Rosebank and Jackdaw: green-red panic setting in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ND

_____________________

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

No honeymoon for Burnham: very revealing

Yesterday furnished us with a very significant clue.

In a post several weeks ago I described the then by-election candidate's demeanour thus: 

Burnham makes a pretty unconvincing saviour of the nation. He comes across as an odd combination of entitled, nervous and petulant.

Obviously, I'm still fishing around for a good understanding of the man, who's been out of the national gaze for a long time.  He is without doubt an unusual party leader and PM.  For example, I believe I'm correct in saying he's the first post-war leader of either of the two trad Major Parties not to have come directly from the ranks of the existing Cabinet / Shadow Cabinet (need to check Alec Douglas Home).  Of those who went to an English university at all, he's the only one from Cambridge.  

He seems to have a degree of decisiveness, of cut-and-thrust, maybe even a bit ruthless (more so than Sadiq Khan, clearly, who also plotted the same strategy for becoming PM but fell at the critical hurdle, somewhat to my surprise.[1])   He is obviously also ambitious, and always has been.  And an extremely personable guy, who commands affection (we'll find out about his command of loyalty as time goes on).  But although these things are good and even necessary, it's not necessarily sufficient: there's also that streak of domesticity, in the sense of not-really-made-for-the-global-league.  Like one of those really good, popular sportsmen (I'm thinking rugby, soccer, cricket) who makes a huge contribution for his club team, is absolutely idolised by the supporters of that club, but never makes it as an international - and you sort-of know why.   The step-up to test match sport is a big one, and not everybody can make it.

I could go on (as you know), and certainly will over the coming months.

Anyhow, to yesterday's big clue.  We all saw it in realtime.  His Big First-Day Announcement, the removal of VAT on electricity, is duly wheeled out.  What a brilliant quick-win, a declaration of intent!   To be 'funded' by scrapping[2] digital ID - even better!!  And then, only 12 hours out of retirement, along comes Darren Jones who torpedoes it in the space of a single tweet.  In Burnham's Brave New World of No More Hostile Briefing!  Hahahah.

But here's the thing.  Starmer got away with sheer murder as regards adverse media coverage, for many months before the last GE, and many weeks thereafter.  But HMS Burnham, being torpedoed having barely left harbour, instantly became the main headline across all meejah!  

The difference?   The meejah instinctively feared Starmer: he has the air of a potentially very vindictive person (with a track record to boot).  With the position he commanded from about 2023 onwards, nobody was about to piss on his shoes - not until they knew they'd got him cold (on the freebies thing).  But we see very clearly - On Day One! - that even with Burnham's massive Parliamentary majority, and popularity, and the gallons of early-days goodwill sloshing around, the meejah - including the Beeb - have no fear of retribution at all.

Is this just a function of Labour's weak position in the polls?  I don't think so.  No, it's a judgement on Young Andy's personality.  That he likes to be liked is a commonplace observation.  But the meejah mob sees something else: it reckons he's soft.  We're in the territory young officers are always warned against when getting a bit too matey with their soldiers.  If you become One Of The Boys, very soon you'll be Just One Of The Boys.  Respect gone.  Doom.

Andy (mate!), it's a crisis: remember these words.

And now ... Listen great things... We must straight make head / Therefore let our alliance be combined / Our best friends made, our means stretched. / And let us presently go sit in council / How covert matters may be best disclosed /And open perils surest answered. ... For we are at the stake / And bayed about with many enemies / And some that smile have in their hearts, I fear / Millions of mischiefs.    

ND

____________

[1]  So he may indeed be as ill as he looks

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

Hattersley: a disarmingly honest old hypocrite

Well the tub of lard** lasted a lot longer than the lettuce, but now Roy Hattersley's gone.

Over the years he's come to our attention before, and BTL on the previous post one of our Anon's gave us two of Roy's fine pieces of cheery hypocrisy, both from the Grauniad.  Another gem worth recalling is something he wrote in his long-running Diary in the same newspaper:

I do not believe that there are young women who get themselves pregnant to qualify for a council house.  And even if I am wrong about this, it it to my credit that I don't believe it.

He knew he was in the wrong, but unlike most of these left-ish rogues, he didn't mind admitting it.   Refreshing, in its own way, I suppose.

ND

___________

** Oddly, that episode of HIGNFY seems to have been expunged from the www

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

Streeting will land us with Miliband

I'm off on a short hol, but I leave you with my view - a prediction that has been simmering for 18 months, as you know (check the Mili tag).

• It's clear enough why Streeting might feel his only chance (ever) is to move now
• He may get 80 signatures, but he won't get elected
• Not sure if Starmer will stand and fight - John Major did (and won), but that was different in material ways
• In any case, if Streeting moves, Miliband wins

Have fun.   If I can find some wifi in a few days time, I might join in.

ND

________________

PS: the lefties at Novara are often quite good on lefty stuff, but made a really ridiculous assessment on Tuesday evening.  They said Miliband doesn't fly "because he's been rejected by the electorate before".  FFS!

1. The electorate ain't being consulted
2. errr ... Harold Wilson 1974?
3. errr ... Donald Trump 2024?
4. - plus loads of French and Italian politicians who think nothing of going round for a second bite  

PPS:  Rayner's 11th-hour "exoneration" is pretty damn' convenient, eh???  For Starmer as well as for her.  Sounds to me like the story of McSweeney's 'phone: nobody's gonna believe it. 

Today's elections: a small prediction

A subject we've touched on before is the stupidity of Starmer thinking that giving votes to 16- and 17-year olds will boost Labour's prospects.  Must have seemed a good idea when Team Starmer were plotting back in 2021-2, but the rise of Green and Turquoise tik-tok populism must surely have given them pause, even before we mention Andrew Tate and 'Amelia'.

But of course in Scotland and Wales, teens do indeed get the vote.

I'm betting Team Starmer will be analysing the demographics of today's voting patterns very, very carefully before proceeding with this particular manifesto promise. 

(And indeed Team Successor, if Starmer really is for the chop.  Though it it's to be the gurning Miliband, he really fancies himself on titk-tok.  For some reason.) 

ND

Iran, and two men's revealing speeches

First, the utterly unspeakable Hesgeth, who should by rights be languishing in a gaol somewhere for his outrageous breach of security in running that insecure and actually compromised Signal chat last summer.  There he is, mouthing off in ways scarcely befitting an unrestrained junior under-boss of a New York crime family, just before the capo decided he's heard enough ill-judged, unseemly braggadocio.  (The Mafia idiom comes readily to mind in so many of Team Trump's doings.)   And the empty boasting about the "effectively unlimited" magazine depth of US forces - it's clearly untrue, and who thinks it's clever?  Xi will be at risk of splitting his sides. 

Then, there's Starmer's performance when announcing that Trump may use UK bases "for strictly defensive strikes".  Just look at the body language, from a man who, like a real political pro, can normally hold it together quite well when he's delivering absolute, calculating lies.  His voice was shaky; he looked ill with worry; he wouldn't take questions.  A shockingly unconvincing performance, in logic and delivery.  

The sequence of events for this hollow man is obvious:

1. Lose by-election due to Moslem vote going Green
2. Half a dozen Cabinet ministers see their futures dwindling 
3. Hasty strategy meeting (i): must start heavy-duty pandering to 'the community'
4. Trump off on another rogue mission of Netanyahu's devising, wants to rope in the UK: no!  Channel Harold Wilson / Vietnam!  Make it clear we're on the side of (peaceful) Moslems!
5. Trump lets it be known bigly that this is the Wrong Answer: reminds Starmer the RAF is already heavily engaged in the region; and that he'll do whatever he pleases anyway; but that "disloyal optics" are not permitted
6. Hasty strategy meeting (ii): "jolly helpful" that an itty bitty Shahed has landed somewhere in the Akrotiri region, and that RAF is been providing top-cover for Jordan (& Turkey?) anyway. Defensive defensive defensive!  New statement.  Grip podium.  Square circle.  Pander to both sides - & try to be convincing.  Come on man, you can do it!

Then, hasty strategy meeting (iii).  Ramp up on those other pandering-plans.  Where are we with the new Blasphemy law?  Hurry that up.  And are we doing enough "blend and extend" to ensure the Grooming Gangs inquiry focuses on London, and child abuse in general?  We need to do more: get Khan on the phone again, and those Anti Social Media campaigners.

Gah.  It's so transparent.  But, I tell you - he intends to tough it all out.

ND

Mandelson: a nation rejoices

Was there a home or a hostelry in the land where a cheer didn't go up when the news broke?

Not knowing precisely what the law is as regards publicly discussing live (potentially) criminal cases, I'll settle for a few random, unworthy observations.

• Gotta love the way Gordon Brown solemnly offered PC Plod his forensic account of how outrageously Mandelson betrayed him - sorry, betrayed the Nation - when in office just before and after the 2010 GE.  Hell hath no fury ... and it's never difficult to tell the difference between a dour Scotsman and a ray of sunshine.  Etc
• Also enjoyed seeing Mandy crammed into the back seat of ... a Ford Focus!  Of all cars.  With three other coppers.  He won't have sat in a seat as lowly as that for the best part of 40 years!
• Channel 4's "sources close to Mandelson" said that when Andy was arrested but not him, he reckoned the storm had passed.  Well, that's Mandy - always aggressive, shameless optimism in public, as we've said here before.  But - how much sleep did Mandy get, do we think, after Andy was arrested?
• Nobody has much scrupled to disguise the exact location of his "Camden" house (= Regents Park).  Nice house!  

The show rumbles on.  Brightens up a damp February.

ND

UPDATE - now being reported that at 4am this morning, just a short while after PC Plod let him go home, Mandy started briefing against the Met Police!  The modus operandi never changes - take the initiative, brief, spin, attack attack attack ! 

Does. Starmer. Never. Learn. Anything?

How would anyone summarise Starmer's most recent month's worth of self-inflicted misery?  Easy: he is accused of severe, sustained failure of judgement on personnel matters - in the face of prior knowledge and warnings.   Oh, and of course disowning responsibility afterwards.  No internalised ethics adviser inside that Max Headroom skull; and no internalised HR adviser either. 

So, when needing a new Cabinet Secretary (and how did that requirement come about, pray ..?) what does he do but pick someone with a track record of bullying accusations[1].  FFS, why?  OK, the Labour wimmin have been braying about the need to break up his "boys' club", but (a) so what?  (b) Sue Gray, anyone? 

Meanwhile, someone on Team Starmer is continuing the "good work"[2] with daily injections of supposedly ultra-pop, and/or left-pleasing "initiatives" - i.e. belligerent statements of empty intent - for Starmer to deliver as a mighty smokescreen for the non-stop string of genuinely damaging cock-ups.  It's not a prime-ministerial look: and it ain't working.

Here's a simple prediction: the meejah has got it in for him to the extent that an editorial edict of "find a story that brings him down" has replaced "stay onside with Team Starmer no matter what" as a standing headline of the newsroom's Orders of the Day.   They'll be doing whatever it takes to find stuff on the Romeo woman, too - given that there are evidently skeletons in her closet.  There'll always be a disgruntled / slighted / insulted / sidelined / bitter ex-colleague out there.  

A race, then, between which of them is turfed out first.  Popcorn supplies are running low.

ND

_______________

[1] Let nobody fall for "there was one complaint (a long time ago in a galaxy far away) ... but no case to answer".

[2] Of course, it may be that McSweeney is still having his instructions chanelled into TS from wherever he's skulking.  Mandy's too - even if from one of Deripaska's yachts.  Well, why not?  They are trusted advisers, no?

Mandelson, document-release ... and Polly Toynbee

So what to make of the latest state of play over Mandy?

I'd say it's really clear: Team Starmer is utterly determined to tough this out, and they reckon they can do it: their man is no conscience-stricken wimp, likely to flake on them one fine morning.   Grim determination is no guarantee of success, of course: but (a) it is at least a necessary condition of success; and (b) these are scheming, desperate people with a lot of levers available to them.

> the way things developed in Parliament on Wednesday shows that Team S's going-in point was to resist document disclosure, period.  They were thwarted procedurally by the unholy alliance of Badenoch + Rayner, but we know what is plainly their aim: not to release docs. 

> they are 'framing' like crazy to the media, and it still largely gets swallowed whole.  As well as "It's all about Mandelson's lies - to my staff (not me, of course)" and "I wanted to release the docs yesterday" (see previous post), we read: 

• "There will be no leadership challenge, because ... [Rayner = tax dodger, still under investigation // Burnham = disqualified // Streeting = Mandelson-best-buddy // etc]." 

• "PC Plod has a serious point about not prejudicing their investigation / potential charges being brought."   

• "So-oo many docs - this is going to take months and months."   

Etc etc.  Yup, they are going for that oldest, most intellectually dismal, most sordidly shameless  tactic of all: playing for time - and it's often successful.  Let me give you a recent parallel: a case I have been reading up lately from my own patch (energy).  A big corporate - Drax plc - had a run-in with an employee-whistleblower whom Drax fired, and who brought an employment case, early in March last year.  Halfway through the unusually lengthy Employment Tribunal, they settled: by all accounts it amounted to a capitulation by Drax.  Meejah organisations sought release of the court documents - which, had the case continued, they'd have had access to, it was a public hearing.  Drax has stonewalled for nearly eleven months, only finally releasing the docs under a court order at the end of Jan.  And even now, the docs are (a) not the complete set, and (b) in some cases, heavily redacted (on the usual grounds: "commercial sensitivity / privacy / yadder yadder").  In which time Drax has managed to secure 4 more years of juicy new subsidy, and a 40% increase in its share price, from which many execs will benefit materially, in cash.

If a corporation can behave like that, how much more easily can HMG, with all the resources of the State and the added killer pretext of "national security" (see below)?  My prediction: we ain't gonna get anything much before those May elections - and we'll never get anything they truly don't want us to see.  

Which brings us to La Toynbee, whose general run of risible Guardian offerings is occasionally but reliably punctuated with something half-worthwhile.  Here's her latest.  You need to look past the usual fatuous fawning - the idea that Starmer is "a decent PM" (she once idolised Gordon Brown, too - and Tony Blair before him) to get to the blunt & forthright expression of utter disgust at the "send-him-to-the-Tower treachery and treason".  And here's a little nugget (my emphasis): 

... he gave a wretched display of it in the Commons with a fatal attempt to hold back some vital documents on Mandelson’s vetting and appointment. Never mind that it was for sincere security reasons – mainly fear of what abuse of the US president the papers might contain – Starmer failed to measure the ferocity of the storm on his own benches

That Trump angle  -  another subtle bit of Team Starmer framing?  Well, maybe: but it's a neat idea I hadn't seen aired elsewhere.

My prediction stands: many months of Strategic Starmer Stonewalling to come.  Don't change your New Year predictions for 'name of PM on 24.12.2026' just yet awhile.  Meantime - more popcorn!

ND

UPDATE: her Gruaniad colleague Aditya Chakrabortty slaps down La Toynbee's characterisation of Starmer as a 'decent PM'. 

The refrain that Starmer is a “decent” man does not fit his record of deceiving his way to the top of the Labour party, sitting on his hands during the massacre in Gaza or clamping down on protest against it.  

Oh, those feuding Graun writers !

We know the Mandelson "vetting" was a stitch-up

As ever, Starmer had a carefully crafted speech for deployment on Thursday.  He vehemently - very vehemently - wants us to believe that whatever Parliament thought it had secured the day before, it's really all about a catalogue of "Mandelson's lies" which Starmer "had wanted to hand over yesterday" (if PC Plod hadn't told him not to hand them over; yeah, right).  Nice try, Kier; but what your MPs actually want - and won't easily be deflected from - is what McSweeney's role in all this was, blow by, errr, blow.

And what McSweeney was up to is clear enough - orchestrating a sham of a vetting process.  How do I know this?  Because on top of outright secret sources (and who knows what they knew?), within the security services is an OSINT desk - open-source intelligence gathering.  People whose job is to trawl everything available from open sources.  And in this day and age of Bellingcat and the extraordinary online resources they've tapped into and made public, and when you have the resources of HMG, GCHQ etc at your disposal, OS is one helluva resource, properly marshalled.  Be it immediately added that imposing QA on what is found online etc is a very significant analytic task, when all the OS stuff is assembled, tinfoil-hat dross / disinformation / Маскировка and all.  But that's not the point in this case.  What can be said for certain is that whatever was available in OS, worldwide, on Mandelson - and everybody knows that includes, e.g., the Deripaska affair - it was ready to hand within Whitehall.  And cumulatively, it was all anybody needed to know to conclude he was a non-starter for Ambassador by any rational criteria.

Ready to hand - but seemingly not deployed.  In other words - and let's charitably dump this all on the convenient fall-guy - McS ran a sham exercise in which Mandelson was invited to tell whatever lies he liked; and he was then taken at his word, without the security services being tasked to give it the old red-ink marginal annotation routine.  Because if Mandelson had simply given them a big assemblage of lies, they could have demolished it, line by line. 

The alternative explanations - that all his lies were indeed fisked, or even that he simply didn't lie at all - and still Starmer made the appointment, well, that would be even worse for Starmer.  But since PC Plod is conveniently withholding the list of lies, we can only speculate...

ND

Mandelson: endless, shameless optimism of self-promotion

A few months ago we had cause to consider Mandy and his little ways.  "Always plotting, always thinking creatively, always strategising" - even, or perhaps especially, when his back is against the wall [are we allowed to say that?].  Since then, he's been defenestrated from the Washington embassy and caught pissing up George Osborne's side street.  But - the usual modus operandi - he waited for just a short time before he was back on manoeuvres.  As Guido has documented, before the lame attempt to offer Trump-whispering advice in the Speccie, Mandy had been hawking himself around the meejah, and for some reason Laura Kuenssberg and her people decided to gratify him with a big set-piece Sunday interview.  (Why??)  Another carefully-crafted foray; and when he decided his week's work around SW1 hadn't quite had the desired effect, why then it was followed by another crafty tweaking of his tortuous, oblique "apology".  And, as Private Eye noted, for the Mandy of 1998 it was Don't you dare say I'm a gay man!  Now, it's Don't forget to say I'm a gay man!   

Now here's the thing.  These two big self-PR drives, separated by several months, have one significant factor in common (over and above his unvarying MO and the eternal willingness of the meejah to rise to his bait): on both occasions we may be sure he knew full well there was a barrow-load of shit coming his way.  In such circumstances, maybe keep your head down? [are we allowed to say that?]  No, not Mandy: all the instincts are still to get on the front foot and try to shape the agenda. 

And what a barrow of ordure this one turns out to be!  Has there been a bigger scandal since Profumo?  As the hacks trawl the 3,000,000 new docs, more outrageous stuff turns up by the hour - and how much more might there yet be?  

But, you know what?  He'll stay down [are we ..?] for a bit: but somehow there will be a dream of redemption and another foray into the Westminster limelight.  Maybe just a bit longer interval this time, though ...

ND

Here's why Left will get 0% of 16-year old boys' votes

In two words: Soft Porn.

Well, certainly the Right has its knockers ... 

Fruity humour.  The Right can use it, the Left can't.  Starmer is completely mad if he goes for it.

ND

Duty of Candour & the 'Hillsborough Law'

I am no lawyer: but I am very interested in the 'Duty of Candour' principle.  How far, one wonders, will it extend beyond follow-up after "emergency situations" and actions thereupon by the authorities, which seems to be the application for which it is being discussed.

Where I've encountered it before [in my Energy interests] is its application in Judicial Reviews.  The principle is that, inevitably, the authorities enjoy a vast disparity of knowledge and information in such cases, and are required to cough it up, even to the extent of revealing advice given and received between officials and their counsel.

I can tell you, it puts the wind up civil servants and ministers - one of the reasons they have been trying to get the courts to be stricter over what gets heard under JR (as predicted here years ago).

Now of course we know that Whitehall etc have long found ways to live with FOI, so as not to have it cramp their style.  But it still does, to some extent.  Even so, FOI and JR notwithstanding, Whitehall and others still frequently dissemble, nay sometimes lie through their teeth, in official pronouncements.

So - just how much more comprehensive will be the scope of Duty of Candour following the passage of the Hillsborough Law?  And how will we be able to invoke it against the bastards?

ND

Strategy, and a Mandelson 'Masterclass'

Being able to do strategy has something in common with being artistic, mathematical, sporty, philosophical or a natural leader.  Most people could be made a little more adept at the associated skills and practices - maybe by good schooling or training, maybe by growing up around people who genuinely have the attribute - but fundamentally, becoming really good at any of them is a no-hope matter for most people.

That said, being a natural at any of these things doesn't mean being naturally good at them.  It just means: being able to swim in that pool.  And many swimmers in the strategy pool turn out to be bad strategists.

Lots of situations and organisations need strategy: and there's a tendency to grab at anyone who seems to be a swimmer in that pool, and/or for people who can to thrust themselves forward.  But really good strategists are few and far between: so it's not infrequent for a mediocre, or even poor strategist to be directing things, and it not even be realised for quite a while.  What's needed is the leadership to say, decisively, "yes, we need a strategist - but not a crap one".  Obviously, Starmer is no such leader.

Among high-profile genuine, but deeply flawed UK political strategists of recent years I would number George Osborne (often lambasted hereabouts for being no more than mere student-politico grade); Dominic Cummings (whose only thought after the very successful 2019 election campaign was "turn government upside down" instead of "deliver actual results from Brexit", making him just a self-indulgent blue-sky obsessive); and of course Peter Mandelson.

Like many of this kind, Mandelson is really interesting.  Long-term C@W readers will oft have seen me praising his political creativity and deep understanding of how the levers of power can be used in imaginative ways.  I don't resile from any of that.  But throughout his well-documented career, he has made gigantic mis-steps galore, often rebounding directly and very personally upon himself, notwithstanding his ability sometimes to deliver superb strategic advice to those he is gazing up to at the time, from the, errr, grovelling position he adopts.  

His actions in advancing his own cause or defending his won position - often when seriously up against it - have frequently been purposeful and genuinely adroit, albeit pretty transparent to anyone paying close attention (and sometimes to the whole world).  I could list many examples; and particularly enjoyed his very clever handling of what he knew was going to be a ghastly series of revelations the moment the latest Epstein cache hit the media.  Getting ahead of it as best he could; lots of well-chosen exculpatory themes, remorse, blame upon others, "being too trusting", willing to be open & honest about it all, "bigger boys / nasty lawyers dropped me in it" etc etc.  Ultimately a doomed effort, of course, but a miniature masterclass.  (I might even come up with a fisk of his recent performances.)

So: Mandelson - good or bad strategist?   My summary would be: technically brilliant; genuinely creative; mostly succeeding when taking on a difficult task on behalf of / at the behest of someone else; oddly lazy in his own cause (a bit paradoxical, admittedly - but I could elaborate: and it's a trait I have noted in others).

It's a big topic.  Other first thoughts?  

ND   

_______________

UPDATE (see also next post):  it now transpires that, having first been confronted by Bloomberg with his past emails, and a list of questions, Mandelson sent them promptly to the Sun - hoping that a preemptive 'friendly' Sun leak would be less devastating than what Bloomberg might do.  OK: unsuccessful - but what a bold stroke (possibly repaying a favour?).  Always plotting, always thinking creatively, always strategising    

Darren Jones: a different kettle of fish

In the right hands, the plumb job in Government is Chief Secretary to the Treasury.  Seat in Cabinet.  Just below the radar, but enormous power.  In charge of government spending - everybody needs to be your friend.   The best springboard imaginable: the partial list below is revealing[1].

And now, CSttT Darren Jones has sprung into another such job: CSttPM, no less, invented specifically for him, it seems (and to help dig the Starmermobile out of the rut in which its wheels are spinning idly as the engine races).  Yes - Darren, the sharp, confident, facetious smartarse, is in charge of more than just spending now.  Let's see what he does with it:  because such jobs and such people are in the type of pivotal position that can see significant results along several axes, personal as well as political and practical.

In business, the term once used was "troubleshooter" - a person appointed to get something Big & Awkward done, often away from the corporate centre.  Julius Caesar is perhaps the greatest example in history; there's Wellington and Slim in British military annals (and many other besides, of course).  Douglas MacArthur: the list could go on.  Right now, Putin has Sergei Kiriyenko[2].  It's happened to me three times in my career: being given plenipotentiary powers in the hope I could fix some unexpected, pressing difficulty.

The thing is: you're never sure how things will turn out - with the task itself, and what the Man does afterwards.  Caesar came back in triumph from Gaul - and immediately mounted a successful coup.  MacArthur had a coup in mind himself.  Wellington was a bit more constitutionally correct when he had the whole of Europe at his feet: he still became PM.  But Slim just quietly slipped away[3].

The troubleshooter appointment will always be given to someone believed to be capable - that's the whole point - but often also to someone viewed as maverick, which can give rise to the problematic aspect of what happens after the hoped-for success; the unwanted consequence of the Faustian pact.  And if he wasn't (identifiably) a maverick before the assignment, well, lots of power and a free hand, sometimes exercised way out over the horizon ... it can turn a man's head.  Capable, and hitherto reliable, doesn't always mean predictable.

We shall follow Mr Jones' progress with interest.

ND

____________________

[1] Past CSttT's include: James Callaghan, Geoffrey Howe, Michael Portillo, Alistair Darling, Danny Alexander, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak.  (Oh yes, and Chris Philp, whose ambitious little heart nearly exploded at the prospect he had it made, when he briefly held the job.)

[2]  If you haven't heard of him, well most people haven't.  Aye, there's the wonder of the thing - as Sherlock Holmes said in related circumstances

[3]  Zhukov, of course, was effectively banished to Siberia!  but the CP has always been paranoid about military leaders: when you need 'em, you really need 'em.  But afterwards ...  

Angela Rayner: some observations

The Angela Rayner Stamp Duty thing is manna from Heaven for the floundering, ineffectual Badenoch; and great stuff for Kremlin-watchers as we see Starmer digging mantraps for himself, and Wes Streeting desperately trying to appear compassionately on Rayner's side, even as the whole world knows she's been set up by the Labour faction that is determined Streeting himself will succeed Starmer, possibly even quite soon.  

Thus far, the matter has been discussed in rather pedestrian binary terms:

• she's a serial tax-avoider and residence-flipper - and a monstrous hypocrite to boot: or
• her personal affairs & backstory are sad, and legitimately complex (*takes out onion*), and this has led her into an understandable error: but look, she tried to get advice, she's been let down, and it's just all very human.

Personally, I suggest there's another strand to this: she's not particularly literate (lack of education, or brainpower, or both) and can't work through the HMRC guidance for herself.  

She wouldn't be alone in this.  Some of us are fortunate enough in the education and/or brainpower department to be able to make sense of relatively clear HMRC guidance (and a myriad other potentially overpowering bureaucratic verbiage one might meet in the course of a lifetime, e.g. the reams of forms on probate).  But that's just irrelevant for very many folks - however much effort HMRC et al put into wording stuff as clearly as possible - because increasingly few people have any worthwhile level of analytic verbal reasoning.  

Of course, the truly troubling bottom line is that this is evidently no bar to reaching some of the highest levels in the land.  And as noted before with the ignorant cretins at the top of Reform, this leads to one or both of two dire consequences: (a) very bad decisions by the politicians themselves, and (b) leaving them fully at the mercy of the Civil Service - another source of bad decisions - when their own limited analytic powers are overwhelmed.

In the next day or so we'll look at a politician to which none of the above applies: Darren Jones ...

ND

Where do they hide the budgets?

In the foothills-of-apocalypse position we now occupy, this may seem a prosaic concern: but where do they hide the budgets?   Well, this was always conceived of as basically a business blog, so we can't take responsibility for solving Ukraine, Gaza, Taiwan, small boats, climate change etc.  

Here are a couple of examples.  Firstly, the mighty Afghan refugee cockup.  What do they reckon - £7 billion and counting?  How come no canny forensic budget-bore spotted that one on the HMG books?  Clever old Sir Humphrey, eh?

Second, and you'll permit me my local interests here - I give you Drax plc.  Outwardly just a regular UK listed company going about its chosen mission of incinerating the forests of the world using UK subsidies on the pretence this is helping to solve the aforesaid climate change.   But behind the scenes it has to fight legal action after legal action: that's what happens when you are aggressively living a lie which you've determined to brazen out at all costs.  The other day I happened on some evidence that they are spending tens of millions annually in legal fees for litigation, amounts dwarfing what they spend on their annual statutory audit plus associated consultancy.  The latter, you will find laid out in detail in the Annual Report and Accounts: the former you will not.  The ordinary shareholder would never know.

Finally, and this one won't be even remotely surprising, I've had some correspondence that invites me to believe there is a fairly substantial renaissance getting underway of our nuclear deterrent.  Yes, there are indeed project line-items in the MoD budget for some of this.  But I'm being told it's a fraction of the true total.  Still, this probably goes back at least as far as the two Harolds, Macmillan and Wilson ...  (Maybe those two aircraft carriers didn't cost quite as much as we'd thought?)

Somebody signs off on all this stuff, supposedly with great solemnity and a straight face, with liabilities theoretically involved.  Where's an honest accountant to be found?  On the job market, I suppose. 

ND

Enter the Commissars

I return from a hol to find ... the Commissars Commissioners that are to run Croydon have been installed, and already started calling the shots.  Some background.

In the late 2010s Croydon, a marginal borough that has yo-yo'd between Tory and Labour since the 1960s, fell into the hands of a baleful Labour regime.  At the time we had the "Cabinet" system in place and the Leader of the Council, a paradigm case of the 'four-letter man' as my father would have termed him, ran both his cabinet and indeed the whole borough as a personal fiefdom.  Well, when you have a dictator, you'd better hope his judgement is good.  This man's judgement was appalling (for present purposes we needn't get into the cronyism and third-world-style corruption that went with it) and he duly bankrupted the borough - literally.  (Total incompetence married to property speculation, you won't be surprised to learn.)

In order to clean this out politically, residents petitioned successfully for a switch to the "Mayoral" system: the resulting referendum was a resounding win for the new system and in due course a Tory was elected Executive Mayor.  I've recounted some of this story before, and this chap  & his regime turned out to be more diligent and dynamic than I'd feared might be the case when I wrote about it last.

But his task was always gargantuan, since most of the (remaining) council services are required to be provided by statute, so where can seriously big cuts be found, and debt repaid?  The brough remains technically bankrupt, though "essential services" are being maintained, as the law requires.

Anyhow, whether for procedural or narrowly political** reasons, Starmer's government has decided to send in the commissioners.  This is a baleful development.  We live in an age where democracy seems to be falling out of favour, but experience of the alternatives might cause some to revisit that argument.  If not elected governance, what do you get?  Dictatorship, or commissioners at every level.  The priesthood.  Unelected; unaccountable; un-ejectable.  

More from South London in due course.

ND

________________

**Several leading Croydon Labour movers and shakers currently hold positions in Starmer's coterie, and the suspicion must be that they plan this as a maneouvre to get a Labour mayor elected in the borough next year.