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.

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.

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.  

Who are the party members?

Lots of fascinating data (if you're into that sort of thing) from the party members project at Queen Mary, University of London: https://esrcpartymembersproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/britains-party-members-bale-et-al.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawPRxt9leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETA5dUZXU2luUVV3Yzk3QWpic3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHoq22_LuKr8v0ccAP850ntyJqxYl2CWbOSWTN-qEXqe4M8DOAobOQAP33s3V_aem_wu0345rfOoflVFJEVSrieg

The study concludes: 'What comes over most strongly, however, is that we increasingly appear to be seeing not just five parties but two blocs – something that, as the British Election Study has recently shown, also appears to be true in the case of voters. On the one side, we have the members of the so-called ‘progressive’ parties (the Greens, Labour and the Lib Dems). On the other, we have the members of the Conservatives and Reform UK.

 There is still variation within the blocs, but there is, in all sorts of ways, something of a gulf emerging between them. Seen negatively, this suggests a worrying degree of polarisation. Seen positively, it suggests that the fragmentation of the party system may not make coming up with a stable government (albeit one vehemently opposed by whichever bloc doesn’t make it into office) as hard as some imagine.

 If members matter to party leaders – and our research since 2015 suggests to us that they do – then those who belong to parties in either of those two blocs could well support the kind of post-electoral (and even, perhaps, pre-electoral) pacts that may make coalition formation, should it prove necessary, easier.

A coalition may not prove necessary, of course. At the time of writing, observers seem convinced that Reform UK will win an overall majority. If that does come to pass, we hope that those same observers won’t give all the credit to the party’s leader, Nigel Farage. Reform’s members didn’t make him leader, but their efforts may well help to make him prime minister. Also, if he doesn’t make it to Downing Street, then the leaders of those parties determined to stop him will, at least in part, have their own foot soldiers to thank.'

Bleak reading for Labour in poll of economists

A poll of 103 leading economists in the FT today makes bleak reading for those  who hope that an economic recovery will lead to a political recovery for Labour.

Key take home messages:

• Economy will not be strong enough for 'working people' to be better off
• Two-thirds predicted more tax increases before the next election: higher taxes are seen as the path of least resistance when back bench MPs push for more spending
• Economic growth will grind along at 1-2 per cent, around 1 per cent in 2026: OBR forecast of 1.4 per cent unlikely to be beaten unless savings are run down
• Respondents were split on how much further the Bank would be able to cut interest rates
• Weak jobs market with unemployment above 5 per cent, companies likely to be stingy on pay
• There will, however, be lower inflation and energy prices

Another poll of voters commented on in the FT show that Starmer and Reeves have worse ratings that Johnson and Truss,   Can people really think that?   The FT thinks that it is the culmination of disillusionment with politicians over many years.

Bland keeps quiet on Labour leadershiip

As the year comes to a close, how is our fictitious South Borsetshire MP Guy Bland coping with the travails of the Labour Party?   Will he be one of those who puts his head above the penetrate to defenestrate Keir Starmer after poor election results in May?

Remember that Bland did not expect to become a MP, but thought that a good showing would boost his career as a public affairs specialist in the charity sector.

Bland's wife Emma has left religious affairs at the BBC and has a successful podcast called Honest to God after the controversial book written by the Bishop of Woolwich in the 1960s.

The couple now have a toddler and they are renting a property in the cathedral close in Felpersham.  Bland thinks that he might have a future in the labyrinthine bureaucracy of the Church of England.   His chances would be enhanced if he could become Second Church Estates Commissioner in the Commons, but Battersea MP Marsha de Cordova shows no signs of stepping down.

It is much harder to defenestrate in the Labour Party than in the Conservative Party.  Eighty MPs would have to declare their wish to replace Starmer.

Bland's view is that any such nove requires deep thought.   He won his seat by something of a fluke and expects to lose it at the next election regardless of who becomes Labour leader.

He thinks Starmer is a serious man in a serious job, but accepts that the electorate wants more in terms of leadership.  He thinks that Starmer would be a good foeign secretary if he could be persuaded to step aside (following the examples of Sir Alec Douglas-Home and William Hague).

He is not going to put his head above the parapet, but he thinks that a Streeting - Rayner team (PM and deputy) would be the best bet.   A change of chancellor would follow.    However, he thinks that the endless media speculation is in part an attempt to portray Labour as a divided party incapable of governing.

The late news of a concession on inheritance tax for farmers has put some of his constituents in a better mood, although he is barred from most of the local pubs.  However, he will go to midnight mass with his wife tonight in something approaching a state of grace. 

More tax cuts will endanger public services

The Financial Times this morning has a story that Jeremy Hunt is considering further cuts in public expenditure to make room for tax giveaways to boost Tory election hopes.   As the Pink 'Un notes, Hunt's current plans to increase public expenditure by just 1 per cent would imply real cuts.

We are surrounded by examples of deteriorating public services in 'broken Britain'.  Many people cannot access NHS dental services and have had to extract their own teeth.  There is a huge backlog in the courts and buildings are in such a poor state that trials have been delayed.  Even well-run local authorities don't have enough cash to meet their statutory duties. 

Of course, Hunt is setting a trap for Labour who, apart from some modest increases, have pledged not to increase taxes.   The tax burden is at its highest for a very long time, but it is very difficult to see how needed improvements in public services can be funded.

Unfortunately, voters can't have it both ways: lower taxes and better public services.  With the economy in a technical recession and generally flat lining there is no medium-term path out through growth.  As a report from Goldman Sachs make clear, Brexit has hit GDP.

It is possible that interest rates will start to fall and this will reduce the very high cost of servicing the public debt.  About a quarter is index linked and new gilts are being used at higher rates than previously.

Kicking the can down the road doesn't help with the the PFI contracts favoured by New Labour coming home to roost with schools having to over pay for maintenance.

Who would be a decision-maker?

Some by-election takeaways

I have known John Curtice since he was a DPhil student at Nuffield and I don't pretend to have his knowledge of elections, not to mention many others.  But here are a few takeaways from last night:

• By-elections are a poor guide to a general election over a year away.   The turnout in all three seats was below 50 per cent, suggesting a lot of Conservatives sat on their hands,
• The Conservatives played the ULEZ card well in Uxbridge, but then the new MP put all the blame on the Mayor which suits Starmer.   No praise for Sunak.
• Labour has never won the seat in this area even in 1997.   This is 'Mon Repos' territory, remember the Betjeman poem abour Ruislip Gardens tube?  It has changed, of course.
• The economy may well recover by next autumn, but this happened in 1997 and the Conservative still lost.   As then, voters are concerned about the state of public services despite historically high levels of taxation.
• The age of the new MP for Selby is not a disqualification, we need his generation in the Commons to tell us what a rough deal they have had.
• Greg Hands tried to spin the results as a victory, the worst effort since the flagship boroughs (copyright Lord Baker).
• Johnny Mercer may think he is an effective attack dog.  He digs a hole and keeps digging.
• The Lib Dems are back in contention in the west country after being punished over Brexit and the coalition.
• It looks as if the electorate are voting tactically to oust the Conservatives

Good news for Labour at Chester

Rob Ford analyses the City of Chester by-election result which is good news for Labour: https://swingometer.substack.com/p/the-city-of-chester-by-election?utm_source=substack&publication_id=1186392&post_id=88171032&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true

The Conservatives did badly despite the absence of a significant challenge for the right.   Recent opinion poll boosts for Reform UK were not reflected in the result.

Labour edges ahead in poll

Labour has pulled ahead of the Conservatives in the latest opinion poll and for the first time since he moved to Downing Street, a majority of voters do not think Boris Johnson has what it takes to be a good prime minister.   There has been no personal breakthrough for Keir Starmer, though: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-loses-poll-lead-ipsos-mori-sleaze-scandal-b964945.html

Of course, one must be cautious about the results of one poll and a lead that is within the range of sampling error.   However, it does seem that there are many voters who regard the standards row as more than a storm in a Parliamentary teacup as George Eustice tried to suggest over the weekend to the dismay of many in his own party.

It has been pointed out that it would be even more worrying for the Conservatives if sleaze was not the driving factor here.   One note of caution: the fieldwork was done before the Paterson story broke.  It may just be that the Government is running out of good news.

By simple repetition Labour may be able to cut through its narrative of 'Tory sleaze' and 'one rule for them and one for the rest of us.'

Labour hold red wall seat

Labour have held Batley & Spen with a majority of 323.  This was despite George Galloway taking 22 per cent of the vote, about twice what I had anticipated, indicating that many Muslims (and others) had voted for him. 

It is possible that he took some anti-system votes off the right leaning Heavy Woolen District Independents who polled well at the general election.   His anti-woke rhetoric and social conservatism may have appealed to some of them.

Turnout was low at under 50 per cent suggesting a lack of enthusiasm on the part of Conservative voters. The Conservative share of the vote was down 1.7 per cent.

The result takes the pressure off Keir Starmer with talk of leadership challenges.

It also suggests that, despite Boris Johnson's denials, the Mike Hancock resignation and the way it was handled did have some impact on voters as the only opinion poll had put the Conservatives ahead.

Credit must go to Kim Leadbeater who was clearly an effective candidate well known in the locality.

Some prescient comments on the constituency by Jane Green (more favourable territory for Labour than Hartlepool): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/23/batley-spen-byelection-labour

Professor Sir John Curtice has noted on Radio 4 that it is not necessarily a turning point for Labour.  Their share of the vote was down 7 per cent and the Brexit vote was lower than in Hartlepool.

The BBC Radio Leeds correspondent suggested on Radio 5 that an open letter from a group of Muslim women a few days before the election may have had some effect.  They named no names, but said they wanted action not words.

The Official Monster Raving Loony Party finished ahead of eight candidates.   The Heritage Party candidate got just 33 votes.

The natural party of business?

I would like to recommend an excellent article I commissioned for Political Quarterly on Labour's economic policy.  Unfortunately, it is only free online for a fortnight: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-923X.12963

It was interesting that in PMQs on Wednesday most of Keir Starmer's questions were in relation to impacts of government policy on business.  Given current tensions between the Conservatives and business, particularly over Brexit, this was part of an effort to show that Labour can be a business friendly party.  It may be recalled that one of Tony Blair's ambitions was to make Labour 'the natural party of business' as well as 'the natural party of government'.

Keir Starmer is encountering choppy waters.  He has boosted Labour's poll ratings by nine per cent by not being Jeremy Corbyn and being competent.   However, that is not enough to pull ahead of the Conservatives, particularly given Labour's weakness in Scotland.

He does across as rather wooden and Boris Johnson's jibes about reading from a brief hit home.

It might be asked why the electorate are not more annoyed with the Government for errors made in handling the pandemic.  First, it is evident that the electorate are prepared to cut them some slack as it was a difficult and unprecedented situation to deal with for which the preparation had focused on the wrong target (a 'flu pandemic).   They are not convinced that an alternative decision-maker would have done much better (although Labour's comments about 'inconsistent messaging' may gain traction).

Second, they consider (with some justification) that the government machine in general might be deficient for handling this situation - not unreasonable given the tendency of central government to operate in 'silos' and a reluctance to let decisions be taken at a local level where there is often more immediately relevant expertise.

Some home truths about the strength of the Conservatives here from Ben Jackson: https://politicalquarterly.blog/2021/02/05/any-illusions-about-the-conservatives-being-swept-from-office-should-be-abandoned-now/

A crisis for both parties

A very interesting blog post by Deborah Mabbett on the threats facing the existing party system, suggesting that the large two party share of the vote in 2015 was an aberrant result, rather than an indication of a reversion to two party politics: A crisis for both parties

An interesting comment is made about how both parties have an interest in maintaining a two party duopoly, although whether they can achieve that is another question. It reminds me of the first research I did in the late 1960s on the insurgent Scottish National Party in the two new towns of Cumbernauld and East Kilbride.

What was evident was that both the traditional parties felt threatened and were prepared to cooperate to defend the conventional political spectrum.

Labour and the general election

I will be writing a weekly commentary on Labour and the general election for this blog: Election prospects

I did ask why I had been given Labour, but didn't get a clear explanation, other than that they thought I could do it.

For the debate on television debates go here: Debate Dispute

Ed's conference speech

I have to say that I am a bit underwhelmed. It often seemed that he was addressing the conference hall rather than the country. The speech went down well in Liverpool, especially the barbs against the Tories and Nick Clegg. But for me it didn't deliver a coherent strategy for government. It had the feeling of a speech that had been worked on a bit too much and hence sometimes came across as pedestrian when it aspired to be inspirational.

There was a theme there: I lost count of how many times values was mentioned. Ed was trying to say: these are my values and I think they are your values and the country's values as well. And Ed tried to sell himself as someone with an outsider's background who could deliver real change. He declared that he was his own man who would do things his way, making a real break with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Much was made of the new bargain. This would create a society in which one got something for something, in which effort would be rewarded. A distinction between good and bad companies had been trailed beforehand, but how does one decide which company is a good one?

Ed thinks the system is flawed, and it may well be, but how does one make the link between this and the everyday concerns that people have, even though Ed tried to give concrete examples in his speech?

Labour's search for credibility

What Labour really needs out of its conference is the development of a view among voters that it is a credible alternative government. Of course, the first obstacle there is Ed Miliband. Voters do not see him as a credible prime minister in waiting. They think he lacks that indefinable but essential quality, charisma.

The answer of the Labour image makers is to portray Ed Miliband as 'one of us', cue photo opportunities with his children. Apart from the fact that the photos were rather trumped by one of Villa supporting Dave Cameron at the match at Loftus Road with his son, voters do not want prime ministers to be 'one of us'.

They expect them to have an understanding of their problems, but they also expect the prime minister to have qualities that separate him or her from the crowd, a sense of command and authority. Dave Cameron's confidence can shade into the appearance of arrogance and complacency, but he does look as if he is in charge.

When it comes to policy, there is something of a vacuum, reflecting Labour's overly complex policy review. Unfortunately, the first major announcement, capping student fees at £6,000 does not stand up to close scrutinty.

First, it is not clear what its status is. Certainly it is not a manifesto commitment (and what happened to the graduate tax anyway?) Apparently that is still on the agenda.

Second, the cut will only be of benefit to those who earn enough to repay their loans. So better off graduates could find their fees cut. Graduates earning more than £65k a year would have to pay a higher rate of interest on their loans, but in order to raise the required amount, these rates of interest would have to be prohibitively high.

This might seem to be a way of enticing students disllusioned with the Liberal Democrats, but students (and their parents) are going to look at this proposal long and hard.