrageous local cronyism, rentierism and all-round hanky-panky - see every issue of Private Eye.

Please tell me if I've got the wrong end of the stick!

ND 

Rosebank and Jackdaw: green-red panic setting in

They're tugging at the heartstrings, scraping the barrel, lighting the gaslights and pulling out all the stops  -  Stop Burnham Approving New Oil & Gas!  As a planted piece of the purest propaganda of desperation (and the Guardian is a willing receptacle) it would be hard to beat this one. 

Burnham risks first revolt as PM over apparent support for North Sea drilling - Labour MPs fear No 10 team lack up-to-date energy insight and don’t fully recognise voters’ climate concerns   

Burnham, of course, has done nothing more than offer a bit of glaringly obvious commonsense. As the article quotes him saying: “The question isn’t whether Britain will still be using oil and gas, the question is where does it come from.”  Well, yes.  What's more, the article helpfully goes on to display two graphs that prove his point: we'll be net importers of both oil and gas for the foreseeable future.  QED.  

So what 'arguments' do the green-reds throw into the mix?  They are many, varied, disingenuous, shrill, and reeking with desperation: every damn' thing they can think of.  Including Gaza!  I kid you not - see below.  As part of the usual service I distill them for you here in order of appearance, starting with the one in the headline:

• Burnham's team is ignorant / stupid / out of touch / whatever ...
• ... though not Andy himself, of course - so he's in danger of looking like a gullible dupe
• He'll face a revolt.  His first revolt!
• FFS, Andy, we're on fire here and it'll be your fault!
• Climate Experts (no less) are against his proposed pragmatism
• The UN Secretary General is against it [features twice in the article]
• Labour MPs are fearful they'll lose votes to the Greens - a new 'surge' of defections looms
• The ice caps are melting, the world is on fire, etc etc
• It will only make a 'tiny' difference to energy prices.  [Tiny?  I'd say "undetectably small" or more probably zero - and it's wholly irrelevant anyway, see below]
• It would "send the wrong signal internationally".  [In fact, the only argument that's even vaguely coherent {1} - and even then, it's wrong]
• Lewis said approving the field would show Burnham was “not looking at the evidence” ...
• ... and that Labour risked adding “the stain of the climate crisis” to the party’s record, alongside Gaza.  [Are we getting into a new variant of Godwin's Law here ..?]
• Britain was the first country to industrialise and we have a duty to lead the world on net zero
• The case made by oil and gas companies is self-interested  [- and presumably also that of the Unions that are also pro drilling - which is not mentioned, of course]
• Allowing production will be to exploit a (wicked) "loophole"
• It's (arguably) against Labour's GE Manifesto [Glad they added 'arguably' because on a close reading, it ain't - the Manifesto was carefully ambiguous] 
• If it comes to a vote he would need Tory and SNP votes 
• If it doesn't come to a vote [which it won't], it'll be a (wicked) "administrative measure", how evil is that?!
• Concerns "extend across the Labour party, transcending factions and 'tribes'. The Guardian has contacted or been told of concerned MPs including ministers and junior members of government, longstanding senior backbench MPs and committee figures and new MPs from the 2024 general election intake" 
• Several influential economists told the Guardian that increased drilling would not help the UK economy ... [followed by some utterly ignorant 'economic' bullshit + doubling down on some of the above.  Have these 'economists' not heard of the benefits of employment?  Tax revenues? Balance of payments?  When have they ever opposed local production of any other commodity or product?]
• It runs counter to the 'clean energy superpower' mission
• It will lead to "extra use [of oil & gas] and more greenhouse gases". [Now which is it, eh?  Too small to have any macro impact on the market - correct, see above - or big enough to cause an increase in demand?  FFS]
• "Keep the peace" by allowing Jackdaw but scrapping Rosebank.  [It's fair to say the argument for Jackdaw / gas is much the easier to understand, not least because the gas will definitely be used in the UK, and will back out equivalent quantities of the far more polluting US-sourced LNG]
• It Will Cause Political Damage - and poor little Andy, badly advised as he obviously is, Just Can't See It !

Wow.  If you think I'm kidding - when did a Guardian article last contain 24 arguments? - check it out for yourself.  As I said: reeks of absolute desperation.

We must hope young Andy is proof against such stuff.  From the C@W standpoint, he's on probation here.  Anyone care to predict how he'll come down?

ND

_____________________

{1} I did say that, in amongst the plain risible and the politico-hysterical, I did say there was one semi-coherent argument in there, albeit false.  It's the old business of asserting that we must nobly lead by example, even if that comes at a cost to ourselves.  Well, as least that's a tacit admission we're talking about virtue-signaling, and that there is no other rational case that stacks up on its own merits.  But of course it falls down when we recognise that none of the USA / China / Russia / India / Saudi Arabia / Brazil etc etc gives a flying f**k what we say or do - they are guided entirely by their own assessment of their own interests.