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  post):next  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.  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

Who fares best against Trump?

The Donald is, by his own estimation, a legendary deal-maker and negotiator.  Well, he does get (some) things done, and indeed sometimes gets his own way.  But how much of this is deal-making?  And how good are his deals?  His reputation in the New York real estate sector sucks is, errr, equivocal.

He's been in action quite a bit this year!  So there's something to score: and we can form an early view on his performance as a negotiator up against several prominent counterparties.  

vs China:  Trump is losing, hands down.  The Chinese are playing him like a fiddle, and he's steadily backing down on the tariff war, step by step.  Yet surely, by every standard of US foreign policy as espoused in the past decade by both his and the Democrat party, this is the only game that truly matters.  Sheesh... this really matters!  - did he think he could simply swat Xi aside one spring afternoon while he was mostly busy, errr, earning his Nobel Peace prize, annexing the whole North American land mass, remodelling the White House, peddling his crap merchandise, running feuds against everyone he's ever had a grievance against etc etc etc?

vs Russia:  jury still out, perhaps, but Putin won't be particularly disconcerted by their exchanges to date.  Relative to the extraordinary prior claims made by Trump ("peace in Ukraine in one day!"), and his huffing and puffing about "consequences", the current state of play is pretty demeaning for him.

vs Mexico and Canada:  given how things looked at the start of the whole tariffs round, OK-ish for M & C.  They've mostly stood their ground, and the world hasn't fallen down around their ears by any means.  Makes Trump's early rhetoric look pretty silly - and that's just on trade.  As for annexing Canada ... (I think we can hear the laughter from here - and Greenland probably isn't too worried just now, either.)  

vs India:  jury definitely still out, because India has options.  Trump has dealt his blow - but will he get any pleasure from what happens over the next months and years?  Not at all clear.  How clever is it to send Modi scuttling to Beijing, hmm?

vs Starmer:  surely, 2-1 to Trump.  Starmer has chosen to grovel, in return for some relative 'gains' (negatively defined, which is the only thing we can say) when compared to the EC, see below.  But it has suited Trump to give a little pat on the head to the biggest arse-licker, just pour encourager les autres.

vs the EC:  a seriously bad result for the EU, courtesy of the unelected EC which holds much of Europe's fate in their hands.  Feeble stuff.  A bit of a surprise, given how comprehensively the EC wiped the floor with Cameron and May.  But from this distance, that probably tells us more about them than it does about the EC.

vs Iran:  personally, I can't call this one yet.  Need to keep it in view: could tell us quite a lot.

Crazy man, crazy times.

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. 

Macron's Cunning Plan, parts 14 & 15

So as well as completing the stitch-up over Sizewell and Hinkley (as discussed here many, many times), there's Macron's new "one out, one in" plan for the small boats.

Let's see if I've got this right.

So for every illegal that arrives on these shore that we send straight back, we must grant asylum to a "genuine" one.

But as we know, many of these people keep setting out, over and over again, until they succeed.

So. on a ratchet basis, one single illegal can be 'recycled' endlessly, to offload as many "genuines" from France as they are quickly able to turn him around for another crossing .. .. ?

Oh come on, Starmer can't be that stupid .. can he?  Please?

ND

Starmer's bizarre pleading

For all those inclined to calibrate their psychological assessments of Starmer, the recent (very sympathetic) Observer interview offers quite a lot of input.  Inter alia, we learn he "deeply regrets" his "island of strangers" speech, thusly: 

Starmer insists ... the speech was simply a mistake. “I wouldn’t have used those words if I had known they were, or even would be interpreted as an echo of Powell,” he says. “I had no idea – and my speechwriters didn’t know either,” he says. “But that particular phrase – no – it wasn’t right. I’ll give you the honest truth: I deeply regret using it”  ... he doesn’t blame his advisers or anyone else except himself for these mistakes ... Starmer says he should have read through the speech properly and “held it up to the light a bit more”. The prime minister also accepts there were “problems with the language” in his foreword to the policy document that said the record high numbers of immigrants entering the UK under the last government had done “incalculable damage” to the country.

Sorry, matey, that won't wash.  For starters, in that speech he also said his immigration policy statement was promoted on the back of it being "right - because it is fair, and because it is what I believe in", Boris Johnson's opening of the immigration floodgates being a "squalid chapter".  Secondly, over the following few days he did the classic Starmer thing of initially doubling down on the first utterence: when quickly challenged on the "island of strangers" language, he emphasised that "well, it is a danger".       

Does anyone, let alone a lawyer-PM, outsource the articulation of "what I believe in, what I think is right" to Spads?  Or, to put the question another way:  what sort of lawyer-PM does this?   

ND

Advising Starmer on Iran & the legal stuff

An interesting challenge for the Attorney General, one Richard, Baron Hermer - a controversial figure, one-time mate of Starmer's, but rumoured to be for the chop in the first Cabinet reshuffle.  But maybe not just yet ...

UPDATE:  see this, from Guido today.  But you read it here first.

Poor Starmer: so desperate to remain in the kneeling position with Trump, but, oh, the legalities of supporting unilateral bunker-busting.  As we know, Kier is so-o wedded to the international rules-based order of things.  Him a lawyer and all.

And if Trump never really wanted to have his second term characterised by US involvement in Middle Eastern 'forever wars', well, Starmer can hardly be ecstatic about following Blair into the politico-historical dustbin of history by rash association with the wild man of the White House.

So what will Hermer advise, and how "flexible" will he turn out to be.  Remember Blair & Goldsmith?   And the Blairite legacy.  That Iraq thing, eh?   And the big inquiry afterwards.  Wow, that seems a long time ago.   But then again, history rhymes ... (with the usual apologies to G&S)

When I was a lad I made it big
As fixer-in-chief in an Attorney's wig
I cleaned up scandals and I swept up sleaze
And I pandered to the wishes of the Big Big Cheese
(He pandered to the wishes of the Big Big Cheese)
I pandered to the wishes of the Power in the Land
And now I’m sitting here with his balls in my hand

As Attorney General I made such a mark
That he asked me to change my advice on Iraq
I quickly saw the error of my ways
And gave him what he wanted without delay
(He changed his advice without delay)
I told him he could do whatever he planned
So now I’m sitting here with his balls in my hand

Now lackeys all, whoever you may be,
If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
If your conscience isn't fettered by scruple or qualm,
Be guided by this rule and you’ll meet no harm.
(He is guided by this rule and he’s met no harm)
Keep your own head down during Custer’s Last Stand
And you may come away with his balls in your hand

ND

Caption compo: Starmer abases himself

To preempt the official Private Eye front-cover pronouncement next week is obviously lèse-majesté and we should wait patiently - but, come on, this is begging for a caption gag,  just as Starmer is gagging for crumbs from Trump's table.

Have at it!

ND 

Sizewell: another win for French nuclear blackmail

Among the large numbers bandied around by Rachel Reeves was of course well over £10bn of UK money for Sizewell C: and FID is yet to be taken!  Exactly whether this dosh is envisaged as outright cash (as has been the case with the billions already gifted to EDF, even before FID), or dumped straight onto electricity bills, or a combination, I have not yet discerned.  

It's still outrageous - at best a humongous leap of faith, the beneficiary of which is a French concern (and indeed the French state) that has proven itself many, many times over to be unworthy of trust in such matters.  In return for what?  A plant that, even on the most ambitious and optimistic assumptions, could not be generating electricity before the next-Parliament-but-two, and in the meantime will have cost all of us a great deal of non-returnable money.  Who said politicians' horizons extend only as far as the next election at best, and the next headline at worst?

Well of course none of this is to be taken at face value.  They are already pitching for headlines reading "thousands of jobs", although as we know, the hi-tech jobs involved will without doubt be squarely located in France.  The sop of a bit of civil engineering for UK firms - and not even 100% of that, if Hinkley Point C is any guide, which of course it is explicitly meant to be!  If Keynesianism is the guiding theory, you could get a great deal more for your money on vastly more useful civil engineering projects that might actually make some kind of economic return decades sooner than SZC ever could.  Just keeping the money in the UK would be a start. 

And of course there are other short-term considerations, the giveaway being Mr Frog who, on the exact subject of demanding more money for both SZC and HPC (for which, contractually, EDF has sole responsibility) recently stated: "We [UK + France] need to stick together on many subjects - on Ukraine, on all dimensions of our relationship".  We may be sure he really means "cooperation on Small Boats", the carrot of which which the French continually dangle, and then promptly withdraw a couple of weeks later.  Oh, and we must pay for that "cooperation", too.  Such an easy game.

Why are successive UK PMs and Chancellors such soft touches?  Blair, Brown, Cameron, Osborne, May, Hammond, Johnson, Starmer, Reeves ... it's only been Sunak who has ever demurred, and then without any meaningful force.  The rest have all danced to EDF's protracted, staccato jig.  I despair.

ND

"Military Keynsianism" - Starmer's defence pitch

Starmer is an odd bloke: rarely willing to promote a policy on its own merits**, preferring to invoke (or invent) some supposed side-benefits and focus on them.  "Net zero" and renewables?  No mention of zero-what these days; it's all "growth & jobs", "cheaper energy" (yeah, right), "home-grown / less threat from Putin" and "energy security" (always the last refuge of a scoundrel) instead.

Now we have his Defence *aspirations* (or whatever 3% of GDP at some unspecified future date should be termed), and we're to think of them as Military Keynsianism: "a defence dividend for the British people, using this moment to drive jobs and investment throughout the country, providing local opportunities, skilled work, community pride".

It is, I suppose, just possible that a round of additional defence contracts - if such can be conjured out of Reeves' Treasury plans - will result in some of those things.  But if, as so often, it all descends into pork-barrel politics - e.g. Gordon Brown's risible aircraft carriers, oft discussed here - does anything worthwhile come out from the defence point of view?  Much as I'd like to think it would, I have me doubts as they say.

PS: what's a "10-times more lethal army", pray? 

ND 

UPDATE:  quite a good Graun / Martin Kettle piece today, here:  Why is defence such a hard sell for Starmer?  (Did he, or the headline writer, read my post before posing that question??)

_______________

** By contrast, his recent immigration policy statement was promoted on the back of it being "right - because it is fair, and because it is what I believe in", Boris Johnson's opening of the immigration floodgates being a "squalid chapter".  Heady stuff.  Farage concentrates the mind wonderfully. 

The U-Turn as Art Form

Until now, the Starmer-Reeve style has been to face down - and double-down on - all demands for policy U-turns.  It's been more than a style, it's been their carefully-crafted, McSweeney-minted modus operandi: Mr Tough Guy who'll see everyone off by sheer force of political will.  Don't like it, O weak-kneed Cabinet colleague?  Well, tough titty because you'll be defending it on the Sunday TV politics shows, and here are your lines-to-take.  You, too, O snowflake Labour MP?  It's backbench obscurity for you, or maybe the loss of the Whip.  Everything becomes a virility test for everyone on the government benches. 

Looks like Winter Fuel Allowance might just have been a step too far, though - we can see why - and there are plenty of other unpopular policies in the same line of country.  It'll be interesting to see how the spin-doctory stuff is handled.

Bad Al: master of the Dark Arts

Of course, covering for U-turns and reverse-ferret operations is meat and drink for the practitioners of the Dark Arts.  As Kipling said to Asquith in WW1, you set the policy, I'll find the words.  You sense they actually relish the intellectual challenge involved, just as did Syme in 1984.  (McSweeney is a bit more of an O'Brien character, if not the full Bad Al Campbell.)

However.  Their cunning wheeze for the WFA reversal seems to be: we can, and indeed should do it now - because the economy is in better shape.  Thanks to us and our tough decisions!!!  See what we did there?  Oh, how clever these spinners are.

But this comes out on the day both inflation and government borrowing turn out to be "higher than forecast", and quite noticeably, too (just how stupid are these forecasters?).  Some *inconsistency* there?

Don't worry: the masters of Doublethink will be up to the challenge!  Of that we may be sure.  "2 + 2 = 5", eh?

OS

Miliband's perfect positioning

By way of elaboration on my assertion last week that Miliband can't remotely be discounted should Starmer topple in the near future, look at this telling chart from the loyalist LabourList platform and its Survation polling:

Survation / LabourList:     click link above for full-size

Every Cabinet member has seen their ratings fall after Reeve's efforts of last week: but L'il Ed's fell the least by far; and with Rayner heading west with all the rest, he's now miles out in front with Labour supporters.

He'll be making very careful decisions in the event his damn-fool energy policy dreams come under even more pressure from Reeves and her Growth-At-Any-Cost strategies.  Would yet another serious slap in the face be the ideal time to quit?  Or exactly the moment not to rise to the bait, and to hang on grimly instead, making the usual offstage noises and pointed absences that ensure everyone knows his true feelings?  The almost-iron rule of UK leadership elections is that Leaders of the two main parties only ever come from the ranks of the Cabinet / Shadow Cab.  And whilst in government, when the Chosen One becomes PM immediately?  That really is an iron rule.**

ND

__________________

** The Corbyn Exception relates, of course, to a period of opposition - and even that needs qualifying for special circumstances, because there was only a 'shadow-shadow' cabinet in being during the short inter regnum of Harriet Harman, following the resignation of, errrr, one Ed Miliband.

Who represents Joe Public vs govt? Only one answer

On paper the Starmer government wants to be quite radical.  Sweep aside planning laws; aiming for impossible energy and housing targets, etc etc etc.  So there will be a load of Consultations coming down the pike - indeed, there are already.  And often very rushed, which isn't just a tactic, it's their mantra right now.

So: who responds for the ordinary punter?  In theory of course, absolutely anyone can respond.  But Joe Public ain't gonna find his hand-written views reflected in the Conclusion of the exercise.  And lobby groups don't always fare much better, although the smarter ones pick their fights and sometimes do OK.  

All the Regulators have some kind of very promising-looking "we are here to protect the public" statement on their "About" page, but again, that's in theory.  In practice, (a) it's often the Regulator itself that is doing the consultation; (b) they are all as political as Hell, and if they are responding to a Government department's consultation exercise, they are hand-in-glove (or indeed hand-in-puppet) and not to be expected to be independent or neutral in any way, shape or form[1]; (c) right now, the Starmer government has given all Regulators etc an extra formal mandate, which is to Promote Growth.  And they immediately fired the bloke at the CMA who didn't seem enthusiastic enough on this score, pour encourager les autres.[2]

Where, then, do we look for our defence?  There's only one answer: it is the venerable Citizens' Advice, which is a Statutory Consultee in many consultation exercises.  Not the organisation with the most prestige or biggest, best-paid professional HQ staffing, but in my experience (energy, of course) they do an heroic job.  Only they have consistently called out the nuclear power nonsenses.  It was they who absolutely, forensically skewered the outrageous Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon scam. Etc.  

Can they keep their heads above water during Starmer's radical deluge?  It'll be a tall order - and if they start looking like the resistance, they stand to get bulldozed themsleves.  Good luck to them - they may need it, just as we all need them.

ND     

____________________

[1] This isn't just cynicism and supposition, it's a copper-bottomed fact, amply illustrated by FOI docs

[2] Maybe he was genuinely useless, I don't know.  He was certainly the one they made an example of 

Resignations ahoy!

Dodds a Dud

As Anneliese Dodds heads for the backbenches in high dudgeon, Starmer's thoughts must be ones of pleasure that he curtailed her short outing as Shadow Chancellor so decisively before the GE.

And thoughts here at C@W turn to the Qn 2 of the 2025 predictions Compo!  But it's strictly defined, as follows: 

Date of Starmer's first Cabinet reshuffle, as defined below. One bonus point for each correctly-named departure or clear-cut demotion. Two bonus points for any complete change precisely identified (named outgoer and named replacement). "Cabinet reshuffle" = two or more changes to the Cabinet roster, unforced by resignation or death. Splitting of an existing Cabinet post into two or more new positions doesn't count per se - only if accompanied by reshuffle as defined above.

So - anyone care to update their predictions?

ND

US / Europe / Defence: some early thoughts

We had it coming.

1.  Trump's demand for increased European defence spending is (a) no surprise, and (b) totally reasonable.  So: what, in general terms, is Europe going to sacrifice, in order to move towards him on this?  Its freedom?  Because if Putin makes his next territorial move while Trump is in the job, that's what is at stake.  

I'm guessing it'll be Net Zero etc.  That particular policy desideratum is already proven to take second place to growth in most countries, when confronted directly with the trade-off.  I reckon it will come a poor third, when Russia actively raises dust in the Baltics / the Polish border / the Balkans.

2.  Bringing this issue home to a Parliament near you: will Starmer dare to continue holding back on his minimalist 2.5% GDP defence spending "aspiration"?  There's no timetable for that, beyond "by the end of the Parliament"; and thus far the MoD is in the firing line for Reeves' upcoming departmental cuts like all the rest.  

3.  Looking just a little further from home: when is the EU going to tell the Irish they need to pull their weight on defence??  They've been shamelessly free-riding forever, and some day it has to stop.  I know they have neutrality built into their Accession Treaty, but they can damn' well start paying cash for the defence they've been enjoying for free. 

Loads more to say, of course, so have at it BTL.  

We had it coming.

ND

War to the knife with Greens: Starmer going for broke

Going for growth?  There's every sign Starmer is going for broke - a slew of deeply controversial decisions either made already, or being readied, all in a rush.  Someone's told him it'll be a compelling, critical-mass message for all those would-be investors in UK plc that he's really open for business and will trample down all nay-sayers into the building-site dust.  (And presumably McSweeney has told him that 'all at once' is the best tactic.)

• Support for Heathrow third runway (already signaled explicitly)
• 'Nothing to stand in the way of new nukes' (yesterday)
• 'Likely to grant Rosebank etc oil/gas production licences' (yesterday)
• Extension of subsidies for Drax (Monday, by all accounts)

Everyone has their favourite 'hate' - mine is Drax; & I approve of Rosebank - and there is many a Green (and Red-Green) who hates them all with equal passion.  Perhaps there is someone other than Reeves who loves them all?  The construction industry, I guess, although they get nothing from the Drax announcement because Drax won't be committing to it's putative, ridiculous next-phase project "BECCS" in the near future - in fact, maybe never.

Wow.  Has McSweeney decided there'll be a month of massive sound & fury, followed by the usual amnesia?  Are the lefties who've just had the Whip restored so pathetically grateful, they'll take the required vow of silence?  Will the construction unions come swinging in with big support?

And Miliband ..?  Ah yes, we've mused about him several times.  He's swallowed LHR3.  He is in favour of nukes, and can probably swallow Drax (with much sophistry).  But Rosebank?  Lots of pundits are tipping him to quit over this, but I reckon otherwise: check his performance at the ESNZ Select Committee last month (linked to in an earlier post) - he very studiously repeated the exact wording of the Labour manifesto pledge: no new exploration licences.  Rosebank et al don't need an exploration licence, just a production permit.  I reckon he's swallowed it already, but we may soon find out.  His substantial cred with the greeny-lefties is going to be stretched to breaking-point soon.  What spectator sport this is!

Interestingly, only the nukes on that list above involve government money - and even that has (thus far) been limited to the ill-judged, probably ill-fated Sizewell C.  Everything else will either be private money and/or subsidies levied on energy bills.  So none of these 'announcements' is anything more than permissory.  Performative policy, on the cheap.  May never happen (aside from Drax grabbing the new subsidies with both hands, of course).

So:  let's see if there's a lasting political cost.  Maybe, maybe not.

ND

_________

Sorry, no links on this post - not easy from a 'phone.  You'll need to google it all yourselves!

AI and government: what could go wrong?

That's about it, really.

Blair has obviously got at Starmer.  "AI Superpower"?   Well, if government has anything to do with it, AI Superpower, my arse.

Civil servants are crap at tech stuff (inter multa alia) and picking winners - look how many iterations of 'government portals' etc they go through, before eventually they get websites that actually work.  Then, they put everything online and make applications for stuff self-certifying, so that the slick system they've come up with is robbed blind by scammers.  We know this.  Do we need to rehearse the PO scandal, NHS databases, etc etc etc?

We also know that the UK is capable of being a superpower in all sorts of techie arenas: FI cars; computer games; FinTech;   ... errrr ...   And we haven't jumped with both feet to hobble AI with regulations, unlike the EU.  But electricity, there's the thing: the next generation of data centres will be ferocious power-hogs.  The US will take this in its stride (well, maybe not California) but we are looking shaky right now: Jan 8th was nearly blackout time, and data centres can't be doing with that.  Starmer has obviously been told about this one because he's muttering about SMRs - maybe he hopes the Big 7 will pay for his energy policy at the same time as gladdening his heart with multi-billion AI-related investments here.

The answer has to be: (a) facilitate it, planning-wise; (b) leave it alone; (c) buy, for government use, good products when they become available and are fully tested.  But for pity's sake don't pay for the DWP to be the beta site for some piece of premature vapourware.  Because that's what this all looks like.

ND

Polly Toynbee, True Believer: hope springs eternal?

The public career of Polly Toynbee is a continuous source of mirth.  How many socialist saviours has she hitched her wagon to, only to have her hopes crushed.  Owen, Blair, Brown, Patricia Hewitt (sic), ... and now Starmer/Reeves.  Always bearing the imprint of the last person to sit upon her / brief her confidentially over lunch.  But before the worm turns & the Great Disappointment strikes, whilst her wagon still hitched there's nothing she won't do by way of providing what she thinks of as helpful outrider support.  Here's the latest - in the Graun, as usual: 

The Waspi women suffered outrageous misogyny, but in poverty-stricken Britain they’re not the top priority. The government is right in its decision not to pay the women up to £10.5bn in compensation ... a government [does not] have a financial duty to repair historical sexism.

Polly: calm down!  Starmer & Reeves - just like your former beau Brown - don't mind lying & brazening these things out.  It just doesn't bother them!  They don't need your sophistry.  Haven't you spotted how they are leading you by the nose?  Here was you, Polly, back in July in that self-same Grauniad: 

Starmer will bin the two-child benefit cap and outdo New Labour on tackling poverty – I’ll bet on it. I will eat my hat – or several – if Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves don’t soon find the money to bury the pernicious two-child benefit cap. In her first budget, expect Reeves to find the funds for this, and other public spending not yet announced... Some worry that Starmer and Reeves will be deterred by the campaign to force them to pay up, fearing it would signal their willingness to capitulate and splurge on everything else. I don’t think they’re that frit, with the markets and everyone that matters backing them. It would demonstrate surefooted self-confidence...

Any doubt about their good intent vanished with their creation of a new child poverty unit. ... Every Labour government always reduces poverty: this one will be no exception.  Expect no less from Starmer and Reeves, and probably more... And they will start by hurling the two-child benefit cap into the dustbin of atrocious Tory policies. 

Heart-rending stuff, eh?   Here's how her infatuation with Brown ended ...

ND

Labour & local government 'reform'. Hmm

Some years ago I had a long stint (3 terms) as a local councillor.  Local government has changed in various ways since then, but I remain very well tapped-in locally and have plenty of first-hand perspectives.  I like to think I've seen, and indeed participated in, some genuinely useful Local Authority actions over the years. 

Lots of folk reckon that giving local people "more say" in matters makes for better, more informed decision-making, as well as creating an important cadre of people that step up to take responsibility for stuff.  Doing this for the most part in the properly-constituted, formal Local Authority framework is only right to protect all concerned.  But we can also applaud, for example, the many benefits of healthy local media organisations, albeit precious few local newspapers survive that are worthy of the name.

From Burke and his "little platoons", through Simon Jenkins and his localist enthusiasms, to Andy Burnham et al with some decent track record to display, there are many advocates of wholesale transfer of powers to local authorities.  I should stress that I, too, see major benefits of localisation in sectors where / governance arrangements under which, it is shown to work in practice.  These should be carefully identified and reinforced.  But there are just so many examples of utter nonsense in play.  To take just a few:

• Lutfur Rahman
• the outrageous goings-on at the Teesside Development Corruption - sorry, Corporation, that would disgrace a banana republic
• Rebecca Long-Bailey

Ah, LRB - remember her?  In a substantial pre-GE 2019 document (by weight, that is, not genuine substance) she planned to hand the whole of our energy infrastructure, physical and supply, over to local authorities (the irony! when you see what a cock-up they've always made of their energy endeavours), right down to the level of parish councils and even "local communities ... of around 200 homes"; and of course all workers in the sector to be unionised.   200 homes!  That's when you know you're dealing with a doctrinaire head-case.  OK, nobody ever paid it any serious attention at the time; and she languishes, whipless, on the back benches now, having been the "continuity Corbyn" candidate in 2020, thoroughly trounced by Starmer, and reduced to feeble parliamentary protest-votes.  But still, it shows what some people mean by localisation.

There are other worries, too - see this article by the intelligent-for-a-Grauniad-writer Martin Kettle.

The Labour government itself is of course deeply conflicted on all this right now.  More power for LAs - but don't dare stand in the way of our house-building or energy plans, because we ain't gonna let you.  Ah yes, local people know best - until they run into a Thatcher or a Starmer who "really knows best".

What do we all think?

ND