4 Things We've Learnt From The Lewisham East by-election.

It’s that most magical time of the year everybody! It’s time for Internal Labour party fighting. In a break from the normal Moderates V.S. Corbynite roughhousing this week’s seemingly inevitable split on the left comes in the form of Momentum Vs Corbynites. The chosen battlefield was the Lewishsam East By-election candidate selection meeting. The eventual victor? Janet Daby, who is…. wait…. she’s being described as a moderate? The moderates won when they weren’t being reported as being involved in this little internal scuffle?

So, what happened at the Lewisham meeting to bring us this shocking turn of events? God only knows, but I’ve thrown together some thoughts about what the selection meeting has taught us about Labour’s current & future positions based on what I’ve been able to piece together online. I wasn’t at the meeting, I’m not from Lewisham so I’ve no real special insight, but hell, when has that ever stopped any other political commentator from writing something?

1)    For all the talk of being different to Blair & Brown, Corbyn’s team are still machine politicians, they’re just not that good at it.

In a last minute dramatic intervention, it was revealed that the momentum backed candidate Shakina Sheikh had in fact as little as a year ago openly backed a party that wasn’t Labour! The Horror! I’ve not actually seen any real smoking guns on this, so maybe there was some local evidence of it that I’ve not seen, but either way Corbyn and Unite’s machine felt strongly enough that they needed to send the General Secretary of the Labour Party, Jennie Formby, down to have words with Sheikh and get her to stand down. Or it might have been Karie Murphy coming directly from the Leaders office. No-one can agree, either way though this WREAKS of a stitch up. Sheikh went into the selection meeting as one of the favorites due to being the Momentum backed candidate and from the local area, making her the perceived main adversary to Claudia Webbe the Corbynite candidate. Ultimately the move failed, and Sheikh remained on the ballot which on its own shows that Corbyn’s team aren’t very good at fixing selections in the way that Blair and Brown used to, but they are still trying to (based on reports from the Red Roar there seems to be some evidence that the NEC under Corbyn isn’t very good at screening candidates either. Even if the claim against Sheikh is a bit dubious how on earth they didn’t ask a question like “Have you supported any other party other than Labour recently” is beyond me).

2)    The Corbynite use of machine politics puts them directly opposed to Momentum.

Based on the successful selection of Janet Daby and the fact that Momentum was seemingly coming out hard for Sheikh, we can assume that an awful lot of Momentum members were probably voting for Daby. This suggests that momentum members are likely not buying into the whole machine politics approach from any faction ( including their own). If this is the case, then you can expect there to be a continued series of dust ups in future if Momentum members feel that the system is being abused for one factions benefit over another.

3)    The influence of the lefts digital cheerleaders is zero.

In the run-up to the selection meeting what I like to consider the usual suspects of the digital left all came out in favour of the Momentum backed candidate. Aaron Bastani & Matt Zarb Cousins both influential in their own way on the Left and with large digital followings for various reasons put out graphics highlighting their support for Sheikh. I’ve no idea if they live in Lewisham or are involved in the local party ( if they aren’t then the amount of ego required to put out something like that and think it’ll have an impact is astounding) but in a way it doesn’t matter because the membership totally went against them. This would suggest for all the re-tweets and engagement these guys get online, that doesn’t translate to anything meaningful on the ground. Not surprising, but interesting none the less.

4)    Moderate is a meaningless term and is being used to describe people who aren’t factional.

I picked up the news of who’s won the selection via twitter during a podcast recording session, both I and Corey were quite shocked to see someone described as a moderate had won the selection. As you dig into it though, the reality is she’s probably not a Blairite. She voted for Corbyn twice. So why is she being described as a moderate? I suspect because she wasn’t a factional candidate and because everyone hates an absence of narrative has had the term moderate attached to her to make the result fit pre-conceived narratives.

By all accounts, Daby is a strong local candidate, who basically everyone can get behind. That doesn’t make her a moderate necessarily, but in a party riven with factionalism that plays out at every layer of the party, simplistic explanations always boil down to” which side are you on”.

Interestingly this could provide a way back for ACTUAL moderates in Labour. If Momentum is prepared to back strong local candidates who aren’t actively opposing them then you can probably get selected by working hard, being nice and not engaging with factional fuck-wittery. I know the concept of being nice to people in politics is radical, but I strongly suggest people try it out sometime.

And there you have it. Four things it’s possible we’ve learnt from the Lewisham by-election. Stay tuned for a follow-up piece at some point in future where I and the rest of the commentariat will completely ignore everything we’ve previously written and post a whole new set of lessons based on a single incident in an attempt to explain the chaos that is modern British politics.

Friday Fizz: The "Onwards and Rightwards" Edition

The Friday Fizz is Not Enough Champagne's review of the week's news. You can read previous instalments here.


If I had a pound for every time I had heard someone say that "Labour should be 15 points ahead in the polls against this useless government", this podcast would have no need to set up a Patreon account. Yet in the reaction of many on websites such as Conservative Home, not always a representative barometer I'll grant you, the question is often turned on its head: "Why aren't we 15 points ahead of a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn?" In politics, as with so many other things, perspective is anything.

The shock of last year's election result, as well as the fact that many attacks on Corbyn's past sympathies did not cut through to the electorate, has led to a period of soul-searching for many Conservative Politicians. As previous Fizzes have noted, these attacks tend to be a little to abstract, often ending up in vague assertions of things like "defending capitalism".

These vague generalities are often undercut by government policy, such as the cap on energy prices. A more recent example is Chris Grayling's announcement that the East Coast Main Line was going to be temporarily nationalised. The reprivatisation of the ECML was a short-sighted decision taken for ideological reasons, and it's no surprise that the government has gone back on this policy. For all Grayling's bluster, this will neutralise Conservative attacks on many of Labour's plans. It's a good line for activists to use on the doorstep: How can nationalising things be so dangerous when it's current government policy?

We have seen a few current and former government ministers tentatively outlining future strategy for the Conservative Party. On Tuesday, Michael Gove was speaking at a report launched by the Centre for Policy Studies, and said that the Conservatives needed to do more than go on about Venezuela. The following day, Justine Greening spoke to the Bright Blue Thinktank and said that the last time the Conservative Party connected with people's aspirations was 1992, a dig at both Theresa May and David Cameron. Next week, Ruth Davidson is speaking at Onward, a new centre-right thinktank which claims that the name's resemblance to Emmanuel Macron's movement is a complete coincidence. What Davidson says on Monday will be very interesting, as she is one of the few British Politicians who might be able to break the mould politics is currently set in. 

I am sure that it is a complete coincidence that all these speeches on the party's future direction occurred when the current Prime Minister was easily bested by Jeremy Corbyn for the second week in a row, by asking straightforward questions about government policy. For perhaps the question that many Tories ask themselves is: "If Theresa May can get so easily beaten at PMQs, what does that say about her leadership?"

Old, New, Borrowed and Blue

Old: Another Plug for the best bits of our podcast from last year.

New: This week's Midweek Shot is one we recorded during the local elections with Fred Grindrod, about Brexit and media bias.

Borrowed: Italy has a new government, and there is a useful primer on Reaction here. This and in particular this piece on the GCSE exams which started this week are a sad reminder of the toll these new exams are having on our children's mental health. Worth a read this Mental Health Awareness Week.

Blue: Neil O'Brien and Will Tanner wrote an article for the Sun giving five things the Tories need to do in order to get a majority. 

Pop Culture Recommendation

Erin Ryan, Crooked Media contributor, has a wonderful thread on what your favourite Muppet character says about you.

That's all for this week. We have a new podcast out on Sunday.

Friday Fizz: The "back from the dead" edition

The Friday Fizz is Not Enough Champagne's roundup of the week's news. You can read previous instalments here.

From Pixabay.com

From Pixabay.com

This is the First Friday Fizz in over two months, as juggling a full-time job, local election campaigning and speaking coherently on a podcast became all I was able to do at once.

As we return, there is only one topic on the agenda, and that's Brexit. Previous Fizzes have argued that a soft Brexit is still very possible, largely because there isn't enough time to negotiate a proper deal so the government will default to an EFTA/EEA-style deal out of panic. This thesis has seemed slightly mad over the last few months, and my prediction was beginning to look more like wishful thinking. It felt a bit like being in a plane which is plunging to the ground, but staying calm because you're sure that this nightmare really can't be happening, and surely someone will turn up and pilot us back to safety soon.

However, now it's looking like a real possibility after the House of Lords has reacted to the EU Withdrawal Bill rather like a butcher to a slab of beef, and made mincemeat of the whole thing. In have gone 14 amendments including ones which take "No Deal" off the table, removed Britain's official exit date and, most surprisingly, have slipped in an option to keep Britain in the EEA. For an explainer of the EEA, read the ever-invaluable Ian Dunt.

The EEA amendment is huge news, and follows a huge rebellion from peers of both Labour and the Conservatives. If MPs can vote for this amendment, there is a chance that a distastrous crashing out from our main trading bloc can be avoided. 

Backing this amendment makes perfect sense for Labour. In our Manifesto we said: (p24)

We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single 0arket and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain

It's hardly a massive leap from there to say: "We are going to leave the EU, and the only way to retain the benefits of the Single Market and Customs Union is to stay in the EEA". We join up with the usual suspects on the Tory backbenchers, and economic catastrophe is avoided. Huzzah, and off to the pub!

Except it's not as simple as that. Emily Thornberry has said that Britain needs a bespoke deal, rather than an EEA-style agreement, in terms which sound similar to Theresa May's line on the issue. A Labour Spokesman has hinted that Jeremy will, apparently, whip Labour MPs to abstain. The fact that abstaining on EEA membership would go against what the vast majority of what Labour members want, as well as official Labour Policy, is apparently neither here nor there. Did I also mention that it removes the possibility of imminent economic catastrophe and that Labour's sister party in Northern Ireland is in favour of EEA membership as it will mean there's no problem on the Irish Border?

EEA membership is so obviously the right thing to do, but it also makes sense from a tactical point of view. Labour's Brexit policy has been about being slightly more Remainy than the Conservatives whilst not pissing off the large number of Labour Leave voters. The intervention this week of five Labour MPs in the North East, from constituencies who voted Leave by a large majority, shows that even in the Leave heartlands there are those trying to soften the impact of Brexit. If more of these happen over the next few months, and more EU negotiations prove unable to keep an Open Border in Ireland, then EEA membership would be a much-needed safety net.

In many ways, it's frustrating that the focus is on Labour after a torrid week for the government. These two articles sum up the problems that Theresa May faces. Corbyn took on May over the subject of Brexit at PMQs and wiped the floor with the PM: even the Sun gives Corbyn credit (really, really grudgingly) for his victory. Yet the sense is that Theresa May is locked on course now in a Brexit death spiral, trapped by the extremists in her own party. Labour has a brilliant chance to mean that we don't get the Brexit of Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg. With a little more persistance, a little more patience, and some sound choices by Labour's leadership and the PLP, things might just be OK. Just.

Our last episode looking back on the local election results can be found here:

And Sunday's episode is already out now, looking back on our favourite bits of 2017:

Friday Fizz: The "Snow Joke" Edition

The Friday Fizz is Not Enough Champagne's review of the week's news. You can read previous instalments here.


Last time Theresa May gave a major speech, her cough and collapsing scenery felt like a metaphor for her failing Premiership. Today she was meant to be speaking in Newcastle, but horrendous weather meant that the speech was given in London instead. Not being able to reach her preferred destination because of forces beyond her control feels like a cruelly apt metaphor for her government's position on Brexit.

This was the latest of a seeminly never-ending set of speeches by Cabinet Ministers trying to spell out the UK government's position on Brexit. Boris Johnson spoke about carrots, Liam Fox talked about crisps, and nobody remembers what David Lidington said.

It also comes after a week in which pro-Remain campaigners seemed to get properly organised. Open Britain seem to have capitalised on Jeremy Corbyn's speech supporting “a” customs union by coordinating Tony Blair and John Major to give speeches attacking the government's position. Both these interventions were either excellent examples of statecraft from a master, or sour grapes from someone who doesn't like democracy, depending on your point of view. What makes me most nervous is that rolling out important people to tell us how much of a disaster Brexit is going to be did not work during the referendum and may not be the best way of changing minds, however accurate their analysis is. More of that on Sunday's podcast, in which we discuss the prospect of a second referendum.

If Corbyn's speech moved Labour fractionally towards a sensible position on Brexit, May's speech moved the government fractionally towards a more realistic position. For instance, it conceded that Britain would remain part of some European agencies such as Euratom and would pay contributions accordingly. There was even softening of the red line on ECJ jurisdiction, though it was worded carefully enough so as not to annoy the Brexiters too much. May also said that access to markets would be reduced, something no government minister has admitted before.

One still gets the feeling, though, that May was still aiming her speech at her party rather than the EU. Katy Balls has an interesting line on this here:

Ahead of Theresa May’s speech, a Conservative arch-Eurosceptic told me that the best way to judge its success was not to focus on whether the majority of MPs were happy but instead watch how his side and Anna Soubry’s side reacted. He said that should either group feel able to gloat then the prime minister would have a problem.

Still, then, May did not make the truly hard choices for fear of offending those Paleosceptics. Donald Tusk had already rejected May's "solution" to the Northern Ireland border before she had even given the speech, whilst existing objections to the "three baskets" proposed by the UK have already been rejected by Michel Barnier. Indeed, a large part of May's speech was just asking the EU to be a little bit nicer and allow the UK to cherry pick. The practical obstacles to be overcome are spelled out by Chris Grey here and here, whilst a great quick take by Stephen Bush can be found here.

The problem is that Theresa May seems to be proposing a soft Brexit, but will not actually get Britain to join any of the institutions that could facilitate a smooth transition to a soft Brexit like the EEA or EFTA because this will annoy the Paleosceptics and possibly bring down her government. Which means that, eventually, something will give. As I argued in last week's Fizz, a soft Brexit borne out of desperation is still a significant possibility. 

Old, New, Borrowed and Blue

Old: One of the episodes we have used as part of an entry to the British Podcast Awards is this discussion on New Labour, 20 years on. It's still one of my favourites. Hope you enjoy

New: As well as the article on Jeremy Corbyn published on Wednesday, in our Midweek Shot we talk about the chances of a third party breaking into the two-party system at the moment.

Borrowed: Having said on a previous episode that we talk about issues that no political podcast dares to talk about, like buses, Ed Miliband and Geoff Lloyd have only gone and devoted a whole episode of Reasons to be Cheerful all on buses. You know what they say: where Not Enough Champagne leads, others follow.

I was also fascinated by this Politico piece about 12 Men Who Ruined Italy. The policy proposal in number 8 has to be read at least three times to be believed.

Blue: Peter Oborne has written this review of a book into the Trojan Horse affair in Birmingham which deserves a wider readership.

Pop Culture Recommendation

That news of a new Elvis Costello album has appeared on my Twitter feed in the last 10 minutes is the most exciting news I've had since, er, Yeproc said that there were plans for a new Nick Lowe record this year as well. Maybe 2018 won't be so bad after all.

That's all for this week. Our 100th episode is released on Sunday. 


Strange Customs

Jeremy Corbyn praised Tony Blair and was supported by big business organisations. This is not a drill.

Supply chains for Mini cars were mentioned by Corbyn in his Brexit Speech. From Pixabay.com

Supply chains for Mini cars were mentioned by Corbyn in his Brexit Speech. From Pixabay.com

Anyone who has been pontificating about what Labour's Brexit position should be only needed to see the reaction to Jeremy Corbyn's speech on Monday to see why Labour is walking such a tightrope. On the day in question, Corbyn received a monstering from the right-wing tabloids accusing him of betrayal. Pro-Remain pressure groups inside and outside Labour said he was not going anywhere near far enough, whilst Leave voters in Labour-held seats in the North voiced their vocal disapproval. David Davis accused Corbyn of breaking his manifesto pledges, a curious reaction given that Labour lost June's election and therefore does not, and indeed cannot, implement its manifesto pledges. It is practically impossible for a Labour Leader to set any policy without a heap of blowback.

All this noise and criticism is about a policy shift which is quite modest. Shadow Ministers like Keir Starmer, and Corbyn himself, have talked of joining a customs union in recent media appearances. Corbyn reiterated that a Labour government would take Britain out of the EU and negotiate a trade deal in much the same way as the Tories suggest. He also said that "Labour would seek a final deal that gives full access to European markets and maintains the benefits of the single market and the customs union", which is almost exactly the same as its manifesto: "We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single 0arket and the Customs Union" (p. 24). 

The key part of the speech, much-briefed in advance, was Corbyn comitting Labour to staying in "a" Customs Union. Not only does this put a clear divide between Labour and the government, who once again categorically ruled out joining any form of Customs Union, but also puts Labour on the side of reality. It goes most (though not all) of the way to solving the question of the Irish Border. Liam Fox may squeal and say this means no new Trade Deals,  but as his former Chief Civil Servant has argued, the benefits of these are largely illusory.

Generally, commentators have praised Corbyn for his politics whilst scorning the substance. "Cherry-having on stilts" was the reaction of one anonymous Brussels watcher. Some of the pledges in the speech - like wanting to use money returned from Brussels - is breathtakingly cynical. Some - like a pledge to end free movement - can only get away with because of the political capital Corbyn has built up. Ed Miliband got vilified for mugs that said "controls on immigration" on them and never went anywhere near on ending immigration in the way that Corbyn has done.

Yet Corbyn's position was praised by the CBI and the IOD. For all its flaws, Corbyn now is more business-friendly than the Conservatives, who have started trashing pro-business lobby groups. In many ways this underlines the bankruptcy of the government's position that they are being outflanked on this. It also reflects, as Rafael Behr suggests, that Corbyn is lucky to have backbenchers who are arguing with the grain of economic and diplomatic reality.

It also represents that Corbyn really can play politics and does want to be Prime Minister. The vote on the Customs Union in Parliament may well spell defeat for the government, hence the panic about it. Corbyn is still triangulating, aping Tony Blair's approach as Leader of the Opposition and reaching out to Tory rebels to defeat the government. He even praised Blair in his speech. Nothing about British Politics makes sense any more.

Reading John Bew's biography of Clement Attlee at the moment, I am struck by how even in the 1920s and 1930s it was hard for Labour to please all of its factions and come up with a unifying policy. On Brexit especially it has been hard for Labour to present a united position that doesn't just satisfy the conscience of one section of the party. Labour's position is not as coherent or as radical as many would like, but it is inching in the right direction. It makes the next year of British Politics very interesting indeed. On Friday, we'll react to the latest political news and see what this means for the government.

Listen to our podcast on the Jeremy Corbyn and the Czech spy saga here:

Friday Fizz: The "ambitious managed divergence" edition

The Friday Fizz is Not Enough Champagne's review of the week's news. You can read previous instalments here.

The cabinet at Chequers yesterday. Seriously, what is going on with Michael Gove's expression?

The cabinet at Chequers yesterday. Seriously, what is going on with Michael Gove's expression?

In 2016, Brexit meant Brexit. In 2017, Brexit meant the EU could "Go whistle" on the EU divorce bill. In 2018, Brexit means "ambitious managed dvergence". That sexy-sounding phrase is the result of last night's Brexit debate amongst key members of the Cabinet. What does it actually mean?

In practical terms, fairly little. The aim is still to do a comprehensive Canada-style Free Trade Agreement with the EU, rather than join something like the EEA or EFTA. The EU's deal with Canada does not cover services, however, so extra work will need to be done so that the FTA covers services: which makes up, if you remember, about three-quarters of the British economy. This FTA will allow the UK to make its own separate rules distinct from the EU in certain key areas (the "divergence" bit) whilst keeping EU regulations in others (the "ambitiously managed" bit). The summary from the FT, as well as those who've talked to Matt Chorley of the Times's Red Box e-mail and Jack Blanchard  of Politico's London e-mail, suggests that both Remainers and Leavers are happy with this outcome. 

That's all sorted then. Not quite. One big problem is time: as we keep reminding listeners on the podcast, the Canada deal took seven years to negotiate and six months to ratify. Britain only has thirteen months before it leaves the EU. This explains the news, which received remarkably little coverage this week, that Britain was preparing to ask the EU for an indefinite transition period. A lengthy transition (sorry, implementation) period would give Britain the time it needs to negotiate a FTA, but might not be politically saleable to those jolly fellows at the European Research Group (more on them later). The Institute For Government has an excellent summary which we discussed on our Brexit in 2018 episode about the different models involving picking and choosing different aspects of the single market. In essence, the more we align, the more we have to stick to EU regulations, and the more we diverge, the bigger hit the economy takes. It also depends on what the EU's negotitating position is too, and they've been pretty insistent that the four freedoms of the single market must be adhered to for Britain to have access to it. 

The status of the Irish Border is another massive problem not yet resolved. Jeremy Hunt was on the Today Programme this morning once again categorically stating that the UK would not be part of *any* customs union with the EU after Brexit, as that would not allow the UK to sign trade deals with other countries. That is true, but then means we need to find a way to stop a hard border with Northern Ireland and comply with the Good Friday Agreement. Brexiters have thought of a way round this, which is to trash the Good Friday Agreement itself. Quite why these people want to risk a return to the Troubles in order for us to import chlorinated chicken from America remains a mystery I suspect we'll never solve. To misquote Cicero, "We will create a desolation and call it Taking Back Control".

Speaking of desolation brings us nicely to the European Research Group. This was the organisation headed by Steve Baker before he became Minister for Trolling and is now led by Jacob Rees-Mogg. It wrote a letter to Theresa May in advance of the meeting yesterday spelling out its insane plans for what the UK would look like in eighteen month's time. Dubbed a ransom note by Nicky Morgan, it asks that the UK be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries as soon as it's left the EU in March 2019. Quite why, or how, the UK would negotiate with third parties when it wouldn't have the trading arrangements fixed with the EU is not explained. The letter is signed by 62 MPs, enough to trigger a leadership challenge but a small enough figure to show that there is a potential majority in the Commons for staying in the Customs Union and SIngle Market, if Labour shifts its postition.

That is a big "if" of course, and leads us nicely to Jeremy Corbyn's speech on Monday. In it, it's possible that he may commit Labour to staying in the customs union. Currently, Labour's position is that we will have to stay in *a* customs union, a position more sensible than the government's but not far enough for many Remainers within the party. Changing support from "a" customs union to "the" customs union is therefore not that huge a shift, but could mean that Labour backs rebel amendments to keep the UK in the Customs Union. According to some reports, the Government has responded to this by delaying the vote until May, because uncertainly and delay is what you want when time is ticking away. 

Those who would prefer a softer Brexit need to sit tight and not to panic too much. Confirming that there will be some alighnment and oversight is only the start of the shift in the government's position. Some have argued that the presence of the ERG makes no deal more likely, but I would remain optimistic and say that actually it's more likely Britain ends up with a EEAe/EFTA style deal out of sheer panic. Alternatively, if there is an indefinite transition period that means little will change in the short to medium term whilst the government gets its house in order.

Old, New, Borrowed and Blue

Old: I've been going through our output over the past year to find suitable clips to enter the British Podcast Awards. I'll repost them over the next few weekEEs on the Friday Fizz. Here is one we recorded about the Liberal Democrats over the summer.

New: Out latest Midweek Shot talked about the problems with Britain's debate over infrastructure. One listener got in touch to point out that we embody one of the problems by failing to discuss cycling provision. Hopefully we can rectify that in a later podcast. The rest of the episode is pure solid gold, as you'd expect:

Borrowed: Two major international news stories this week happened in Syria and America. James Bloodworth writes here on the crisis in Syria and the lack of response from Britain's politicians. Ross Barkan writes on Trump's insane policy of giving teachers guns here. Closer to home, a Buzzfeed investigation by Jane Bradley on how those who are homeless are used as slave labour is a necessary and depressing read. Ann Black also has an account of the nonsense Labour's NEC has been up to recently.

Blue: Mark Fox on Reaction has one of the few positive takes on Boris Johnson's speech on the EU last week. Not sure if I agree, but at least it doesn't mention carrots.

Pop Culture Recommendation

I just finished reading Laurence Rees's book on the Holocaust, as it's an area I'll be teaching in my classes over the next half term. Not only is it well-written, it's an indispensible account of the worst that humanity is incapable of. It also has its fair share of opinions in it too. A harrowing yet necessary read.

That's it for next week. On Sunday, we discuss the Jeremy Corbyn spy story.

Friday Fizz: The "Half Term" edition

It's a shorter Fizz than usual, this one, because I'm off for a half-term break today. It's been a very slow news week, to be fair. The two stories which have cut through the fug of tiredness and local election campaigning are Boris Johnson's speech on Brexit, which everyone believed was a bit rubbish and lacking in details, and a piece of salacious gossip that Jeremy Corbyn met a Czech Diplomat so was therefore some sort of bearded Kim Philby. It's hard to know what this proves other than that Corbyn's views on foreign policy are not Labour orthodox, certainly the relevation from the report that he was not a fan or Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher will hardly shake Labour to its core. 

Predictably, the only cabinet minister to react to that story was baby-faced assassin Gavin Williamson, who says that the story proves Corbyn can't be trusted. But at this point Williamson's ambitions are so blatent I'm amazed he has not yet tatooed "Williamson for PM" on his forehead.

We are back with new content on Tuesday then will be back again on Sunday. For now, here's a never-before released episode with the best of iour podcasts in 2016.

Friday Fizz: The "Are you sure about the angle for that story?" edition

The Friday Fizz is Not Enough Champagne’s review of the week’s news. You can catch up on previous instalments here.

When Not Enough Champagne picked Nick Timothy as one of the movers and shakers in British Politics this year, we did not imagine that his role in a dubious Telegraph scoop would be how he made his mark. His role in the Telegraph’s story detailing the secret plan of George Soros to stop Brexit by, er, a mass marketing campaign has attracted plenty of attention. Raphael Behr wrote of the nasty whiff which the story has:

[A] modicum of cultural awareness and a glancing acquaintance with old Jew-hatred and its modern iterations would have alerted a half-decent editor to the signal being sent by that front page. In case there is no such person at the Telegraph to decrypt that signal let me spell it out for them. It was this: shadowy Jew-financier conspires against Britain. That might not seem obvious to many readers. It might even sound a little paranoid. But I am very confident that two audiences understood it instantly and very clearly in exactly those terms. One was antisemites, the other was Jews. The first group cheered, the second recoiled in horror. And of that shameful negligence, oh, Daily Telegraph, j’accuse.

Now the Daily Mail has picked up the story, complete with quotes from those shy, retiring, sensible Brexiters Jacob Rees-Mogg and Peter Bone.

Since the result of the referendum, some Leavers have been paranoid that the “Deep State” will sabotage Brexit. First judges were targeted. Next it was Remain-supporting MPs and Lords. Then it was Conservative MPs. Now, it’s Jewish bankers and the civil service.

In fact, Brexit is undeliverable on the terms in which paleosceptics like Jacob Rees-Mogg demand. Take the debate over what the UK/EU relationship should look like during a transition period.  The whole point of a transition (sorry, implementation) period is to give Britain and the European Union more time to agree on a final settlement. Yet Theresa May seems to think it’s politically impossible for Britain to stay in the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice during the transition period. This makes no sense: the only way to ensure there is enough time to negotiate a bespoke trade deal for Britain, thus pleasing the Brexiters, is to extend the Article 50 process; but if this happens the reaction from Brexiters may be enough to bring down the government.

Rather than looking to “The Deep State”, the real events that could well sabotage Brexit occurred in the high-level discussions which look place this week between Theresa May and her Brexit war cabinet. After two days of talks, the government still has failed to arrive at a negotiating position on the Customs Union and Single Market. According to the Times Red Box e-mail, "No vote was taken and Mrs May herself did not express a view." Oh, for some leadership.

Dubious Prediction Alert

The longer this impasse continues, the more likely it makes one of two things happening:

1.     No deal is agreed and the UK crashes out of the EU without a deal in March 2019. This leads to utter chaos and, possibly, the government pleading to enter some sort of EEA/EFTA membership just to stem the flood of terribleness.

2.     It is realised late in the day that the UK and EU will reach no agreement, so the UK enters EEA or EFTA on a temporary basis in March 2019 to stave off the chaos of a no-deal scenario.

Neither of these options will please the Brexiters, of course, but if their intransigence continues it might actually lead to a softer Brexit out of sheer panic and political expediency.

Old, New, Borrowed and Blue

Old: Our podcast last year on Moggmentum feels newly relevant given the current leadership speculations.

New: Steve wrote a piece for the site this week on why Labour should not be too pleased about an early election. Newly-relevant given the shift in the polls that is happening currently.

Borrowed: After the death of John Mahoney, Martin Crane in Frasier, passed away this week I came across Helen Lewis’s beautiful article on *that* chair and why the show is so amazing.

Blue: One of those rare things, an insightful below the line debate. I might not agree with many of the comments, but there is an interesting debate on Paul Goodman’s Conservative Home article about the meaning of Conservatism today.

That’s all for this week. Our podcast on Carillion and outsourcing is out on Sunday.

Please don't let there be a General Election in 2018.

Please don't let there be a General Election in 2018.

I think I may have found the one thing worse for Theresa May than being an inept Prime Minister during the most difficult foreign policy shift since World War 2. It’s being an inept Prime Minister during the most difficult foreign policy shift since World War 2 and being viewed as so irrelevant your political opponents are already planning for what happens after you inevitably get booted out of Number 10.

Read More

Friday Fizz: The "Weak and Unstable" edition

The Friday Fizz is Not Enough Champagne's review of the week's news. You can read previous instalments here.



Apologies for the slight delay which means that the Friday Fizz comes out on, er, Saturday. Perhaps this makes it the Saturday Sparkles. Either way, let's quickly summarise what have we learned this week? 

  • Theresa May called for "The British Dream", which is something she first talked about in her ill-fated conference speech. Apparently, The British Dream means that children get a better standard of living than their parents. This sounds remarkably similar to the "Promise of Britain" which was the first of many slogans Ed Miliband dreamt up with as Labour leader but didn't actually elaborate on.
  • The Cabinet still have not had a discussion on what the end state of Brexit will look like, almost a year after Article 50 was triggered and eighteen months after a decision was taken between the Prime Minister and her two unelected senior figures that we should leave the Single Market and Customs Union.
  • Brexiters don't believe in economic forecasts.
  • Backbenchers and ministers are crying out for the government to get a grip and devise a policy agenda, or at least a sense of direction.
  • Theresa May has sparked an unnecessary and counter-productive row with the EU over the transition period which she cannot possibly win.

In other words, we have learned nothing new. The attack on experts and economic forecasters by Brexiters we've known about since Michael Gove's infamous remark. The government has been directionless since the election, briefly rallied for a fortnight in December then descended into chaos after the reshuffle.

Nobody thinks Theresa May is any good at Prime Minister, but many Conservatives are so scared of a Corbyn government (or a Johnson/Rees-Mogg Premiership) that they are willing to put up with the dreadful rather than risk something truly awful happening.

Remember: this is all before the government has decided how it will solve the Irish border situation, or agreed on a Brexit policy. What happens if they actually do decide something, God only knows.

Old, New, Borrowed and Blue

Old: Used to be that the Fizz described the government as weak but stable. Read our edition from November to find out why.

New: Steve wrote a piece on the Brexit decisions the Conservatives have to make, and why they will inevitably lead to Michael Gove becoming Prime Minister.

BorrowedAlistair Benn has a good read on the ham-fisted political strategy of Assassin-Faced Baby Gavin Williamson. Frances Ryan wrote a disturbing article for the Guardian about how the impact of the "scrounger" narrative affects the treatment of people with disabilities.

Blue: Simon Heffer writes of May's Leadership in the New Statesman.

Pop Culture Recommendation

Yesterday a man was sentenced to life imprisonment because after he was radicalised online, he drove a van into a crowd of people just because they were Muslim. It's therefore been an apt week to begin reading Alt-America, which details how many have been radicalised and driven to kill by the radical right online.

That's all for this week. Our last podcast was on the NHS crisis. Give it a listen below:

The Tory's Brexit Catastrophe is about to get even worse.

The Tory's Brexit Catastrophe is about to get even worse.

You’d think that the Tories handling of Brexit couldn’t get much worse. David Davis and his woefully lacking “ Impact Assessments” ( which neither measured impacts, or indeed assessed anything) has shown the people in charge of Brexit are incompetent. The economy is £10 billion a year worse off than it would have been and every time the Government makes an announcement on Brexit someone in the Tory Party briefs the exact opposite is happening. To say the Tory’s handling of Brexit is a giant cluster-fuck is an understatement, yet it’s about to get much worse.


Read More

Friday Fizz: The "For the love of God, stop exposing your penis" edition

The Friday Fizz is Not Enough Champagne's review of the week's news. You can read previous instalments here.

From pixabay.com

From pixabay.com

Two news stories this week have demanded the attention over other matters like the Conservatives squabbling over Brexit and the goings on at Davos. Both are about the mistreatment of women over a number of decades.

By far the most harrowing is the trial and setence of Larry Nassar, a doctor attached to the US gymnastics team who abused nearly 300 girls and young women over twenty years. Watching the video in the link provided where accusers give testimony, you cannot fail to be awed by their bravery and moved. by the grief of mothers giving testimony about the suicide of their daughter. That Nassar wrote a six page (!) letter to the judge saying that he would find listening to his victims "uncomfortable" requires the explanation of a more qualified pysychologist than the writer of this piece. In this amateur's judgement, it is surely the mark of one who abused his position of power and trust to sexually abuse girls and young women, without ever stopping to think about the consequences of his actions.

In this country, an old-fashioned piece of investigative journalism from the Financial Times uncovers the casual attitude to sexual assault found in many of Britain's financial elite. It concerns an event called The Presidents Club, which has been held at The Dorchester Hotel since 1985. Last Thursday, an all-male audience at The Dorchester Hotel was welcomed to what the host called "the most un-PC event of the year". An all-male, un-PC event. What could possibly go wrong?

The undercover journalist worked at a hostess, answering an advert for "tall, thin, pretty" women:

All of the women were told to wear skimpy black outfits with matching underwear and high heels. At an after-party many hostesses — some of them students earning extra cash — were groped, sexually harassed and propositioned.

Over the course of six hours, many of the hostesses were subjected to groping, lewd comments and repeated requests to join diners in bedrooms elsewhere in the Dorchester.

Hostesses reported men repeatedly putting hands up their skirts; one said an attendee had exposed his penis to her during the evening.

Over the last month there has been a bit of a backlash against the #MeToo movement. There is, of course, also the inevitable Brendan O'Neill article. One hopes that these are isolated voices, like the tweets and letters to the FT that take issue with the journalism, but curiously not the behaviour of the men. Jess Phillips has spoken of the need for greater equalities laws, which is part of the solution. What is needed is a complete change of culture. The closure of The Presidents Club is part of that. Rich men will just have to give to charity by direct debit without groping a hostess first.

Old, New, Borrowed and Blue

Old: We've already had a Friday Fizz about Institutionalised Misogny. Also featuring Henry Bolton, before he was famous.

New: In Not Enough Champagne's quest to piss off every Labour faction, Steve argues that Jeremy Corbyn needs to be more radical here.

Borrowed: Marina Hyde might have cracked the enigma that is Boris Johnson in this piece:

If you haven’t read his Churchill book, it is hugely recommended as a psychiatric document – for all the horrifying and hilarious things it unwittingly reveals about its author. I can never believe his therapist let him publish it. By the end, it’s quite clear that you have not read Churchill’s story so much as Boris’s attempt to get you to see anything he might have done, or might ever do, as Churchillian. All politicians are self-interested gamblers with events, Johnson explains, and Churchill “put his shirt on a horse called anti-Nazism … his bet came off in spectacular fashion”. Mmmm. It probably helps to imagine Churchill spending a Sunday morning writing two columns – the first advocating resisting Hitler, the second making the case for supporting totalitarian conquest of Europe and the elimination of Jews.

Blue: Tory MP Johnny Mercer on the online abuse of Ruth Smeeth is a sadly necessary article.

Pop Culture Recommendation

Regular readers of this blog will know of my love for Robert Harris. I therefore went to see Imperium at the RSC with a little excitement and some trepidation. I should not have been worried; it's truly wonderful. All the actors are great, and Richard McCabe in particular is superb. The play itself is pure politics, like Hammer of the Left with togas. (But in a really good way)

That's all for this week. We're talking about the NHS crisis on Saturday. Last week's episode, on the book Devil's Bargain, is below.

Corbyn's policy agenda isn't radical enough.

Corbyn's policy agenda isn't radical enough.

This afternoon I found myself listening to Metallica. More specifically I found myself listening to the song No Leaf Clover. In No Leaf Clover James Hetfield opines that the “soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way”. The somewhat unsubtle implication being that sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the sunny uplands you want it to be but is in fact cold hard reality coming to run you over. This, like so many things in my life, got me thinking about Jeremey Corbyn ( I think I might have a problem).

Read More

Friday Fizz: The "crisis of capitalism" edition

The Friday Fizz is Not Enough Champagne's review of the week's news. You can read the rest here.

From Pixabay.com

From Pixabay.com

British Politics this week has been dominated by the collapse of Carillion and the resulting debate about outsourcing. Steve wrote about how this might lead to a wider crisis in the public sector, Lehman Brothers style, on Wednesday. In the Fizz today, I am going to focus on the political implications of Carillion's collapse.

Jeremy Corbyn was, rightly, angry about Carillion in the House of Commons on Wednesday. At times he was so angry he forgot to ask a question. Theresa May, showing the empathy and judgement which has categorised her Premiership, did not show much empathy with the workers about to be laid off, or anger with the bosses, or any contrition about the government granting Carillion multiple contracts even after the company issued profit warnings.

In a parallel universe, a scandals like Carillion would have fitted right into Theresa May's agenda of trying to make capitalism work for everyone. Unfortunately for May, not only are key advocates of that agenda like Nick Timothy now absent from government, the Conservatives are too distracted by Brexit to pursue this agenda. Instead May is making oblique speeches about defending "capitalism", which is a  bit like trying to combat the obesity crisis by defending vegetables.

The Carillion affair will be an interesting case study in how effectively a Corbyn-led Labour can challenge the present culture of outsourcing. It's an area squarely on Corbyn's turf, given his implacable opposition to any notion of outsourcing. After all, New Labour was intensely relaxed about outsourcing public services to private companies, so Corbyn is able to challenge the government on this issue without being accused of hypocrisy in a way that Ed Miliband was not able to do. Yesterday's National Audit Office report, saying that private finance schemes can be 40% more expensive than if the government were to finance them, also plays into Corbyn's hands.

So Corbyn's short-term response will be interesting. Of more significance will be how the left approaches the issue of private companies providing public services more generally.

In The Future of Socialism, Tony Crosland distinguished between "means" and "ends". He argued that neither public services or private services are intrinsically better; what makes the difference is a nation's political culture. New Labour eroded this down to "whatever works", which basically meant "whatever Tony Blair thinks is common sense". It should be clear that this is a gross misreading of Crosland's argument: public services can be run by a private company, if that company works in the public interest and for the public good.. The culture of outsourcing we have currently, as described by many including James Meek, George Monbiot, Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson have led to large interest payments, unaccountable services, privatised profits and socialised losses. Carillion was blacklisting workers who it knew were members of a Trade Union, and no company who did that should ever receive a government contract, and certainly not from a social democratic government.

Similarly, we cannot allow Carrillion's failure to blind a future Labour government into nationalising everything and bringing all contracts in-house. Larry Elliott (again) reminds us here about the failures of large government infrastructure projects. Ed Miliband set out some ideas on rethinking outsourcing, and Jon Trickett wrote an interesting essay four years ago along similar lines. For instance, such firms should be subject to FOI requests, train their staff properly and pay a living wage. Elliot sketches out some other solutions, such as reforming company law. Stella Creasy has called for a windfall tax on PFI contracts because of their exhorbitant rate of interest; taken altogther, all these notions could lead Labour towards a radical but credible policy on the outsourcing issue.

Corbyn is right to say that Carillion is a "watershed moment" that shows the system is not working. His job now is to find a solution that works.

Old, New, Borrowed and Blue:

Old: Given Ben Bradley's blogs on vasectomies to the unemployed and the London riots which have been unearthed by Buzzfeed, I thought I'd go back through my blogs to see what I wrote about the riots as a man in my early 20s. You can read my effort here.

New: As well as Steve's piece on Carillion which I mentioned above, he also wrote about how Jeremy Hunt should resign to fix the social care crisis. I've written something on how I feel that the threat of MPs being deselected is over-exaggerated.

Borrowed: Friend and frequent guest on Not Enough Champagne Luke John Davies wrote a piece which should be read by everyone who cares about democracy in the Labour Party.

Also, via Rebecca Lowe's Conservative Home column on what Conservatives can learn from Keir Hardie, I found Helen Thompson's article on the left and Judicial Power. Helen is often on Talking Politics, one of my favourite political podcasts, and whilst I don't always agree with everything that she says, her point that after Jacques Delor's speech to the TUC in 1988, debate within Labour about the EU ceased since "Delors effectively told the left that inside the EC it could protect what remained of its post-1945 political victories by insulating them in a ‘social European’ sphere away from the reach of a Conservative government". 

Blue: Iain Martin has a fascinating piece on how the reshuffle was part of a plot orchestrated by Nick Timothy to make assassin-faced baby Gavin Williamson Tory leader. Read it and fear for our future.

Pop Culture Recommendation

On Sunday, it will be six years to the day since my Dad died. Every year I toy with writing about it, but I find that it's too hard to add anything more to that which I said at his funeral. It's still too soon, in many ways. As I said six years ago, I got my musical taste from my Dad. This John Hiatt song, by turns funny and tragic and wise, is for him. 

That's all for this week. Sunday's podcast is on Devil's Bargain, the book about Donald Trump and Steve Bannon. Our last episode was on Brexit in 2018. You can listen to that below.

The Great British Ponzi Scheme: How Carillion's failure could lead to the collapse of the public sector

The Great British Ponzi Scheme: How Carillion's failure could lead to the collapse of the public sector

For the past 20 years, local and central Government have undertaken mass outsourcing of public sector services across a wide array of fields. At the heart of this program was the idea that they were delivering “value for money”. The collapse of Carillion shows that this may not actually be the case.

It’s important to remember when we look at outsourcing, that it isn’t some form of devils bargain. Outsourcing is used throughout the private sector effectively and without any fuss. From purchasing parts that someone else has made to getting HR and recruitment functions run by specialists, the practice of outsourcing is common, effective and often necessary. Within the public sector through outsourcing has often been the subject of ideological debate. Bringing in private sector involvement to run frontline government services brought accusations of government policy being used as a form of corporate welfare.

Read More

Is talk of deselection just really overblown?

In Labour's NEC elections the three candidates backed by Momentum swept into office with a very comfortable majority, Eddie Izzard failed in his bid to get elected to Labour's decision-making body, and there was talk of mandatory reselection for MPs.

All this happened yesterday, but Labour members could be forgiven for feeling a spot of deja vu. That's because exactly the same things happened in August 2016, during the last round of elections to the NEC.

From pixabay.com

From pixabay.com

Talk of mandatory reselection strikes fear amongst many Labour MPs, evoking as it does memories of the 1980s. This fear has been heightened by the removal of Ann Black today as chair of the NEC's dispute panel and replacing her with Christine Shawcroft, a Momentum board member who was previously expelled from Labour for campaigning for disgraced, corrupt ex-Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman. Removing Black, who topped the ballot as part of Momentum's slate not even two years ago, is an extremely silly and counter-productive move. Not only is she is of the left and generally well-respected in the party, this completely distracts distracts attention from the NHS crisis and Carillon debacle at completely the wrong point. It's also led to fears of a wider purge of Labour MPs.

A Momentum source who was speaking to the Guardian discussed why Ann Black got removed from her role:

It’s not surprising that the unions, members of the shadow cabinet and three Momentum backed NEC reps chose Christine Shawcroft over Ann Black - as many ordinary members are deeply frustrated with her. In 2016 Ann voted to to exclude 130,000 new Labour members from the leadership election, forcing them to pay another £25 to participate. When you deny members the right to choose the leader of their own party, it does tend to create a certain amount of resentment.

Just like Michael Corleone might shoot somebody for some slight long-ago, or for insufficient loyalty, the removal of Ann Black is simply petty score-settling.

The removal of Ann Black, and the future direction of the NEC Disputes panel when dealing with issues like anti-semitism, could be more consequential than any talk of deselection. However, the dominaton of the NEC by hard-left members does not necessarily mean that there will be a mass deselection of Labour MPs. Here are a few reasons why that probably won't happen:

1. Even at the height of the reselection debates in the 1980s, only six MPs were in fact deselected (although a few more did stand down). That's hardly a mass purge.

2. There is little to no evidence so far that Momentum activists have an appetite to deselect candidates in local elections. In Birmingham, where we have local elections in May, I know of no cases where deselections of moderate councillors have taken place. The exception to this, Haringey, is a special case because of a local development vehicle which has deeply divded the local party. That's despite it being far easier to deselect a councillor compared to a Member of Parliament. In addition, there's little evidence that Corbyn's preferred candidates were selected in the by-elections in the first 18 months of his leadership. 

3. Yes, there are occasional stories that circulate about deselection, and of heavy-handed idiots in Momentum wanting apologies from MPs. These get shared extensively by moderates in their own echo chambers, but there is nothing to suggest that mass deselections are happening now apart from paranoia.As Stephen Bush argues in the two pieces I've linked to above, it partly shows the durability and organisation of the pre-Corbyn Labour Party.

4. It also shows that, actually, most Momentum activists aren't interested in deselection. Based on the dozens of conversations I had with Momentum activists whilst involved with the General Election campaign, and on reports on their conferences, the impression I get is that most are idealistic and want a Labour government that is more left-wing than New Labour. This is hardly a radical view and is one shared by many, for instance, Ed Miliband and myself. It's just as reductionist to say that all Momentum members are Stalinist purge-lovers as it is to say that anyone who voted for Owen Smith is a right-wing Blairite.

5. It should not be surprising that local Momentum activists don't want to spend a lot of time and energy deselecting local councillors. After all, these activists and councillors spent a general election campaign working together. They attend ward meetings and go to the pub afterwards. On a local level, they are friends and comrades even if they disagree on national issues. It's this human interaction that is missing from the more febrile debates on social media, and why I think purges aren't very likely to happen at a local level. 

6. Now I would go a little further and argue that similar logic could apply to Labour MPs. This George Eaton article is a succinct summary of who has been arguing for, as well as the wider politics of, mandatory reselection. It is not clear to me that there is appetite for mass deselection apart from agitating idiots like Chris Williamson and a few diehard activists, who would be outnumbered by the more sensible Momentum members as well as the older existing members. After all, South Tyneside Momentum can post a list of 49 MPs they'd like to see deselected to their 136 followers, but they can' deselect Chukka Umanna because they don't live in Streatham. Yet moderates will pick up on the post and argue that it shows that there is a massive deselection campaign going on when, frankly, there's little evidence of one. 

It's very possible that I am wrong. Perhaps there is a secret hard-left plot to deselect dozens of Labour MPs that I don't know about. Maybe there is more appetite amongst Momentum members for deselection than I anticipate, or some seismic event leads to deselections, like rebellions over Corbyn's Brexit position. But in the absence of such evidence, I'm happy not to don the tinfoil hat and instead save my energy for campaigning in local elections, reminding Jeremy Corbyn that you can be in the single market if you're not in the EU, and ensuring we drive anti-semitism out of Labour.

Jeremy Hunt needs to resign to solve the Social Care crisis

Jeremy Hunt needs to resign to solve the Social Care crisis

When I suggested some New Year’s resolutions for the Tories  I wasn’t expecting them to fulfil them. I didn’t expect them to manage to crash and burn on them so quickly though.

The re-shuffle could have been an opportunity to launch a new agenda with fresh faces running departments. Instead, we have the same faces and one of the competent and reasonable members of the Government resigning from the Cabinet. Rather than focus on the omni-shambles that was the re-shuffle I want to talk about what the current state of the Government means for facing down two of the biggest domestic challenges that Britain has: Health & Social Care.

Read More

Friday Fizz: The "Night of the Blunt Knives" Edition

The Friday Fizz is Not Enough Champagne's review of the week's news. You can fInd previous editions here.


Let no holier-than-thou political journalist try and convince you otherwise: reshuffles are very important. On a very base level, they decide the personalities responsible for carrying out policy at the top of government. For instance, the Conservatives have tried for the past four years trying to detoxify their reputation amongst teachers and (to a lesser extent) parents because of Michael Gove's tenure as Education Secretary. If Michael Gove had been appointed Lord Chancellor in 2010, a role in which he was well regarded by the legal profession, or to Environment Secretary, where he has received plaudits from George Monbiot of all people, then perceptions of Gove personally and the Conservative Party would be very different.

However, reshuffles are also important for a very different reason. Just as someone's handwriting can be a great revealer of character, so too how a government conducts a reshuffle tells you a lot about the internal workings of government. The stories that came out after the event about New Labour's reshuffles, of names on post-its falling off whiteboards and not being replaced, or women having to be hastily added to a department where it had been forgotten to add any, sum up the feeling that much of the time Labour spent a lot of time chaotically obsessing over headlines and not over the finer policy detail.

Gordon Brown's reshuffle in 2009 was summed up by David Cameron in a remark I'd completely forgotten about until Matt Chorley quoted it in the Red Box e-mail this morning.

"We have an extraordinary situation where the prime minister can't seem to reshuffle the cabinet but they can't seem to organise a coup. They are, if you like, locked together in this sort of slow dance of political death that is so bad for our country."

It does underline the fact that reshuffles are often metaphors for the wider functioning of government.

What, then, do the replacement of the Secretary of State for Education tell us about the last three Conservative Governments?

Under David Cameron, Michael Gove lasted four years as Education Secretary. In contrast with the chopping and changing of the New Labour years, Cameron made sure that most of his top team stayed in post as long as possible. This wasn't always the case (step forward Andrew Lansley) and Gove was replaced amid reports that his toxic reputation could threaten the Conservatives electoral chances. Cameron, for all his faults (read: plunging the country into the biggest catastrophe since Suez) had a theme with his governments: winning an overal majority. Indeed, one year after sacking Gove David Cameron received an overall majority, which would appear to vindicate his decision.

The sacking of Nicky Morgan as Education Secretary set the tone for the first administration of Theresa May. Morgan was one of a number of ministers jettisoned for too much "blue on blue" action during the referendum campaign. Remember the lectures to George Osborne on loyalty? Also, the nasty briefings that Morgan had cried after receiving the sack (All Out War, p. 574) seem symptomatic the political operation that Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill ran. Back just over eighteen months ago, it felt like May reigned supreme over British Politics. Sacking lots of ministers with a very small majority also led to the feeling that May was potentially piling up lots of problems down the line for only a short-term gain, a feeling reinforced by subsequent events, most notably the hasty triggering of Article 50 before any serious preparatory work had been done.

We have come a long way since then. Monday's reshuffle was botched from all angles. There's that swiftly-deleted tweet appointing Chris Grayling as Party Chairman. Two Cabinet Ministers telling May that they weren't going to move role. The most significant changes being the alteration of a department's name to include things that they did anyway. Then Justine Greening resigned from the government because she would not accept a move to the Department for Work and Pensions. Greening's resignation tells you a lot about Theresa May's government. The absolute tin ear for the basic vote counting necessary in Parliamentary Politics that was also shown by the 2016 reshuffle: creating a disaffected pro-Remain MP in a very Remain marginal is a terrible strategic move. Greening's record on Education is a fairly decent one. A Cabinet n which Greening leaves when Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, David Davis and Chris Grayling survive even comes close to being called a meritocracy. It is the story of a Prime Minister trying to reassert her authority whilst failing in quite spectacular fashion.

Old, New, Borrowed and Blue:

Old: Back in September we talked about what the biggest stories will be in British Politics. Listen to see if we were right.

New: We have a midweek shot out on the movers and shakers of 2018.


Borrowed: I finally got round to reading the extract of Fire and Fury in the New York Magazine. We have recorded a podcast on the Joshua Green's book "Devil's Bargain" about the relationahip between Trump and Bannon. In it, Bannon talks about how stories for Breitbart needed to be "narratively true" rather than factually true. Interestingly, that's been the position of many who have read Fire and Fury; that although details may not be true, the broad outline of the Trump White House is correct. Truth is a strange thing, isn't it?

Also, Marie Le Conte has an insightful read on the Conservative Party's problems with social media, with added Philip Cowley.

Blue: I found this a particularly interesting piece on the lost tribes of British Politics. https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/01/peter-franklin-the-tribes-of-british-politics-1-picking-through-the-ruins.html

Pop Culture Recommendation

I enjoyed this Talking Politics Podcast on the parallels between Brexit and the Reformation.

Friday Fizz: The "You've tweeted much too much, Toby Young" edition

The Friday Fizz is Not Enough Champagne's review of the week's news. You can read previous instalments here.

From Pixabay.com

From Pixabay.com

Alan Milburn and Andrew Adonis have several things in common. Their first name begins with “A”, for a start. More importantly, both were New Labour ministers who took advisory roles after the Conservatives took power. Milburn chaired the Commission on Social Mobility, whereas Adonis was an advisor for the National Infrastructure Commission. Both now have a third thing in common: Milburn and Adonis resigned from their roles because Brexit is causing the government to be dysfunctional.

The Commission on Social Mobility's final report, published in November, makes for sobering reading. It shows there are great inequalities in Britain, particularly between Greater London and the rest of the country. In his resignation letter from last month, Milburn could not be clearer: the focus on delivering Brexit means that the government can do nothing to improve the lives of Britain's most disadvantaged:

Individual ministers such as the secretary of state for education have shown a deep commitment to the issue. But it has become obvious that the government as a whole is unable to commit the same level of support. It is understandably focused on Brexit and does not seem to have the necessary bandwidth to ensure that the rhetoric of healing social division is matched with the reality. I do not doubt your personal belief in social justice, but I see little evidence of that being translated into meaningful action.

Andrew Adonis is a more strident Remainer than Milburn: he has said he wants to stop Brexit altogether. His resignation was also brought on by his vehement opposition to the bailout of Virgin Trains and Stagecoach, which we covered in a Twitter thread yesterday. In his interview with The Observer, he paints a disturbing but plausible picture of government paralysis:

The senior civil service is now totally drained physically and psychologically by attempting to deliver the impossible with Brexit, such that it is no longer able to deliver the ordinary business of government...

Good government has essentially broken down in the face of Brexit...Independent advice is being dismissed because, remember, experts were supposedly part of the problem.

There is very low morale in Whitehall because almost no civil servants agree with the policy of the government...I do not know a single senior civil servant who thinks that Brexit is the right policy, and those that are responsible for negotiating it are in a desperate and constant argument with the government over the need to minimise the damage done by the prime minister’s hard-Brexit stance.

“It is an open secret that no one will go and work in David Davis’s department [DexEU], and Liam Fox is regarded as a semi-lunatic. The only departments that have retained their institutional integrity during this crisis are the Foreign Office and the Treasury, but they have been sidelined in the Brexit negotiations which is a huge mistake because that is where most of the brains and ability in Whitehall is located.

And so it goes on.

It's utter nonsense, of course. Liam Fox is not merely a “semi” lunatic.

On Sunday's podcast we are going to discuss the New Years Resolutions each party should have, and Steve has argued that the Conservatives need to stop making everything about Brexit. That's going to be hard when the administration is, as Adonis argued, defined by the issue. It also does not help that a key thinker who might have been able to establish a new agenda for the Conservatives, Nick Timothy, tried to do so in the middle of an election campaign and lost the Tories their majority by doing so.

Many on the left criticised Milburn and Adonis for working with a Conservative government, but if you don't have sensible Labour politicians helping frame government policy, you get stupid Conservative ones instead. The Twitter row par excellance this week has been the backlash against Toby Young's appointment to the Office for Students. A veritable cottage industry has formed around screenshotting Young's old tweets. You can read about the worst of them in this New Statesman piece, whilst Richard Seymour provides some good links to stories about Young's free school.

Young has no discernable qualifications beyond launching a free school with a dubious record. Many defend him by saying he genuinely wants to improve educational standards, which seems a little disingenous given his support for "progressive eugenics". It also assumes that you can be appointed to important things just by good intentions along. Just because I want to improve politics does not mean I should be appointed to the Cabinet. The Conservatives need to improve their standing amongst younger and more educated voters. Why then would Jo “The Other” Johnson appoint Toby Young to this role? I can only assume it's the continuation of the culture war against universities which this Fizz talked about only last week. You can't say that we didn't warn you.

Old, New, Borrowed and Blue

Old: The first episode we recorded last year, on what New Years Resolutions the parties should have in 2017, can be found below:

New: In preparation for our episode on the Resolutions Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May should have in 2018, read these two blogs by Steve.

Borrowed: Something I found this week and will endeavour to keep up with is Ian Bremmer's The World in 60 seconds.

Blue: Andrew Gimson has written this fascinating piece on the role of Conservative Minister for Health Henry Willink in the creation of the NHS.

Pop Culture Recommendation

I haven't read many books over Christmas, and instead have spent most of it playing board games with my family. In a triumph of political nerdery over common sense, the favourite game I've played has been one in which you get to have to win the 1960 election for Kennedy or Nixon. It's mainly a card-based game full of events from the campaign I had no idea about, including Eisenhower's “joke-that-is-a-little-too-serious-to-be-a-joke” when asked about Nixon's contribution to his administration:

That's all for this week. Our end of year quiz for 2017 is below:

In 2018 Jeremy Corbyn needs to….

In 2018 Jeremy Corbyn needs to….

For the Labour Party, 2017 wasn’t the disaster everyone feared it would be. The surprise loss of the Tory’s majority in the House of Commons has put Labour, and Jeremy Corbyn personally, in a very strong position. However, a new year presents new opportunities and it would be foolish for the Labour leadership top rest on its laurels. As such we present the second part of our “New Year’s Resolution” series, ( Part one can be found here) where we discuss the three areas that the Labour Leadership should focus on to continue improving their chances of gaining a majority at the next election.

Read More