There may by now be an unbridgeable margin of doubt as to whether the PM’s reputation can be repaired. Though at the end of this week, after the smoke of battle has cleared, we are none the wiser as to what happens next. This is, not least, because the news media (and in particular the BBC), instead of reporting what was in front of their eyes, had set themselves a story they were confident would break. And when it failed to follow their requirements then, come hell or high water, they refused to let go.
So Keir Starmer is still there, and in all the hoo-ha, no hack ever bothered to explain exactly the processes and seamy realities by which he would be removed. Or why their prophesies failed to materialise. Labour MPs are frustrated at the PM’s performance – but also at their own. Once again, the plotters have blanched at the prospect of regicide. They failed to strike.
Others express lukewarm support for the PM, though few are prepared to talk about it openly. Many seem as much bystanders as the average Guardian reader: Morgan McSweeney’s hold over Keir Starmer seemed a mystery to them too.
But one regional MP whose patience is long past declares: “The same people and policies will still be fronting the same unpopular programme. Like a wounded animal, this government will drag itself away till it expires, probably after the May locals.
“By then, Starmer can resign on the grounds of those losses and not the reputational disaster of Epstein and Mandelson. He’ll go down as the worst PM in Labour history, and one that may have finally broken it. He’s a coward who refuses to take responsibility for his own actions… A genuine disaster for this country and the Labour movement.”
*
When Vaclav Havel was made president of what was Czechoslovakia, effectively by public acclaim, he saw no reason to change his life. He still turned up to play chess with his old friends in their favourite bar on Friday evenings. They weren’t alone by then, of course, and were surrounded by journalists and well-wishers. When somebody disturbed his concentration to ask what he was planning to do about some problem or other, the new president said: “I don’t know. What would you do?”
Nobody would ever have claimed Mr Havel was a weak man, but he didn’t claim to have all the answers or feel the need to beat his chest in public. Yet in Britain, we are always led by men and women who claim to have all the answers. That only proclaims their weakness. They believe we, as a nation, are so lacking in courage we need to believe Britain’s omnipotence in all things, in order to add an inch or two to the nation’s manhood.
So how do we escape from this embarrassing cycle? Compare the dignity of the defenestrated Sue Gray, who came from a different and less tribal tradition, with the deposed-at-last Morgan McSweeney – a jumped-up office manager – who declared in his resignation letter that he had “resigned from the government”.
So does the PM soldier on, claiming he was right all the time? Or does he admit he (or Mr McSweeney) got things catastrophically wrong? In order to change, he has to change his entire team and culture, though neither his team nor his culture will allow him to do that. And how would he explain an ear splitting and rubber burning handbrake turn on Brexit and immigration? Dear reader, whichever way up you hold it, this just won’t do.
*
Of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs, Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) is a name which keeps popping up. In truth, she was not expected to become a well-known voice, but she has the ability to express herself honestly, as well as the courage to challenge her party when it gets things wrong. Her reasons for backing Keir Starmer will sound reasonable to many voters.
“We have had five Prime Ministers in seven years,” she writes in the East Anglian Daily Times. “Swapping Keir Starmer for a sixth would not cleanse politics. It would plunge the country back into the troubled waters of political instability voters rejected. It would damage the economy, deter investment, and erode trust in politics altogether.”
*
“The Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing,” said Harold Wilson, but that is an altar long since cast down. Nobody could describe this week’s tatty political parlour games as having much to do with a moral crusade. So, does that mean the Labour Party is nothing?
They are engaged in what is always Labour’s favourite sport, visceral and unforgiving internecine warfare. While Keir Starmer waits to see whether his new high chamberlain decides he should be born again, or whether it’s to be business as usual, his rivals blithely plot quite openly.
The two figures who always crop up are Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting. In fact, so blatant have ambitions become that Ms Rayner launched her ‘Rayner for leader’ website early, and it had to be withdrawn. Meanwhile, one of the Streeting team is reported on record as saying the reason they are on manoeuvres early is to jump the gun on Ms Rayner.
Wes Streeting looks rather like a dissipated cherub. Pecksniff finds him a puzzle, only partially solved by talking to a few of the region’s Labour MPs. One who admits that they and Mr Streeting are “somewhat opposite” politically, nevertheless declares: “He’s a hard worker, on top of his brief, regularly communicates with backbench MPs and takes them on the journey. He knows MPs’ names – you’d be amazed how many cabinet members don’t – and he’s a good communicator.”
Another says: “Starmer will probably struggle on till May and then try and go out on his own terms. It will give Wes time the to ride out the storm as well. Time is his friend.”
*
There was once a row in one of the Commons bars between two MPs, one Tory and one Labour. The Tory cried in exasperation: “You bloody fool!”
“You may be right,” observed the Labour man. “But there are millions of bloody fools in this country, and they deserve representation just like anybody else.”
This anecdote may explain the appeal of Reform. They appeal to the bloody fools. And they appear to have gone about the Gorton and Denton by-election in their usual hypocritical, uninformed, clumsy and presumptuous manner.
Their candidate even flounced away from a public hustings after, it is claimed, having been refused his intention of packing the audience with his supporters who had been bused in.
They are also accused of breaking electoral law, by misrepresenting a supposed letter from a local voter, when it looks suspiciously like a campaign tactic they used in the recent Caerphilly by-election; only this time it doesn’t have the imprint necessary under law. Police are investigating.
Meanwhile, Labour and Greens accuse each other of cynically misrepresenting recent voting figures in their election material. Both are correct. Both are effectively lying to the voters. Any claims of a ‘new politics’ are bogus.
But nobody has yet accused either the Tories or Liberal Democrats of blatant disregard for the truth, (admittedly something of a first for the LibDems). This is rather faint praise, however. The most likely reason there have been no complaints is that nobody has noticed they are taking part.
*
More on Reform’s hypocrisies. This week, Nigel Farage declared: “People aren’t more productive working from home – it’s a load of nonsense”.
At the same time, Reform are advertising for a regional director, describing the job as: “Home working with occasional travel”.
*
The Jim Ratcliffe ‘immigration row’ this week would have been the perfect opportunity for the government to point out that Britain needs more immigration to support an ageing population, and that immigrants are major net contributors to the British economy. But they didn’t.
This might have been because, post-McSweeney, No.10’s communications is as bad as ever and they didn’t think of it. Or it could be that, pending the arrival of Keir Starmer’s new satrap to replace him, the PM has yet to be told what his policy on immigration should be.
*
More evidence of how even the cabinet don’t know what Labour’s policies are at the moment. On Thursday, the Times reported Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, as saying that “Closer ties with EU are Britain’s biggest prize”. Whereas last month in Davos she reiterated what was then Morgan McSweeney’s her government’s position that urged cabinet ministers to stop floating the idea of a closer union.
*
Incidentally, for those Westminster hacks still dribbling at the prospect of a Reform election victory in three years’ time, a glance at the latest YouGov approval ratings of the party leaders might rather piss on the matches.
Nigel Farage ranks second bottom, with an approval rating of -37. This is interesting, since though Keir Starmer is constantly lambasted for his poor showing – currently -47 – the eulogies constantly poured over Mr Farage by Chris Mason et al might imply he is flying high.
The full results are: Zack Polanski -8, Ed Davey -10, Kemi Badenoch -23, Nigel Farage -37 and Keir Starmer -47. And incidentally (and quirkily) Sir Keir’s ratings have improved by 10 points during the present political fandango, from -57 last month. Whereas Mr Farage continues to decline…
*
Last week, Pecksniff mentioned a new political grouping called Prosper, launched by many of the old Tory faces supportive of what The Times calls “softer Conservative values”. This week they tell us they have attracted 17,000 supporters in those first seven days. They have also analysed them. The group aims to extend the Tory vote and reveal that only one in three of their shiny new supporters voted Tory in the last election.
But it also seems that fewer than one in six is presently a member of the party. Which rather suggests that, though Prosper might appeal to the lost souls who haunt the political fringes, they still have a long way to go to make an impression on the hard right on whom Kemi Badenoch is so dependent.
*
If ever a party were likely to be riven with schisms, it ought to be today’s Green Party. Making the jump from unforgiving ideology to practical political reality was always going to be a major bridge to cross. But as they have shown especially in Suffolk, it can be done.
That is unlikely, however, to impress those who Green party members themselves refer to as the ‘ultras’, no doubt buoyed by the influx of ex-Corbynistas who jumped ship from Labour and are still keen to pursue their schisms. So at the same time there is a realistic chance of a major breakthrough electorally, the party faces stormy weather ahead caused by their looming article 105, likely to be up before conference: ‘Zionism is Racism’.
The left have always placed ideological purity above the messy business of winning democratic power, and destroying the party in order to make an empty gesture is always worth the candle. Self-righteousness is a powerful drug, which is why the causes of the left so often languish.
*
The state of our politics, my dears, really. There was a by-election for Peterborough City Council on Thursday. Reform won with 7.4% of the electorate…
*
This week’s secret letter boxers were Stace Richards, James Porter, David Patey, Celina Błędowska, Liz Crosbie, Malcolm Lynn, Karl Whiteman and Helen Forte.
<<< Previous Pecksniff’s Diary
More from East Anglia Bylines
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
