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:  

Farage takes The Initiative. Hmm.

So: seeing himself increasingly caught up in a thorny thicket of unwanted and very awkward controversy, Nigel Farage has Taken The Initiative.  Well, an initiative.  

Long-time readers will know that I place great store on proactive, creative initiative-taking.  It's not as common a trait as you'd expect or hope, and that includes most of our "leaders", the vast majority of whom are governed strictly by whatever rulebook and conventions they were brought up with.  It's a pretty poor show when Peter Mandelson is the prime example of a relentlessness initiative-taker - always aware of the very many levers that are within grasp, and using them imaginatively.  Elon Musk is another.

In its rarity and political importance, initiative-taking shares aspects in common with the ability to strategise.  Again, you'll know my views on this and the example I often cite, George "Boy Genius" Osborne.  Clearly, the man is a natural strategiser - of the inveterate student-politics kind; and we could add Dominic Cummings and Morgan McSweeney to the short list of UK political thinkers - but that's not enough.  What's needed, of course, is good strategy, and Osborne wasn't great at that (never ideal in a Chancellor of the Exchequer).  Any old strategy taken from some well-thumbed playbook isn't always enough; and military history is replete with fatally bad strategisers.

And so it is with initiative: Farage needed a good one, and it's not at all clear this is it.  What do we reckon?

ND

Events!

But then of course there's Events ... Mandy, Trump, who-knows-what.  Starmer already has a long list of self-serving one-liners to fend off the 'known unknowns' ...

That was C@W last week: and right on cue, Events have struck.  Was Healey's resignation really an unknown unknown?  No: for several weeks past, meejah political correspondents have been reporting that all was not well with the Defence Investment Plan and that the Cabinet was badly split on the issue.

Given that right now it looks for all the world big enough to be a Final Nail, letting it erupt like this is a capital strategic error on Team Starmer's part: it was foreseeable; they should have made sure it was covered[1].  I'm sure we've all met situations where someone, or some organisation, fatally loses sight of just how big some fairly obvious potential banana-skin really is[2] - and it's not pretty when they step on it.  Not quite the same phenomenon as Nicholas Taleb's "picking up pennies in front of the steamroller", but there are some family resemblences.

So now, we must assume that Burnham will campaign even more explicitly as the anti-Starmer insurgent, however implausible.  Farage, presumably, will campaign on "it's Labour that is the problem", to be reinforced in the days to come by lurid stories of toxic Cabinet proceedings that the press will be happy to furnish as they get extensively briefed by all the self-interested parties involved.  And let's see what 'line' TS comes up with to fend off this one - that'd earn someone his bonus.  Or is it just too late for yet another last-ditch defence?  

ND

_______________

[1]  It seems they were preoccupied "wargaming Andy Burnham's next moves"

[2]  In my first commercial employment, I watched in horror as a really good manager I worked for came badly unstuck in that manner.  Fortunately, this life-lesson came very early in my career.  It was a great relief, two employers later, to work for a firm that operated on the maxim: the bigger the (potential) issue, the better the team we deploy and the more attention we give it.  It's truly crazy when a firm draw up a list of 10 issues, and commits one tenth of its resources to each with no thought to the relativities.  Or worse: when it gives 30% to the squeakiest wheel, irrespective. 

Burnham's by-election

Watching Burnham's by-election purely as a spectator, I have no feel whatever for what's happening on the ground (rarely do the pundits either, these days).  But one or two things stand out rather clearly: things that might not have been expected even just a month ago - which just goes to show.

>  Burnham makes a pretty unconvincing King Across the Water / saviour of the nation.  He comes across as an odd combination of entitled, nervous and petulant.  Is he simply going to win anyhow?  Who can judge?  Voters only make up their minds on vague feelings of what 'seems right'.  

>  Restore looks distinctly as though it could upset Reform pretty badly.  I wouldn't ordinarily cite Brendan O'Neill, and it's larded with phrases I wouldn't use, but this is a pertinent essay:  "the Your Party of the right" is spot on, as is "his bit-part role in the chronicles of our times will be an entirely inglorious one".

For me, both these thoughts have relegated another couple of potential talking-points, namely the embarrassment for the Greens over their initial nominee; and the chronic inability of Reform ever to find unexceptionable candidates (let alone exceptional) - even for high-profile set-pieces like this.  Think what it'll be like for both these arriviste parties at the GE!

If Restore does indeed trip up Reform on this outing, I suppose it might just be the urgent incentive Farage needs to square Lowe away in good time before the next GE.  Otherwise he will be spending a lot more time with that £5m nest-egg.

Burnham, if it is indeed to be him this time, must I suppose be hoping that, once elected, Streeting will pull the trigger as promised.   But maybe he won't!  And if not, can that obscure woman who threatened to do it a few weeks back really muster the numbers?  Would it look a bit off, if Burnham himself did it immediately following his victory?  What we may be 100% sure of is that Team Starmer will have been strenuously working over every single Labour backbencher with the usual unsavoury combination of menaces, promises and flattery.  It's amazing how many of a list of 81 can quietly slip away in such circumstances.  Time is well and truly on Starmer's side, given his clear determination to bluster on.

But then of course there's Events ... Mandy, Trump, who-knows-what.  Starmer already has a long list of self-serving one-liners to fend off both the 'known unknowns' on that little list; and we'll be hearing a lot of them soon.  

A run on popcorn seems like a safe bet.  Anyone updating their January predictions on Starmer's survival this year?

ND

Election: while we wait for full results ...

 ... here's what happened in my manor (Croydon) in the Elected Mayor stakes:

Yup, at first glance it appears Reform dented the Tories a lot less than the Greens dented Labour.

It was an interesting campaign.  The Tory Mayor (whose majority last time was even slimmer) is a solid, worthy and honourable guy, who was dealt a dreadful hand by the outgoing Labour regime that had bankrupted the borough to what I believe to be the deepest degree in the annals of UK local government failures.  The least one could say is, he stabilised things: more positively, he made the best of a bad hand, broke some crazy impasses and has made some visible improvements.  But he has been subject of a relentless and dishonest sniping campaign (hey, it's politics), not by the official Labour opposition leadership - who publicly paid due regard to the fact it was their predecessors that brought the town low - but by a rather by the young woman councillor who eventually became Labour's (losing) mayoral candidate.

She's a bit of an object lesson.  She thoroughly suborned the widely-read local website, Inside Croydon, which started life as a fairly even-handed platform but latterly became her mouthpiece - presumably by her giving it a great deal of her attention including, allegedly (let her sue if she dares), leaking a lot of Council stuff to them.  She also ran a fairly adroit social meejah campaign; and put herself about the town bigly wearing bright red coats, to the extent her personal recognition factor was quite astonishingly high for a local politician.  She promised all things to all people (naturally) and there were no surprises whatsoever when Labour adopted her as their candidate.  Based on all this, very many people - and most certainly Inside Croydon (noticeably reticent this morning, haha) - bruited it about that she'd win easily, in spite of Starmer.  After all, the demographics of this "diverse" London borough seem strongly to favour Labour anyway, and we have no history of third parties whatsoever since the last of the "Residents and Ratepayers" candidates were elected more than 40 years ago. 

But here we are.  How so?  

(a) the Tories waged a fairly adroit campaign themselves.  (Running as "Local Conservatives" was a good start.)  Somehow, on our canvass returns, some bright spark took it upon themselves to classify electors into "anyone but Reform" or "anyone but Labour" - I'm not sure how - and voters got personalised letters accordingly.  The "abL" letter was signed by the single most well-known and admired woman in the borough, a long-time Labour stalwart and councillor of 36 years who has for decades been an omnipresent and ultra-personable networker at civic and civic-related occasions, and a tireless, nay saintly, and highly entrepreneurial charity worker.  She has long been vocally disgusted at the behaviour of said Labour mayoral candidate-woman, and gave the Tory her glowing endorsement.  In a 1,000-vote majority, I'm guessing her backing alone made the 500-voter difference.

(b) as reported earlier, Reform here are, in the immortal words of Father Jack, a shower of bastards, and certainly not sufficiently organised to take a fatal bite out of the Tories.  (Farage even cancelled a campaign visit when the infighting made it look to o risky for him.)  A better-run Reform effort could have made serious inroads into the vast traditional white working-class estate of New Addington (meriting 5 councillors - that's big) where even the Tories often have success.  At the time of writing, we haven't had the councillor results through, so maybe they did; we'll see.  But whatever, it wasn't enough to impact the mayoral outcome.

(c) as also written here before (in the context of the 2011 riots) the population of Croydon is quite exceptionally diverse and, unusually, no single ethnic group predominates.  If anything, it's black and Tamil, with Hindu and Moslem in the mix: but the latter not in remotely such numbers as make it a Green prospect (there aren't lots of "young unemployed graduates" either) - just enough to take a fair bite out of Labour in a close race.  Also, the Tories have long had very decent representation among all these groups (and the Poles) excepting possibly the Moslems - though we did have a very prominent Tory Moslem Deputy Mayor; and the blacks are very split between progressives and deeply, deeply socially conservative (= hostile to LGBTIQX+Y). 

So there we have it.  A story of just one specific local situation.  But it could very well be that local situations will be more of a factor in English politics going forward, than ever before. 

More on the overall results when we have them, no doubt.

ND

UPDATE - Croydon remains 'no overall control' - but that's a misnomer in this borough as the executive remains in the hands of the (Tory) elected mayor.  Though given that the Commissioners are in, because of the bankruptcy, even he lacks genuine control.  Other aspects:

• Minimal impact by Reform is confirmed but they did get 2 of the 5 New Addington seats (see above) 
• Kier Starmer's 20-something niece, parachuted in from absolutely nowhere with the ink still wet on her membership card, secured a seat (involving the deselection of a pretty reasonable Labour incumbent councillor and no selection process at all, needless to say) 
• Mark Adderley, husband of Nadia Sawalha, is returned as a Green despite being suspended for allegedly antisemitic remarks (and not just a few).

All good Toytown fun.

FINAL UPDATE:  here's the map.  Geo-explanation (see also above):

• the wedge on the eastern side is the mighty New Addington estate: when I was on the council, donkeys years ago, it was Labour's last and final bastion when the 'Falklands Factor' reduced them to a tiny rump.  Since then, Labour have retreated to the northern end of the estate - terraces of '60s houses & flats, 'diverse' occupants.  The Tories have worked hard on the trad white / mostly houses / right-to-buy southern end: we finally took it a few years ago but now Reform have taken over.  The only surprise is, that's about all they managed.
• The stripy top north-east sector is Crystal Palace and its lower slopes: it's gentrifying fast, with the result you see.  Labour being squeezed out accordingly, into ...
• ... the western wilds of 'Fort Neaf' (Thornton Heath) and Norbury, where I grew up.  NOT gentrified - yet - but look at Brixton!
• the rest: essentially aspirational of whatever colour or creed; plenty of successful first-generation wealth and easily recruited for the Tory cause, as can be seen from the colouring.  The odd LibDem occasionally sneaks in.

In sum: if the Tories can weather the multi-decade 'urbanisation' of the north of the borough while the gentrification spreads west and south from the top corner, there's no reason to give up on being politically competitive here; and the ghastly 8 years 2014-2022 when Labour had total control and bankrupted the place, could seem like an aberration.  Demographics, eh?

And something of a lesson with wider application?

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 

Inchoate protests, inchoate framing

Social meejah doubtless play a role in getting the mob onto the streets; but essentially what's going on is spontaneous and barely organised.  We've seen variants of it before, with "summer riots" in Brixton and other areas over the years, and of course the 2011 "Tottenham" vintage.  On those earlier occasions it was the nastier end of the leftist spectrum that was kinda hoping it contained the seeds of the revolution; but no, just opportunistic hot-weather looting and anarchy.

Starmer (and many others) should be hoping that's what we're faced with now, though a lot of their own rhetoric - which we'll come on to - isn't helping.  One obvious scenario is that in a few weeks time it really is all over bar the backlog at the magistrates' courts, tempered by whatever scope the prison system has these days for exacting 2011-vintage Starmerite-DPP justice.

Otherwise, to be blunt, it carries on until someone gets killed: that's the horrible truth**.  What happens thereafter hinges entirely on the precise circumstances of that dread event: we could all come up with scenarios.

If - and it's not certain - it does carry on, how does it get framed by the London-liberal-progressive consensus?  The two tribes clash not just on the streets (with the Police in the role of King's Champion, maybe also with some lefty violence adding to the mix), but also in the ideo-conceptual space.

We know what the kneejerk left-liberal framing is, because it's all around us.  "Tiny thuggish minority" is the opening gambit, as it was (correctly) in 2011: but they couldn't help themselves moving directly on to "organised by the far right".  And this is where the utter stupidity of the left starts to become plain.

Yes, you'll be able to find some stuff in social meejah that can be labelled "organisation" if you're dumb enough to frame it that way; but what you won't find is a nationwide organising committee - because there isn't one (yet).  There isn't a political party involved, either.  The left cannot understand this - because their world is full of organising committees and micro-parties, and they assume that's how stuff gets started.  (Similarly, they always refer to 'capitalism' as if it is a political movement rather than what it actually is, namely is a feature of human behaviour.)  They really, truly don't want to consider the possibility of political spontaneity from the proletariat: they insist on, and believe in, having monopoly powers over that.  They are itching to have a proper little fascist party to demonise.  While they wait, it's just arm-waving at the notional "far right": they don't want it to be as difficult to deal with as would be Actual Proletarian Discontent.

To the extent any party is even vaguely in the frame, it's Reform (of course). But only peripherally so, because Farage is manifestly keen not to be outflanked by anything whatsoever to his right.  His recent performances scream this so loudly, it ought to be really obvious to anyone.  His strategy is to monopolise the right flank of British politics (whilst staying firmly on the polite side of outright violence), and roll up the Tories from right to left until he has a workable Parliamentary block: he desperately wants to avoid the irritant / potential stumbling-block of there being any genuine 'political' organisation to his right. 

The point is: there's no such thing - yet.  What if the left somehow goads one into being?  It wouldn't  be very good politics because if Reform gets outflanked in that way, eventually it gets subsumed by the Tories as happened with the Brexit Party in 2019: and the 2029 election looks rather different.

But long before 2029 is in view, what happens if a micro-party forms, that is more than just an instantly-outlawed EDL?  The answer is: it starts to have demands, and offers itself as the entity you need to negotiate with if you want the (ex hypothesi) continuing violence to stop!   Which leftist dickhead wants that to be the dynamics of the situation?  

But they just can't help themselves.  In their uncomprehending denial of genuinely widespread discontent that could lead to widespread non-organised action, their doctrine effectively insists on framing its way into having a concrete bogey - of no genuine substance, but possible actual existence in a formal sort of way.  An actual group of people with a name.  A British gilets jaunes, if you like: coherent enough to have an identity (of a rather amorphous and hard-to-treat-with kind).

One interesting potential outcome is that Starmer might act as though he is indeed responding to concrete demands from a putative political entity, and preemptively start trying to appease it with whatever he kind-of guesses its demands might be.  (He won't need to try very hard to figure that out.)  Funnily enough, the marxist left absolutely understands this situation: it never had any difficulty understanding the impetus behind Brexit. 

Right now, however, Starmer seems to be parlaying events into a belated attempt to re-gather the lost Muslim vote.  He has to be careful, because a parallel development is likely to be the formation of Muslim self-defence groups which he'd quickly need to distance himself from, and eventually to act against.

The Tories?  They can sit this one out because of course they have already been outflanked on the right.  Their task is to devise a mirror-image of Farage's strategy: a plan for rolling up Reform from left to right.

Genuine pragmatism from Starmer would be to drop the 'far right' rhetoric (and tell the Beeb to follow suit); give the Police a pay rise; and carry through with the other line we've heard from ministers, which is to draw parallels with football hooliganism - and act accordingly.  Then go gangbusters - literally - on the small boats issue (it's in the Manifesto!).  Get some money into the hands of responsible metro mayors, with significant strings attached.  Oh, and drop all ideas of votes for 16 year-olds.  

ND  

UPDATE:  see the last section of this lefty broadcast for a manifestation the left-tactical debate I'm talking about here.

_______________

** when I was a local councillor I sat for a while on the Road Safety Committee.  Residents were forever coming forward with their demands for additional safety measures, always under the banner "Does Somebody Have To Get Killed Before You Do Anything About This?"  Basically, sadly, the answer is "Yes". 

SNP - like a Toytown constituency branch

If the fish-woman gets arrested shortly, as is widely speculated, the SNP's humiliation will be complete.  In the major parties one sometimes encounters an apparently thriving constituency branch which completely folds when a long-time figurehead chairman departs and it transpires there was nothing else of substance there at all: the difference being that with larger parties there is genuine institutional depth, and a Head Office that can intervene to put things back on their feet.  Poor 'Mo' Yousaf** resembles the hapless constituency stooge left inheriting such a situation - but there is no Head Office by way of stability and superior resources for him to lean on; he's it!  And it'll turn out the camper van doesn't actually belong to the SNP either: so, no holiday for him. 

Other illustrative parallels suggest themselves.  In the depths of History Corner there's poor old Richard Cromwell in 1649; and more recently UKIP (remember that?) when Farage's departure made it clear that it was less of an enduring political institution with depth and significance, and more of a shallow puddle with only one rather popular fish in it.

Let's see if Starmer can strategise this one to his advantage.  It ought to be possible, but he shows every sign of being a one-trick pony, and a very wooden pony at that.  Watch for a clunky and unconvincing move towards a devo-max offering in an announcement from that quarter soon.

You'd need a heart of stone, etc etc.  Personally, I'm hoping this all assists in the noble cause of scuppering Sturgeon's "trans self-ID" legislation once and for all.  Will Yousaf really go to the wall for that, in today's circumstances?   

ND

____________

** There is no deeper insult than incorrectly rendering somebody's name, which indicates to the victim you've no idea who they are really; don't much care either; and are probably representative of everyone else, too.  I discovered this by accident as a journo on a student newspaper many decades ago, when a simple typo caused an absolute outpouring of distress and anger.  Sorry to say, callow and uncaring youth that I was, this then became something I deployed deliberately to offend - ten times more effective than mere abuse.  (And not even actionable!)

Seneca is better than Truss' lame quote might suggest

What have the Romans ever done for us ..?

Predictably, Liz Truss made a spectacle of herself spluttering out an attempted quotation from Seneca (or was that Sennapod?) as she bad farewell to the cruel world of Downing Street with a neat encapsulation of her brainless approach to political decision-making.  Seneca did however write some really interesting stuff - more interesting than the low-grade self-help platitude that Truss seems to like: the T-shirt slogan material that counts as worldly wisdom amongst people like George Osborne who think that Nudge is a work of philosophy.

We turn, then, to Seneca's blood-soaked Medea - probably most famous for its prediction of the discovery of the New World: 

... in later years a time will come when Oceanus shall relax his bars and a vast territory shall appear, and Tiphys shall discover new worlds, and Thule shall be no longer the remotest spot on earth.

Seneca also had something critical to say about the opening up of the world for commerce and multi-culti exchange - an issue we often find being discussed around here, and indeed which exercises a lot of modern political thought: the benefits, or otherwise, of globalism, free trade (and dependency thereon), supra-national government and more-or-less compulsory cultural fusion.  The Loeb translation runs thus

Our forefathers saw bright eras with crime and deceit far distant.  Homely, touching no shores but their own, they grew to old age on their fathers' land, and, rich with little, beyond what their native soil had yielded they knew no wealth. The covenants of this well-separated world were dragged together by Thessaly's pinewood boat, which ... bade the sea, once alien, become part of our fears.

In other words:  our [very distant!] forefathers knew nothing beyond their own shores, but they were happy, and lived well enough on what they had.  All these happily separate nations, each with its own customs, were forcibly wrenched into a single 'unity' when the first merchant-adventurers started stirring things up: and the seas, which nobody ventured upon before, became a source of troubles.  (Apologies if I'm insulting you by offering a precis.)

Now of course ancient Roman imperialists (Seneca's target here) were very much in favour of globalism.  They had every intention of taking their ships everywhere, with no limits as to whom they were willing and indeed eager to embrace in their world-system: all you had to do was subordinate your culture - and of course pay your taxes.  In return, you got, well, whatever it was the Romans did for us.  And, as John Cleese's Reg ruefully acknowledges, that was, errr, quite a lot.

We have more recent versions of globalist imperialism to think about.  We Brits had a good crack at it, spouting the Roman precedent explicitly at every opportunity.  The French would have loved to (and the Spanish).  The Americans are still in that mode, though less confidently than in earlier decades.  The Chinese are itching to have a go.  Somewhat more regionally, Russia thinks everyone across a pretty broad expanse of the planet should offer fealty to Moscow.  And of course the EC is pretty keen on having everyone in (and indeed adjacent to) Europe subordinate their cultures and pay their taxes, with compulsory multi-culti all round.  Which a majority of us Brits are now quite resistant to.

I don't recall Nigel Farage ever quoting Seneca.  But the golden image of a "well-separated world" of yore, everyone happy with their lot, might sometimes be rather attractive - on both right and left of politics; and for Greens, too.

Still, that list of "what the Romans did" is quite impressive ...

ND

Farage Makes His Move

To the utter disgust of some of the purist BTLers on Mr Raedwald's fine blog, Farage has made his move.  An entirely logical move, and actually the cleverest use of the leverage he has carefully assembled.  And, as luck would have it, more or less exactly what Raedwald asked of him first thing this morning.  Everybody's been thinking the same the past few days - we said it ourselves in our post at the end of last week. 

Two of Drew's Laws of Politics are in play here:

#4:  The lines of logistics in politcs are short.    Meaning, (most) decisions can be taken - by the right collection of people - in the small confines of a smoke-filled room: and if they are decisive people (unlike, e.g. May or Corbyn) they can be taken quickly, in a single sitting.  

Neatly, Farage ensured he entered the fray with the shortest possible lines of logistics in the context of a democracy (more or less), his party being quite literally a one-man band reserving unilateral powers of decision-making to N.Farage, esq.  Doesn't get tidier than that, short of being J.Stalin or A.T.Hun. 

#1:  Never buy off anybody at a price higher than absolutely necessary.   One of the neatest tricks in politics, as in business, is to get oneself into a position where one can threaten to make the obviously stronger party suffer a severe but avoidable nuisance.  Then sit back and wait to be bought off; to exact a fat fee for the ransom-strip so cunningly acquired.  In practice this frequently works out much more lucratively than it should - in business, as in politics.  Just as most businessmen secretly hanker after a monopoly, (and criminals seek enrichment without time-consuming effort), so most politicians dream of unopposed election, victory by acclaim (vide both Blair and Brown in turn).  Their inclination, therefore, is to rush for the metaphorical (or actual) chequebook and do a deal.  

Fearing more inconvenience than is actually plausible, they generally pay too much.  What would Cameron give for the opportunity to recalibrate his own offer to the electorate in 2015?   What joy came to Tony Blair by giving Brown full and explicit control of both the Treasury and domestic policy?   Etc etc etc: this particular strand of human history has been playing on a loop since 4004 BC.

Though further and better particulars are awaited in the present case, it looks very much as though Boris has held his nerve superbly, and paid nothing.  And Farage, making his own calculations, needed the concurrence of precisely nobody to carry his conculsions through.

I expect much wailing and gnashing of teeth across the public domain at this hilarious development.

ND

How Does Farage Parlay This?

Fair play to the lad - it's a remarkable achievement, right enough.  But Farage, newly-tinted hair and all, has long protested his only interest** is Brexit, an end in itself.  So what does he do next - even if only to secure that end?

• Stand back and let a chastened new Tory leader finish the job?
• Stand back and watch another year of Parliamentary paralysis and general can-kicking?
• Sit back and mint some more euro-dosh? 
• Make a serious effort to build a viable grass-roots party, fit to contest a GE?
• Actively attempt to suborn the Tories via a reverse takeover?
• Engineer R2, on the grounds Cummings can win it again?
• Engineer a Corbyn government, as a prelude to a poujadist uprising?   
• Resign himself to (and actually rather enjoy) being in a perpetual state of *disgust*?     
• [ your suggestions below ... ]

I'm just interested, really.

ND

_______________
** apart from going large in the USA, that is

The Swirling Realignment of British Politics

The 'Independent Group' - a small splinter of plywood, or the first jolt of tectonic shift?  The Brexit Party (Co Ltd) - a single-issue vanity project, or the model for parties of the 2020's?  The 'UK Youth Climate Coalition' - an NGO ramp, or a nascent force for change?  The only thing we may be sure of is that none of these new developments will go short of cash: that's the easy bit.

Yes, as we all knew, 2019 is going to be a year for the political connoisseur.  Which politician, and/or which organisation, will be both sharp and flexible enough to make anything from these swirling pieces of jigsaw?  Can bricks be made from the straws-in-the-wind?  Let's look at the existing organisations, all of which look leaden-footed right now, but all of which have resources and incentives to attempt to capitalise on the chaos.

1.  Celtic Fringe parties (primarily SNP, DUP, Sinn Fein).  All essentially single-issue and opportunistic.  Probably don't need to change in order to survive in their current state, even if that's a rather passive objective.  SNP will need to weather the Salmond storm (and hence will tend to wind their necks in a bit more than they otherwise would); but it's not clear that Labour are in any position to roll them back out of Westminster at the next GE.  One comes across suggestions of a 'unilateral inde-referendum', which couldn't be ruled out.  Mostly, though, with the Salmond of Damocles over their heads, it'll be watch-and-wait.**

For many months I have puzzled over Sinn Fein's quiescence; and it's nearly two years since I last got a proper political briefing in a Dublin pub.  My inclination is to assume that, as an organisation with a clear goal and the ability to play a long game, they are just waiting for the chance to pluck the juicy prize when the bough bends sufficiently for them to reach up and take it.  (To this end, BTW, they must surely be willing ultimately to take up those Westminster seats that everyone assumes they'll forswear forever.)

2.  Libs.  Is it too glib to pass on without further comment?  In a world where genuine political novelty is in the air, they don't look like any sort of major beneficiary, even if someone might someday casually enquire as to the price of their rather small block-vote.  (We all know that answer: PR.)

3.  Greens.   Must rather like the look of the 'UK Youth Climate Coalition', in much the same way as a bunch of OAPs like the look of kids playing mixed-sex touch rugby in the park.  Everyone hopes to harness da yoof (particularly if they know how to set up a good website) but only Momentum shows any signs of weaponising it so far (see below).

4.  Labour.  Do any C@W readers have an insider's insight here?  My secondhand info is that the split within Labour between Corbyn-worshippers and the rest runs bitter and deep to a degree only lefties really understand.  Still, we must assume the Official Labour Party will keep it together enough to take the field at the next GE.  We must also assume that, buoyed by the (relative) success of the student-loan bribe in 2017, they will be offering free unicorns to every child; and, most specifcally, a voting age of 16 - perhaps arguing to 18-19-20's that they'll get much more of what they want if they vote for reinforcements from even younger teens next time.  (Monbiot shows here how they'll easily dress this up.)  

And, as noted before, Momentum (that's Momentum Co Ltd, actually and technically another middle-age corporate vehicle) have already gone a way down this youth road, with moderate success.  The key here is whether Disillusioned-with-Jeremy of Bedsit, England can keep the faith for another two whole years.  Maybe.  Maybe not.

Anyhow, the near term future for Labour looks to me like More Of The Same.  Making no headway in Scotland.  Worried about northern Brexit towns.  Quite deeply exhausted by internal warfare - too much so to mount any kind of genuine revival or metamorphosis.   (The summer of antisemitism really did take a toll, as far as I can tell.)  Corbyn, and particularly McDonnell, starting to look their age, whilst still kidding themselves they can play a waiting game.**  Starmer the only vestige of manifest leadership (or maybe Watson?), even if Cooper is keeping plenty of powder dry.  Which brings us to ...

5. The Wicked Tories.  I suppose we must reckon that the next few days might bring about a few desertions...  [OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS]   And it's hard to overlook the sheer number of C@W BTL comments that read "I'll never vote for those bastards ever again, ever".   And perhaps the new Farage vanity-vehicle is really attractive enough to adopt the mantle over the next two years.  (Though if that's the plan, they might have come up with a better party name.)

That said:  the Tories are UK history's great survivors.  Loyalty, inertia, lassitude; as you will.  But it's not called Conservative for nothing (and has there every been a bogeyman quite like Corbyn?)  Of course, it also speaks to More of The Same too, even more resoundingly than with Labour.  There can't be an accommodation with Farage, at least until after the next GE.  No mighty leaders-in-waiting have set up camp within the party, even if a romantic sort of Boris-camp has subsisted for years and we can all see the other petty displays of unlimited ambition in little side-booths all across Westminster.  

So - there are some jigsaw pieces to push mournfully around the table.  How many more substantive elements will complete the picture at the time of the next GE?

ND
____________________
** Sinn Fein might have some excuse for watch-and-wait; but in the case of both the SNP and Labour, I reckon they are kidding themselves as to the effectiveness of their would-be opportunism.  They all dream of being Wellington at Salamanca; but in reality it's more like idleness and inability to make the political weather. 
   

And so it starts with Salmond at the Fore

Finally, the UK Election hoves into view as the main chapter in the Nation's life for a few weeks.

It is for yourself to decide how welcome this (I am on hols for abroad 2 weeks of it, lucky me!) for your media viewing habits....

Interestingly though this time is that the minor parties are still far up the agenda. This as we know from the last election means a hung parliament is nailed on. With coverage the minor parties have their Oxygen.

Mr Salmond has led the way with his frankly bizarre rants about holding Westminster to ransom. They are less bizarre when you remember how bitter he is to have lost the referendum and with it his job last year. Now is the time for revenge on those pesky English, the bogey men who cost him his job by not being able to vote for him in an Scotland-only referendum.

So now he remains keen to be as obstructive as possible - he is lucky that with such a and tiny vote base on a single issue, his clarity of strategy is easy. Wind up the English, make it hell for Westminster, appear lefty and populist to garner the votes of the '45%.' Simples.

Rather more of a nightmare for Milliband and Cameron. For them too is the Farage outlier, roundly attacked in the press and every slight mistake jumped upon, the role of traditional English underdog beckons for the campaign. The harder the mainstream try, the more oxygen he gets and his vote base firms up. Plus of course, he can become the English anti-Salmond - always important to be a lucky General.

Meanwhile, Cameron produced a non-budget to save excitement for the manifesto, so squandering his last big set-piece and Milliband, well the less said about him the better (literally true, as Labour is so much more popular than its leader...).

The debates finally agreed have an odd structure but this will suit the Government, with so many and such an arcane format they will likely not have the impact of 2010 - so helping the incumbent.

Still though, the Campaign will be bitter and repetitive with so many voices heard and few of reason amongst them.

Nige for PM

I am trying to recall a time when a senior Government member went in for a political debate with a minor party and was bested to totally. I went to the Farage/Clegg debate and with all Clegg's whirring of arms and attempts at humour he came across as an arrogant, hypocritical snob. Quite an achievement against Nigel who really is a posh City buy, but has the common touch in a way Clegg absolutely despises - we all know he the opposite of this.

Of course I guess a match up between say Salmond and Cameron would be interesting, but Cameron is far to frit to go in for that kind of escapade. Clegg must have thought he had little to lose in taking on Farage but he hopefully has firmly shifted the Lib Dems into a deserved fourth place in the General Election as well as the European elections.

What amazed me, perhaps even slightly appalled, was that there was nothing for me to disagree with Farage on and at the same time, nothing that I could agree with Clegg on. I am a balanced person and spend my days playing devil's advocate for fun and taking opposing sides - but Clegg's pro-Euro (i.e. pro chez Clegg, literally) and anti-English is shocking.

Whereas Farage's refreshing populism is what the Country needs to shake it out of a morose plod towards penury and social collapse under the contradictions weight of 'social democracy.'