It had been your diarist’s intention this week to highlight the backbiting in the Labour Party and on the left generally, at Andy Burnham deposing Keir Starmer. But that seemed out of place in the face of Mr Burnham’s speech yesterday. Bold it certainly was: we can surely agree on that at least.
It is said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as day-time television. That is what Mr Burnham wants to change. He claims we have been going in the wrong direction for 40 years, since Margaret Thatcher declared there is no such thing as society and greed is good, and set about (in Harold Macmillan’s words) “selling off the family silver”.
Those 40 years, of course, include the Blair and Brown governments, as well as Keir Starmer’s. It happened because for many years – since Margaret Thatcher captured the imagination of the working class, in fact – Labour has suffered from a secret and melancholy sense of inferiority. Kicking over the market has never, in the view of its leaders, been a realistic option.
All factions of the Labour Party – in fact all parts of the fratricidal left, have played a part in the last cheerless decade and the dreary levelling down on our society. But one of Mr Burnham’s promises is he will change that, and anything that attempts to improve the public discourse is to be welcomed.
Perhaps in anticipation, the results of the latest opinion poll from Electoral Calculus show Labour in the lead, with Reform falling back to third place behind the Conservatives. Above all, Mr Burnham needs to keep up the talk of hope.
*
“There lives not three good men unhanged in England,” Falstaff complained, “and one of those is fat and grows old”. Andy Burnham will be hoping to find rather more than three good men or women for his cabinet, whatever their age and shape (and perhaps even mortality).
Can he really prove the real ravioli? Is there more to Mr Burnham than the jaunty air of a Butlins redcoat? It is generally agreed that his government will be judged predominantly by who he chooses as his chancellor, since the media likes politics to be seen as a battle of machismo. Two names are most mentioned: Ed Miliband and Shabana Mahmood: apparently direct opposites. Fight! Fight! It is also understood – rightly or wrongly – that Mr Miliband’s appointment would terrify the markets, whereas Ms Mahmood would infuriate Mr Burnham’s supporters.
“Labour appears to be hurtling towards civil war as speculation mounts that Ed Miliband will be passed over for the Chancellor role in Andy Burnham’s incoming cabinet,” gleefully claims GBNews. Meanwhile, according to Jess Phillips, whose Commons office is opposite her new party leader, it has been like a job centre since he arrived.
The popular view is that Ms Mahmood will get the gig, with the intention of No.10 telling her what to do. Good luck with that – it is hardly a new wheeze, as countless former PMs can report to their frustration. There can hardly be a shortage of other economically literate potential chancellors vying for the accolade. We shall no doubt know more on Monday, when the new PM will be free to speak for himself. Pecksniff rather fancies that Mr Burnham may surprise us.
*
As Keir Starmer leaves the scene, he inevitably still has his supporters, what we might call the compromised romantics or the blanket-knitting tendency, those who feel sorry for a nice man who was doing his best. He probably is a nice man, but though that is an essential for a lollipop man, a prime minister is generally expected to demonstrate certain other traits. Like being good at politics: Sir Keir blithely admitted he didn’t understand it. Competence would be good too, and some idea that he knows what he was supposed to be doing. There were many reports of his seeming not to have got the hang of that, which may be why he spent so long abroad.
So he is a good man, deeply sentimental particularly about his family, but circumstances and those rather more scheming than himself placed him in a role for which he was ill-suited. Perhaps predictably, over the past few days and following his last PMQs, there has been a noticeable welling of support for him over the position into which he has been thrown. He will be feeling the lurve, no question, and can be sure his popularity in absentia will climb to unprecedented heights.
Yesterday Andy Burnham proffered what seemed like genuine and fulsome praise for his efforts as he himself confronts the monumental task facing him. Dear reader, which of the two men is feeling the more comfortable this weekend, do you think?
*
It is reported that the women behind Andy Burnham’s triumph have made it clear they won’t tolerate “knobheads”: the days of the No.10 Boys’ Club are over. That culture has unquestionably borne some responsibility for the aesthetic degradation of our politics, yet every PM seems to do it – even the inoffensive Keir Starmer. But there is every possibility that employing shaven-headed Glaswegian bully boys does little to reduce the “knobhead” quotient. It really is time British politicians got over the idea that No.10 needs a hard man, and politics is all about who has the biggest.
*
One of the apparent changes we might expect from a Burnham government may be of more interest to your correspondent and other hacks than to readers, though it dramatically affects what we write. Under the present regime, dragging any kind of comment from most Labour MPs which diverts by as much as a comma from the party line is almost impossible. (There are fortunately exceptions.) The party whips hold a tight leash, so we know little about our regional MPs’ own ideas and opinions.
But apparently, Mr Burnham wants to relax the discipline – in fact to loosen the whipping procedures for voting in the Commons: fewer three-line whips and fewer briefing notes on the ‘line to take’. It remains to be seen how he can be sure of getting his legislation through if he’s not sure how his MPs will vote, but any attempt to set free his MPs would be most welcome to the hacks, and no doubt voters might rather like the idea that their MPs are allowed at last to speak their mind.
*
It is said that the good people of Clacton had begun asking themselves the question: “What is the difference between God and Nigel Farage?”
“God is everywhere, but Nigel Farage is everywhere but here.”
There were serious doubts as to whether Mr Farage could beat Count Binface; in fact there were doubts as to whether Mr Farage would even stand. The auguries for success were not good. As it happens he may get trampled in the crush: there are a record 34 candidates for the Clacton by-election – none of them (other than Mr Farage and Reform) from ‘serious’ parties.
Mr Farage based his decision to resign and call the election on his supposed stand against the establishment, but by 44% to 28 the public generally appear not to believe him. Of course, in a Reform hotbed like Clacton he might buck that trend.
Mr Farage set out to become a divisive figure, and (according to the polls) the public associate him with much of the unrest over asylum seekers. So, there is an outrageous irony in his protesting that he needs protection against the very unrest he is accused of promoting. He was offered close protection from the government, at the equivalent level of the leader of the opposition, but he refused it. Perhaps because a bodyguard on the government payroll would know rather more about Mr Farage’s activities than he might prefer.
His decision to bring about a by-election has been touted as being part of a cunning plan; but it appears rather more like a desperate reaction to the realisation of an increasingly precarious situation: the alarm of a man who suddenly realises he may not be in full control of his bowels.
Circumstances have become increasingly uncongenial for Mr Farage recently, as more and more questions are being asked about his finances and links to questionable characters, both abroad and closer to home. The Reform leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, was imprisoned for 10 years for taking bribes from Russia. Mr Farage has vehemently denied he had any knowledge of the affair, though there is apparently an old Czech proverb: ‘Sweaty feet rarely come singly’. (It probably reads better in the Czech.)
*
Following the resignation of the colourful Daisy Blakemore-Creedon from the Fletton and Woodston ward on Peterborough City Council, there has been something of a jostling for position among the parties. Reform’s recent failures were highlighted when their candidate was soundly beaten by the Greens’ Katherine Sharpe, by 664 to 479.
But our resident prize chump Councillor Ryan Coogan sees it differently. In his usual diatribe, Cllr Coogan proclaims: “The people of Fletton and Woodston have narrowly voted for hate and division, box ticking and delusion over reality and love”.
Leaving aside that ‘box ticking’ is literally what was required in making the vote, and no doubt Cllr Sharpe’s reaction at finding she is there as a Green to promote hate and division, Cllr Coogan is to be congratulated. This is probably the first ever known use of the word ‘love’ in any passage describing the Reform Party.
Reform did hold on to another seat, however in Ramsey and Bury, but lost two thirds of their votes from last year, from 1357 to 506. This may have significance for Cllr Coogan, however, since this is the ward he represents on Huntingdonshire District Council.
*
Patrick Spencer, the MP for Central Suffolk has been found not guilty of two sexual assaults, which will frustrate the sharks which had been gathering around him. If found guilty it might have triggered a by-election. Bewildered voters in that constituency have already been bothered by Reform, Restore and the Greens. Reform and the Greens want to win the seat: Restore are fighting primarily to queer the pitch for Reform. The Greens are already strong in Suffolk and the Waveney area and would have had high hopes of winning. But it’s time to put all those leaflets back in the cupboard.
Mr Spencer had the Conservative whip withdrawn during the period he was charged with the offences. It is not known whether it will be reinstated.
*
The MP for South Norfolk is Ben Goldsborough, and like many MPs he is holding events during the summer recess. Many MPs do something similar, but Mr Goldsborough bothered to tell us about his, so Pecksniff is happy to pass on the invitation to a summer fair later this month at Hethersett. It’s free, and – who knows? – Andy Burnham might show up.
*
This week’s team determining les mots justes were Malcolm Lynn, John Elworthy, Andrew Coates, Celina Błędowska, Mary Marshall, Stace Richards, James Porter, Helen Forte, Liz Crosbie, David Patey, Mark Popay and Kate Viscardi.
<<< 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.
