Should I be ashamed of my cabal membership?

For the first time in my life, it has been said that I am a member of a cabal.   I had to look up what it meant and the (AI) definition is not very pleasant: 'A "cabal" is a small, secret group of people who conspire to promote their private interests or gain political power. The term carries negative connotations of intrigue, conspiracy, and exclusive plotting.'

The charge was made in the Financial Times by political scientist Philip Cowley in relation to all members of the Labour Party and their potential role in choosing the next prime minister.

To be fair to Philip, he was making a direct comparison with the similarly elderly and unaccountable Conservative Party membership which chose Liz Truss.   His most interesting point was about the 17 per cent or so of trade union members who pay the political levy and hence also get a vote.  No one knows very much about them, although my hunch would be that they lean left.

Philip didn't say how party leaders should be elected.  The Financial Times published my riposte in which I suggested that perhaps we should go back to the days when the chief whip called in cabinet ministers and asked 'Is it Wab or Hawold?'

On further reflection there is a case for reverting to election by MPs holding the party whip.  They know the candidates and they have to sustain the new leader in the Commons.  There could still be a poll of party members but it would be advisory, avoiding the risks of zealocracy or rule by activists.

Reform voters analysed

An important new study of Reform has been carried out under the supervision of electoral studies guru Sir John Curtice: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/02/reform-uk-support-could-plateau-relies-on-conservative-views-study-finds

After listening to Sir John on Radio 5 this morning, my take home message is slightly different from that of The Guardian.  Yes, as we long suspected, there is a glass ceiling to Reform support, but it may be at a level which could make them the largest party in the Commons which would enable them to conclude a confidence and supply agreement with the Tory rump and the Democratic Unionists.  I have seen 'Conform' at work in Warwickshire.

A key point made by Sir John was that at a time when voters have become increasingly disengaged from parties, a high proportion of Reform voters say they are 'very strong' supporters.  In other words, there is hard core of support.

Why the right wing MSM love Tony

Shortly after he became prime minister Tony Blair gave a speech to plutocrats in New York in which he said that it was his ambition to make Labour 'the natural party of business'.

Blair's latest outburst has all the hallmarks of that orientation.  Both Streeting and Burnham have pointed out that he fails to mention inequality once in his diatribe.  Of course, he has made a fortune through his global advice services, often provided to leaders who fall below the highest standards of probity.   And he is in the pocket of President Trump.  If he was still prime minister we would be fighting alongside the Americans in Iran.   Thanks for Iraq, Tony.

'Radical centrism' is in fact a right wing set of policies based on all power to the technocrats.  Screwing the public sector was a key aim.   A headmistress of a successful primary school was shocked to be told by a uni friend who was a Blair adviser 'we are coming after you people.'

In 1997 I voted for the yogic flyers rather than vote for Tony whom I thought was a slippery customer.

Restore Britain to what?

A YouGov poll suggests that Restore Britain may take seven per cent of the vote in Makersfield.  Reports from canvassing returns suggest they may do even better than that.

Superficially this is good news as it means that Reform's chances of winning are diminished.

However, it also means that perhaps a tenth of voters are prepared to sign up to a programme that says on t-shirts 'Detain, Deport.'

I can accept that some Reform voters are just expressing a general discontent and casting a 'none of the above' vote.

Voting Restore means aligning with hard line xenophobia.   I find it difficult enough to accept that perhaps a quarter of the people I meet, who seem pleasant enough, are prepared to vote for Reform, although I do realise the attraction of the 'both main parties have failed' argument.  (Where do the Lib Dems come into this?)

One positive.  There is lady I know in her mid-sixties who is very pleasant in a poorly paid part-time job whom I thought could be Reform material.   Turns out she thought I might be MAGA.  She can't stand Trump and by extension Farage and is really concerned about what they might do in government.

Euston is the new Finland Station

The arrival of Andy Burnham at Euston Station last week has been compared to that of Lenin at the Finland Station in 1917.  Should he win in Makerfield, even more delirious scenes can be expected as the 'King of the North' arrives to the strains of 'See The Triumphant Hero Comes'.

A likely scenario is as follows:

• Burnham wins in Makerfield, not bigly, but respectably on a low turnout.  The Greens run a token campaign.
• Keir Starmer stands down (there is a case for him being made Foreign Secretary as has happened with two former prime ministers)
• Wes Streeting finds he no longer has 80 supporters and Burnham is introduced to the House by Angela Rayner and Ed Miliband    

I am less impressed by Burnham than many.  I think he has a record as a political chameleon concealing the fact that he is a power hungry opportunist.  He may find himself in trouble with the bond markets.

Even his record as mayor of Manchester is more mixed than is often portrayed.  Yes, he sorted out the buses and made them cheaper, but the homelessness problem has returned (although, to be fair, I am not sure anyone could solve that).    However, voters apparently find him 'approachable'.

I think there is quite a step up from being a successful metropolitan mayor to being prime minister as Boris Johnson found.

Mea culpa, as chair of a commission on elected mayors I am partly responsible, although I think that our report was quite balanced.   I will never forget the subsequent meeting at No.10 when Bozza arrived late, puffing and sweating, only to gratuitously insult Dave Cameron until Hezza told him to shut up.

I will be personally quite relieved if there is a coronation as I did not feel comfortable in the role of the chosen 330,000 who would choose the next prime minister.  However, it was not long ago that the choice fell to MPs and before that the chief whip asked ministers 'Wab  or Hawold'?

The Labour leadership race

Wes Streeting has resigned, although it is not yet clear that he has the 80 other MPs necessary to launch his leadership bid.

One must not forget that the Labour Party is not the Conservative Party.   There is more loyalty to the leader and some regard this as an attempt to force an early general election.   My first vote will go to Starmer.

Streeting is none too popular with Labour members who tend to be more to the left.  Many see him as a Blairite retread and Tory lite.  However, he is competent and a good communicator.

'King of the North' Andy Burnham needs to find a seat and win it and the member for Manchester Rushholme has denied reports that he intends to stand down.  Burnham is supposedly the most popular with the electorate although in fact the modal category is 'don't know'.   He is the least popular candidate with the bond markets who certainly have a vote, possibly a veto,

There are still some doubts about whether Angela Rayner is prime ministerial material and it may be that Ed Miliband will carry the soft left banner, although he would probably be satisfied with becoming chancellor.  He did lose a general election in 2015.

Yvette Cooper seems to be never mentioned, although she is on today's Private Eye cover.  Perhaps being a 'safe pair of hands' is not enough.

Dark horse and Everest conqueror Al Carns has a long essay in the New Statesman.   It has a coherent narrative (security) but seems to lack specific proposals.   Perhaps he is just bidding for a Cabinet seat,

The contest is bad for effective government, bad for the economy and bad for the Labour Party, but that is the way things have gone since the Brexit referendum.

Do we ever learn?

The supposedly 'soft left' Tribune Group has produced an agenda for a new prime minister which includes taking responsibility for economic growth away from the Treasury and the OBR to a new department..

This has been tried before in the shape of the Department of Economic Affairs created by the Wilson Government in 1964.  Admittedly this was partly to find a berth for the mercurial George Brown and to set up 'creative tension' with Jim Callaghan as Chancellor.

Brown eventually became foreign secretary and then left government altogether.  In the meantime, the Treasury asserted its authority as it was dealing with the short term, leaving the DEA to come up with hopelessly optimistic long term plans.

I arrived at the DEA in 1969 as a civil service intern and morale was incredibly low with civil servants desperately trying to find something worthwhile to do.   A huge computer printout of economic forecasts arrived and no one knew what to do with it.

The Treasury is unpopular because someone has to say no to spending requests when taxation and debt service costs are at record levels.

The sad fact is that expectations of what government can provide are out of kilter with economic reality and reviving the DEA will solve nothing.