Labour leadership stakes: rats-in-sack update

It's two months ago since we last looked at the jockeying for position going on in the Cabinet.  At that time we cast our eyes over Reeves (nobody's idea of the next leader, then or now); Streeting (obviously positioning himself actively); Lammy (radiating ambition); and Rayner (also ambitious but actually a joke).  For completeness, we mentioned Khan (permanently on the lookout for the Main Chance); Miliband (radiating competence); and Mandelson (devious and unpredictable as ever).

How do things look now?  The Grauniad has a telling, tearful piece, avowedly briefed by the wimmin: and it's worth quoting a couple of chunks. 

... a female minister spoke directly to the prime minister to complain about the leaks and briefings she saw directed against other women ... including Bridget Phillipson, Liz Kendall, and Yvette Cooper .,. “Cabinet really no longer feels like a safe space for genuine debate,” one minister said ... after weeks of tension felt by some women in the cabinet... Almost a dozen female Labour MPs who spoke to the Guardian said they were unnerved at how female cabinet ministers appeared to be getting the brunt of the blame for issues in government – though there is less sympathy for the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, because of anger over the Treasury’s handling of spending cuts and welfare. Among some of the new intake of MPs, there is a strong feeling that any ultimate successor to Starmer should be a woman – and a resentment of what they see as a campaign to anoint Wes Streeting.

Hahah!  More popcorn supplies, please.  It goes on: 

At the moment [Streeting] has no obvious female rival as the heir apparent. Senior cabinet ministers who did not want to see Streeting win had previously coalesced around Reeves, but her unpopular decisions as chancellor have meant that is no longer the case. Other ministers would back Rayner, but she would face a brutal press onslaught. Among Labour members there is no doubt, however. Rayner is streets ahead of her rivals in terms of popularity with the grassroots ... There is only one cabinet minister ahead of her, who is probably the least likely of anyone around the table to have another shot at the top job – Ed Miliband.

This is not intelligent commentary.  First, selecting the next leader when there's no vacancy is well-known to be an absolute mug's game.  Genuine, nailed-on heirs-apparent are few and far between in British politics (in the past century or more, only Anthony Eden and Gordon Brown).  

Second, Miliband is not at all the least likely to have another shot.  In countries like France and Italy he would be the number one contender in everyone's books: competent (at politics, that is), confident, popular, experienced, sure-footed, intelligent, and comfortably dynamic enough.  And he has the green-left eating out of his hand - potentially deemed a vital constituency when the Green Party is snapping around Labour's heels in such politically volatile circumstances.  That's how he'd be marketed, anyhow. 

A couple more comments.  (a)  You just can't rule out Khan or Burnham.  These guys' ambition and political capital is so great.  Safe seats aren't so hard to find in a hurry: Boris always found one at the drop of a hat.

(b) Having mentioned the Prince of Darkness last time and just out of interest, I have it on good authority Mandelson has already f****d up royally in Washington.  Of course, he's made comebacks in the past from many an appalling situation of his own making, so who knows?  But right now, his political capital is deep in the red.

Oh, and Lammy?  Speaking of in-the-red, he's so far out of the money right now, I almost forgot him.

ND  

The London ULEZ in action

Transport for London have published their first set of what must loosely be described as "numbers" since the ULEZ was extended, from their ANPR cameras and payment / fines records.  It's fair to say that little can be taken by way of meaningful conclusions from this effort, although it is conceivable they'll be in a position to do better between now and the Mayoral election next year.  Whether "better" will include anything genuinely meaningful and useful is open to question.  Don't bother looking at what has appeared in the meejah on this: the TfL numbers provided are so ropey that pressmen and politicians alike have been resorting to guesswork in an attempt to make a commentary-narrative from it.

Under the weighty heading "Compliance Data" we have been given numbers for the first month, plus historical figures, supposedly for the purpose of demonstrating "improvements".  Can they properly be compared?  No, because the number of cameras deployed has been changing p- increasing - throughout, AND coverage by cameras in the extended zone was very patchy indeed in that first month.  (Some boroughs have not been cooperating, which means TfL has been largely confined to installing cameras on "its" roads - the Red Routes - although these do, or ultimately will, provide quite a mesh for capturing vehicle movements of any distance within the full zone.)  Maybe, perhaps some time in 2024, they'll have a fairly full network of functioning cameras.  Even then, there are helpful online resources enabling the crafty driver to (attempt to) plot a route that avoids them.

Then there's the obvious issue that drivers' behaviours in the early weeks of a scheme aren't necessarily indicative of how things will be when it settles down.  

TfL's own commentary cheerfully mashes up DVLA data relating to vehicles known to exist and be registered to a London address, with vehicles actually logged by the cameras.

Finally, there are as yet no data whatever on air quality which in principle is the purpose of the exercise.

Granted that much of this data shortfall will "improve" over time (in the statistical sense of more cameras in action, data collated from a longer period of the scheme's operation, and air quality data actually being provided), it still isn't clear we'll get solid conclusions on what ought to be the political issues arising.  Partly that's because all the politicos involved are quite capable of cherry-picking data, not to mention abusing statistics and of course lying outright.  But even if the data were turned over to the most objective statistical analysis, there are several fundamental problems, including:

1.  It is really obvious that the number of dirty old bangers on the road has anyway been decreasing steadily, for the simple treason that they fall off the perch eventually and are replaced, if at all, by inevitably newer, cleaner models.  This has been going on inexorably for decades.  Khan won't be able to prove what part, if any, of the "increase in compliant vehicles" is down to his ULEZ extension, as opposed to the steady march of technology, or indeed to people no longer being able to afford to drive - including firms going out of business.  He may not even find a handy inflexion-point on the graphs to call in aid.
2. Still less will he be able to conclude definitively on any changes in air quality that might be registered in due course.  (a) Road vehicles are only one contributor to air pollution.  Another very large contributor is the vast fleet of diesel engines associated with building sites: diggers, cranes, gennies, etc etc.  According to Private Eye, Khan has resolutely refused to implement the latest European standards on building-site emissions, on the grounds that to do so might impact on London's economy (and he's probably right, at least at the margin).  Plus, (b) the road network is constantly changing - indeed, Khan himself is having a new cross-Thames tunnel constructed, which is bound to result in increased traffic.  Stick all that up yer exhaust pipe, Sadiq, and smoke it.

None of these objective difficulties will prevent the politicos from bandying their chosen "analysis" next year - and of course Khan from brandishing his cute little book "Breathe" on the subject of air quality.  (Nicely reminiscent of Gordon Brown who laughably wrote a tome on "Courage" ...) 

There are several possible desiderata in play**, that in an ideal world we might seek to audit.  The easiest will be "number of compliant vehicles on the road".  But that is at best a proxy for "air quality", and if the latter doesn't show a material improvement that can somehow legitimately be claimed by Khan's scheme, the former will be irrelevant.  Which leads us to "value for money".  Ah yes, VFM.  Well, let me simply say that last month I scrapped a car, for which Khan kindly paid me £2,000.  Which was around double its market value (or three times what Webuyanycar offered me).  Me and tens of thousands of others.  Thanks, Sadiq.

ND 

____________

** Some will suspect that another desideratum is - more cameras surveying our streets ...

The politics of (green) compulsion

If, as seems likely, the Tories held Uxbridge as a reaction to Sadiq Khan's ULEZ extension, well, we ain't seen nothing yet.

The UK has reduced its CO2 emissions by more than any other country** since 1990 - but this was achieved by (a) going for the low-hanging fruit (i.e. phasing out coal) and (b) de-industrialisation.  Although this hasn't been remotely cost-free, the costs have been loaded onto electricity bills and, frankly, haven't really been noticed.  But that phase of the game is rapidly coming to a close: very little low-hanging fruit remains down decarbonisation way.

The cost of such potential still to be exploited in the power generation sector is rising rapidly

Aside from incremental efficiencies that arise naturally from technical evolution, we've barely started on home heating, transportation, agriculture and much of heavy industry.  And decarboning those will be very costly indeed.

And then there's Behaviour.  Less travel.  Less meat.  Less creature comfort.  The greens, from Swampy and Greta to John Selwyn Bummer (© Jasper Carrot) have all been pressing government to start 'changing behaviours' - that's our behaviours - and while they'd rather that to be via 'leadership' and 'persuasion', there's little doubt that ultimately they mean compulsion.

I have a strong suspicion they won't be getting any change out of any UK politicians of any party (except just maybe a few Green Party hopefuls) this side of the next GE.  In this context, Khan is right out there on his own - and being rapidly disowned by Starmer, naturally enough.  Miliband has been well and truly sat on, so really it's only Ed "Drax" Davey we still need to hear from on the subject.

ND

____________ 

** France, of course, would claim to have had a lower-CO2 starting-point, thanks to its nukes

Erdogan: the Transactional Turk

Erdogan has really excelled himself this time, the major obvious casualty of his machinations being Putin and his ever more flimsy stature & general political dignity.  Drones, Sweden, Azov, ... what is the full nature of the Turkish "trade package"?  Does he have it in writing (from Biden / Ukraine / NATO / EU)?  Or is he just positioning himself for a Cunning Plan he has in mind?

(1) Transactional politics has upsides - and downsides

As I've written before, in some political spheres - foreign policy generally being one of them - the 'lines of logistics' can be incredibly short: unlike most domestic policy-making, it can be stroke-of-a-pen stuff instead of months & years of hard, practical grind, with all the attendant implementational friction & risks of material long-term projects.  (Thus, to take one of a million examples, Lenin took Russia out of WW1 in a morning.)  Some politicians, indeed some human beings in general, heavily lean this way: there's no situation they won't try to deal their way out of (negative) or into (positive). 'Transactionality' is one facet of this type of approach: Sadiq Khan is perhaps the most prominent UK exponent right now.   

The upsides are clear.  A stroke of the pen requires far less blood-and-treasure to resolve a dispute than 'going to war' or its analogues, & gets quicker results, too.

The downsides are there, too.  Obviously, transactionalism appeals not least to politicians of the bone-idle tendency.  Ditto, the heavily-overlapping subset of politicians who have no principles or red lines whatever.

And what can be done at the stoke of a pen can be undone just as fast.  Sometimes, "with one bound he was free" clever-cleverness doesn't cut it: a fundamental solution is needed, the hard yards can't be dodged**.  To give a foreign-policy example:  what could be more convenient for NATO backsliders like Germany than a neat, stroke-of-a-pen "resolution" on Ukraine that would mean they didn't need to restore defence spending to prudent levels?  Very neat, yeah.

(2) Downside for Erdogan?  Oh yes there is

I'll give you at least one.  Turkey is essentially 100% dependent on Russia for gas (as well as a lot of oil).  It gets very cold there in winter.

Less obviously, since the economic recession Erdogan foisted on his country Turkey has been having the utmost difficulty in taking all the gas they've contractually committed to.  They owe Gazprom a bunch of money.  Thus far, it's been forgiven ... That's on top of a cold winter in Turkey.

Transactions, transactions.

ND

____________

** Also, the Clever Stroke often leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth:  in the Claudius novels, Graves writes of how on a particular campaign, Claudius engineered a lightning victory by having his men take the enemy camp at night by crawling up silently through the undergrowth, with total success.  The 'victorious' Roman troops hated it:  they wanted a proper conventional scrap in the morning.  Their triumph-by-subterfuge "smelled of the candle".  

A day trip to Rostov-on-Don and points north

A point made around here ad nauseam is that Surprise is really important in warfare.  Clearly Mr Wagner agrees, and has pulled off a beauty - he and his well-armed, well-disciplined horde.  Absolut banditi, as they say in Russia.  And Putin was caught absolutely napping: his own intelligence about his "own" forces is significantly poorer than the west's (is he not even monitoring the mobile phones, FFS??).  I have waited 24 hours before posting because there was always the possibility of Putin pulling off a decisive counterstroke, but no, the man and his machine are as deeply inept and incompetent as ever.

Let's ask a few questions:

• did Prigozhin plan this?  Or did he take Rostov on a quiet summer's evening when all Russians are drunk, and turn north in fuelled-up convoys complete with air defence units and tanks on low-loaders, just on a whim?  Ans:  planned
• did Prig know that Putin's airforce at least, has quite enough ground-attack assets to wipe out any concentration of vehicles before it reached Moscow?  Ans: yes[1]
• did Putin have any faith in his ability to order the wiping out of a concentration of vehicles before it reached Moscow?  Ans: no
• did Prig have a "very high" expectation of "negotiations" before matters reached that pass?  Ans: yes
• would he therefore have had some carefully-crafted terms in mind before this all kicked off, for when he found himself dealing with some poor intermediary who was still reeling from shock?  Ans: oh yes he would

Prig didn't get where he is today without being transactional[2] and a very bold deal-maker indeed.  There's always a deal to be done[3].  He is also creative and comes up with ideas for what can be done with the levers of power, beyond what's routinely done[4] - always to be admired and feared in a politician. 

• would he also know what he's going to do next?  Ans: he'll know a lot better than anyone else - and a lot better than any in Putin's clan know what they're going to do

Yes, Prig has made out like - a bandit.  And all in 24 hours.  Now?  Well he won't want to follow in the footsteps of Wat Tyler, Robert Aske & co.  It's to be imagined he has "assets" in Belorussia.  Still, you wouldn't put too much money on him celebrating Xmas.  

I look forward to the return of our trolls to tell us how this is all part of Putin's masterplan.  But the long-suffering people of Russia might find that just a little bit harder to believe than before.  Prig has marked their cards for them.

ND

___________

[1] and so did his troops, which makes it all the more impressive

[2] like, errr, Sadiq Khan

[3] Putin himself has been known to relate how in Russia, big disputes are settled over a big dinner at which both sides come armed to the teeth, but settle down to terms (and toasts).  In short, Prig has successfully brought Putin to the table as an equal.  And everyone in Russia understands

[4] like Mandelson

The Police have lost the Middle Class

Growing up as a very middle-middle-class child (you knew that, didn't you?), respect and benefit-of-the-doubt for the Police came up with the rations.  It wasn't until I mixed with the soldiery in my first regiment that I had regular dealings with people for whom "All coppers are bastards" was axiomatic.

These things don't change overnight but it seems now that we've gone past the point where the middle classes would give automatic credence to the police.  The symptoms are many and various.  For me, the last straw has been how they allowed themselves to be captured by woke doctrine, typified by their being in thrall to Stonewall's outrageous protection-racket proselytizing on the trans issue, to the point where fairly moderate Guardianista feminists fear for their freedom of speech at the hands of the police.  Others would point to the way the police seem often to lie and prevaricate as a first reflex on sticky issues.  Or the way that a Safety Case must be defined before anyone can get stuck in.  (In my street last week, 5 (five) police attended to round up a perfectly peaceable, indeed rather bewildered, lost dog.)  Or the way recruiting standards have been remorselessly lowered, firstly to accommodate "diversity" targets and nowadays just to recruit anyone at all.  And that's before we get onto the outright criminal behaviour of some individual officers.

This is a very bad state of affairs indeed.  We know from places like Mexico and a hundred other hell-holes that when the police feel themselves totally beleaguered and unloved, they retreat into their corporate shell and become just the biggest and best-armed gang on the streets.  (Well, in some countries, not even the best-armed.)  Large-scale corruption and worse follow swiftly.

Reputations can be turned around: but it ain't easy - particularly when the zeitgeist runs strongly against tough, dictatorial leadership of the sort that can (sometimes) turn around, e.g., a foundering corporation or a military unit;  though it seems the new Chief Constable of Manchester is giving it a go.   But the likes of Cressida Dick?  Don't make us laugh.

(An example of deep and successful reputational turnaround one might have noticed over the years is Private Eye: under Ingrams it became a byword for casually inaccurate stories and consequent lawsuits, and the courts pretty much gave plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt.  Bit by bit, Hislop turned this around, to the point where today the courts actually give the benefit of the doubt completely the other way around.   Ask any PR firm how they'd advise a client who was contemplating suing the Eye just now.)

But these things aren't quick to achieve, and are in any case many times easier for a small organisation.  It's gotta be done, though.  And in terms of the biggest force, the most pivotal force of the lot: does anyone imagine Sadiq Khan is the man to reform the Met he's notionally responsible for?

ND

The Strange Case of Cressida Dick

The Winsor report into Sadiq Khan's hounding of Cressida Dick leads us to a very odd place, where Dick reportedly found Khan "intimidating".

WTF?   There's many a nastier beast in the world of top-end criminality than Mayor Khan, unprincipled little opportunist that he is.  What we need in our Metropolitan Police Commissioners is someone who can look absolutely any mortal man squarely in the eye, unblinking, and read his fortune for him.  Stick it up your arse, Mr Mayor. 

Before I am accused of sexism (or being a neocon shill, or whatever it is our sub-marxist trolls like to say), let us immediately add that in my varied career I have met several women quite capable of facing down the Khans of this world.  Yes, bullies exist and yes, the Fred Goodwins, the Maxwells and the Bernie Madoffs make ground too easily in a world where most people back off from confrontation at the narrowing of a glowering eyebrow.  

But it shouldn't be too much to ask that the top police job spec includes backbone.  Moral fibre.  Character.

ND

The spectacle of Batley & Spen, pt 1

Oh this is interesting, with many facets.  Today I'm just picking up on the Labour leadership thing.  Occasioned by Hartlepool, a few weeks ago we mused over how Starmer's Red Wall travails play with Khan, Burnham and (as a bit of an afterthought) Rayner.  

Within hours of posting I ran across some indications that Rayner's personal ambitions were every bit the equal of the others, and her manoeuverings much the more active - she, unlike the two quite hardworking mayors, has no other serious responsibilities (despite her risible list of "official" appointments in the wake of her botched demotion by Starmer) and seems to be on the leadership trail 24/7, with the surreptitious funding to match.

So, two by-elections and a heap of bad-news-for-Starmer later, we come to the next bear trap for the People's Party:  courtesy of George "Spoiler" Galloway, there appears to be every chance the Tories take the seat.  That's what he hopes, anyway.  Anticipating a big opportunity for change within the party hierarchy, knives are out in every corner and neither Rayner nor Burnham are particularly shy of reminding people they exist as alternatives.

You can trawl this stuff all over the place (indeed, troll it too if the mood takes you) but for those who don't choose to sully their browers, as a service to readers let me summarise how many on the left see this falling:

• there's a very good chance of humiliation for Labour at the poll
• Starmer has taken some rather lame preemptive measures to bolster his position, but will find the consequent crescendo of hostility hard to manage
• the Blairite Right, having installed him and propped him up, will tell him at gunpoint he must on no account resign, for a very technical reason: only 20 nominations are required for a leadership bid if the incumbent resigns (the Parliamentary Left can muster that), but it'd be 40 if he's challenged while in post (which they probably can't)
• having thus strapped Ed Cid to his horse, they will send him out of the castle gates for one last battle - to change the leadership election rules to turn it back into a parliament-only electoral college, thus slamming the door on the Left forever
• in the meantime, it's no-holds-barred infighting all the way, blood everywhere and serious collateral damage done, all the while trying to figure out a plausible candidate for whatever faction you support - which ain't easy, see the Left's turmoil over selecting a candidate to replace McCluskey ...
  
• ... and how to promote them into the Top Job because (as it's reckoned Rayner knows only too well), (s)he who wields the knife ...  At this rate, they'll get Miliband E back.  (Well, it won't be a women - will it?)
  

This student-politics stuff is the very essence of Labour and they are welcome to it.  Live by the sword, die by the sword - and great spectator sport it is, too.  For Part 1 of my armchair analysis, I conclude by taking the story-so-far full circle, and musing once more upon Sadiq Khan's approach to all this.  He has absolutely no locus that I can see - far less, anyhow, than Burnham - and it all comes far, far too early for him.  What does he do?  I am guessing there's only one solid strategy: work for (or even just hope for) as messy an outcome as possible, so that it can only possibly be an interim state of affairs, with the can bouncing far enough down the road that he'll be able to pick it up in due course.  

Part 2 before polling day itself.  Have a great weekend!  The soccer is a much healthier pastime ...

ND

The Ambitions of Mayors

We all know that every soldier has a field marshal's baton in his knapsack, and that every MP wants to be PM.  Theoretically.  If it were to be handed to them on a plate.

But there are degrees of ambition; and not every MP has the kind of relentless Julius-Caesar ambition that stops at nothing.  Those that do, while they do, think of little else, every waking moment.  Asleep, they dream about it.  To the extent you can identify those ones (steam issuing from the ears is usually a sign), whenever something big goes down it's always fun to watch and to speculate how they see it; how the event impacts on them; how they try to turn it to their advantage.  

It's pretty clear that the advent of elected mayors in the UK provided a form of outdoor relief for the Truly Ambitious to essay the Caesar-in-Gaul trick.  First out of the blocks was Ken Livingstone, a man of boundless self-confidence and chutzpah - but the timing didn't work for him: he never stood a chance of nipping in ahead of Gordon Brown.  By the time of the 2010 Labour leadership vacancy, he was pretty vacant himself, a busted flush shouting at people in the street.

Boris, by contrast, worked it all to his advantage and a couple of lucky breaks later, here we all are.

Which brings us to the current difficulties of Sir K.Starmer.  Who'll be figuring out the next phase of their strategies now?  

By some accounts, none other than Angela Rayner (41) works permanently and purposefully to advance her own cause.  She certainly showed infinitely more fight in her own crisis than Rebecca Long Bailey in either of hers (x divided by 0 being infinity), with a gaggle of outriders in the field to cover her flanks with the meeja.  (RLB had an army ready to do her bidding: but she never blew on the horn.)

But Exhibit A is Sadiq Khan.  I probably don't need to convince you that he is firmly set on the Top Job.  Those mayoral roles, of course, come with the perils of fixed-term schedules, but Boris finessed that by re-entering the Commons a year before his London term ended.  We may confidently assume Khan expected to do the same, probably in 2023.  But will he now feel that's too late?   Starmer looks like he might implode before that; and in any event, Boris may pull the GE trigger before then, too.  Can Khan be sure Starmer's successor will be equally short-lived in post?  He's 50 now; how strong a challenge could he mount at 60, say?   Logically, he has to be in Parliament no later than at the time of the next GE.

I don't think we should be surprised if he seeks a "dual mandate" (as it's known) at the first opportunity: a nice, diverse Zone 2 parliamentary seat.  He's sufficiently transactional, he might even force that opportunity by getting someone to resign for him; though I'm not sure Labour Party rules would give him any certainty of being put on a by-election ballot paper, whatever the locals might want, if the Starmer machine retains executive power ...  Decisions, decisions.  One thing's certain: he'll be on manoeuvres at all times, and (for anyone even vaguely amused by this stuff) his public utterances should be monitored with interest.  As a minimum, watch him claim titular championship of the supposed new Labour bedrock of metro-bedsits and diversities.

This all tends to make us look in the direction of Manchester to that other mayoral paragon, lovable little Andy Burnham (51).  In principle, all the same structural considerations apply to him.  But ... does he strike us as in the same league, ambition-wise?  My best guess is that he wouldn't force the pace proactively, and is more in the "if it fell in my lap ..." category.

Any other foaming-at-the-mouth candidates we can spot in the ranks of the People's Party?  And what will they be up to next?

ND

Burnham in "Blazing Saddles" Covid Revolt: What's Going On?

With a government as bad as Boris Johnson's, piecemeal stuff going badly wrong in random places is pretty inevitable.  But the whole Manchester fiasco is pretty strange.

What are we to make of Andy Burnham?  Compare and contrast with Sadiq Khan (always a 'transactional' politician) who has quite graciously praised the collaboration he's been getting from central government and is evidently in daily, and broadly constructive, dealings with HMG.  Burnham, though, is threatening the equivalent of a hunger strike and inviting the authorities to force-feed him.  Which they are doing.  He's an unlikely leftwing firebrand-hero, and comes across as just a sad, angry, frustrated individual which - given his responsibilities - he can be forgiven for on every count, at the purely human level, even if Not Very Statesmanlike.  But even some of his neighbouring council leaders seem to think he's gone too far in playing hostage games with his constituents' (short-term) well-being. 

And we're not hearing quite so much from Sturgeon just lately.  Maybe the rigours of winter will make everyone just retreat into a huddle of confusion, aimless resentment and slow economic disintegration.  

Of course, it all feeds into one of our current themes, namely, what next for bankrupt local authorities?  I can report another developent in my local Croydon saga: the (Labour) leader of the Council has gone the way of the Chief Exec and others.  The incomer is Sturgeon to his Salmond, as Sturgeon would have been viewed when she first took over, i.e. just an acolyte.  Is she any good?  We may find out quite rapidly.  The council has requested permission from the government to use capital resources to plug the gaping hole in the revenue account - the 'Northampton' solution - and there's an enquiry being held into the really outrageous conduct of the council's wholly-owned housebuilding company, a blatantly political and thoroughly incompetent project the details of which I won't bore you with.  Unhappily, the council's other vast "investments" are mostly in commercial property ...

Finally, what are we to make of Kier Starmer?  His '100% Sniper' strategy of never engaging with the enemy on the field of battle is strikingly clear and ruthlessly disciplined.  He is obviously betting everything on it.  Where is his support for Burnham and a general anti-government upsurge?  Will his sullen and increasingly rebellious troops stay in line?   Is Transactional Khan mapping out a clever central course of constructive engagement with reality that will serve his own long-term plans?  Is Angry Andy Burnham exactly the "everyman" leader Labour needs?  Questions, questions.

ND  

Sadiq Khan & Postal Votes: Just Fancy That

The mayor said he had received advice from the Chief Medical Officer on whether the local elections in May, including the London mayoral contest, should be delayed due to the pandemic.

“His advice was quite clear.  He said there is no logical reason to postpone or cancel the elections.  If somebody is worried about going to the polling station, it’s really important to make postal votes as easy as possible."

Never let a good crisis go to waste, eh?

ND

The Twists of Sadiq Khan Point the Way

Readers will know I have long considered Sadiq Khan to be an excellent indicator of what's to be expected from the left, and often more generally.  Last week there was a distinct sighting of Khan on maneouvres, and here's how I read it.

He was on the box in the wake of the latest Westminster *terror attack* (soon to be forgotten, I think, such is the numbing force of repetition), bigging up the Police as well he might, seeing as how they may come in very useful for him one day.  "While we've got you", intoned the questioner, "I have to ask your view on the Labour antisemitism thing ..."

Well of course citizen Khan said it had to be rooted out, but then something interesting happened from his lips.  He proceded to say that Corbyn was exactly the man to do it, and went on to say how closely he'd worked with him over many years and what an excellent chap his is, and that the main thing was to get a Labour governent under Corbyn that would pass new anti-racism laws.

Words like that are not uttered without significance.  This is positively Mandelsonian in its disingenuity and careful preparation - indeed, we may guess he had arranged to be asked the follow-up question -  and at very least we may assume that Khan now reckons there is a significant probability of a Corbyn government really quite soon.  (I think we can read even more into it, but that's enough for now.)  He certainly hasn't always seen things that way: the really avid Khremlin watcher could readily come up with Khan-quotes along the lines that Corbyn is useless and that he only proposed JC for leader in order to stir things up a bit, but certainly had no time for him whatsoever, oh dear me no, dreadful no-hoper.

Now you may well be saying: everyone in the country reckons there is a significant probability of a Corbyn government really quite soon!  OK: but not so many prominent people actually say it - mostly Tory backbenchers trying to scare other Tories into whichever fold they think their colleagues ought to be in.  And most senior Labour people are either (a) guarded and coy, for fear of seeming complacent / premature / frightening the horses (on the left), or (b) saying we shoud be miles ahead in the polls with the Tories in the state they're in & it all proves Corbyn is useless (from the right).

No: Khan's pitch is clearly to be well onside in case it happens, at what he judges to be a fairly critical moment.  (I also think he's proferring a highly self-interested strategy for Corbyn to extricate himself from the antisemitism thing - but that's another matter.)  Take note and watch.

ND    

House-training the Labour Party for the 21st Century

The great genius of British society since the demise of Queen Mary 1 has been its ability to tolerate, absorb and generally house-train groups and factions that were ostensibly locked in life-or-death opposition to the establishment - without undue violence.  Since death and destruction in these islands didn't stop in 1558, obviously it isn't difficult to adduce some counter-examples (Civil War and Jacobites heading the list) but I'll stick with my generalisation and point to the significantly greater bloodshed in most other European countries after the mid 16th century.

We'll consider some recent examples later; but first let's briefly consider the reign of Good Queen Bess.  Unlike her sister, who set out to exterminate Protestantism by burning 'heretics' in their hundreds, Elizabeth sought no window into mens' souls and only had Catholics pursued to their deaths if they were actively out to kill her, that is, on account of treason and not religion - a very important distinction.  The Catholic question concerned the obvious civil criminality of seeking the Queen's assassination under a mandate from Rome.   Doctrinally the Church of England was more troubled by puritanism.

In the 19th century, Catholics were re-admitted to the body politic with no particularly baleful consequences that that can be identified today.  Perhaps even more remarkably, one hundred years later the would-be Marxists - including some out-and-out revolutionaries - of the first Parliamentary Labour Party were house-trained (indeed, House-trained) to the point when in 1929 Margaret Bondfield (a relative of mine and one-time firebrand union militant) was mostly concerned about whether or not she should wear a hat when she went to accept her office as Britain's first woman Cabinet minister from the King.  (Her instinct was that she should: but in discussion with the Cabinet Secretary they decided it might get in the way when she knelt to kiss His Majesty's hands ...)

Which brings us to the challenges of the hour, notably militant Islam, and revolutionary Corbyn/McDonnellism.  Defusing the obvious nightmare scenarios in the British Way is a work in progress, and the outcome(s) may fairly be in doubt.  But, not for the first time, I offer you Sadiq Khan as a significant phenomenon - possibly on both counts.

What's he been up to lately?  Here are two interesting straws in the wind.  Firstly, and in the headlines just now, he has responded to the London New Year knifings by announcing a "significant increase" in stop-and-search.  In so doing he is trampling on a lot of left-Labour sensibilities, not to mention going back (again) on a campaign promise.  David Lammy doesn't like this at all, and he won't be alone.  It all confirms Khan as a kneejerk politician in the (in)glorious British tradition.

But there's more, albeit not headlining in quite the same way. 

Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “Pubs across the capital are often at the heart of our communities or of historic value and should be protected by local authorities in order to protect the capital’s unique character. From historic watering holes to new pop-up breweries, nothing defines the diverse and historic character of the capital better than the Great British Pub. That’s why I’ve set out measures in my draft London Plan to protect pubs against redevelopment, ensure they can co-exist peacefully with nearby residential properties and ensure that councils across the capital recognise their importance to the city’s cultural fabric” ... Sadiq Khan committed to working together with the Campaign for Real Ale ...   (City Hall Press Release)

I put it to you that he didn't need to say all this.  Not every London announcement carries a direct Mayoral quote: he has plenty of deputy mayors to front for initiatives if he doesn't wish to put his personal fingerprints on them. Nope: he's making a point here, and not one that will go down well in every religious quarter.  

The great British genius for sweeping everyone along is still at work.  There is of course, a lot of Momentum moving in a nasty direction.  But who knows: maybe that tide will be turned as well by the time Corbyn kneels to kiss hands.  Continuity Rules ...

ND      

When the Big 6 becomes Big 5

Over the years we've often suggested that the way government and regulators cheerfully beat up on the big 6 energy suppliers isn't terribly clever.  It's very handy for them to have big corporates to do their daft bidding in energy and climate-change policy; but simultaneously allowing them to be popular whipping-boys, and loading them up with onerous social and policy-delivery obligations, is inviting them ultimately to jack their hands in and step away from the table altogether.

It has also been clear that not all of the Big 6 necessarily have the financial stamina for the long haul, never mind the stomach for it.  Margins in the residential sector are lousy, and the risks are great.  Hanging on in there as a 'last-man-standing' strategy isn't a work of commercial genius.  (Though, since most of the suppliers are still engineer-heavy at the top, and with truly dreadful track-records on both customer service and, perhaps counterintuitively, IT - trust me on that latter, I've dealt with all of them - commercial genius isn't necessarily to be expected.)

Three years ago we noted that RWE / NPower / Innogy (pick you prefered brand-name) was occupying the bed closest to the door, and so it has proved.  They and SSE have had enough, and intend to merge their portfolios of residential energy customers and float them off.

Having reduced the competition at the big end of the sector by one sixth, will the government be inclined to think again, and cut them some slack?  I doubt it.  May seems determined on some kind of price cap.  Ofgem is ecstatic abut how many tiny new entrants there are in the residential sector, notwithstanding their very patchy performance, inherent financal weakness, and parasitic dependence on the Big 6 keeping the main show on the road.  (One of the canniest decisions Sadiq Khan has made was stepping back from a manifesto promise to set up a publicly-owned, fully-fledged London energy supplier.)

In all this mess, then, it's little surprise to see NPower and SSE look for an exit strategy.  Of the rest:  Centrica is, after all these years, still a remarkable survivor as a UK inde.  It had shrewd and genuinely commercial management from the day it de-merged from the old BG 20 years ago.  We've had issues with them over the years (check the Centrica thread from the tags below) but they're OK.  EDF's continuing to play the game is of course 100% strategic for the French based on making sure nothing prejudices Hinkley.   Right up until they decide that game's not worth the candle, either.  On paper, EDF is bust already if you factor in all their nuclear liabilities.  But the French government won't let them go under.  (Check the EDF tag too, for various C@W stories over the years - starting with this pivotal one from 10 years ago which explains plenty.)

That leaves E.on and Iberdrola (Scottish Power).  Neither are as strong corporately as they were when the turned up in the UK; and I can't see the UK being strategic for the Spanish.  E.on are corporately sharp, mostly clear-sighted, and can be quite decisive when it comes to restructuring.   But, EDF's special circumstances apart, they are the strongest of the lot.

Newby tiddlers notwithstanding, the landscape hasn't changed much for a decade, i.e. since EDF came to town in a big way.  I couldn't begin to guess what it will look like in 5 years.  But I can tell you electricity prices will be higher.

ND 

Sadiq Khan Becoming a Major Player

... and Greens, LibDems ... anyone with a vote, really

Sadiq Khan has long been someone to watch.  Happy to play the Muslim card, but basically a pure power-player, very much open for business.  Voice of Labour In The Wilderness;  Top-Ranking Elected Labour Politician;  Friend of the City in Brexit Negotiations;  Deliverer of the Multi-Culti Vote; Kingmaker for Owen Smith ... - makes Corbyn look like the side-show pygmy he is.

Looks like it's Khan vs Momentum-McDonnell for control of the Labour Party.

If, as several of us have mused, a primary scenario for the fate of Labour is to become the Muslim Party of England, Khan is obviously in the mix for years to come.  They'd struggle to find a leader who could better minimise the electoral oblivion that would ensue.  A messy triple negative, I realise - but you probably see what I mean.

ND  

UPDATE - Will Sadiq Khan be the next Labour leader?  - well there's a thing!