As this ex-MP left the Labour Party, another ex-MP joined—you guessed, a Tory. So Starmer’s right—Labour is the party of change. But it seems the change is merely one of personnel, there is no change proposed for the course of the ship of state nor will there be. There is one thing that is totally absent from Starmer’s so-called ‘retail offer,’ namely the word ‘hope.’ He and his acolytes have done everything they could possibly do to dampen any expectation of hope. This is what is called serious politics, which is to say you can’t make any real change if the system won’t allow you to, and of course you’re not prepared to challenge the system lest it puts a rocket up your backside a la Corbyn (who it has to be said wasn’t prepared for it). I wonder if this absence of hope will dampen support for Labour. When a certain cohort of voters used to say ‘they’re all the same’ I assumed that they meant politicians were merely in it for themselves. Now, with no distinct difference in party policies the accusation takes on a deeper significance.
 
Another aspect of Starmer’s self-assumed ‘change’ appeal is his repeated claim that he has changed the Labour Party, making ‘tough decisions.’ But, as highlighted by the Abbott case, and the wider context of parliamentary selections, old-style machine politics remains dominant. I am not surprised—Labour’s General Secretary David Evans dates from Margaret McDonagh’s day (when I worked for the party too) and New Labour was just finding its feet. The development of control freakery has mushroomed, accelerated by Starmer’s purge of the left after the JC blip, the ’left’ being those members who want to see actual as opposed to merely presentational change. Evans is very much flying below the radar and is keeping out of the public eye. Michael Crick seems to be one of the few journalists who is looking deeply into Labour’s machine politics. Such an inspection is long overdue. 

​I really thought I could stick with it, but I can no longer resist the urge to resign from the Labour Party. After 40 years’ of continuous membership, and having personally benefited so much from it, I can no longer stay in a party led by a serial liar. The straw that has broken the camel’s back is his and his faction’s treatment of Diane Abbott. I can’t say I was ever a fan of hers, in fact I found her a bit irritating. But she has a thousand more reasons to be accepted as a Labour candidate in this general election than, say Natalie Elphick being welcomed into the party. Starmer knew the so-called ‘investigation’ into Abbott had been completed months ago, yet only in the last few days he was repeating the lie that it was an ongoing process. How can someone who brazenly lies be trusted about anything? From every one of his porous promises to gain the leadership he has set a pattern of disingenuous retreat, reversal and outright denial, aped by those who cluster around him. He says he has changed the Labour Party. He certainly has—for the worse. I cannot subscribe any longer to this cynical mountebank’s vision even though to get rid of the Tories it will still be necessary in many places to vote Labour. But where there is a decent alternative (Islington North comes to mind) others should be supported. All I can say about the next likely party in power is that of the two, Labour is the least worst option. It’s an exceedingly low bar.
 
I wonder if I have moved leftwards in recent years, and perhaps it’s me that’s changed, not the Labour Party. I think I may always have considered myself ‘soft left,’ but even that appellation would be unacceptable to the Starmeroids, compelled as they are to root out any breeding ground for internal opposition, lest a Corbyn re-emerge. I regret that such a big part of my life has to end this way, but I would regret it all the more living in a pretend world of fealty to a second rate despot (first rate despots needn’t apply). There are lots of good people in the party who deserve better. I think a lot of them are biting their tongues. The desire to be rid of the Tories cannot be underestimated, but nor should that desire be manipulated for the benefit of a leader who serves only as an establishment buggins’ turn puppet and is now working hard to fill his parliamentary ranks with rubber stamps.

​According to my ever helpful Microsoft Co-Pilot, as of 10th May 2024 the NHS waiting list stood at 7.54 million. Labour is promising to provide 40,000 new appointments every week, so that sounds like a good thing—so far as it goes. But at 40,000 a week it would take 3.6 years to clear the backlog—assuming of course that new cases don’t eat into the target. Essentially, we’re talking about a full parliament to erase waiting times. It might also be noted that ‘appointments’ aren’t necessarily treatment episodes. And at what point with the new government will the target kick in? So the question must be: is this commitment good enough? I might add that the official waiting list figure probably isn’t the whole story. Some of us have been taken off the waiting list because our condition is not ‘serious enough.’ It is also unstated how Labour will resolve the NHS staffing crisis as, e.g. evidenced by the doctors’ strikes. We may hear how we’re going to recruit x number more staff, and less about how we’re going to retain them.
 
These observations have been inspired by another ‘big’ speech from Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor. Reading a transcript one is struck by how much padding it contains. Loaded with attacks on the Tories’ record, all of which may be justified, there isn’t a great deal about exactly how Labour is going to reverse the damage done these last 14 years. I acknowledge that that task will require time, but it won’t happen with timid baby steps. Here’s a typical section from her speech:
 
‘To serve as Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the privilege of my life. 
Not to luxuriate in status;
Not as a staging post in a career;
But to serve.
I know the responsibility that will come with that. 
I embrace it. 
I know that it will not be easy.
It will take hard work.
And it will require harder choices.
I am ready for it.’
 
The Churchillian tone! Rachel has nothing to offer but blood, sweat and tears. But we aren’t at war with Hitler, we’re at war with a far more insidious enemy—our economic system, which has locked us in a downward spiral whose most egregious consequence is climate change. On that front I don’t imagine Reeves’ love of ‘partnerships with business’ means anything more than the likelihood of government bowing to corporate greenwashing demands. Oh to be wrong, but I’m not hearing a contrary message, nor even an intellectual interrogation of the fallacious concept known as ‘net zero,’ - which is long overdue. Reeves doesn’t mention climate change specifically, one can hardly blame her I suppose since the remedies are too electorally frightening. But so is this from the Independent six days ago:
 
‘A vast  Antarctic glacier is more vulnerable to melting than previously thought, according to new research,  with potentially devastating consequences for billions of people. The  Thwaites Glacier — dubbed the “Doomsday” glacier because of the grave impacts for  global sea level rise if it melts — is breaking down “much faster” than expected, according to a peer-reviewed  study published Monday in the academic journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.’
 
It could be that Labour’s proposed Great British Energy company will be our green energy solution. This, according to the Party’s website will be:
 
‘    a new, publicly-owned clean energy company.
We will harness Britain’s sun, wind and wave energy to:
·            Save £93 billion for UK households.
·            Deliver one hundred percent clean power by 2030.
·            Cut energy bills for good.
·            Create thousands of good local jobs.
·            Deliver energy security.
·            Make the UK energy independent.
·            Labour will build an energy system for the future, run for the British people.’
 
Sounds good doesn’t it? I wonder in how much detail this has been worked out. Somebody writing this list of bullet points seems to have missed out nuclear power for some reason. Perhaps that’s because nuclear will inevitably swallow the bulk of any public investment. Perhaps it’s no co-incidence Reeves made her latest speech in a Rolls Royce factory since Rolls Royce would love to start building their little modular reactors all over the place asap. We also need to know how this publicly funded company will work in partnership with existing green energy businesses. What form will that partnership take? I have a fear that Great British Energy will be a new iteration camouflaged in soft language, of Margaret Thatcher’s NFFO—the so-called Non Fossil Fuel Obligation which added 10% to our energy bills to pay for nuclear power projects. The nuclear industry has some powerful support in the Labour Party, so I don’t see Great British Energy being given the support it will need to harness genuine green technologies.
 
To really judge what Labour’s leadership faction means by ‘change’ will of course partly depend on policies such as these, but two things will stand out for answers. Will Labour tackle wealth inequality? I’ve not heard anything yet to suggest that this is featuring significantly if at all in the Starmeroid narrative. I detect a Mandelsonian attitude here—get filthy rich but pay your taxes (as if). Wealth inequality has grown dramatically in the UK and it contributes enormously to our non-productive rentier status. The second issue is to what extent Labour uses Tory incompetence to deflect attention from its own unwillingness to challenge the underlying problems with the economy. No doubt we’ll have more to say about that in the coming weeks.

‘Read my lips: no new taxes’ was the famously undone phrase used by George Bush senior when he was running for the U.S. presidency in 1988. It’s not quite the same but Starmer’s statement in his grand opening speech of the election yesterday was that he wouldn’t raise income tax. He wants to keep taxes low he says, implicitly adding to the stigma taxation must endure. Coupled with Rachel Reeves’ commitment to her blessed fiscal ‘rules’ it is hard to see what is going to change. Both Tories and Labour are saying they will reel in zillions from closing down tax avoidance/evasion schemes. Such promises are made to cover the gaping holes in economic plans. If there was so much money to be made from such endeavours why haven’t they already produced the dosh? It seems every government or party in waiting wants to advertise how crap they are at collecting taxes.
 
But hey! Reeves has said she doesn’t want to see a return to the five years of austerity we suffered. Which five years was that? Did it stop in 2015? Labour is making a rod for its own back, not merely in a strict fiscal sense but electorally too. Unless it completely breaks with precious British traditions and dramatically boosts productivity and efficiency in every sphere, we will witness a backlash as the gains of growth fail to materialise. It might help for starters if we were to repatriate the ownership of a number of essential ingredients of the economy, such as water and energy. It’s curious that Starmer can today promise not to put up income taxes, presumably for the duration of a full parliament, but when it comes to many desperately needed spending pledges these cannot be made until we’ve ‘seen the books.’ In the land of economics, the one handed economist is blind (I’ll figure out what that means later but I thought it sounded apposite).

+I have been randomly chosen to participate in a major UK health study called ‘Our Future Health.’ This research project aims to recruit five million participants who over many years will provide the NHS and its affiliates with a feast of information about the nation’s health, if not its health service. An extensive questionnaire follows signing up—all the usual questions like how much do you drink, have you ever smoked, family health history, etc., etc. But funnily enough—and I think health practitioners are prone to this—not a word about what is actually in your diet. Carnivore or vegetarian? You’d think they might want to know. From the first tranche of answers and without any further ado they’d be able to tell whether there is a pattern of obesity amongst carnivores (of course there is, there must be, all that horrible grease). Nor does the questionnaire ask about fast foods and sugary products. And yet obesity (and consequently diabetes) is fast overtaking smoking as ‘The big health issue’ which should be remediable. Perhaps the designers of the questionnaire didn’t want to overload participants—as it stands they say it’ll already take 35 minutes to fill in. There is a reward at the end of the day. Fully signed up people will receive a £10 spending voucher, which is enough to buy six crumpets, half a pound of butter, two bottles of beer and some chocolate. And lard if you can stomach it. Not forgetting a bag of crisps.
 
+The Tory party’s conscription-not-conscription proposal is falling apart before our eyes. James Cleverly, a minister, has said that youngsters won't be criminalised or sent to prison if they don’t submit themselves to this exercise in social adjustment (which will it seems only cost the taxpayer £2.5 billion a year). Given what has been said about how much each conscript will receive (a stipend, not a wage) it sounds like a big attempt to circumvent the Minimum Wage. I was wondering whether the Tory policy makers grew up in and had fond memories of the 1950s, a halcyon period of British life when we still had steam engines running on branch lines, no problems with racism, National Service and a kind hearted retreat from colonialism with a young queen taking up the mantle as leader of a delightfully named Commonwealth. On the other hand, if the patriotic fervour all this conjures up leads to anonymous envelopes flying about—containing white feathers—we could develop a new twist in the development of social media. No, there won’t be physical envelopes, it would be something on Tik Tok, adding yet more pressure on our already pressured teenagers! Are the Tories desperate to lose?

+I was in Leeds on Friday night for an evening of minimalism—Glass, Reich, Riley etc. Not everybody’s cup of tea I imagine, but the audience seemed varied, generationally and otherwise. The evening kicked off with a showing of the 1983 film Koyaanisqatsi, scored by Philip Glass, which explores the desecration of the planet by this thing called civilisation. Some shots show the demolition of tower blocks and one in particular sticks in my mind. Here a tower block descends vertically and perhaps unlike some of the others which topple over this building has demolition charges on various floors each releasing a puff of smoke as their charges explode in succession. Where I wonder have I seen that before?
 
+The Tories’ plan to bring back conscription-not-conscription has gone down well in the right wing press. Actually, it may not be a bad idea if it scoops up all those soon to be unemployed spotty SPADS from the crumbling Tory edifice. Get them to peel some spuds instead. In actuality, since it is suggested the scheme will be voluntary, it would hardly be any different to what e.g. students can do now in their gap years. Or perhaps this is where all that extra money we’re going to spend on defence is going to go, on a pretend army that will put the shits up Putin. Coming after we’ve all been told to stock up with three days’ worth of food and water it seems like we’re being prepared for the worst. Next thing you know the state pension triple lock will be dependent on OAPs joining Sunak’s new Home Guard.

A question about this election which doesn’t seem to have occurred to the journalists I’ve heard so far is why has Sunak chosen to go for a six week campaign period? He could have had his election on the 4th July with a three week campaign and so given some of his current legislation time to get on the statute book. At the No. 10 Downing Street level I don’t think things happen by accident (Truss was a disaster, but she wasn’t an accident).  So what might be my explanation for this long election campaign period? I think a key to it is a Tory instinct that the electorate will develop campaign fatigue, with the wall to wall coverage driving them up the wall (consonant metaphors at last!) leaving voters more befuddled by the claims, counter claims and the inevitable ‘they’re all the same’ syndrome. I suspect the Tories would prefer a low turnout—that’s often thought to play to their advantage. So if a general election has to come earlier than expected, why must the campaign period be extended for twice as long as is legally necessary? I think after week three on this occasion people are going to get very bored, not least since neither side has very much to say which is genuinely eye-catching. Instead, I predict we’re going to hear a lot of ‘we have a plan.’ This talk of having a plan will be like a school playground argument that ‘my dad’s bigger than your dad.’
 
I used to enjoy elections—that’s quite important if you are a candidate or an agent. Somehow you have to rise above the feeling that no matter how much you do, it will never be enough. As this campaign gets underway we’ll be told that it is the most historic in a generation, that the future of the nation hangs in the balance, etc., etc. What we need to be convinced of is why that may be true, aside from the well rehearsed, scripted verbiage that will garnish breakfast, lunch and supper over the next six weeks. Six weeks is a long time in politics. Perhaps there will be some gobsmacking thing that really kicks it all off.

I confess to being a little surprised that Rishi (no longer ‘Dishi’) Sunak has called an election for July 4th. I was anticipating an autumn general election. People who suspect they’re going to lose tend to cling on as long as possible, a la Major and Brown. Perhaps this timing tells us that the Tories had simply run out of steam. Having said that, in the parliamentary session time left between now and say October there’s not much opportunity to introduce exciting new legislation that would transform all our lives. So now millions will decide, and may even learn if there’s a choice. I will vote Labour (it would be odd for a member not to) driven in part by a powerful desire to see the back of the Tories, and partly by a fond hope that in power Starmer faces up to the nation’s problems with a little more vim and vigour than he has so far displayed. ’Fond hope’ is the operative phrase. Being in opposition I think is largely a PR exercise. Being in power is something else. If he gets a landslide majority, will he use it? Will such a majority convince him that people are desperate for real change, or will he see it simply as an endorsement of his magical powers of persuasion? No other party can get rid of the Tories, to coin a phrase it’s a two-horse race. If Labour’s majority guarantees a full-term parliament or even two in unassailable power a lot can happen—not least thanks to a lot of backbenchers who eventually may be tempted to slip the leash and demand more. Fingers crossed.

The horrendous infected blood scandal is rightly at the top of UK news. The scandal inquiry’s report was published on the same day that Julian Assange’s latest appeal against extradition was heard. But outrage that successive governments operated a cover-up at the highest level over the blood scandal have not led to suggestions that there might be an essential role for something like Wikileaks and indeed Assange. Ironic, to say the least. And what will we learn from the fact that the bad blood supplies were sourced in the United States, some coming from imprisoned criminals who could make a bit of money selling their blood? That’s ’free trade’ in the extreme. How I wonder will the establishment (soon to be run by our good friend) wash their hands of this unpleasant saga? The hope will be that a sufficiently large compensation package will close it down. I’m willing to bet there will be no prosecutions and long stays in Belmarsh high security prison for those responsible. 

+The Sunday Times rich list has been published again, and yet again I haven’t made it. It doesn’t extend to 53,456, 890 people apparently (still, in global terms I imagine I would still be in the top 10% Anybody in the West with a decentish income shouldn’t complain.) The list shows that some billionaires have lost a bit lately, but there’s plenty of newcomers itching to take their place in the rankings. I looked up one who was flagged as being one of Yorkshire’s quids-in wonders, Halifax-born Greg Jackson who is the CEO of Octopus Energy. This firm recently swept up Shell Energy’s retail customers and its growth has made it a major market player. It promotes its green credentials and top rated service. All well and good, so perhaps I can on this occasion relax my usual cynical attitude and say ‘good show.’ I am impressed too by Jackson’s vision (according to Wikipedia) ‘He is also an angel investor in companies including  Xlinks, which is building the world's largest subsea cable to bring renewable energy from Morocco to the UK ,[6] ...’ I campaigned long ago for precisely this kind of cable, then (c.2008) working with the Italian embassy to try to garner interest in investing in cables bringing solar energy from the Sahara across to Italy and up into Europe. Part of the problem of course was the unstable political conditions in North Africa. If only Gaddafi had been a bit more intelligent he could have developed a new and permanent income stream for his regime—and possibly saved it. He didn’t. What a dickhead. So, now we have new possibilities maybe coming to fruition, and I applaud anyone seeking to make it happen. Donkey’s years ago I think it was Al Gore who said that a 300 sq. mile patch of solar panels in the Sahara could provide all of our global electricity demand. Wikipedia tells us that ‘Octopus’s credentials as a disrupter have helped win the backing of investors including  Generation Investment Management, chaired by former US vice-president Al Gore.’ Could this be a case of wealth putting its money where its mouth is? On the flip side of course is the fact that some of the regimes which bask under a lot of sunshine are not to our taste. But let’s face it, sunshine is healthier than fossil fuels, and we were always happy to deal with tyrants to get our hands on the black stuff. I expect to hear a lot more about this subject from Ed Miliband in the not too distant future.
 
+Writing in the New Statesman Wolfgang Münchau writes of the death of print media, lamenting perhaps that people like him who write for print are effectively no longer relevant. Young people have long since given up on print media. Who can blame them when a newspaper costs so much and has to be bought, carried around and disposed of (oh, and read)? But it’s not a new phenomenon. When I was involved in the radical alternative Hull paper, The Post, (a radically unimaginative title) I was invited to speak to a class of students in a North Hull comprehensive about ‘news’. I think what I had to say was as intelligible to them as if I had spoken in Mandarin. When I naively asked what they looked for in a newspaper I elicited one response: ‘motorbike adverts.’ This was before the internet. What’s pitifully left of the regional press would barely satisfy even that appetite.