Peak Polanski in the rear-view mirror

On Monday I called Peak Green and by now, the by-election lost, it looks almost like we're going to see a re-run of Your Party: hundreds of thousands of members but so dysfunctional, and split so comprehensively, it ain't going anywhere.  

One need have no sympathies whatever for the charlatan "Polanski": but the MSM pile-on is really quite extreme, and merits a moment's analysis.  I have to believe the London-based, Labour-supporting meejah classes saw him as a genuine threat on the left; the Israel lobby saw him simply as a threat (the Auld Alliance back in action again); and they have both decided to bury him here and now, Corbyn-style.  He provided the shovels, and by last weekend had already dug his own grave.  It's not a pretty sight.

Does he really deserve all this?  "Deserve", as Clint Eastwood's William Munny famously said in Unforgiven "got nothing to do with it".  Live by the entryist surge, die by the care-nothing entryists' toxic baggage.  Can't imagine he'll go down without a lot more of his trademark motormouth interviews, but we'll just have to put up with it for a while.

Funnily enough, neither of the Green factions really care about becoming a major Parliamentary force.  The traditional sandal-wearing Greens were happy with one MP, delirious with 4.  They don't much mind going back to their eco-protest roots in Bristol, Brighton and the shires, if becoming Big means they must accommodate the 'progressive' dregs of bedsit London Labour by the tens of thousand.  Likewise, the dregs care not for Parliamentary success if it means they must give up their fevered foreign policy fantasies.  Those who do care are a smaller, strategically-minded metropolitan motley of fence-sitters whose relatively sophisticated dream is of plain-speaking Polanski fearlessly shifting the Overton window decisively leftwards, in a way that no Labour politician is able to.  Then Burnham and his genuine party-of-government can safely occupy the newly-liberated ground and win an election on terms they like.

Well let's see if this strategy is gaining any traction.  The Budget looms, and there are a lot more issues making calls on the public purse than to leave much left for the big causes progressives are interested in. 

ND

By-election BS: open thread

The 'first draft of history' on this one is quite difficult to essay: the number of variables in play has been quite remarkable, and continues in the same manner.  4-D chess?  Try 5 or 6.  The consequences for Labour, in particular, are complex and highly contingent on many things.  (Could have been even more amusing if Your Party had been at the races - and in future it might just be.)

But we'll all have some early thoughts.  Here are a couple of mine:

• WTF was Reform doing, fielding a prize prat like Goodwin?  Just about the worst candidate imaginable for fighting a working-class / Muslim seat.  And Farage a man with his finger on the pulse?  I have heard only two 'excuses': (1) this was always a big stretch for Reform - something like no. 440 on their list of potential targets, IIRC;  (2) "Farage wanted to slap down a potential leadership rival" (yes, I've seen that surmised on the airwaves - but possibly a hypothesis born of the same bewilderment as my own).
• Obviously this is a Big Test for them / him, but right now I'd say Team Starmer is determined to tough it out.  (No guarantee of success, of course.)
• Polanski will now be striving to get his lovable piss-artist act together properly - which may in turn piss off some of his "support" as he seeks to ditch the "our policy is dictated by Conference and the leadership is only allowed to parrot it" doctrine of the Greens: which can't possibly survive if he's to capitalise on this.

I could go on ... but I said I wouldn't - so over to t'readership.

ND

Starmer vs ... Whom?

"Decency vs Division" is this week's rallying call for Starmer, with a range of associated wok-ish sub-slogans.  It's suggested by some that he, Reeves and Phillipson are running snide little side-campaigns against Andy Burnham and Lucy Powell: but who is the primary enemy in Starmer's sights?

The obvious, face-value answer is N. Farage: but I don't think so.  IMHO, this whole Party Conference turn is aimed squarely at targets on the Left, in the two menacing shapes of Zack Polansky and the Corbyn / Sultana rabble.  Starmer's first aim now must be to persuade what remains of the left-ish, green-ish sector of the Labour movement that he's sufficiently, demonstratively anti-Farage for them to reckon staying with Labour is the safest option, rather than futile fragmentation into the ranks of the splitters.  A bit like the French are always doing to fend off Marine Le Pen.

Will any of his target audience be persuaded?  It's not clear to me that many will, once the Conference euphoria is over.  He'll be permitting new offshore drilling applications soon; those new runways displease a lot of folk; and it'll be quite hard to row back on his anti-small-boaters rhetoric.  Etc Etc.  OK, Reeves may shortly find a bit of (our) dosh for the two-child benefit cap thing, plus fuel discounts for a couple million more welfare recipients: but he still won't be delivering Gaza from its fate, or doing anything that would seriously piss off Trump.

We'll see.

Incidentally, what's the betting that initially, someone on the speechwriting team actually suggested "Diversity vs Division"?  Before being slapped down, and probably shown the door ...

ND 

Naming Corbyn's New Party

So old gaffer Corbyn is inviting suggestions for names for his and Zarah Sultana's new leftie-Islamist micro-party.  He wants it to be "short, inclusive, and effective in bringing people in".

First thoughts must surely be:

• The People's Popular Front for the Liberation of Bedsitland
• The Popular Front for the People's Liberation of Bedsitland
• The Bedsitland People's Popular Liberation Front
• The Popular Liberation Front for the People of Bedsitland

One of those should surely be inclusive: they all cover the main ground.  But he's right that 'short' is also probably necessary to be effective in the age of TikTok when attention-spans, not to mention reading ages, might not run to a name with nine words.  We all remember how effective "Respect" was.

Bearing that in mind, and other salient factors, on balance I feel they should go with

• 'Splitters'

That has a nice, catchy ring to it, plus some deep and relevant political baggage for those of an historical bent.  Come to think about it, that's probably Sultana under that fetching black garb - and indeed Jeremy himself in the final few frames of this famous Party Political Broadcast ...

ND

Voting at 16: unintended consequences?

It's been a bit of a thing on the left to militate for the voting age to be reduced to 16.  It was in Corbyn's ill-fated 2019 manifesto.  Without doubt, they assume the 16-18 cohort would be a big boost to their vote.

Really?  There's a thoughtful essay here by Aaron Bastani  - the epitome of a thoughtful leftie, though some of his many thoughts are daft - in which he notes that this is by no means a given. 

No, Younger People Aren’t Always More Progressive - just look at Brazil and Israel ... There is no reason reactionary politics can’t flourish this century given the multitude of challenges humanity faces.   

His thesis is indeed firmly centered on Brazil and Israel, which is convenient for someone whose readership probably prefers to think of UK youth as inherently progressive.  But he could have found evidence for what he's saying in many a European country, including hereabouts. 

In fact, surely what's most likely is that 16-18 votes will go to whatever demagogue comes up with a catchy viral theme, be that "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn!" or something confected on behalf of the likes of a media-savvy Trump etc etc.   And timing will be everything: it'll be whatever sweeps the www at just the right moment.  There's no telling what you'll get, and whether it would be Right or Left (by classical taxonomy) - but it could be ghastly.

As it happens, I can't see ultra-cautious Starmer including this in his next manifesto - though he'll most probably have coalition issues to think about, and you know the Greens and LibDems will want it.  They should be careful what they wish for.

ND 

Mandelson's 'Starmer' strategy looks like a winner

The bulk of the Left of the Labour Party, having thoroughly swallowed the mendacious soft-focus "I'm really a Corbynite" leadership pitch of Kier Starmer, rapidly became disillusioned (and in some cases, defenestrated) when he started purging the Peoples Party in a singularly calculating manner. 

And we know whose are the calculations: it's Mandelson, the preeminent British political strategist of the age. 

I feel we may now summarise his 2019 thinking, and estimate his chances of success.

1.  Corbyn has done a Thatcher**, potentially sterilising the Labour vote for years to come

2. The only chance of reversing that lies in someone who looks the part (besuited, established), grabs all the levers of power within the party  AND ...

3. ... methodically, gratuitously, ruthlessly and flamboyantly takes every opportunity to do Corbyn and his acolytes down (in ways that Hague, IDS and Howard could never do to Thatcher).  You don't want an excrescence of people who remind the electorate of Corbyn and, crucially, you don't need them; neither for their pitiful subscriptions NOR as election-time infantry  -  because elections are lost by sitting governments, and won by clever media strategies funded by big donations, not knocking on doors

And now we come to the reason why this all might come to fruition in less than a single political generation.

4. Johnson is always going to self-destruct: possibly sooner rather than later: the key is to be in position for when it happens

With any luck (thinks Peter) it'll be Johnson who, in turn, sterilises the Tory Party as did Thatcher, for another decade of Mandelsonian influence.

Looks like it's going to work.  Still: at least Mandelson is intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich, eh?

ND

_____________

** there's many a Thatcherite that has been in 30-year denial on this.  They have forgotten, or may never have tried, getting support for the Party during the leaderships of the aforesaid Hague, IDS and Howard.  Some things are never forgotten or forgiven by the electorate: Corbyn committed that kind of sin, and so IMHO has Johnson.  

Insurgency in British Politics

A while ago in Parliament, when Corbyn was still leader, he accused Boris of being a "phoney outsider" - an odd, Westminster-bubble insult as we noted at the time.  Goes to show, though, how much of an advantage being an insurgent is nowadays deemed to be.   Corbs, of course, had been told that being a genuine outsider was his USP, and he wanted to see off any pretenders to this crown.

This was brought to mind as I found myself pondering how to vote in next week's local referendum on whether Croydon should switch from the Leader/Cabinet system of local government to the Elected Mayor variant instead.  (Sadly, the old Committee System is no longer on offer.)

How does this referendum arise?  Well, enough people signed a petition: but why?

Because the local Conservatives, who always used to hold the borough council (and, at one time, all 4 parliamentary seats, as we had in them days**).  But demographics have worked against us and it's been Labour for nearly 8 years (and they also have two out of three MPs now).  But the popular vote is still majority Conservative across the borough as a whole, the ward boundary arrangements not favouring us at all.  So the Elected Mayor wheeze is designed to keep Labour out of power, because they may still command a majority of council seats after the next elections in 2022.    

Given that in their 8 years of control Labour have literally bankrupted the town with their self-aggrandising Toytown politics, you might might think that's a bit pessimistic about the good sense of the Croydon electorate; and maybe it is - though fewer people seem to care about the bankruptcy, the blatant corruption++ and even the squalor of the council properties than you'd imagine.

But equally there's huge, sluggish apathy in all directions.  So the push for a mayoral putsch, which has aroused passions amongst those in favour but barely any other reaction at all, seems quite exciting and, well, insurgent.  I can easily see it succeeding: probably a low turnout with 80% in favour of a mayor, or something bizarre like that.

This is what the left hates about the Tories: endless flexibility when it comes to policies & ways & means.   They hate Boris, too, but seem unable to do anything about him.  They wish they were the populist revolutionaries but in many senses the permanent revolution is on the right.  

More Croydon Referendum news in due course.

ND

__________

** To be fair, it was a bit aberrational: Croydon Central has been a genuine marginal for 60 years, and the two northern constituencies were natural Labour territory, more akin to neighbouring Lambeth and Lewisham.  But they were held by strong Tory personalities: a much loved local worthy (a hanger-and-flogger); and the saintly Bernard Weatherill (who, as an old India hand, could converse with his electorate in their own tongues).  It was never going to last - and it didn't.

++ Space doesn't permit me to recount the stories, but the redoubtable Inside Croydon is chock full of them, as is Private Eye.

What About the Workers? - weekend reading

An interesting development in leftie thinking about the Labour Party is that it has moved on from the Corbynite framing "we are the 99%, against the 1%",  to a new formulation:  "we are the progressive, 'values-based' urban coalition and we rather hope we might muster 50.1%".

Who gets sidelined in this switcheroo?  Why, the white working class, that's who.  There's many an old-school workerist-marxist who doesn't like the sound of that, and here's a good essay along those lines.  Exerpt (my emphasis): 

... any political platform based on a shared set of “values” rather than a shared economic interest risks turning the actually existing working class into a problematic minority partner in a coalition of do-gooders.  We have already seen the dangers of this kind of liberal condescension, handing the Conservatives endless opportunities to ideologically consolidate their grip on previously Labour voting strongholds with a heady brew of right-wing culture war and strategically targeted public spending.

ND

Footnote[1]:  BTL, decnine & Elby mused on the new 'values' orientation.  On that theme, there's another good article here:

"Labour’s preoccupation with ‘values’ is a basic political error ..."

[2]  Rulings on the bot-naming compo appear at the foot of the previous post.

Is Boris really the worst Prime Minister for Covid?

Yesterday's excellent post on the dire May/Hammond combo made me think about how alternative realities may have come to pass. The events since 2016 have been very unpredictable and at many moments the history of the UK could have easily been different. A simple one would have been for the arch-remainers to sign up to May's BRINO for example. Oh, how they wish they did now to my constant joy. If they had, there would be no Boris government now, but continuity May until 2022, with the benefit of total reliance on the DUP. 

However, along comes covid, she dithers in March 2020. She would have dithered, as May was never decisive plus always had to seek the counsel of the DUP.  It would be as bad if not worse than Boris in the first wave and then with BRINO we would have signed up to the EU vaccine scheme with a much worse position now. Hammond would have been more cautious than Sunak and so the economy maybe inw worse shape than it is now, but that is harder to say as Sunak's profligacy we may come to regret.

or

Perhaps May loses to Corbyn in 2017 or somehow he become PM.

Along comes Covid, again dithering with the crazy team in Labour (Abbott, Burgon - remember these idiots?) then followed by a huge lockdown for months enabling a full on discussion about a socialist revolution in the UK to stop people ever working having to do Capitalist work again. Constant musing about nationalising broadband and the trains in the name of the pandemic. Nothing to do to really fix the pandemic as the Tankies think for them this is the 2nd coming for communism. Of course, Labour would also have signed up to EU vaccine scheme plus decided to declare that the poor people of the world and especially Palestinians need vaccines more than we do in the UK with our magnificent NHS. 

There are no other alternatives, Keir Starmer was not leader in any way to take over. This was the world as it could have been with only 3 choices - May, Corbyn or Boris. 

So in conclusion you can think Boris is a useless dud surrounded by incompetent fools - but look at the alternative, his 4/10 is still better either of the other options that we had. 

Starmer: A Prediction

And so it rumbles on.  Everyone in Starmer vs Corbyn has doubled down, and there's no pretence that it's anything other than high-stakes posturing for positioning.  (One of Corbyn's outriders has kindly made the point explicit now.) 

I don't detect anyone on the Left in Labour (with the possible exception of Paul Mason who, somewhat bizarrely, believes Starmer is his creation) who hasn't now essentially given up on their Leader.  For some, they'd barely ever given him a scintilla of benefit of the doubt; either itching for a pretext to go to war, or fully expecting something would lead to it anyway.  There were plenty more trying hard to believe Starmer's "continuity-corbyn" 10-point plan was genuine; but they must always have suspected and feared it was not. 

All these People's Fronters and Popular Fronters hate each other so cordially, they'll be reaching for whatever weapons come to hand.  Starmer's crew are obviously tooled up with Party apparatus, which can appear to be overwhelming firepower.  But this is asymmetric warfare: B-52s vs the Viet Cong, who can disappear down tunnels and snipe lethally when targets of opportunity present themselves.

Here's the prediction.  Thus far, the Corbynite ranks have shown a fair amount of discipline (e.g. during the ill-fated 'negotiated corbo-climbdown' phase).  Some groupuscule on the Left will eventually decide to go nuclear.  What have they got?  Starmer's DPP / CPS past has been trawled over already, and maybe there's more to come; but I'd say there's something else.

Starmer is about to dragoon his MPs to vote for the Brexit deal, a prospect which many of them just hate.  He was Shadow Brexit Secretary.  He consorted with Barnier.  There will be something from those liaisons that will be deeply to his discredit.

It'll come out.

ND

UPDATE: this, from Paul Mason lui-même.  His creation is giving him concern.  

HERE's MORE:  https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1336664555406192644 and https://twitter.com/RaynerSkyNews/status/1336782648677707778

Corbyn's Big Provocation Revisisted

Three weeks ago I surmised how Corbyn had arrived at being suspended from the Labour Party.   The saga has progressed very nicely.  But if leftie-watching is not your favoured spectator sport, then click off now ...

The thesis was, on EHRC day (identified months in advance to be a pivotal moment) his people wanted to make a maximal provocation that was still defensible within the terms of the game, in order to set the baseline for Corbynite recovery within the Labour Party as far away from humiliating abasement as possible.  The provocation took the form of a blatant non-apology (which is in any case Corbyn's style) coupled with a factional message, designed to slip neatly inside an EHRC let-out clause.  It didn't quite work as hoped, because Starmer's people, knowing their man, had seen it coming a mile off and set a bear trap for him, into which he duly fell.  Somewhat aghast at his suspension, his team immediately moved into tactical withdrawal, planning to negotiate / cajole / bully their way quietly out of it.  My concluding suggestion was, this would need to include the most self-abasing, unequivocal apology from Corbs**, abject to the point of severely demoralising his own faction.

What's happened since?  By way of a displacement activity, Corbynite outriders spent their time banging on about due process: but the real action was clearly behind the scenes, with McCluskey evidently feeling a deal was available, and that a modest apology would work the trick.  Meantime the Party hierarchy had (a) come down hard and heavy on Labour members having the temerity to pass motions about the affair in their covens; (b) been a bit taken aback by the due-process criticism and set up a review panel - which, hilariously, reinstated Corbyn!  His outriders declared victory; out came the apology, modest in the extreme; McCluskey reckoned he'd pulled it off.   

Starmer, however, reacted fairly immediately (some say, because the Jewish lobby forced his hand) by removing the Labour Parliamentary whip, supported loyally in public (however unhappily and disingenuously) by senior Shadow Cabinet members.  Cue uproar, because this particular turn of events, essentially PLP-based and no longer a Party matter per se, has left Party members feeling completely free to pass condemnatory motions until they are blue in the face.  And so the weekend begins: what will the Sunday papers make of it all?

I say the Sundays, because right now, aside from the letters page the Graun has nothing whatsoever about it dated later than Thursday evening!  Boy, that tells us something.  So, for an 'authoritative' leftist view, I recommend (again, only for afficianados) a few minutes watching Novara media's account.  

Their explanation is, in a sense, an inversion of mine.  Novara reckons the provocation is Starmer's! - on behalf of the neo-liberal establishment, the BBC and the dark powers, naturally - but I think we can accept that as just the flipside of the coin I have been presenting.  Summarising their account (see particularly from 12:50 mins in): 

The neo-lib establishment is appalled by a particular development.  Prior to Corbyn's becoming leader of a mainstream political party, 'revolutionary' stirrings had been confined to broadly ineffectual extra-parliamentary movements like Occupy.  With Corbyn's accession and his near-miss in GE2017, there was the clear possibility that a genuinely leftwing government might be achieved.  Since the very notion of this must be expunged from everyone's consciousness, Starmer (the chosen agent of the neo-libs, carefully installed in the leadership) must find a means - any means - to expel Corbyn and his followers.  They are using the EHRC as an opportunity, and confecting a provocation to facilitate his eviction; and with him, the left.  Nothing else matters to Starmer in 2020 because he has 4 years to build towards an electoral pitch.     

Aside from the silly conspiracy-theory aspects I don't find this in any way contradictory to my earlier version.  Both sides in the Labout Party view the stakes as extremely high - viz, the potential leftist capture of the Labour Party and ultimately government - with EHRC a pivotal moment, being exploited ruthlessly.  It's a pure win-lose arm-wrestle, no holds barred.

Where does it go from here?  The Novara types reckon (hope?) Starmer has really screwed up tactically, potentially precipitating a leftist-driven uprising within Labour.  The total silence of the Grauniad, and what they identify (surely correctly) as a very Starmer-friendly treatment of all this by the Beeb, is all of a piece.  But they must also fear that Graun + Beeb + almost all of the PLP is actually quite a dead weight on their hopes.  Lurking in the background is always the fear (for them) of a breakaway new leftist party: so they'll hope that passing incendiary motions at the grassroots level is sport enough for their followers.   

Meanwhile, Covid and Brexit march on, and Boris has stolen their Green Industrial Revolution ... but what do they care?  Too young to bother about Covid; half of them Lexiteers anyway; climate crisis, what climate crisis?  Fratricide is much more fun.    

ND

_________

**  Amusingly, Gordon Brown has said pretty much the same 

PS - for the record, this gives an informed insight into the hanky-panky: what a shower. 

PPS - and this; and this; and this.  It's all about wording; humiliation vs not grovelling 

Corbyn. Bear-traps. 100% Predictable.

Ordinarily, conspiracy theories are to be avoided like the plague.  But when you know for certain that factions (roughly speaking, the Marxist Labour Left and the Starmerists) are on large-scale maneouvres, it's much more reasonable to attempt to fathom what's happening.  Having now seen 36 hours of Labour Party mayhem being conducted in public, I think we can piece this together quite easily.  

1.  Both sides had a lot of time to prepare

Publication of the EHRC report has been in everyone's grid for many months, and always had the potential to be a pivotal event.  We know Starmer and his people think in these terms, witness how superbly well-prepared they were on the very instant GE 2019 was seen to be lost (several days before polling, maybe more).  Likewise, Team Corbyn has never disbanded and will have been just as seized with the potential of EHRC day.

2.  Both sides have a big agenda

We've been surmising that Corbyn may have trashed the entire Labour brand: polling data and a sense of history probably reinforces this to Starmer in spades.  From the very start he has been looking for opportunities to make it obvious that he is the anti-Corb: but that's just a part of it.  Additionally, he wants to expunge the Left from the Party: no mean ambition, given the left's tenacity and how much the last six years has rallied them within the Labour Party itself, with (at one point) tremendous morale and impetus (not to say momentum ...).  

On the other side, being the narcissist (© Elby-t-B 2020) he is, Corbyn is extremely keen to self-justify and exculpate.  But it's far more than that.  Much of the Left that still absolutely, religiously dotes on him, see him as their rallying point.  (Frankly, like Christ, Mohammed and Wittgenstein he'll still be that, long after he's gone.)  They want his named cleared so that he can continue as the grit in their oyster until their pearl reaches critical mass.

Both sides want to use the Report, the pivotal 'predictable moment' of 2020, to further these aims.  How could they not? 

3.  The EHRC gave both sides (some) advance notice

Lots, for Starmer: and he knows how to use it.  Maybe a lot less for Corbyn - a disadvantage, for sure: but his people are quick-studies and would have mastered it very quickly indeed.  Both teams were absolutely primed and ready for the media from 10:00 Thursday onwards.  They'd certainly be getting all the airtime they wanted. 

4.  Corbyn is totally predictable ...

5.  ... ergo, a sucker for bear-traps

Cummings is the one that has deployed this to most dramatic effect, to date, in the run-up to GE2019.  But now Team Starmer has, too.

6.  The Report contained a bear-trap!

And here it is: 

Article 10 will protect Labour Party members who, for example, make legitimate criticisms of the Israeli government, or express their opinions on internal Party matters, such as the scale of antisemitism within the Party, based on their own experience and within the law. 

Team Starmer must immediately have recognised that Team Corbyn would highlight this to him, and that he'd not be able to resist using it as a shield from behind which he could make the extremely, studiedly point remarks he did.  And here's where the mind-games start.  Would Team Corbyn let their man make such a blatant provocation on Day Zero?  Many on the Corbyn-supporting Left have expressed surprise and dismay that he would do such an insensitive, tactically naive thing.  

But that's after he's had his legs chopped off.  Would they have been equally dismayed in vaccuo?  I suspect not.  Rather, I believe Team Corbyn thought they were being tactically adroit, and were looking for the maximum defensible provocation to perpetrate on Day Zero, in order to set the platform-for-comeback as far above the level of abject apology as possible.  With the Article 10 paragraph in hand - plus the EHRC's diktat that the LOTO should play no part in cases of individual party discipline, they assumed they were bullet-proof, from behind the cover of the EHRC report itself.  They'd already been told the EHRC was not calling for his head on a pike and nor, it seemed from their 'negotiations' with Team Starmer, would the boss.  Could their man possibly be disciplined?  What, being an ordinary Party member, would be the charge against him?  Starmer could dismiss a member of his ShadCab; but the Party couldn't discipline an ordinary member sheltering behind Art 10.  They felt they were staying just about on the safe side of the line. 

Corbyn himself would be champing at the bit, up for anything they were willing to let him say.  

And so, into the bear-trap he threw himself. 

7.  Team Starmer predicted this to a fine degree of accuracy

... at very least, as one of the possibilities.  (Who knows, they may even have fed the Article 10 stuff to the EHRC ...)  They know their man!  Who in the Labour Party doesn't? 

The trap snaps shut.

8.  Immediately, everyone sees what must happen next

Corbyn was lured into issuing a mortal insult (as hastily defined by Starmer).  In a practised move Starmer took off his gauntlet, slapped Corbyn swiftly across the mug with it and threw it on the floor, reaching at once for the duelling pistols.  Corbyn's seconds rush in, fearing that there is no way to avoid a fatal showdown.  "It's not an insult", they shriek, "he's just a very silly boy!   Where's your sense of proportion?  Resort to brute force isn't how lawyers settle disputes!"  And they hope Starmer will think better of what he's done, or notice that his pistol may not be terribly reliable. 

 9.  And indeed it must 

Starmer has a machine that does his bidding - rather willingly, since they are all on the same mission.  They couldn't but avail themself of the bear-trap, not least because it pivots around a blatant, incendiary provocation.  They'll seek to finish Corbyn off, and dare the Left to follow him out of the door.  

*   *   *   *   *

Is the outcome wholly predictable?  No more so than any duel, really - and Starmer's pistol does seem a bit suspect if Corbyn were to litigate.  I said that the Left is hoping this will all go away.  More than hope, though: they're desperate, because there's a massive downside, namely that Corbyn sets up a new party.  Much as they've toyed with that idea for months, they've always come down on the side of Stay and Fight.  They know their history, when it comes to breakaway parties in the UK.

Fight!

 ND 

UPDATE:  after early exchanges on the Today prog on Friday, when Starmer showed his fangs again, Team Corbyn are being studiously emollient.  Clearly coordinated.  "We're backing off, now Starmer must back off" - an attempt to get away with the provocation.  One key will be what they can get their man Corbyn to say.  It'll need to be abject in the extreme, positively and personally humiliating - indeed, probably scripted by the other side.  If he's as obdurate as he's been throughout the whole five-year anti-semitism saga, he won't retract.  And if Starmer remembers his history - the failure to make Saddam Hussein personally abase himself before Norman Schwarzkopf - he will only accept something ingeniously destructive for the morale of the Left.    

UPDATE 2:  we always knew the press read C@W ... Elby's verdict of a day or so back, now retailed by Rarely-original Rawnsley in the Observer 

Mr Corbyn’s vanity simply will not allow him to accept responsibility. Many things have been said about his character over the years, but one thing has not been said enough: he is a narcissist.

  

The undead return - what to do about the ex-boss.

Like a bad dream, Jeremy Corbyn continues to bring nightmares to the Labour Paty. Poor old Keir Starmer showed his true lack of CEO metal today. 

In any corporate business, the boss going is a big deal, especially if they are a wrong 'un. New management is always quick to blame ("Kitchen Sink" is the preferred business term) the past "loser" whoever he or she was, take a huge write-off and fix some big issues in the company. All the better to start the new term with some heavy-lifting done for no political capital expended. 

In politics, life is not so easy. Your predecessor can hang around making trouble, like Theresa May, or leave the scence like Cameron (and Blair for a while). It is not up to you, unless you foolishly promote them to the Lords too soon. Occasionally, in business you have the old boss continue on, like Stelios who of course stills owns huge parts of easyjet and can make mischief at will, but in the round, once out the door they are done for in terms of influence. 

With the horrifying anti-semitism case in the news today, the left has managed to gorge itself on its own righteousness around political correctness. If it was for the nastiness of the beliefs behind it, it would be very funny.  Starmer could at last takehis chance for a clearout. Yet with this open goal to boot Saint Jez out, he pulled his punches, defending him this morning in a typically studioulsy lawyerly way. Only when the Sainted one refused to repent his sins, word for word rejecting Starmer's defence, has he suddenly found the courage to suspend him. 

A real leader would have used this opportunity to not only kick-out St Jez, but to make sure a few other reprobates went with him. Alas, Starmer has proved only a bit part player and with it shown he lacks the true metal of leadership. if there is one thing May and Covid have shown us, it is that strong leadership qaulities are needed in a Prime Minister and hard decisions must be made and acted on.

 

Russia in Britain

Once upon a time the headlines would have spoken of "Red Faces" at such revelations on Russian activities, but the doctrinaire aspect is missing in these days of pure venality.  By way of some background thoughts, here are a couple of observations.

1.  For the best part of a decade, Western politicians forced a fixation on Iraq and Afghanistan that was so totally all-encompassing for the security services and armed forces that attention to, and expertise on Russia was allowed to dwindle to almost zero** (and not just in the UK).  The scrabbling around to rectify this began a few years ago, but there was an immense, gaping window of opportunity for Russians to exploit - and they did.

2.  Of course, it's handy that Corbyn was a blatant, card-carrying Useful Idiot, operating in plain sight on RT and on his feet in the Commons.  (Suggesting that the Russians be given our Salisbury Novichok evidence for their review and considered response ... - for pity's sake.  It might even - justifiably - have cost him the 2019 GE: not many voters have any truck with that kind of crap.)

But.  There are some truly masssive scandals for the Conservative Party lurking out there.  It'll be curtains for some.  (Should be, anyway.)

ND 

** Belated update for the record,  from the Graun:

... the agencies’ post-cold war workload ... was dominated by counter-terrorism, especially in the wake of 9/11, as well as ongoing issues related to Northern Ireland, and the mounting threat from far-right violent extremism.  By 2008-09, according to the Russia report, just 3% of MI5’s effort was allocated to work against “hostile state activity”.  By 2006, just 4% of GCHQ’s work was focused on the former Soviet bloc, for similar reasons.  These proportions have risen again recently, although the precise figures have been redacted from the report.  Nevertheless, they mean that Putin’s Russia was largely faced with an open goal.

Weekend: Those Fearless Labour GE Post Mortems...

Oh, they promised to be fearless, these inquest-holders, to accept no shibboleths or no-go areas or taboos; no stone to be left unturned.  Well, it transpires they were wrong about their mandates, to which we shall return at the end of this post.

There are two out this week.  The big one first:  Ed Miliband + Labour Together's 154 page epic.  The stuff on the Election itself isn't revelatory: their summary is as follows -

• Negative perceptions of our leader were a key reason why Labour lost so many votes in this election
• Labour’s position on Brexit alienated voters on both sides of the 2016 referendum divide 
• The popularity of our policies was undermined by a lack of confidence that we could deliver them 
• In Scotland these issues combined with and were reinforced by national debates and dynamics 
• These issues served as focal points for deeper divisions of values and outlook 
• Value-based analysis of Labour’s vote base reveals a coalition that is crumbling

Well what else could they say?  We all knew that: and the only issue is the ranking of the first two disasters the list.  In the party of Kier "peoples vote" Starmer, unsurprisingly they opt for Corbyn.  Only respectful references to the new Dear Leader here.

What's genuinely worth reading is the numerical stuff (Miliband is a wonk, after all): several commentators reckon to have found some gems there.  No space here to summarise it, but one chilling graph leaves a deep impression.  Forget north vs south / city vs towns / workers vs the bourgeoisie: figure 8 shows with blinding clarity how UK politics has, over the years, become polarised into essentially a generational divide.  Presumably this graphic is prominent on Cummings' wall, too, and explains his current culture-war tactics**.  Sobering stuff indeed.

The conclusions and recommendations are all pro forma, completely anodyne, and unlikely to stir Starmer in any way.  He already knows what he's about.

The second autopsy, published on the same day, is from "Labour for a European Future", which deploys a lot of Ashcroft data (inter alia).  No prizes for guessing their #1 conclusion is -

The election loss was not caused by the second referendum policy

Yeah, right.   That aside, it's altogther punchier and more opinionated than the bigger report, and has been hurriedly but intelligently brought bang up-to-date.  (No chance of nimbleness like that with Miliband's stolid crew, which had to answer to a board of 15 Commissioners, one of which is a collective(!))  One could imagine Starmer finding the shorter one more useful, and not just because of its congenial Euro-bias.

So where are the gaps?  Again, it's the Mili-version that betrays the weakness most glaringly.  As a BTL commenter put it in the Graun today: 

You can blame brexit, 'genius Tories', voters not liking corbyn, but there is another reason, which was only spoken about in hushed tones and behind closed doors that spooked millions of people in former Labour strongholds. It can't be addressed, it won't be addressed and Labour will continue lose those votes.

Now let's tread carefully ourselves here (OK?); and take just one of these *unaddressed* issues.  If (for example) Labour becomes clearly identified as the party of Trans Rights, they will silently haemorrhage votes, even as they refuse to contemplate the matter.  (The rather niche Labour Uncut blog is bravely willing to air the subject, even if nobody else is.)

And so it goes on.  Cummings must be spending this weekend laughing out loud.  Starmer has strategic problems extending far more widely than Scotland, and Wonk Miliband may not be much help to him.

ND 
__________
** Or Munira Mirza's - whomever 

UPDATE: Rawnsley, Graun, today

The report concludes that Labour will only achieve power again by building “a winning coalition of voters that spans generations, geographies and outlooks”. This is so right that it is a truism ... In their vagueness about how this feat is to be achieved, the report’s authors are faithful reflections of the party’s leader. Mr Starmer has had almost nothing to say about policy since he became leader.

Weekend: Capitalising on BLM Catastrophe

The BLM situation, clearly febrile, is ripe for 'entrepreneurship':  watch out for -

•  a leadership vacuum if riots ensue
•  the 'XR solution' from Starmer - OR Boris 
•  frustration for Khan
•  the EU's Big Play ...

For every Zuckerberg and Gates and their homegrown empires, there's a Green, an Ecclestone and a Deripaska.  They spotted the distressed or undervalued asset, they capitalised on it, invested it, looted it.

The world of power-politics is full of entrepreneurs on the lookout, too.  And we've all been mulling over a distress scenario - BLM copycat riots, for want of a better term - which might be coming to the boil right now, and which must look like the plummest of plum opportunities for several people, particularly on the Left, if they can stop it degenerating into another 2011.  If they can get ahead of it at all, that is ...  


Now let's immediately acknowledge that sometimes these violent prospects evaporate.  A good example is Grenfell.  That seemed pretty febrile at the time: but to my surprise, it settled fairly quickly into a deep and luxuriant patch of traditional English long grass, its insurgency potential slipping away.   Nor did Les Gilets Jaunes ever really gained hardcore Political traction (we'll come to XR later, because it's important).  Yes, Britain's armchair revolutionaries - white, Oxbridge, dilettante - are indeed wedded to their equally luxuriant armchairs.  They still hanker after being the officer-class, though, directing the street-masses via social media from their châteaux HQs.  And there's no obvious sign of organic leadership within the demonstrators just yet. 

The anti-racism demonstrators, overwhelmingly aged under 30, have largely been part of a movement using the LDNBLM hashtag that has no identifiable leaders and whose events are publicised via word of mouth and social media

We'll start with the more lurid possibilities.  Let's consider at least the possibility that UK summer riots, if they occur, might allow for political initiative; and that several ambitious fellows have spotted a leadership vacancy.  If things develop into no more than 2011-style looting & arson, well, not many established politicians want their names to be blackened by association with inchoate anarchy.   But the Left is keenly looking for opportunities to Politicise (as Kev commented BTL here, "it's the Left's way of gaining back what they couldn't get through the ballot box"), eagerly abetted by the Beeb, as many have noted. 

The question, then, is: IF rioting starts here ... who's likely to attempt what?

The Players

In many such circumstances someone on the government side might try to make a name for themselves as the hard man.  It could be argued Cameron had a crack at this back in 2011, along with his DPP, one Kier Starmer ...  But - Priti Patel?  Doesn't look terribly plausible.  Boris?  Errr, no.

No, we're looking for Grabber to emerge from the other side.  If Corbyn's regime was still in place, I'd have expected it to be McDonnell, a genuine revolutionary on paper: but again, none of them really ran with Grenfell. 

Is there anyone who can front for the putative rioters, in the sense of declaring themselves to be the leader, particularly for "negotiating" purposes?  This would be quite difficult for any established politician when (innocent) people, including coppers and fire-fighters, start getting hurt.  It's possible one of the new intake of firebrand Labour MPs might give it a crack, (nothing to lose, see what happens).  Clearly enough there are some unpleasant people in those ranks, but personally I don't know enough about them to nominate any.  Of the established urban MPs: David 'Broadwater' Lammy?  No revolutionary, he: rather, in recent times a man of measured statements and nuanced views.  Diane Abbbottt?  Hmm.

I think we may also rule out Starmer.  For several reasons he doesn't look like fronting up for violence: it's categorically not in his makeup (respectable lawyer, not revolutionary; and a prosecutor to boot).  He'll want to capitalise alright - by staying exactly where he is, risking nothing, in order to have the plum fall in his lap all the more certainly in 2025.  He might be wrong about that, of course, but it'll be his strategy - statesmanlike mediator; distant and lofty proscriber of vague & worthy medicaments.  He just needs to watch his back for the serious impatience within the People's Party that has already been angrily directed his way on several occasions already. 

Outside Parliament (which is of course where the really fidgety Momentum types feel the action should be) ...  Stormzy?  Owen Jones?  Someone from rather more, errr, mainstream pop-culture - Gary Lineker?  Who can tell; the hour doth sometimes bringeth forward the man: but can anyone seriously spot a Martin Luther King or a Nelson Mandela out there in Park Lane?

Someone who can be absolutely guaranteed to be seen prominently flitting about with both the hare and the hounds is of course Sadiq Khan.  His ambition to be seen to be in command of the "BAME vote" is never far below the surface; but his desire for world-stage metro respectability is pretty enormous, too - him with his world-class police force and armoured Range Rover.  Plus, of course, he's ultra-transactional (and very pragmatic, as every mayor ends up being): everything's up for negotiation - and he's busting to get back at HMG for the recent TfL settlement he was forced to swallow.  Like Starmer though, what he really wants is a Good-War rep for future purposes, not a high-risk position in the streets.  (And if there's half a chance of a "responsible", Parliamentary outcome - see XR below - Khan, as so often, will be deeply frustrated at his own current lack of a Parliamentary platform, and will try hard to inveigle himself onto the platform.)

All in all, for want of obvious outright, authoritative leadership willing to get down and dirty, Gerry Adams style, the Left may encounter some challenges in re-purposing riots into something more tangibly Political.  It's tantalising for them, because (a) they don't get many opportunities and are currently smarting from GE2019; (b) in strictly Marxist terms a section of the urban BAME community might actually be in a technically revolutionary frame of mind:  nothing to lose, any change whatsoever must be beneficial to them.  But the same theory would also suggest that an ethnic minority doth not a revolution make - nor indeed anything short of the entire Working Class. 
 
What will be the demands?

All this is by way of ruminating on an age-old issue: in large-scale conflict, it suits both sides to know who speaks for - and can deliver - the other side.  Even calling for unconditional capitulation generally pre-supposes some effective leadership on the losing side that can present themselves for signing the instrument of surrender, and reliably thereafter give the dismal command to stand down.  If it's more balanced, then actual negotiations need to be conducted, for which an authoritative counterparty is required (e.g. Good Friday Agreement).

There's something else that in due course needs to be tied down.  What, concretely, will the Left be demanding?  If they don't know, it all descends into mere anarchy and they lose their moment.

Sometimes there is tactical merit in making ridiculous ("impossibilist") demands to ensure failure and dissatisfaction, a strategem often associated with Trotsky.  But in June 2020, as we've said, there is likely to be a strong desire on the Left to leverage the rare moment to obtain something immediately tangible on the political front (as well as, errr, electrical goods and fashionable clothing).   "A better deal for BAME people" or similar doesn't really advance their cause in quite the immediate ways they'd like.  Black History Month to be extended to a full year?  Compulsory diversity training for the entire population?  A special BAME minimum wage?  Immediate rehousing for everyone living in a tower block?

The problem is clear.  For a political demand to be successful, the gain it seeks must be tangibly, irreversably deliverable.  This is a real challenge for sudden uprisings, when the said gain must be promptly deliverable, too - before the rain starts and everyone packs up and goes home.  As British history amply illustrates, it ain't as easy it it might seem (Chartists, Pilgrimage of Grace, Peasants' Revolt etc etc).

This puts us in the realm of what I call politics with short lines of logistics.  Stuff that can effectively be done with the stroke of a pen.  (That's why "release of prisoners" or "returning troops to barracks" feature so often, for example.)  Foreign policy can more often be in this category - treaties, troop movements and the like.   But big domestic items - "general improvement in welfare" or "Green New Deal" can't be delivered on the spot.  Even legislation can't be promised in a useful timeframe for a riot situation

The XR Precedent

XR is interesting - and not, in truth, really a riot.  In many respects it's surprising XR was so easily fobbed off with can-kicking legislation, albeit notionally epic in scale.  If things get really bad, Boris will keenly wish to repeat this trick.  And I could well imagine some on the Left reckoning the XR type of outcome - virtue-signalling legislation for long term change, mutatis mutandis - is actually quite a good one, if less immediately dramatic than a coup.  If Starmer is as smart as some reckon, that's what he'll angle for:  it's Parliamentary (which he'll happily front for any day of the week); it can be packaged to look highly responsible; he can even attempt to get (some) all-party support - very PM-like.  In fact, if Cummings is really on the ball, he'll be planning how to get ahead of this one right now, as May more-or-less did last year. The upcoming "Great Recovery Bill" is the obvious vehicle; and if Boris doesn't propose the relevant clauses himself we may be sure Starmer will be quick with his own amendments.

But back to demands emerging from the more lurid extra-Parliamentary riot-scenario: what's it to be?  I mentioned release of prisoners with a purpose, because amnesty for looters might very well be on the list by the time we're finished.  Beyond that, I'm not keen to give anyone ideas.  Except ...

The EU Angle

As has been widely surmised, part of this imminent potential crisis is surely tied in with the looming deadline for Barnier to come off the pot.  A classic stroke-of-the-pen job would be to demand, say, that Frost be sent to grovel for an extension of the transition period.  Let's see how this is first floated in public - a C@W Extension Bingo prize for the first authentic sighting of this in the specific context of the putative riots.  (Note, however: a lot of the activist Left is for Lexit.)  With the Beeb's active connivance, ways can be found to insinuate this, then try to sell it as part of a package to appease the looters.  Far-fetched?  That's before you factor in the deviousness of a Mandelson or the brazen determination of a Gina Miller. 

Here's a prediction.  If the putative arson etc is on a scale that's material for the economy, the EU will swing in with an offer, along the lines of:  UK to get a pro rata share of an EU post-Covid economic stimulus package, plus immediate solidarity & cohesion fund payments targeted at inner city areas (to be distributed by city mayors) - in return for a 2-year transition-period extension, plus x, y and z ... 

Even Starmer might find it hard not to front for that.

ND

Corbyn's legacy - endless protesting

One of the downsides of the many happy upsides to Jeremy Corbyn being Labour leader last year, has been his legacy of continual protest. Corbyn was keen to get on board with the lies spewed by the unltra-left (such as Austerity has killed 120,000 people, Boris the Butcher and other pathetic memes) and to encourage 'resistance' against the Tories. Indeed, this was deemed more important than winning elections (see, there were upsides...).

Now we have the awful murder in America of yet another black guy by over zealous police. Having lived in the the US myself, the police can be very dangerous to get involved with. They get shot at very often so tend to take no chances. However, this was a horrible case of murder. As such the police have been fired and put on muder charges. In the US, radical Antifa types have used this as a proxy for a bit of rioting as have the various criminals who have had their 'livings' curtailed by lockdown.

Why though a huge protest in London? Justice in the US is being done, there is no similar case in the UK. The huge protest in London was a chance to have a little protest and possibly again for some criminals to get out and about and back to a bit of nicking.

This is Corbyn's legacy, any issue anywhere needs a huge protest and somehow it is the Tories fault - ecology, fascism, communism, police brutality- whatever cause takes their fancy (except grooming gangs for some reason). Even when the issue is a domestic one in the US.

In lighter times I wuold be relaxed, this is a good way for the left to expend their energy without achievingng any of their nutty aim. But with us literally just having a bit of control over the Coronavirues it was a very porr thing to do to have a mass protest in Central London yesterday. Sadly it shows what a bunch of hippocrits lefties are, baying for Cummings' blood a few days agho but happy to go on a dangerous march which could easily become a super-spreading virus event.

The Unlikely Hegemony of 'Thatcherite' Economics

You've probably gathered that I have a hobby of observing the loose cadre of idealistic, educated Corbynist / Momentumite types, dating from the 2011 riots.  It's a serious and important social phenomenon: the evolution of an officer-class, potentially to lead the *revolution*.  This isn't going to be my magnum opus on the subject, but rather an interesting snapshot from last week.

The Corbynist in question is one Aaron Bastani: look him up for yourself, he is as wrongheaded as it is possible to imagine but transparently, ingenuously, painfully honest.   He has also (supposedly) worked up a fully-developed new vision of the future that glories in the title fully automated luxury communism (sic): needless to say his vision is revered in some leftist quarters, and scorned in others (they all despise each other cordially in best Life of Brian fashion - it's all that earnest thinking).

Anyhow, à propos of "The Treasury is modelling a potential £500 *billion* deficit for this financial year. That would be around 25% of GDP", last week he went on to tweet:

You have to suspect Tories will go for pensions if deficit is as bad as it could be. They are going to massively rise in coming decades anyway so might as well deploy some shock doctrine. I think they’ll plump for that, citing ‘generational justice’, and VAT/NI.

Now let's immediately accept that one interpretation of this, is: Bastani is merely predicting what the Tories will do next, because he assumes that they (foolishly) think "it all needs to be paid back eventually".  But that's not how I read it.  It seems to me (and others in the thread following his tweet) that young Aaron himself thinks it all does indeed have to be "paid back" - 'cept he'd do it via a wealth tax etc etc.  He's just mulling over the conventional options for doing so, and speculating on the politics around the choices available.  (I have no intention of ringing him up and finding out which is correct.)  In any event, he didn't rise to the chiding of one of his BTL commenters who retorted: 

Love the comments on here from Corbynistas implying the Govt have spent too much! Pot/Kettle.

So for now, I'm sticking with my interpretation.  Deep in the public psyche, plain vanilla grocer's-daughter Thatcherism rules, OK!

ND

An Eruption on the Left

With the implosion of Bernie Sanders and the final damping of the pitiful Long-Bailey squib, the misery for the Anglo-left seemed complete for the time being; and I was planning to write about how the comrades were settling down for a period of dispirited low-key rumination, whistling in the dark and trying to persuade each other to stay in the Party, stay engaged, stay strong.  

Strong?  Just about the strongest strategic move they've taken in 2020 has been to accommodate themselves as best they know to the quickly-apparent inevitability of Starmer - trying to pour a thin layer of quick-setting cement on his left-gesturing *pledges*, despite the manifest lame hopelessness of this gambit.  And there might yet be a post on that some day soon: I remain fascinated by how the thoughtful and well-intended fraction of the Corbynist project is going to evolve.

But then; instead of the next event in the grid of their leftist lives being the EHRC report on anti-semitism ... along comes the Mantel-sized blockbuster that is the leaked internal report.  What an eruption!

The early responses are quite revealing.

• See, we could have won in 2017, we wuz betrayed, we wuz robbed!
• The Tories never behave like this!
• Those centrists [sic] are genuinely nasty!    And from some ...
  
• Now we really gotta leave this horrible party!

Shitstorm, eh?  Welcome to the cess-pit that is left-wing politics, boys and girls.  Do they stop for even a moment to reflect that this is why most people want nothing whatsoever to do with them?   That it is only on the left that anyone has ever heard the term "zio" being uttered?  That while unpleasant "right-wing" nut-jobs seeth away in the fringes of the www, they never get anywhere near polite society, still less control of the routine workings of any mainstream political party, either in its headquarters or its local branches?

The Tories never behave like this ... Yes, boys and girls, it's you!

ND 

Weekend Sport: Fratricide at the Guardian

It is hardly to be marvelled at, because the Graun gives space to some pretty ludicrous stuff (hardly unique in the meejah, but still).  At the same time, they have the wonderfully waspish Marina Hyde, who can't quite believe the crap the gets commissioned alongside her own crisp commentary. 

there is a particular stripe of Labour self-indulgence that has simply redefined what it means to be an absolute shower of shits ... However mirthlessly, you do have to laugh at the various Corbyn outriders who’ve now been wrong for two elections – in most cases for three – but have not even broken stride since the biggest defeat since 1935 before turning up with some more advice for what Labour should do next. What can you say? Other than: why are you still here? Did someone order some more wrong, with a side order of obnoxiously erroneous? Because I definitely didn’t. You’ve just spent four years plugging a political Fyre festival. On the matter of where Labour should go next, I would honestly rather hear what Ja Rule has to say from here on.

(For the avoidance of doubt: Owen Jones, Paul Mason, Zoe Williams - This Means You.)

What sport.

ND