Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Norgy]

Director of communications at 10 Downing Street now seems like the most risky job in the world, making Sean Dyche breathe a sigh of relief as a Greek loony sharpens the gyro spit at the City Ground.

[Sheilbh]

Director of communications at 10 Downing Street now seems like the most risky job in the world, making Sean Dyche breathe a sigh of relief as a Greek loony sharpens the gyro spit at the City Ground.

Looking forward to Starmer reaching, inevitably, for Sam Allardyce

This is what labour now needs:

Yes. There's been a bit of a revisionism and revival in Wilson's reputation which I think is very welcome.

Interestingly it was something that in one of the earlier stages of Starmer's project, that he was interested in. So Nick Thomas Symonds who was one of his earliest, strongest backers wrote a biography of Wilson. Starmer cited Wilson as his model and most admired Labour leader.

This was undone after the Hartlepool by-election when Starmer started reaching for Mandelson, McSweeney and the Labour right to help guide his project. They then used the power to implement the most brutally factional regime in a British political party I have ever seen. Existing MPs were de-selected, people were kicked out of the party, whips were withdrawn over things the government has since u-turned on, the central party HQ imposed candidates on constituencies and rigged selections to get favoured candidates safe seats. Which is the literal opposite of Harold Wilson's greatest political skill which was his party management. He came from the left, but ran a really broad church government that included all of the factions - in his cabinet, he had people from Michael Foot and Barbara Castle () to Roy Jenkins. A Wilsonian version of Starmer would have had a shadow cabinet and cabinet with John McDonnell and Wes Streeting in it - but that requires a lot of political skill and party management and Starmer basically holds politics in contempt.

And FWIW I think that will sort of happen now because from the Tribune and Rayner statements (and others) it is clear that the soft left appreciate the power they hold over Starmer and will extract concessions (and seats in the cabinet and in Number 10) - until they administer the coup de grace.

Having said that I slightly wonder if that style of very broad church politics - which is what FPTP is designed to produce - can exist any more. Could you have the equivalent of Michael Foot or Barbara Castle wo were Eurosceptic, unilateral nuclear disarming, democratic socialists who believed in a planned economy share a party, far less sitting around the same cabinet table, with someone like Roy Jenkins who was a committed European federalist, believer in NATO and defence (include nuclear deterrent) and backed European style mixed social market economics?

I'm not sure and I think you see the same on the right - and there's probably a chicken-and-egg question around what's causing it and if it's possible (or desirable) to change. I mean even Thatcher in her final cabinet still had some "wets" left. Blair didn't have him in the cabinet but had a Labour Party in which he could co-exist with Jeremy Corbyn. I'm not sure if it's parties or politics or party leaderships just seem a lot more intolerant of differing views.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Could a breakdown in cabinet discipline be the cause? Too much individuality and egotism?

The PM becomes ever more presidential.... a greatly inferior form of government.

[garbon]

I know Starmer's I'll never give up on the fight was said as a positive but it feels like he has told us that he will cling on no matter what.

/also the sort of thing you say before you inevitably give up the fight.

[Sheilbh]

I know Starmer's I'll never give up on the fight was said as a positive but it feels like he has told us that he will cling on no matter what.

/also the sort of thing you say before you inevitably give up the fight.

Yes and a line with absolutely no problematic antecedents:

(Tried to clip - failed. It's at 4.10 ish. He subsequently quit to become a European Commissioner.)

Or:

(She quit within 24 hours.)

[Sheilbh]

Could a breakdown in cabinet discipline be the cause? Too much individuality and egotism?

The PM becomes ever more presidential.... a greatly inferior form of government.

I'm not sure I think maybe in the PM but not necessarily in the cabinet. Wilson after all had to deal with Tony Benn

But I think a big skill of Wilson was actually managing a cabinet full of egos and lots of very serious, big figures who could become PM (and all individually thought they'd make a better PM than him).

And I'm never sure how much of that is reversible v driven by the increased velocity of news and media.

I know I bang on about it but I also wonder about Peter Mair's Ruling the Void about the decline of mass membership parties across Europe and the post-Cold War end of party democracy in Europe. Part of that is that basically parties used to represent specific social interests/constituencies: the working class, the landed class and small c conservative middle class, the progressive middle class (in some countries those divides but also broken down by faith or language). And the parties were basically the place where the governed and governing would meet but in the context of that specific constituency. Now party membership is down, leaders and MPs hold members in contempt often, but they're also perhaps more "ideological" or based on a set of ideas and less derived from a social base. Which is perhaps also tied to fragmentation and volatility.

[Valmy]

(She quit within 24 hours.)

Heh. I think Joe Biden said something very similar just a few days before dropping out of the Presidential race.

[garbon]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cm28y8ewdrrt?post=asset%3Ae5f7a60c-c07b-497c-8e7f-de44ee6c32de#post

Davey criticises Starmer's 'catastrophic lack of judgement'

Here's a bit more on that back and forth from Starmer and Lib Dem leader Ed Davey in the Commons - mentioned in our last post.

Referring to Peter Mandelson and Matthew Doyle, Davey tells the prime minister that appointing a "paedophile supporter" cannot be excused as misfortune, but to appoint two shows a "catastrophic lack of judgement".

He then quotes Starmer previously stating that when a prime minister refuses to take responsibly, it only serves to convince people that things cannot get better.

"That is exactly what is happening now," says Davey.

Starmer fires back that "millions of people" have been let down for "years and years and years", partly due to austerity that Davey's party supported.

"He should take accountability and take responsibility for what he has inflicted on this country," says Starmer.

I'm not sure taking Lib Dems austerity to task is best come back from Davey's astute comment. Also interesting that Starmer went with Doyle not having given his full acccount is why he got appointed to the Lords. He expects everyone to be fully transparent all the time?

[mongers]

Oh, so there was a failed coup against him on Monday, most amusing.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure taking Lib Dems austerity to task is best come back from Davey's astute comment. Also interesting that Starmer went with Doyle not having given his full acccount is why he got appointed to the Lords. He expects everyone to be fully transparent all the time?

Yeah, from the Guardian, Davey's question in full:

To appoint one paedophile supporter cannot be excused as 'misfortune'. To appoint two shows a catastrophic lack of judgment.

[Starmer] once told this house that when a prime minister refuses to take responsibility, and I quote, 'it only serves to convince people that things cannot get better, that governments cannot improve people's lives, and that progress is not possible because politics does not work'.

Does he still agree with himself and does he share my fear that is exactly what's happening now?

And Starmer's response:

People in this country, millions of people have been let down for years and years and years.

One of the reasons was austerity, which his party supported. He should take accountability and take responsibility for what he has inflicted on this country.

I'd add Stephen Flynn, the SNP Westminster leader, picked up exactly on your point. That Starmer's line on Doyle and Mandelson is that he was not given a full account of his actions (I would point out journalists are already disputing this). Flynn said Starmer "appears to be the most gullible former director of public prosecutions in history" and asked if Starmer would publish the guidance the government got from vetting Doyle.

Starmer's response was to say a former SNP chief executive is going on trial in nine days' time - which caused the Speaker to intervene and say MPs should not be raising live cases.

Just woeful. As I say, it feels very much like we're in the late Johnson era now post-partygate where it's just a matter of when (although, alarmingly, I can see a route to him survival through Labour hesitation).

And, as with the Labour left criticism that Starmer is deeply dishonest (this was recently really hammered by Helen Thomson and David Runciman in a way that I found really bracing) which started immediately during his leadership campaign when he ran on Corbynism without Corbyn, the criticism that he never takes responsibility is fundamentally true. It's always someone else's fault and I just think it's contemptible in a Prime Minister.

Edit: And I'd point on Doyle how particularly pathetic - but also indicative of Starmer's whole style and problems with it - Number 10's defence is. It has been pointed out that the Sunday Times splashed on Doyle's links to a convicted paedophile on 27 December but he wasn't formally made a peer until 4 January. Number 10's line is that there was nothing they could do because "there was no process".  I think for Keir Starmer in the most politically powerful and unconstrained office in any Western democracy, with a 150 seat majority, the lack of existing process is genuinely an insurmountable problem.

It has been pointed out by many, many people - including the House of Lords - that if he's not been formally made a peer you can just cancel it. It would literally take a statement.

[Sheilbh]

I suspect this is going to get worse with this Times exclusive tomorrow:

Steven Swinford
@Steven_Swinford
EXCLUSIVE from @Geri_E_L_Scott
 
Sir Keir Starmer nominated a former adviser for a peerage despite being told that he provided a paedophile councillor with "support" because he "believed in his innocence"
 
Lord Doyle, a former director of communications in Downing Street, told Number 10 that he had been "supportive" of Sean Morton after he was charged with possessing and distributing indecent images of children
 
The prime minister was first made aware of concerns over Doyle's relationship with Morton after they were raised with Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister's former chief of staff, on December 4
 
McSweeney asked Tim Allan, who until this week served as Starmer's director of communications, to speak to Doyle amid concerns that he would be too conflicted to interview Doyle himself
 
Allan spoke to Doyle several times about his relationship with Morton. He told The Times that Doyle said he "believed Morton's protestations of innocence prior to his conviction and had been supportive of him during that time"
 
He said that Doyle did not inform him that he had campaigned for Morton after he was charged with child sex offences and suspended from the Labour Party.
 
Allan passed his findings on to Starmer who announced the peerage on December 10
 
TIM ALLAN'S STATEMENT:
 
'I was asked to speak to Matthew Doyle by Morgan McSweeney regarding Doyle's  relationship with Sean Morton. I accurately relayed what Doyle had told me to the PM
 
'The PM is right to state that Doyle did not tell me about his campaigning in a  council election for Morton
 
'Doyle did however tell me that he had believed Morton's protestations of innocence prior to his conviction and had been supportive of him during that time'

I would add that on the campaigning point, Doyle didn't mention it - but there were Facebook pictures and Twitter posts about it. So it's not like it was hidden knowledge. (This does feel very much like Kim Philby's "vetting": "on the one hand he is a fervent communist who admires Stalin, on the other I have had lunch with him and my uncle played rugby with his father.")

It feels like the main obstacle right now is that none of the challengers really want to go for it - feel in a strong enough position. I think in politics there are always reasons not to do something dramatic like challenge for the leadership - often they are very good reasons (HMRC hasn't cleared Rayner, Streeting has his own Mandelson associations, there's a bad byelection coming up, Scottish, Welsh and local election in May look very bad etc). But I feel like the people who wait for the perfect alignment of circumstances don't become political leaders and part of it is knowing when to show a bit of audacity, fully aware of the risks (I think of Macron especially of recent leaders).

Edit: I'd add that Starmer went to the Womens' Parliamentary Labour Party meeting this afternoon and was warned that the party risks looking like the "paedo protectors party".

[OttoVonBismarck]

More extreme hatred of Jews from one of the most hateful, antisemitic populations in Europe.

In modern Britain, a crime is not a crime if a Jew is the victim:

The Palestine Action acquittals are telling British Jews they have no future here

Politicians repeat the mantra that there is no place for anti-Semitism on our streets, while the evidence says differently

Stephen Pollard

It's not been a great couple of years to be Jewish in Britain. Ever since twelve hundred Jews were massacred by Hamas in Israel in 2023, the response here in Britain has been an unprecedented wave of Jew hate, with hundreds of thousands taking to the streets week after week to join hate marches chanting "globalise the intifada" – roughly translating as, "kill the Jews". That demand bore fruit last October at Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester.

In reality, the writing has been on the wall since 2015, when the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader unleashed a torrent of anti-Semitism which, at the time, seemed like a ceiling but has turned out to be a floor.

Throughout this past decade – through the assaults, the murders at Heaton Park, the verbal attacks and everything else – I've never really believed that it might be time to leave. I've always thought that there was a bedrock of decency among ordinary Britons. The anti-Semites might be vocal and growing, but they aren't the full picture.

But the acquittal today of six members of Palestine Action over charges of aggravated burglary in connection with a break-in at the Elbit Systems factory in 2024, in which a police officer's spine was shattered, is something altogether different. The Jewish community and our allies have complained about the police's lack of action in protecting us, and about the CPS's refusal to prosecute in too many cases, sending a clear message to the anti-Semites that they are cleared to go about their business.

This case is different. The police acted. The CPS prosecuted. And what happened? A jury of ordinary Britons – the supposed bedrock of decency – decided to acquit the defendants.

That decision, I believe, may come to be seen as the single most significant case in the history of Anglo-Jewry since 1945. It shows that the game is up. We can no longer rely on the criminal justice system. And when the law is no longer there to protect us, who or what will?

The case involved a break-in at the Israeli defence contractor Elbit Systems's factory near Bristol. It is open season on Israeli businesses at the moment – and by "Israeli" I mean any business in which an Israeli is thought by the so-called Free Palestine mob to be involved. That includes restaurants, cafes, comedy venues and anywhere else where there is the scent of a Jew.

Video evidence in the Elbit Systems case showed all six defendants entering the factory without permission and then damaging equipment. They told the jury that the sledgehammers they used were intended solely to destroy property and were not "in any circumstances intended to injure security staff".

But as security guards tried to stop them, sledgehammers were swung at the guards. As Avon and Somerset Police Federation put it after the verdicts: "Like people across the country, we have viewed very distressing scenes during this trial, including footage of a police officer trying to maintain law and order only to be severely injured. We remind the public that a brave police officer's spine was fractured during this incident."

The jury could not reach a verdict on the charges of criminal damage against all six defendants, on the charges of violent disorder against three of them, or on the charge that one of them inflicted grievous bodily harm on Sgt Kate Evans.

To cut a long story short, the message of the case is this: you can smash the spine of a police officer and so long as you are doing it because of "Palestine", you can walk home free.

How do I tell my children that they are safe when they walk the streets? If a Free Palestine protester decides to assault them because they look Jewish and so must be complicit in genocide – to use the blood libel de nos jours – will a jury decide the protestors were, indeed, protesting? So it seems.

This is a vital, real question, not just because it goes to the heart of whether there is a future for Jews in the UK, but because similar incidents are happening now. Recent cases include a knifeman running into a kosher shop and attacking Jews. He walked home after court.

And last month a huge mob terrified people inside a restaurant in West London with Israeli connections. The police stood and watched (and have subsequently apologised for their refusal to act). A convoy of cars drove through Jewish areas in north west London screaming "F--- the Jews, rape their daughters". No one was prosecuted. And that's not even to mention the hate spread in mosques, when no action is taken.

After any incident politicians mouth the ludicrous mantra, there is no place for anti-Semitism on the streets of Britain, when the evidence shows there is a very welcome place for it here. It may be that it's now over for Jews in Britain.

I think it is time America recognizes any affinity, represented through intelligence, military and economic deals with the "Anglosphere" is past its sell by date. Particularly in Britain, Canada, and Australia, hatred of Jews is mainstream and normal. These countries have spent decades deliberately importing hateful, evil Muslims, who have no place setting their monstrous feet anywhere in the West. Now their native politicians kow tow and scrape and curry for favor with the hateful Muslims who now represent important voting blocs in their society.

These countries cannot be our allies. We need to get out of entanglements like AUKUS, 5 Eyes etc.

[crazy canuck]

You will be happy to hear Canada has already concluded it is no longer appropriate to have close ties with the US.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yes, we're all aware Canada is under the delusion they can secure freedom through vassalage to China.

[crazy canuck]

No, not quite. It's just that we have stopped being under the delusion that the Americans are a reliable ally and a reliable trading partner.