Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

So this is the front of the Times' supplement this weekend The wider context which is perhaps as extraordinary is that Mandelson had the Times over to do a "clear the air" interview profile last week as the story was breaking. So their newspaper had quotes from before and after the release of the files showing him emailing government secrets to Epstein.

I think this is the rest of it in more detail. The thing that's kind of amazing about it (and, perhaps, why Mandelson is a hugely important figure in the last forty years of the Labour Party despite now being on his third or fourth resignation following a scandal) is that he clearly thought (thinks?) there was still a way back:


Edit: Also - and this is very much not the main story here - I have looked at the pictures and I am once again disgusted at the very rich acquiring vast amounts of money and yet apparently having no taste on decor If just some of that money came to me I'd have a fabulous looking home and do little to no corruption!

[garbon]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c74wd01egvyt?post=asset%3A7b7c23f6-241a-4e0a-b1bd-3fb14756e944#post

Morgan McSweeney quits as PM's chief of staff

We've just learnt that Keir Starmer's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has resigned.

"After careful reflection, I have decided to resign from the government. The decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was wrong. He has damaged our party, our country and trust in politics itself," he says in a statement.

This story is developing. We'll bring you more in just a moment.

[Sheilbh]

Too little too late I suspect. Though Starmer may hold on until, say, the by election.

I'd add how a leadership competition would work with the NEC will be interesting as I think it's basically got 8-1 very staunch Starmer/McSweeney loyalists.

Edit: I'd add I'm not really sure you can meaningfully separate McSweeney and Starmer's fates. Similar with Rachel Reeves. These are the masts Starmer lashed himself to.

Edit: Also enjoy people pointing out that Pat McFadden who was the minister doing the media round this morning was making the argument that there was "no point" in McSweeney going, adding "I think if the Prime Minister stays there [...] I don't think that would make any difference at all."

...so close to getting it

[mongers]

I'm not especially bothered about what's happening, it's mainly party politics; as far as I'm concerned the labour party got my vote to have government for 5 years.

If they feel the need to replace the PM, then ok, but choose someone competent and get on with the work.

The alternatives remain the rump Tories or Remain and both will be really trying to emulate trumpism if they get into N0.10.

[Sheilbh]

I think more or less the exact opposite

I think the Starmer experiment has tested to destruction that theory of "anti-populist" politics that what matters is just comptenece and process and institutions even if you don't really have a clear idea of what "the work" is.

Which is my slight concern with Labour. It's difficult for the potential leadership challengers (especially those in cabinet) to set out what they'd do differently. But I slightly worry that not many of them have actually got a clear idea of what it is they'd want to change from Starmer's premiership beyond being better communicators - which is really important in a leader, but not sufficient.

I think Burnham is possibly an exception because of his experience as metro-Mayor in Manchester. But I am slightly concerned that still, despite 14 years in opposition, a lot of people in Labour still don't really have a clear idea of what they want to do with power beyond tinkering and making sure the correct forms are filled in triplicate.

With the whole Mandelson debacle I sort of think it feels like a lot of Labour people haven't really come to terms with what New Labour meant - far less what the financial crisis, Corbyn, the Brexit vote, the 2019 election "mean".

Edit: Incidentally there is a second "associating with a paedophile" scandal happening in Labour right now. It's mainly getting noticed in Scotland - long story short a (moderate) Labour councillor was charged with various child sexual abuse assaults and his party memberhsip was suspended pending the trial. He decided to still run as an independent and was backed by various (moderate) Labour figures. This includes the Shadow Education Secretary in the Scottish Parliament who has just resigned and, crucially, Matthew Doyle.

Doyle was an important figure on the Labour right (originally working in New Labour, then for David Miliband and Liz Kendall during their leadership campaigns). He was one of the attendees at the weekly dinners with Mandelson, McSweeney, Streeting, Streeting's partner etc during Corbyn's leadership and Starmer's time in opposition when they were orchestrating their fightback. He became Keir Starmer's Director of Communications in 2021 until about this time last year when he was given a peerage. Starmer giving him a peerage is something that is attracting a lot of attention in Scotland given the Mandelson scandal - I suspect that attention might spread to the nationals before long.

[mongers]

I think more or less the exact opposite

I think the Starmer experiment has tested to destruction that theory of "anti-populist" politics that what matters is just comptenece and process and institutions even if you don't really have a clear idea of what "the work" is.

Which is my slight concern with Labour. It's difficult for the potential leadership challengers (especially those in cabinet) to set out what they'd do differently. But I slightly worry that not many of them have actually got a clear idea of what it is they'd want to change from Starmer's premiership beyond being better communicators - which is really important in a leader, but not sufficient.

I think Burnham is possibly an exception because of his experience as metro-Mayor in Manchester. But I am slightly concerned that still, despite 14 years in opposition, a lot of people in Labour still don't really have a clear idea of what they want to do with power beyond tinkering and making sure the correct forms are filled in triplicate.

With the whole Mandelson debacle I sort of think it feels like a lot of Labour people haven't really come to terms with what New Labour meant - far less what the financial crisis, Corbyn, the Brexit vote, the 2019 election "mean".

The opposite, as in you want endless intrigue and party politics to immerse yourself into?

[Sheilbh]

I think the idea of "choose someone competent and get on with the work" is how we have ended up where we are. That was the argument for Starmer - a void at the heart of government with no sense of purpose or direction. And doing it again will end up with the same results.

The endless intrigue and "party politics" (and parties are the institutions through which we do mass politics) reflect and are caused by that. I don't think it is just palace intrigue of dissatisfied courtiers I think it's a government whose popularity has tanked, that doesn't have an agenda and is led by a man with neither vision nor charisma. And I think in particular as Patrick Maguire observed that this is a PM who has outsourced his economic policy to Rachel Reeves, AI policy to Blair, defence policy to Lord Robertson, health policy to Alan Milburn, foreign policy to Jonathan Powell and basically all of the politics to Morgan McSweeney because you don't like that stuff and then McSweeney outsources it to Peter Mandelson.

Working out what "the work" is, is the core of politics. What is the analysis of where we are, what's the political economy and social order that we're working towards, how do we achieve - that is the stuff of politics. And I'm not sure any of the factions in Labour really have a view on those things - but we have tried the "mere administration" version of politics. (As I say I think it is true that Starmer genuinely holds "party politics" and that side of things in utter contempt - which feels problematic in a party leader.)

But also I don't hold politics in contempt and I think that is problematic attitude that is driving a lot of negative things in our society - not least Reform. If you're a politician leading a major party, far less a government, the party politics and endless intrigue is part of what you need to be competent at - otherwise even if you actually have a sense of what "the work" is, you'll fail.

[garbon]

Feeling a bit like 'evil counsellors' with now a 2nd resignation.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah his fifth director of communications since he became PM...

Edit: And leader of Scottish Labour to call on Starmer to quit - which is understandable as he is impressive and Scottish Labour were doing well for this May's elections, and they've been absolutely screwed by Westminster incompetence.

[Admiral Yi]

Did Labour run on an identifiable platform? "We will do this if elected?"

[Norgy]

Edit: Also - and this is very much not the main story here - I have looked at the pictures and I am once again disgusted at the very rich acquiring vast amounts of money and yet apparently having no taste on decor If just some of that money came to me I'd have a fabulous looking home and do little to no corruption!

I am trying to interpret whether the dog is ashamed of his master's deed or the decor here, really. 

[Sheilbh]

Or that shoe-sock combo which should alone disqualify him from any redemption arc.

[mongers]

Edit: Also - and this is very much not the main story here - I have looked at the pictures and I am once again disgusted at the very rich acquiring vast amounts of money and yet apparently having no taste on decor If just some of that money came to me I'd have a fabulous looking home and do little to no corruption!

I am trying to interpret whether the dog is ashamed of his master's deed or the decor here, really. 

To be fair to Shelf, that's one ugly house and to plonk it down in a quaint part of Wiltshire, the Vale of Pewsey, is appalling.   

[Sheilbh]

Feeling a bit like 'evil counsellors' with now a 2nd resignation.

Cabinet secretary also going. Two chiefs of staff, two Cabinet Secretaries, five directors of communications in 18 months.

It all bring to mind Jeremy Thorpe: "greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his life."

I strongly suspect Sarwar thought he had the backing of some of the cabinet (probably Streeting), but they've all backed Starmer with varying degrees of caution in their statements. I still think it's fundamentally just a matter of time - it might be tomorrow, it might be PMQs (Badenoch has been increasingly effective, especially on Mandelson), It might be the byelection, it might be the May election (Labour are currently polling third in both Scotland and Wales).

It all feels very Johnson after party-gate broke - and as then I'm very annoyed at people arguing that Starmer has a mandate. He's not a president (Particularly disappointed to see the Attorney General, a respected KC, pushing the line that the PM has a personal mandate).

Did Labour run on an identifiable platform? "We will do this if elected?"

Yes-ish. All British parties run on manifestos - Labour's 2024 manifesto was about 150 pages long, Lib Dems about 120, Tories about 80. They serve a quasi-constituional role because it is generally seen that a government has a democratic mandate to enact its manifesto. So by convention the undemocratic, unelected Lords will not block legislation enacting a manifesto pledge.

Having said all that manifestos are fairly vague and aspirational so it can be a bit difficult to pin down a specific pledge. It's weird because they used to be shorter but more substantial on actual pledges - so Labour's 1983 manifesto was under 50 pages (according to Gerald Kaufman, the "longest suicide note in history"). The Labour manifesto for 1945 was even shorter but has pretty clear manifesto promises (which they'd basically completely implemented by 1950) and is fantastically well-written.

To be fair to Shelf, that's one ugly house and to plonk it down in a quaint part of Wiltshire, the Vale of Pewsey, is appalling. 

Regretfully I'd also seen the other photos from the article and - again very much not the main issue here but - the mind boggles at how you can be that rich and yet decorate your house so badly. I mean what is he thinking

[mongers]

This is what labour now needs: