Boomers against Reform

I posted on a private anti-Reform Facebook group a comment that not all older people back Reform or Nigel Farage and the number of likes and comments reached four figures.

There is a clear age gradient in terms of support for Reform (latest available figures):

• 18-24, 6.3%
• 25-29 13.5%
• 30-39 17.1%
• 40-49 20.6%
• 50-59 29.5%
• 60-69 33.7%
• 70+    33.0%

Hardline Restore Britain shows a rather different profile.  There is relatively little support from over 60s (around 2 per cent) and support peaks in the 30-39 age group.

What one has to be very careful of is the ecological fallacy of relating aggregate behaviour to individual behaviour.  At least two-thirds of the elderly groups do not support Reform.

One thing that concerns me is that younger people (not my own family) may see me as 'Gammon', an elderly white male who backs Reform.

One has to be careful about accusing Reform supporters of being racists.   Rather more may be xenophobes.   However, I think that quite a lot of them are what one activist described as 'despairists'.  They find it difficult to adjust to the reality of a cosmopolitan 21st century Britain.

I think they are nostalgic for a past that never really existed.   I can remember the 1950s (I grew up in London near the docks).  I can recall:

• Overt racism (although not from everyone)
• Homophobia
• Pedophiles were there in abundance, but they were white and hiding in plain sight in schools and churches
• Pretensions of imperial grandeur, although these were punctured by Suez
• Pollution: smogs in London that killed thousands of people and you could smell the Thames in summer 
• Back street abortions
• Capital punishment used against a woman who was the victim of what we now call coercive control
• A rigid class bound society

One respondent suggested that there is scope for a movement 'Boomers Against Reform'.  I think there is, but I am reluctant to put my head above the parapet - and I am not encouraging anyone else to do so.

I can do without a visit from balaclava clad vigilantes.   More important so can my wife, children and grandchildren.  (My great-granddaughter lives in Spain and already use four languages).   In addition I live in a retirement apartment and I would not like to see people here harrassed.    But I am very encouraged by all the responses to my posts.

Is Britain's nuclear deterrent cost effective and robust?

With growing Russian threats against the UK this might seem a strange time to question the cost effectiveness of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, but does it offer value for money?

When General Sir Richard Barrons was leading Britain’s Joint Forces Command, he felt there was always what he described as a “tapeworm” eating his budget. “Every year we’d think we’d saved a little for something we needed,” he recalled of his time managing shared capabilities across the services. “It would always go to the Navy for submarines.” Since then, the problem has grown, with Britain’s nuclear deterrent consuming a growing share of the defence budget just as the military is under pressure to re-arm for conventional war.

The issue, Barrons told the Financial Times, was that successive governments had postponed costly decisions about Britain’s nuclear capabilities, leaving several enormous programmes that desperately need to be modernised at exactly the same time. The result is an unprecedented squeeze on the rest of Britain’s armed forces. “The UK’s nuclear budget is eating its conventional budget from the inside,” Barrons, who retired from the role in 2016, told the FT.

Crowding out?

There have been warnings from senior military figures that the rising cost of the deterrent is crowding out investment in the troops, ships, missiles and air defences needed to fight today’s wars. Its cost has taken on added significance as Prime Minister Andy Burnham wrestles with whether to commit to spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence by 2030 — an issue over which John Healey, now chancellor, resigned as defence secretary under Sir Keir Starmer’s government.

The Defence Nuclear Enterprise — the secretive network of organisations responsible for maintaining the UK’s deterrent — spent more than £9bn directly with industry in 2024-25, supports about 47,600 jobs and draws on a supply chain of more than 6,000 companies. By 2030, the government expects the workforce to swell to roughly 65,000, according to figures published by the Ministry of Defence on Tuesday.

At the heart of the spending surge are three vast programmes running in parallel. Britain is building four Dreadnought ballistic-missile submarines to maintain its continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent; designing and preparing to manufacture a new generation of attack submarines with Aukus partners Australia and the US; and developing a replacement for the UK’s nuclear warhead.

Each is a multibillion-pound undertaking in its own right. Together, they require Britain to expand nuclear facilities, shipyards and reactor production, recruit thousands of highly specialised workers and sustain an industrial base capable of delivering nuclear submarines at a tempo not attempted for decades. The overall costs of Britain’s nuclear weapons are difficult to judge as the government does not provide precise breakdowns compared with the detail provided about most other areas of defence spending. The defence investment plan, for example, splits many conventional areas into minute detail but not for nuclear: £47bn is allocated to “submarines” and £13bn is allocated to “warheads”.

Researchers at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons said the official figures actually overstate the cost because they include conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines. Excluding these would bring the cost from 18 per cent of defence spending in 2025, according to the MoD, to 14 per cent.

This compares to roughly 11 per cent of defence spending for France and 7 per cent for the US, according to ICAN. Meanwhile, UK conventional defence spending is being eclipsed by other Nato countries such as Germany and Poland, both of which spend more as a percentage of their economies than Britain.

The need for scrutiny

The vast sums being spent on a new generation of nuclear weapons and submarines have attracted the attention of parliament. In June, the Commons’ public accounts committee called for more detail to be provided on nuclear spending. Subsequently, the government announced the creation of a committee to scrutinise nuclear spending when parliament returns on September 1. Its evidence sessions will be secret, as will its conclusions, which will be sent directly to the prime minister and the defence secretary.

Britain’s nuclear weapons have always been seen as an expensive luxury in exchange for status as a global power. When Clement Attlee’s government decided in 1947 to proceed with an independent nuclear deterrent, the Treasury was deliberately excluded from meetings to prevent financial concerns from blocking the project.

In 1986, the new Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile system was lampooned on the comedy show Yes, Prime Minister as unaffordable. “In the world of the nuclear missile it [the Trident] is the Savile Row suit, the Rolls-Royce Corniche, a Château Lafite 1945. It’s the nuclear missile that Harrods would sell you,” said one character. But now the UK nuclear deterrent, which consists of more than 200 warheads on sub-launched Trident missiles, has become one of the few calling cards the country has left that ensure it a leading role in Nato.

Despite being operationally independent, the Trident system is quite reliant on the US for support. Missiles are built in the US and go to Kings Bay, Georgia, for maintenance. Britain’s new Astraea warhead is jointly developed with the US W93 warhead programme in order to save costs.

The defence ministry points out launch decisions are made only by the prime minister. “Our nuclear deterrent is the cornerstone of our national security,” said an MoD spokesperson. “It is completely operationally independent and, as we face an increasingly volatile world, it is more important than ever’

Is it robust?

This does raise questions about how robust it is.  The account of the launch procedure that is in the public domain by Lord Hennessey looks fragile.   The prime minister is supposed to use an underground tunnel to the Ministry of Defence and send a fax to a facility near High Wycombe.

No surprise, then, that one of the first tasks of an incoming prime minister is to write a letter to Trident commanders telling them how to proceed if Britain has already been destroyed.

In practice there are back up arrangements that go beyond the public account.  However, keeping one submarine at sea has proved difficult given maintenance problems with the ageing fleet.    Crews have had to spend longer periods at sea away from their families in very cramped conditions (don’t believe the generous sets in the BBC series Vigil about to be screened in a third series).

Failings on defence leave Britain cruelly exposed Former Nato secretary-general Lord George Robertson suggested in testimony to the defence select committee last month that Britain might eventually need European allies to help pay for its nuclear deterrent.   [Or perhaps even cooperate with France?]

Yet with defence budgets under sustained pressure and demands for conventional military capability mounting across Europe, the question is no longer whether Britain can afford its nuclear deterrent but how much conventional military power it is prepared to sacrifice in order to sustain it.

Can Britain reindustralise?

The always perceptive David Smith had an excellent article in the Sunday Times yesterday on deindustrialisation and whether reindustrialisation is a realistic prospect as Andy Burnham hopes.

David Smith hails from the Black Country (as does my wife) and went back there for a school reunion.  He discovered more successful industrial firms than he had anticipated, albeit generally SMEs.

In the mid 1970s I went round the West Midlands interviewing a range of firms, mainly SMEs.  (The interview transcripts have been lodged with the Modern Records Centre at Warwick University).

I didn't see how these firms could survive and very few of them did.   Among the problems I encountered were:

• Insufficient investment
• Complacent managers out of touch with the shop floor, in many cases they couldn't go on it
• Difficult relations with unions in many firms and in particular the shop stewards
• Back offices that seemed to belong to the Victorian era
• A lack of research and development and innovation
• 'Sitting by Nellie' apprenticeships 
• Lack of a marketing strategy

The conventional wisdom is that these firms were swept away by Thatcherism with a resultant 'batting average' improvement in productivity.

This is certainly part of the story, but one must also take account of the liberalisation of international trade under GATT.   Low added value metal bashers in the Midlands were swept aside by what were known as the 'newly industrialising countries' with lower labour costs and modern equipment.

Attempts were made by the 1974-9 Labour Government to modernise failing sectors, but it was often too late.  In one sector firms forged scrapping certificates for old machinery they were attached to rather than install modern machinery.

According to Smith, Burnham's Labour is focusing on the following industrial sectors: advanced manufacturing; clean energy industries; the creative industries; defence; digital and technologies; financial services; life sciences; and professional and business services — not all of which would have been thought of traditionally as industry.   It is all very well supporting the creative industries when the university courses that support them are starved of funds with many staff being sacked.   Theatres and museums are also under pressure.

If I take my own town of Leamington or 'Silicon Spa' as it is now known, we have lost:

• Automotive Products who employed around 6,000 to make brakes and clutches, 'there is a part of Leamington in every car.   (There is a stun company).
• The Ford foundry, site now occupied by a de luxe furniture factory.
• Pottertons gas boilers

As in Smith's article, we do have some niche manufacturers such as Eagle which is the largest UK manufacturer of refuse collection vehicles.and Godiva fire pumps, as well as the designers and producers of video games.    But can industrial strategy be based on niche firms?

Clacton does not reflect the country as a whole

Conducting a poll in by-election with 34 candidates is not easy, but what we have suggests that Nigel Farage will win 60-70 per cent of the vote in Clacton, but on a smaller turnout.  Whether beating someone dressed as a garbage can is a triumph is another matter.   Voters there may well get a chance in the autumn to choose between the normal political parties.

It appears that constituents don't care that Farage carries out none of the duties of a constituency MP which would cause a storm in most seats.

I thought it would be interesting to compare Clacton's demographics with those of GB as a whole and my own constituency of Warwick and Leamington.   We recently had a town council by-election in my own ward (Royal Clarendon).   The Greens won, with the Lib Dems just behind and Labour in touching distance.   The Conservatives were way behind and Reform didn't stand.

33 per cent of Clacton voters have what is described as a good education.  The figure is 51 per cent nationally and 62 per cent in W & L.  Gross household income is £33,147 in Clacton, £42,397 nationally and £46,828 in the Royal Spa and Warwick.   Deprivation is indexed at 64 per cent in Clacton, 51 per cent nationally and 43 per cent in my neck of the woods.

The mean age in Clacton is 56.6, as against 49.8 nationally and 47.6 in W & L.  Clacton is 96 per cent ethically white compared with 83 per cent nationally and 82 per cent in W & L.  We have a large Sikh community and have had a Sikh mayor  In addition, there is a large Portuguese speaking population, many of them Brazilians.   Areas which have very few ethnic minorities tend to be most concerned about immigration as an issue.

It's interesting that voters who clearly have many economic challenges think that a party backed by billionaires is going to help them surmount then,

Badenoch's purge

I wrote recently about Burnham's purge, but Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has been conducting one of her own.   New Conservative candidates have to sign up to agreeing to exit the ECHR and to oppose 'Net Zero'.

This marks yet another step in the end of the 'One Nation' tendency which was at one time prevalent in the Conservative Party, exemplified by 'Rab' Butler, Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath.   I must plead guilty myself as I was active myself as an undergraduate in PEST (Pressure for Economic and Social Toryism) within the unfortunately named Federation of University Conservative and Unionist Associations (think about it).

The ascendancy of Margaret Thatcher saw the beginning of the end of One Nation influence, she liked to call them 'wets'.  Willie Whitelaw continued to represent this tradition, although he seemed to put loyalty to the leader first.

John Major was 'One Nation' in at least some respects, his deputy Michael Heseltine more vigorously so and he continues to make interventions on Brexit in particular in his nineties.

However, by the 1990s 'One Nation' intellectuals like Ian Gilmour or pragmatists like Peter Walker had seen their time in the party to come to an end.

Some of the few remaining moderates have lamented the fact that one time minister Sir Grant Shapps has been barred from standing.   However, I must say I thought that he was not impressive, indeed my heart sank when Dave Cameron entrusted him with implementing the city mayors initiative.

Former West Midlands mayor Sir Andy Street tried to make the argument last year that the Conservative Party did best as a broad church that appealed to the political centre, but he didn't get much traction.  The Conservatives seem prepared to lose votes to the Liberal Democrats if they can win votes from Reform.

In a recent interview, Badenoch said that her values were 'Yoruba values' (as distinct from Nigerian values which has caused some debate in Nigeria).   I am not really sure what those are, at least in a UK context, but they are probably a long way from 'One Nation' Conservatism.   Apart from anything else, they imply a much smaller state whereas the 'wets' were broadly accepting of the post-war economic and social settlement.

Burnham's purge

We haven't seen anything like it since Harold Macmillan's Night of the Long Knives when he sacked seven Cabinet ministers in an unsuccessful bid to boost his fading popularity.

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, had repeatedly told Supermac that his place was at his disposal, but when he was sacked he complained that a cook would be given more notice.

In the Commons then backbench MP Jeremy Thorpe commented, 'Greater love hath no man that he lay down his friends for his life.'

Now the Starmerites (whomsoever they might be) have felt the blade of the King of the North.  Some talented people have been axed. while Lord Sawar (as he now is) has been brought down from Scotland as a reward for the first person to call for Starmer to go.   Enoch Powell said that all political careers end in failure, but his limp performance in the Scottish Parliament elections seems to have been forgiven.

On Sky News's The Wrap last night examples were given of north-west MPs be given preferment or, even it was alleged, the partner of a Burnham backer.

Burnham had better be careful.   Darren Jones has also plunged the knife in by pointing out that the removal of VAT on domestic electricity is unfunded.

It was surely a mistake to remove Nick Thomas-Symonds from the Cabinet Office given his understanding of the complex and delicate negotiations with the EU.

Labour's rural MPs fear neglect by Burnham

Andy Burnham has been urged to stop rural voters “drifting away” from Labour by a group of MPs cautioning against too much urban bias.  The ’King of the North’ was told by those representing countryside seats won by the party for the first time in 2024 not to treat their areas as peripheral.

A policy blueprint by the Labour Rural Research Group (LRRG), which has 40 MPs — about 10 per cent of the parliamentary party — said any devolution drive should not only benefit major urban centres.  The comments came in a report, due to be published on Tuesday, that criticised successive governments for treating rural areas as “economically marginal”.

James Naish, vice-chair of the LRRG, wrote: “The purpose of devolution shouldn’t simply be to shift power from Whitehall to major urban centres.  It should go much further and ensure that communities with different geographies, economies and needs are properly understood within national policy. Rural Britain cannot be treated as an afterthought, nor can urban policy simply be retrofitted to rural communities.”

He added that these communities “shouldn’t be seen as peripheral to national renewal” and that the next phase of Labour in government should not see them as areas requiring financial support.

Figures cited by the LRRG showed just 27 per cent of voters surveyed for its report were confident the government would strengthen its rural policy, while 40 per cent were not confident.

Although concern was voiced over the scale of the challenge Labour will face in rural seats at the next election, the LRRG said there was still a chance for Burnham to change the party’s fortunes.   Among the policies he was encouraged to consider were a business rates taper for rural and farm-based firms, as well as making it easier for farmers to diversify their property to boost income.

Burnham was urged to make rural Britain a separate part of the government’s tourism strategy and give communities more perks for hosting renewable energy infrastructure.

Guy Bland

How is Guy Bland, the fictitious Labour MP for the rural constituency of Borsetshire South getting on?  Readers may recall that he stood as a candidate in the hope of using it as a launch pad to get a better job in the charity sector and was to his surprise elected.

Bland had long ago given up any hope of defending the seat at the next election.   He is no fan of Andy Burnham and only belatedly and reluctantly nominated him as leader.  He realises that he is likely to lose his unpaid role as assistant whip for rural Labour MPs.

One remote hope is that as Burnham is the first Catholic prime minister and is therefore prevented by early 19th century legislation from undertaking ecclesiastical functions, perhaps Bland as an Anglican who lives in the cathedral close at Felpersham could undertake them on his behalf?

Gove's latest gaffe

Lord Michael Gove is infamous for his comment, 'I think this country has had enough of experts.'  Arguably the experts weren't so wrong about the economic costs of Brexit.

Yet the editorial in the latest Spectator refers to 'the dreary beachfronts of Jaywick and Frinton.'

Jaywick is admittedly the most economically and socially deprived location in England.  Yet Frinton always thought of itself as rather exclusive, perhaps less so these days.    There is now a fish and chip shop there which was banned for a long time.

Back in the 1950s, Frinton was a favourite destination for a summer day out, even more so when we moved to Essex.   There was just one road into the town controlled by a level crossing.

The front road leads on to the Greensward.   Admittedly, the predominantly Edwardian and inter war developments were marred by the construction of some off plan tower blocks in the 1960s.

The sandy beach was patrolled by 'beach inspectors' to ensure that there was no impropriety.   Our day always finished with a walk into Walton on the Naze where the pier offered traditional entertaiments.

Some years ago I took two of my then 18 year old granddaughers with the mum of one of them to stay in Walton.  They were thrilled to see the flat roofed Art Deco houses in one part of Frinton.

I had great difficulty in finding a local restaurant that would meet the up market tastes of my eldest granddaughter anywhere in Nigel Farage's constituency.  Eventually I located one in Frinton.

It was rather crowded and I was puzzled by the next door table constantly referring to 'going out'.  I thought this perhaps referred to the old slogan 'Harwich for the continent, Frinton for the incontinent.'

In fact they were talking about Brexit.

Who are the Establishment?

The term 'Establishment' was popularised by the journalist Henry Fairlie in 1955.  In those days there was arguably an Establishment, centred around the networking that occurred in the all male London clubs.  The Reform only admitted women in 1981 and Shirley Williams as a minister had to enter by the goods lift for a meeting.

I was invited to White's once by a senior Conservative politician and the food seemed reminiscent of what might be served in a boarding school.   No doubt it has improved.

The Anatomy of Britain published by Antony Sampson in 1962 captured this era well and subsequent editions mapped the changes.

If anything the Establishment has been replaced by a 'political class' of professional politicians.   Politics degree; research assistant to a MP; SPAD; think tank; Parliamentary candidate.  Whether this is step forward is a moot point.

These days one hears more about the 'deep state' which I thought had American origins.   However, Wikipedia tells me: 'Deep state is a term used for unauthorized secret networks of power operating within a government but independent of its political leadership, in pursuit of their own agendas and goals. Although the term originated in Turkey, various interpretations of the concept have emerged in other national contexts.'

An article in The Economist states: 'American pundits have often used “deep state” interchangeably with the bureaucracies of the military and spy agencies, especially those bits that leak against the government.'

It appears that both the Establishment and the deep state may be operating in Clacton, possibly through the person of Count Binface or the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.

But then 'the people' will no doubt strike a blow against the Refuse Party.   Who are 'the people'?  Do I count as one with my 2008 car?  I didn't go to Oxbridge, but I suppose I am disqualified through having voted Remain?

Count Binface launches manifesto

Count Binface has launched his manifesto for the by-election at Clacton.  But will he get to appear on Question Time?  Will he wear a special gold plated bin by the seaside?

 Knowing the area quite well, here are my suggestions of additional pledges:

• Bring back beach inspectors on Frinton beach
• Reinstate the railway on Walton Pier
• Statue of the Duke of Connaught on the Greensward at Frinton 
• Passport control at the one road across the railway at Frinton
• Restore second platform at Frinton station
• Rename Thorpe le Soken station as Farage On The Soak
• Bring back Claction Interval Service hauled by Britannia locomotives with toasted tea cakes served in the restaurant car in the afternoon

The plates shift to the north

I had a minor bit part in the development of metropolitan mayors.  I had no prior interest in the subject but was asked to chair a commission on the topic and I think that we produced a well-researched and balanced report that took account of experience outside the UK.

I was invited to a launch event at No.10.  Bozza arrive by bike late and sweating and was rude to Dave Cameron.  Hezza, an enthusiast for mayors, then laid into Bozza.

Dave was very keen on the idea and proposed setting up a committee of elected mayors that would meet at No.10.  He provisionally accepted our proposal of providing a PhD student to monitor its work.  He then delegated implementation to Grant Shapps.   Enough said.

As Andy Burnham headed south in his delayed unsealed Avanti express (with toilet changing facilities) it soon became apparent that rather than Lenin's call for 'all power to the soviets' it was going to be 'all power to the elected mayors.'

The 'King of the North' is proposing to move part of No.10's operations to Manchester.  It is worth reminding ourselves that there is more to the north than Manchester.   Leeds, Liverpool and Newcastle are proud cities and Hull is all too often forgotten.   There are some government offices in York and now in Darlington as well.

It is also worth remembering that the biggest share of tax revenue in the UK is contributed by London and the south-east.   Yet the region also has areas of severe deprivation.  Just think Jaywick Sands in Nigel Farage's constituency of Clacton.

Meanwhile, I would welcome further suggestions for renaming Euston Station:

• Finland Station
• King of the North Station
• Everton Station
• Starmer Halt (his constituency is, of course, named after two tube stations)

Hail the King of the North!

All the available evidence suggests that Andy Burnham is likely to win the Makerfield by-election tomorrow, although turnout could well be low.

The most likely scenario is that cabinet ministers will press Keir Starmer to stand down by September.  The absence of a contest means that Burnham's rather vague policy ideas will not be tested.

It's a big step up from being a city mayor to running a country as Boris found.  Much of the groundwork for the economic success of Manchester was laid by Burnham's predecessors.

Yes, he did sort the buses out, but his clean air and homelessness policies were less successful.

It's been difficult to make sense of his statements during the by-election, but he does not seem to understand the fiscal rules.   One moment he was promising to recompense the 'waspy women' then he realised that there was a £10 billion bill attached.

Professor Ford reckons that he is offering spendthrift vibes, but his policies will be much more cautious. However, voters will then soon be disappointed.

I would concede that Burnham is emotionally intelligent and voters are more inclined to see him as someone 'like us'.  The difficulty is that dealing with complex international issues and running a country is more demanding than being a bloke you would like to chat to over a pint.  If I was Burnham, I would offer to make Starmer foreign secretary for which there are two precedents.

The Spectator was saying last week what a wonderful leader Kemi Badenoch is, so why is an apparently decent Conservative candidate in Makerfield going to get a one to two per cent vote.   The Conervatives could, however, do quite well in Aberdeen South so their focus will be there.

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.

The Andy Burnham illusion

My local Labour MP Matt Western belongs to the sensible tendency in the Labour Party.   He writes today: 'My view on the future is that Keir retains my support. He has made an error and apologised for it. I desperately do not want to see our party dominated by infighting and manoeuvres on who will take over. We all saw it in the Tory party and how poorly it presented to the public. We must remain focused on what matters: delivery."

In relation to delivery, I noticed in a vox pop yesterday that a new Reform voter said that Labour had done nothing in two years.   Yet two pieces of legislation alone have been controversial and have far reaching impacts: employment rights and renters' rights.

I heard an Andy Burnham supporter say on the radio that he is more popular with the electorate than other party leaders and not tainted by association with recent 'failures',   But would he remain as popular if he took on the challenging role of prime minister in such dark times?

Remember, remember Patrick Gordon Walker,  Ax shadow foreign secretary, he lost his seat at Smethick in the 1964 general election after an admittedly nasty campaign.  The Labour MP for Leyton was persuaded to stand down and Walker lost the subsequent by-election, large numbers of Labour voters staying at home.

It is said that the NEC may now not block Burnham from standing in a by-election in Merseyside or Lancashire.  But is there now such a thing as 'safe' Labour seat in the north-west?   It could all end in ears for the power hungry opportunist and political chameleon.