Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

Suspended sentence for Huw Edwards

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - I'm surprised it was in the magistrates and the sentence feels very, very light for that crime. I get there's a prisons crisis and people are being released but still...

Sort of relatedly (and to the two-tier policing line in that specific area) quite surprised that as far as I can see only the local media turned up in Rotherham for the victim impact statements and sentencing there.

Edit: Read the sentencing remarks and I can see how the judge got there but - not for the first time - I feel like the sentencing guidelines are low...
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/EDWARDS-SENTENCE-REMARKS-FINAL.pdf

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/17/diane-abbott-accuses-keir-starmer-treating-her-as-non-person-labour

Diane Abbott accuses Keir Starmer of treating her like a 'non-person'

Diane Abbott has accused Keir Starmer of treating her as a "non-person" after comments by the Conservative donor Frank Hester who said that looking at the Hackney MP made "you just want to hate all black women" and that she "should be shot".

Abbott said in a series of interviews that she expected more support from the party in the aftermath of the comments, which were revealed by the Guardian. She was suspended from the party at the time, and said Starmer did not reach out to her.

Speaking to BBC Two's Newsnight, she said she had been frightened of being targeted. "One of the reasons it made me frightened is two MPs have been killed in recent years," she said, referring to the deaths of Jo Cox in 2016 and David Amess in 2021, adding that comments like Hester's "wind up a certain sort of nutcase and it makes you more vulnerable".

Abbott said the Labour leader "never reached out to me personally and did treat me as a non-person". She said: "If somebody was threatening to have you shot, you would have felt your party would have offered you more support, giving you advice on safety and security, even kind of commiserated with you. And none of that happened."

Speaking on ITV's Lorraine on Tuesday morning, Abbott said she had support from friends but not her party. "My friends came round, but my friends have always been terribly supportive. Sadly, I didn't get much support from Keir Starmer ... I was a little bit hurt because if you are threatened with death, you expect your party to come round."

Abbott, who was suspended from the party over a letter she wrote in which she suggested Jewish, Irish and Traveller people were not subject to racism but prejudice, said she agreed she had been wrong but that the incident was used as a device to prevent her standing.

The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP said: "I think that Keir Starmer wanted to finish his clearout of the left in the parliamentary Labour party and by writing a very ill-advised letter I gave him the opportunity to move against me.

"And I think what they were trying to do was to string out and string out the investigation. So when a general election is around the corner, they could just move me out of the way as a Labour candidate because I wouldn't be in the parliamentary Labour party, and they would parachute in someone else.

"Keir Starmer is always saying: 'It's the new Labour party' ... and how could you make it look more new than by getting rid of Diane Abbott?"

She also repeated claims she had made in an earlier interview with the Guardian, saying she was indirectly offered a deal via a "third party" that would have resulted in her standing down before the election – a deal she said she rejected, saying it "was designed to humiliate me".

Hester issued a statement apologising for his remarks about Abbott, describing them as "rude", but said his "criticism had nothing to do with her gender nor colour of skin". The statement said Hester abhorred racism, "not least because he experienced it as the child of Irish immigrants in the 1970s".

[Sheilbh]

Also Starmer continues to be pushed on these gifts and hospitality.

A very Telegraph way of raising it with a photo of Starmer's wife at London Fashion Week, noting that "Lady Starmer" was wearing a bespoke dress Especially the use of the title is very political but the point's made.

Meanwhile Starmer challenged on the hospitality bit (apparently accepted more hospitality than any previous Labour leader). And I'm not sure this line will hold up:

Starmer reflected on his acceptance of football tickets, saying: "I'm a massive Arsenal fan. I can't go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don't accept a gift of hospitality, I can't go to a game. You could say: 'Well, bad luck'.

"That's why gifts have to be registered. But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."

Declarations are important for transparency etc but nothing to do with whether there are conflicts of interest - they are simply declarations. You may well be able to get away with this as there may not really be a story there - but I think it's challenging if you've run as "Mr Propriety" and attacked the previous PM as out of touch.

Again, it just feels like a lack of political sense - not sure if those people are just sidelined or not in a position to really confront the boss. But again feel like he could do with looking at where this story is likely to head (most likely an apology and acceptance that he won't accept future gifts/hospitality) and get there early rather than being forced into it.

[Josquius]

Honestly I thought the arsenal defence was pretty good. It does make sense. With the way shit is these days it'd be hard for him to go in the stands, and if you get a chance to go in the box then you would, wouldn't you.

The wife shopping stuff... Less good.

[Sheilbh]

And more on Starmer taking more in hospitality and gifts than any other recent party leader (admittedly less directly comparable with sitting PMs):
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/18/keir-starmer-100000-in-tickets-and-gifts-more-than-any-other-recent-party-leader

This was picked up by the Times and FT a bit during the election. Also the fact that the Premier League are the people giving him the match tickets (and the Taylor Swift tickets) at a point when the government's proposing an independent football regulator seems like an obvious conflict risk. As I say I don't think Starmer is buyable or corrupt but the fact that he can't see how this is perceived is an issue - and that he thinks declaring it is enough when all it is is declaring. There's no assessment of conflicts etc.

[garbon]

I guess Starmer is turning out just about as inspiring as we all had thought.

[Tamas]

It sure is disappointing.

[Sheilbh]

It sure is disappointing.

It's enraging

There were stories earlier this month of disagreements between Sue Gray (senior civil servant who became Starmer's chief of staff - not a traditional role in Downing Street) and Morgan McSweeney (Starmer's campaign chief who became head of comms). Including stuff about Gray basically controlling access to Starmer and moving McSweeney's desk far, far away from the centre in Downing Street.

Yesterday there was a story about when the Cabinet Secretary (chief civil servant), Sir Simon Case, would step down and it was very, very heavily implied that he was the source of all of the leaks from Downing Street. Him and Gray have history - he basically blocked her promotion in the civil service. In her role though she ended up doing the report on Partygate, which obviously involved his presence at these events - and then she moved to working for Starmer.

Then today story about Sue Gray being on £170k pa which is more than Starmer is paid. It's also particularly controversial because she tried to actually cut the wages of special advisors - these are the (few) political appointees around ministers. She apparently tried to cut their wages from what they were earning as Labour Party Spads now they were government Spads. Apparently she let them form the impression that she was taking a pay cut to £130k pa - which is not true.

So one argument is basically Starmer is too reliant on Sue Gray and she's not political enough. Starmer's an institutionalist who was formerly Director of Public Prosecutions and his most senior advisor is a former senior civil servant. She's playing into and enhancing his weakness on the politics/presentation issue which is what we're seeing both in a lot of these stories - but also the government's approach (lots of reviews and fiddling changes at the edges). As someone with a lawyerly caution and institutional mindset, Starmer actually needs someone very political and big picture as a useful foil.

The other side is that she's a senior woman who's pissed off a lot of senior men around her (and she's still standing) and they're briefing against her to get her gone (I overstate this but the Labour party is very laddish). And it's the weirdness of a pre-summer election so there's basically several months after the election when parliament isn't doing much so there's not much politics/it's silly season.

But either way - senior aides should not be a story. But we've got reviews not action, stories about rows in Downing Street, grubby stories about hospitality etc - and all of that is knackered government in its third term after ten years, not two month in after 14 years out of office It's so complacent and arrogant.

And it's enraging because the Tories are having their leadership election. I know I bang on about planning, but I really think the party that solves planning and allows young people to become home owners will be hegemonic - I think it is to now what the unions were to the 70s and 80s. And like then there was a Labour solution to the unions in the late 60s with Barbara Castle's Place of Strife - which was vetoed by union bosses and Jim Callaghan. Instead the issue was solved decisively by Thatcher. I think the Tories missed a chance and Labour have one to address planning from a left-wing perspective - which they need to seize. Because if they don't I think there's a risk that it swings back to the Tories with an opportunity to entrench their solution for a generation.

And on that front I noted a left-wing YIMBY wonk note, with approval, Robert Jenrick's speech on planning yesterday basically calling to move to zoning. Jenrick is interesting on this as he had advanced reforms proposed as Housing Secretary and pulled them following backbench/local activist opposition. I think there's a question of whether he pulled it or basically Johnson did because he didn't like a fight (because Johnson u-turned on everything under the least bit of pressure). The mood music on planning has changed in the last 4 years since that happened and the Tories are a very leader-based party so if he wins he can define their agenda on that. I think it's something Labour should be watching, warily - and the answer is to seize their opportunity and fix it.

Edit: Although FWIW my read is that Starmer needs his comms and campaign team more central.

[PJL]

I am struggling to believe the same team that maneuvered Labour back to the centre very well, had absolutely no inkling that this would trigger outrage, even if we are talking about taking 300 pounds from well-off pensioners while they received over 900 due to the triple lock.

Sounds like that question has now been answered satisfactorily by Shelf last post - campaign team has been sidelined by the Civil Service. All very Yes Minister-ish.

[Tamas]

FFS

[Sheilbh]

FFS

Also a bit alarmed that I still see Dame Sharon White's name being mentioned as a possible replacement for Case as Cabinet Secretary. I think it would be really positive to have a black woman as the most senior civil servant and she has a very good reputation in the civil service.

However, I'd just note that since she left the civil service, she became CEO of OfCom which is the communications regulator. It's not the best regulator in the country My sense is that their work on telecoms and that side of things is really good - but their media and broadcast wing are seen as a bit of a joke in the industry.

She then became Chair of John Lewis and stepped down within three years - after narrowly surviving a vote of no confidence. The Guardian had a piece about it which described it in the most charitable way possible of whether she was "too clever for the cruel retail world" The article explained it more that basically she hired lots of people who were "all theory people", wasn't quick to make decisions, not really good at setting out a plan and delivering it and basically just more suited to the "genteel decorum" of the civil service than a really competitive bit of retail. All of which sounds great for the civil service, but maybe not what the country needs right now

Edit: Although - in defence of Starmer - he had a couple of purges of his team as leader when things weren't working. He is, I think, good at getting to the right place eventually. The problem is I think you only get to make a first impression once and I think in opposition you can take your time to get to the right place - opposition is a 5 year project. And obviously government is too, but the scrutiny is pretty relentless in government so you need to get their quicker and have an approach in the meantime.