Democrats are going through their Corbyn phase…

Yes, I am back in the USA with colleagues, flogging our little bag of marketing services to scarily successful investment houses in New York and Chicago. I love it here but America often feels very foreign and I am ready to go back home after a busy few days.

Not only do I like the country and the people but also America’s political system. Not because I agree with it. It is endlessly challenging to accept from the money involved, the growing tension of state versus federal governance, the bloated deficit, the lack of a fully independent judiciary system and, of course, the increasingly erratic, ugly face of today’s presidency…. but because it is fascinating.

Over to Donald Trump then. There is no such thing as the Republican Party any more even after a few feeble challenges to Trump’s authority. He is running rampant and simply doesn’t care about the consequences of his actions, too numerous to mention here. Janan Ganesh, one of the FT’s leading commentators, at the time of his re-election said you should be very scared about a second Trump presidency because he cannot seek a further term of office. He can therefore do anything and not worry about a lack of popularity. In fact, it is often touted that he would prefer a Democrat successor so he can say he is the only person who can win a presidential election as a Republican… umm… Thank goodness for the courts, even his partly hand-picked Supreme Court, are just about reining him in even if it is a constant battle. The Supreme Court today, for example, has made a hugely significant ruling in upholding birthright citizenship (that almost everyone born on US soil is a citizen) which is a major blow to the Trump administration.

Sorry, Democrats, a lurch to the left Corbyn-style is no solution…

That takes us to the Democrats. What a mess! They are even more unpopular than the GOP and only enjoy a poll lead in the mid-terms because of Trump’s unpopularity although, incredibly, a third of voters still think Trump is doing a good job. Biden may now be gone but the manner in which he stayed in power long after he was incapable of holding it has contributed lasting damage.

The Democrats are led by complacent donkey’s in Congress propped up by the malign influence of the Clintons and Obamas who revel in their celebrity status. They are often seen as the continuation of an amoral establishment who, however unfair, made little difference to the quality of life of ordinary voters.

Whilst sitting here in New York, it is clear the Democrats lack a believable, forceful leader who can provide direction to the Party nationally. In this absence and the consequent vacuum comes a Corbyn style solution. Democratic socialism led by the ageing Bernie Sanders, the charismatic US representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the newly elected New York mayor, Zohran Mamdani are leading the charge. Mamdani has just succeeded in replacing three incumbent House of Representatives candidates in New York with his own people and the same is happening across the Democratic Party as frustration mounts that establishment Democrats are just not making an impact in challenging the aggressive form of US capitalism and sometimes grotesque disparity of wealth it creates.

Fair enough, except as in most Western democracies, the majority of the electorate resides in the centre-ground of politics. Trump was never a shoe-in. The Democrats drove voters to elect him with their complacency, arrogance and lack of understanding of voters’ concerns. However, they are in danger of repeating a similar mistake with an unpopular lurch to the sugar rush left. For all its merits borne out of sheer frustration we know how the story ends. If in doubt, speak to Jeremy Corbyn…

Just get on with it, Andy…

Aren’t we all just sick of UK politics generally and the Labour Party in particular. Watching the news this morning with apolitical friends, the common view was politicians are just dissemblers as a series of interviews showcased the self-serving hypocrisy of (mostly but not all) Labour spokespeople. Starmer has been treated shamefully by his party. Who can blame him for wanting to dig in but he would probably be unwise. The momentum is clearly against him. Burnham scored a handsome victory last night and, most importantly, saw off Reform comfortably, a favour to all of us moderates. That is what will count in the end with Labour MPs and members and provides further evidence Reform has peaked. That is good news at least.

The overrated, self-styled ‘King of the North’ – what nonsense – should just get on and challenge Starmer now to put us out of our misery. He will never be more powerful than he is today and we need a government to govern not the endless soap opera of the last few months. Youth unemployment, welfare bills, social care all need sorting. Business is stymied by tax blocking growth, house building has stalled and that is before issues relating to Europe, the Ukraine war and the continuing chaos in the Middle East are addressed.

Does Burnham have better solutions to any of these intractable issues than Starmer? Probably not. But he is a superior communicator and backbenchers will rally behind him for now. He should go for the leadership, call a general election when he is on the up and requires a mandate and then prove to voters that the constant changing of PMs never works in achieving better governance.

Qualities in a Prime Minister – they are PPLC of course…

I participated in a breakfast last week with those close to the ‘action’ in Westminster. A highly interesting conversation ensued about the immediate future of UK politics, against the backdrop of the Labour Party’s shenanigans. I thought it was diplomatically worth sharing.

There was a consensus that Burnham would win in Makerfield and that Starmer was toast regardless of his public determination to hang on. The feeling was Burnham should initiate a leadership contest on Friday morning. He would never be more powerful than at that moment and therefore what was the point in waiting. Timing is everything in politics. This was all before the resignation of the Defence Secretary, John Healey, which happened later in the day but I doubt it would have made a difference to anybody’s analysis.

We then moved onto the qualities required in a Prime Minister and how Burnham and Starmer fared on these criteria. Oh dear…

The four qualities identified by the lead speaker were ‘Politics, Policy, Leadership, Communications’. Whilst there was some sympathy for Starmer’s plight (nobody could quite undersand the depth of his personal unpopularity and put it down to the poison of social media), everyone agreed with the view that No. 10 was a shambles. Starmer was hopeless at the politics of his job, had no discernable policy agenda to reflect what he wanted to achieve in office, exhibited no leadership with his endless U-turns and was a poor communicator. No surprise there, then. Score: 0/4.

Overblown potential…

But, Burnham did little better. With his back history of vacillation (not a details person…), with endless U-turns in the past few weeks on WASPI women, bond markets, rejoining the EU and when he might call a General Election, he was perceived to be weak on politics, hopeless on policy and leadership (essentially blowing with the wind), but good on communications. Score: 1.5/4.

So, we are going through all this turmoil for a mediocre replacement for Starmer. You might ask is the hassle worth it…?

On other topics, there was a feeling the Tory frontbench was generally way below par and that with strong recent PMQ performances, Badenoch was safe for a good while. She has no opponents of any merit internally despite missing the open goal of focusing solely on the economy, the Tories best route to regaining power in the medium-term. We were also given a reminder that the Tories had more influence than their current opinion poll ratings suggest; largest party in the House of Lords and still a sizeable local government player. There is a platform to build on should we forget…

With regard to Reform, most thought it had peaked some while ago and that Farage might not be well. Without wishing ill will, this is the only hopeful strategy of the main parties… He has been rather absent recently which surely has nothing to do with him explaining his undisclosed £5 million gift from an offshore crypto billionaire…

On other parties in this new five party system, Polanski has partly blown it for the Greens and Ed Davey’s LibDems elicited almost no comment which says it all really.

So there you have it. The future success of political leadership in the UK is all about PPLC and, on this basis, voters have little to choose from.

Qualities in a Prime Minister – they are PPLC of course…

I participated in a breakfast last week with those close to the ‘action’ in Westminster. A highly interesting conversation ensued about the immediate future of UK politics, against the backdrop of the Labour Party’s shenanigans. I thought it was diplomatically worth sharing.

There was a consensus that Burnham would win in Makerfield and that Starmer was toast regardless of his public determination to hang on. The feeling was Burnham should initiate a leadership contest on Friday morning. He would never be more powerful than at that moment and therefore what was the point in waiting. Timing is everything in politics. This was all before the resignation of the Defence Secretary, John Healey, which happened later in the day but I doubt it would have made a difference to anybody’s analysis.

We then moved onto the qualities required in a Prime Minister and how Burnham and Starmer fared on these criteria. Oh dear…

The four qualities identified by the lead speaker were ‘Politics, Policy, Leadership, Communications’. Whilst there was some sympathy for Starmer’s plight (nobody could quite undersand the depth of his personal unpopularity and put it down to the poison of social media), everyone agreed with the view that No. 10 was a shambles. Starmer was hopeless at the politics of his job, had no discernable policy agenda to reflect what he wanted to achieve in office, exhibited no leadership with his endless U-turns and was a poor communicator. No surprise there, then. Score: 0/4.

Overblown potential…

But, Burnham did little better. With his back history of vacillation (not a details person…), with endless U-turns in the past few weeks on WASPI women, bond markets, rejoining the EU and when he might call a General Election, he was perceived to be weak on politics, hopeless on policy and leadership (essentially blowing with the wind), but good on communications. Score: 1.5/4.

So, we are going through all this turmoil for a mediocre replacement for Starmer. You might ask is the hassle worth it…?

On other topics, there was a feeling the Tory frontbench was generally way below par and that with strong recent PMQ performances, Badenoch was safe for a good while. She has no opponents of any merit internally despite missing the open goal of focusing solely on the economy, the Tories best route to regaining power in the medium-term. We were also given a reminder that the Tories had more influence than their current opinion poll ratings suggest; largest party in the House of Lords and still a sizeable local government player. There is a platform to build on should we forget…

With regard to Reform, most thought it had peaked some while ago and that Farage might not be well. Without wishing ill will, this is the only hopeful strategy of the main parties… He has been rather absent recently which surely has nothing to do with him explaining his undisclosed £5 million gift from an offshore crypto billionaire…

On other parties in this new five party system, Polanski has partly blown it for the Greens and Ed Davey’s LibDems elicited almost no comment which says it all really.

So there you have it. The future success of political leadership in the UK is all about PPLC and, on this basis, voters have little to choose from.

Why today’s moderates and independents cannot vote Labour…

It is one of the most damning quotes in recent UK politics. It will do for Labour in the end.

Pat McFadden, the calm, ‘safe pair of hands’ minister was caught saying in a WhatsApp conversation (about his backbenchers) with Mandelson, ‘every meeting I have is ‘who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’.

This could be the largest fallout from the Mandelson fiasco after the defenestration of Keir Starmer.

It goes to the heart of the stupidity and fecklessness of Labour. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the priorities of the public, of the need for lower taxes on business to create wealth, of the need to get more people into work for their own good and the health of the economy, of what we can afford as a nation. In short, it is infuriating. All is forgiven. Bring back Tony Blair… except he is about as Labour nowadays as Kemi Badenoch.

Labour ministers go on about the need for growth. Either they or their backbenchers or both have no idea what growth means, why it is important, and how to achieve it. Incredibly this was inferred by leaked WhatsApp messages from Darren Jones, Rachel Reeves’ No. 2 at the Treasury, also to Mandelson which surfaced yesterday.

Burnham is no long-term solution to the country’s challenges…

If Burnham becomes the next PM (increasingly likely), the bad traits of a Labour government will get worse. Like the rest of his colleagues he will bang on about ‘working people’ (don’t we all work in any type of job) and be less disciplined on welfare and public expenditure generally. He has already shown irresponsibility towards bond markets. He won’t get the unsustainably of the welfare budget. He is a weak populist and like the worst of his party, almost certainly in hock to the trade unions.

Burnham might justifiably call an election as soon as he moves into No. 10 but he probably shouldn’t. The choice would be too awful for moderates and independents to contemplate, reflecting the current mess called UK politics.