The key word at the Labour Party conference seems to be ‘patriotic’ and its variants. I saw a clip of nursery matron Yvette Cooper telling conference how Reform are ‘plastic patriots’ in an impassioned speech in which her eyes darted wildly from one side of the podium to the other, slavishly following her tele-prompts. Labour’s high command has been caught in Fartage’s searchlights and hasn’t the foggiest idea about how to get out of the flak, except to drop leaflets reminding people how it is totally not the Gestapo-like machine Churchill ridiculously suggested Attlee’s government might turn out to be in 1945. For the time being Labour’s allegedly winning strategy is to call Fartage a huckster, which while undoubtedly true kind of undermines a governing party’s authority, least of all one with a massive parliamentary majority. Perhaps if Labour cabinet ministers have to call out the real enemy of their progress they should name it. But since they fear the City they won’t. As regards the overflowing Parliamentary Labour Party, perhaps the phrase ’Never was so little owed to so many’ more appropriate in this age of steeped patriotism. Perhaps one of McSweeney’s ministers could come out with a new patriotic song, on the lines of ‘Fartage! He’s only got one ball . . .’ Well, that’s enough patriotism for now. 

​Hello,

We’re seeing a rise in scams targeting business banking customers like you. Fraudsters are pretending to be Virgin Money and tricking customers into visiting fake websites, clicking on malicious links, downloading remote access apps, and unknowingly approving fraudulent payments. If you follow their instructions, you could be at risk of losing your money.
 
 
——————————————--
 
Well I never did! The above message came from ‘Virgin Money’ with whom I have never had a business account. It follows a phone call, text message and email a few days ago seeking more details on my non-existent ‘application’ for a business account. The phone message left on my mobile even included the caller making a minor correction to their advice, all very realistic. Except they didn’t know my name and a couple of other red flags gave the game away. I wished I’d been able to answer the call, my responses may have tested the patience of the creep who rang. I wonder if some of these genuine sounding individuals are actually unemployed actors trying to make ends meet. But ‘Virgin Money’ are right—scams are on the rise, and they no longer flood the spam folder with ungrammatical, misspelt pleas from close relatives of deposed African presidents. I’ve been told by several players recently that all my photos and videos will be deleted. And that’s after they tried to ring me nine times, they say. Or six times, whatever. Perhaps September is scam month. Now that the Labour Party conference is underway we can see and hear a scam on a bigger scale. A name used under false pretences, players cynically abusing our trust in their good intentions. It’s curious how little the game plan has changed over the years. From Norman Lamont’s ‘no gain without pain’ slogan in the 1997 general election, through ‘prudence’ to austerity to fiscal rules—when exactly do we get our hands on the jam? (Clue: there is no jam)

Where exactly is the ‘centre’ in politics these days? And what does it mean to be in the centre? I feel sure that Nigel Fartage considers himself to be in the centre, which is where that oft-quoted but rarely heard ‘silent majority’ reside, i.e. in his mind the people who voted for Brexit. (Except they weren’t the silent majority. There was no silent majority, since on that issue roughly 33% voted yes, 33% voted no and 34% didn’t vote at all.) I’m minded to ask the question about the centre after reading an opinion piece in Canada’s Globe and Mail yesterday, which was perhaps a little bit tongue in cheek about who should be the next leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario, Canada’s most populous state:
 
‘The good news is that there’s a perfect candidate-in-waiting for the floundering party. This potential Ontario Liberal candidate similarly lacks an ethos, focus or intention. He has been both in favour of and against giving asylum-seekers work permits; for and against expanding the  Greenbelt; for and against  dissolving Peel Region; and for and against various spending cuts. Indeed, he has the malleability that’s necessary to lead a plasticine party: he’s a political weathervane in a “Canada is not for sale” hat. And best of all, his track record is already proven: his spending has outpaced those of previous Liberal premiers, and he has significantly grown the deficit ($14.6-billion) and piled on the debt ($461-billion). He won’t make the tough cuts necessary to get Ontario’s fiscal house in order, nor will he pursue any bold policy initiatives if they run the risk of being politically unpopular. That’s why  Doug Ford would be the ideal Ontario Liberal Leader. He just needs a red tie.’

(I hope readers are aware of Mr Ford's position and politics)

The confusion is evident. What is ‘left’ and what is ‘right?’ Here in the UK we are still capable of surprises, not least with an old fashioned Tory (I assume) like Sir Max Hastings talking on the radio about why he was joining an anti-Trump state visit demo. It has to be said that such opposition in that regard speaks more powerfully than if it had come from ‘the usual suspects.’
​
Starmer of course is desperately clinging on to what he considers the centre ground, albeit with a catch-up approach to the right. With no vision of his own to speak of and a morbid fear of Fartage, he looks much less likely to feel threatened by the left which simply cannot get its act together. This morning I received an email inviting me to join Corbyn and Sultana’s ‘Your Party.’ As one might say these days seven hours in politics is a long time, so by teatime I had received another email telling me to ignore the first email which Jeremy hadn’t authorised. It seems there is a dysfunctional leadership at the top of ‘Your Party’ which is redolent of Corbyn’s time as leader of the Labour Party. He couldn’t give a dog a lead still less take it for walkies. This is a shame, but the situation is irredeemable. A younger generation may take over but in the meantime the rightward march of UK politics continues.

Trumps’ state visit to the UK starts today, and thankfully he’ll be gone by Thursday. Still, enough time for our enfeebled PM to make some excruciating remarks about the Atlantic relationship and how well we all get on together, glossing over the probability that in the U.S even something as craven as the UK Labour Party would come under the proto-dictator’s cosh for not supping his brand of patriotism. Big question: will Fartage take the spare place created by Ed Davey at the big state banquet? Might there be two seats spare with Mandy gone too? Can’t wait to see the pompous and ceremonial procession of twerps parading their wares in front of the bogus mogul! I hope nobody mentions that we Brits have often been described as living in the 51st State (which has a slight ring of Dante about it). Trump is too thick to see such a reference as being merely ironic. So, will our feeble PM tackle any issues the inflated POTUS doesn’t want to hear? Genocide in Gaza—unlikely, the UK government doesn’t recognise the application of that word in that context.  How about protecting lower prices on pharmaceuticals in the UK—are we friends or not? Yes, and what about Harry? Really, are you going to deport him or what? You may have Trump Tower but we have the Tower of London. No, that’s not a serious point, but it could come in handy during the small talk with Dumbo. Yes, this visit is of historic proportions, and the watchword for the staff at Windsor Castle or Buckingham Palace is keep an eye on the gold, it’ll be on Air Force One before you can say Goldfinger. Trump loves trophies and briefly we’ll be the jewel in the crown. God Save The King! (Actually there’s an argument that Charles should wear one of his crowns on this occasion, it would give Trump’s rug a run for the money.)

​Is it too soon to make New Year predictions? The merest onset of Autumn has set me wondering about the promise of 2026. It is currently the received wisdom, despite the latest upsets, to write Starmer off. He is badly damaged but not yet holed below the waterline. There are still many in the PLP who are telling themselves that the ship will right itself and their careers will despite a bit of a swell proceed apace. Lessons will have been learnt which will lead to the next few years being ones of, as their leader has said, ’delivery, delivery, delivery, delivery delivery del . . .  [hang on, I think a bit of dust has gotten into the Cyborg’s chip]. Yes, there’s loads of time left to convince the voters that Labour collectively will answer their dreams. But I suspect Starmer will be ousted as part of this project after next year’s devolved assembly elections, and somebody like Steve Reed will be the frontrunner to replace him. I heard Reed on the radio tonight and there’s no doubt he’s driven, with a thoroughgoing belief in his own political skills. He takes credit for promoting the new Prince of Darkness, Morgan McSweeney to his elevated plinth. So, after all the toing and froings of 2025, Labour will next year contemplate its nadir but through this Nietzschean experience emerge stronger and more in tune with The People, newly willing to use its still overwhelming parliamentary majority to propel more radical solutions to address ailing Britain’s endemic decline (is that right? Can you have an endemic decline? Sounds about right though).
 
But as Harold Wilson once said, ‘a political equation is a long string of imponderables’ [I’m sick of hearing about a long week in politics, etc., etc.] The first imponderable will be the Budget on the 26th November. How the hell is Rachel Reeves going to lift the mood? Honestly I don’t envy her position. She may have wished she’d been shifted to DCMS in last week’s Cabinet reshuffle. At least she’d get invites to Covent Garden. In Budget terms she will have to lift a rabbit out of the hat at the end of her speech which otherwise will be full of misery albeit smothered in mumbo-jumbo about a reviving economy. There will have to be at least one thing for Labour backbenchers to cheer. Something eye-catching but cheap. Free St George’s flags for all primary schoolchildren for starters? Sorry, too facetious! What about a significant bounty for people joining the forces? That wouldn’t cost much but would tick a few Starmer boxes.
 
As I write I have one eye on the last night of the Proms. What flags are waved always tells a story. Right now ’Land of Hope and Glory’ is being accompanied by a sea of E.U. flags. Somebody’s organised a statement—I wonder if the Beeb will report it? Still less the Daily Mail? The land of hope and glory appears to be Europe. And that’s a nice way of saying F.U. Trump on the eve of Starmer’s cringing hosting of his state visit. (n.b. I didn’t spot a single U.S. flag on the eve of this auspicious occasion).

In an Oxfam shop the other day I came across a book for a fiver Broken Heartlands: A journey through Labour’s lost England by the Financial Times journalist Sebastian Payne (Macmillan, 2021). It caught my attention since it included a chapter on a neighbouring constituency to mine, Wakefield. Like my constituency it had basically been in Labour hands since the 1930s but was eventually lost (along with a lot of industry) by the time it had installed a loyal and ambitious Labour MP. Thus I found it fascinating to hear what a previously ousted (in 2015) Wakefield MP had to say about that, before the seat was regained and lost again in 2019 and now regained again. These words are prophetic:’I don’t think Jeremy did the cause any favours, he went to EU rallies without mentioning the European Union. He was lost in his own self-righteousness. The whole kind of movement and the momentum around his own personal political project, which I think, in retrospect, is probably not the same political project of the Labour Party’s historic mission, which is to get people elected to Parliament. I think Jeremy kind of lost sight of that.’ (p.150) Payne writes ‘Creagh has left party politics for good: after the election she has pursued a career as a communications consultant and is a visiting professor at Cranfield School of Management.’ I guess at this point Payne may not have noticed that Mary Creagh (for it is she) had her sleeves rolled up, on which was written in capital letters AMBITION. For she was back as an MP for a Coventry seat in 2024 and is now one of Starmer’s ministerial minions, with a CBE to boot. I am full of admiration for defeated MPs who have the talent to get back in at the earliest opportunity, even if for a seat in a completely different part of the country. But hey, that’s just envy.
 
Anyway, later on Mary says in admiration of Starmer’s leadership: ‘The task of putting it back together is very laborious, very time consuming, and hugely emotionally draining. There have been some big wins, he has detoxified our party, he is clearly a person of the very highest integrity, with a complete and utter commitment to public service. But I’d say that Labour has yet to develop a compelling narrative on the economy, and in particular the post-Brexit economy and a narrative on Britain’s place in the world. And both are very, very deep, enormous tasks and it will require a huge amount of skill and political savvy to do those redefinitions..’ (ibid)
 
To which I would respond Starmer’s ‘own personal political project . . .  Is probably not the same political project of the Labour Party’s historic mission.’ And as for the phrase ‘the very highest integrity’ goes . . . .  
 
It’s always worth remembering that Starmer won fewer votes in 2024 than Corbyn did in 2019. If the explanation for that is as many have argued, that it was the result of a well-organised, targeted, orchestrated and disciplined campaign then one wonders why such a campaign had not been organised in 2019. Jeremy certainly deserves some of the blame for that, but the organisation cannot escape its share. It currently seems probable that there will be very little left to salvage next time round. I look forward Sebastian Payne’s sequel in a few years’ time.

In a book I have previously mentioned in this blog (Blair Inc: The Man Behind The Mask by Francis Beckett, David Hencke and Nick Kochan, John Blake 2015) a whole chapter is devoted to Peter Mandelson in which it is claimed our ‘Petie’ (as Epstein called him) was very keen on getting hold of the lovely lucre, with an envious eye on Blair’s success in this regard. The chapter deals with one of Mandy's approaches—to the Russians, with whom Blair did not have much to do with. It had been alleged in the press for example that through a mutual acquaintance, Nat Rothschild, Mandy whilst EU Trade Commissioner might have influenced a reduction in EU trade tariffs to the benefit of the Russian aluminium oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Mandelson of course ’strenuously denied’ any impropriety. Nevertheless it became clear that Mandy shared more than just a visit to Deripaska’s yacht (along with George Osborne). A sauna was mentioned and his use ’of Deripaska’s private jet to fly from Moscow to Siberia to visit [Deripaska’s] estate as well as the use of Rothschild’s private jet to fly from Davos to Moscow.’ (p.160) A subsequent libel case found the judge rejecting the notion that Rothschild and Mandelson had flown out as friends not as business associates,’ and said ‘That conduct foreseeably brought Lord Mandelson’s public office and personal integrity into disrepute.’
 
None of this could possibly have been known to those who vetted Mandy for the U.S. ambassador’s job. Nobody could have raised an eyebrow about Mandy’s grasping desire to not merely hob-nob with billionaires and oligarchs but to join their ranks if he possibly could, even if it risked in the judge’s words ‘bringing his personal integrity into disrepute.’ This is what is so repulsive about Starmer’s decision to appoint Mandy in the first place. All this must have been known but it was still considered the right thing to do. Which as I have said before points to the cancer at the heart of this so-called Labour government.
 
Heaven knows what more may emerge from the Epstein files. And maybe it’s not too late to have a close examination of what Mandy actually did when he was E.U Trade Commissioner.
 
How very curious but ironic it is that we have lost an ambassador to Washington who may have had a back door to the president and the Russians.

What was it Einstein said about repeating your mistakes and expecting a different result? For the third time the indispensable Lord has been shown the door, let’s just hope it’s for the last time. The curse of Epstein must surely now tighten its grip around Trump but in the meantime our hapless Prime Minister will be concocting one of his bland but desperate verbal fudges to reassure the White House that he will suck up to them even more now. Or perhaps Trump will discover a previously unnoticed diary clash and will cancel his state visit next week. Could be a blessing. Now, do we get to see the Noble Lord queuing up at the airport carrying his own baggage?

The Yorkshire Post has reported how the Mayor of South Yorkshire is now convinced of the need to spend £160million reopening ‘Doncaster Sheffield Robin Hood’ airport. This venture originally only came into being because RAF Finningley, the former home of the Vulcan V-bombers closed and some bright spark asked what are we going to do with the site? Had there not been a long runway already in existence nobody would have proposed building a new airport from scratch. It was a perfect example of a municipal vanity project and it was failing long before Covid came along. It’s been dead for some years now. But lo! The said Mayor, having already spent £16 million on researching the project is willing to land his own vanity design on the poor taxpayers of South Yorkshire. His reasoning must be that there is nothing better to spend £160 million on. I wonder how much public money was originally spent on this vanity project. And what is so different now that will turn this white elephant into a success? Somebody needs to ask Rachel Reeves if maybe she too could access the magic money tree the Mayor of South Yorkshire has found. I hope other Yorkshire mayors will steer clear of any calls for assistance for this project.

​+The inexplicable indispensability of Lord Mandelson continues to be a highlight in the news, now with the revelation that he had described paedophile Jeffrey Epstein as a ‘best pal.’ A spokesperson for the noblest of lords repeated on his behalf that he has ‘long regretted ever having been introduced to Epstein.’ It’s worth dwelling on that phrase, which at first may sound like an apology. But it isn’t. The blame rests elsewhere with the person or persons who made the introduction. At that point we can imagine Mandy salivating over said introduction, another wealthy, if dodgy friend added to his list of associates. Handy Mandy and Randy Andy must both sorely want to get their hands around the neck of whoever made the introduction, although it seems she may still be locked up for quite a while, waiting for a pardon from the MAGA man. Of course if Ghislaine Maxwell did get a pardon, it would be conditional on her not spilling the beans and our great US Ambassador will also feel obliged to keep schtum, to preserve whatever’s left of his dignity. Starmer of course doesn’t seem disturbed by any of this. It’s a cancer which he seems happy to preserve in the heart of Labour.
 
+Talking of Labour the battle to replace Angela Rayner as Deputy Leader has begun and nominations open today and close in 48 hours time, clearly allowing for a good field of candidates to emerge, not. One who has already declared her ambition, whose name I can’t immediately remember, said she wants a ‘conversation not a coronation.’ Candidates need 80 signatures, so I think the conversations will be brief to say the least. In other words, this ’contest’ is over before it even began, and Morgan McSweeney has probably already discussed with the winner the limited opportunities they will have to change anything.