Dear Subscribers,
‘If they want him out, they’ll have to drag him out’, says an ally of the Prime Minister. With the forthcoming local elections promising the Labour party defeat, Starmer’s future is increasingly uncertain. From within the Cabinet, Wes Streeting has recruited more than the requisite 81 MPs necessary to launch a leadership challenge.
Perhaps more threatening is the prospect from without, namely that of Andy Burnham. So far Starmer has been able to count on the support of the Labour party NEC to stop Burnham from standing in a by-election (as in Gorton and Denton in February). The Telegraph has revealed that the NEC will no longer stand in Burnham’s way should he wish to stand and enter the fray, amidst much speculation. Others believe that Angela Rayner will launch a leadership challenge, a prospect which numerous Labour MPs dread (‘anyone but Ange’).
How can Starmer protect his authority? Some suspect he might reshuffle his Cabinet. The prospect of Ed Miliband becoming Chancellor now ‘appears closer to reality’. Miliband is convinced that ‘doubling down’ on net zero will produce economic growth. Such conviction paired with an apparent effectiveness inside Whitehall has made him one of the most popular figures within the Labour party.
Much of modern British politics is concentrated on what Walter Bagehot called the ‘efficient’ parts of the constitution. But this week the ‘ceremonial’ parts have had various roles on the stage. King Charles’s state visit to the US has been judged a success: and Trump has dropped his 15pc tariff on Scottish whisky (‘they got me to do something that nobody else was able to do’ – although the SNP says otherwise.) More solemnly, the hereditary peers have been officially removed from the Lords by the government, fulfilling the reforms set in place by Blair with the House of Lords Act of 1999.
Following the attempted murder of two Jewish men in Golders Green on Wednesday, the incident was labelled a terrorist incident by the police. The terrorist, Essa Suleiman, was known to the authorities since he knifed a police officer and his dog in 2008, for which he was convicted; in 2020 he had been referred to Prevent but the case was shelved (no reasons given). Before arriving at Golders Green, he was already on the run for knifing a Muslim man in Southwark the same morning. Britain’s terrorism threat level has now been raised to ‘severe’ (‘an attack is highly likely’), one below ‘critical’ (‘an attack is highly likely in the near future’).
Lastly, the University of Sussex has succeeded in overturning the £585,000 fine imposed by the Office for Students (OfS). The fine was imposed over the harassment that provoked the philosopher Kathleen Stock to resign her post in 2021 for voicing gender-critical views. The OfS is headed by another philosopher, Arif Ahmed, whose aim as free-speech Tsar has been to make an example out of Sussex. The judge who overturned the fine concluded that the OfS ‘unlawfully predetermined the decision’. The case raises serious questions about the relation of the universities to the state, as well as the woke puritanism of some students – or as one wit has called them, Pronountestants.
Blog
Media
Seven things to look out for as Britain heads to the polls by Tim Shipman for the Spectator
The Fall of Britain: A tragedy in three horrifying acts by Allister Heath in The Telegraph
Key Points
Local elections
About the local elections, a consensus is emerging. Namely, that the grip of the old parties on local councils will slip away to ascending forces. It is the uprooting of the two-party system or ‘duopoly’ as Prof. Sir John Curtice says, which has existed since the early 1920s.
Accordingly, a question mark has been placed next to Keir Starmer’s future in office. Will accommodating Miliband in No.11 be sufficient to contain his party’s dissent? These local elections could indeed do much to influence the courses each of the parties take nationally: but there is also the chance that the new forces (Greens and Reform) underperform – then what?
The end of the hereditary peers – a portent?
The dismissal of the hereditary peers happened not with a bang but a whimper. Yet even that might be saying too much: was there any serious mainstream resistance at all? Were there any politicians who attempted to defend the hereditary principle or educate the public?
A couple of weeks ago Radio 4 hosted a debate on the future of the monarchy. Those defending it made sentimental gestures to Elizabeth II, to the monarch’s being above the party-political fray (often mistook for meaning ‘non-political’, which is false) and its ability to adapt to historical changes. Those attacking it dealt in sneers and virtue with continual reference to Andrew’s ignominy.
The tone of the defences was either low-keyed or happy-clappy; that of the assaults was self-regarding and sanctimonious. However, neither the monarchists nor the republicans expressed their beliefs in any way that could be described as ‘intellectual’ or especially principled. Both went in for feelings: but are feelings sufficient for justifying the existence of the monarchy in the 2020s?
The inability of British conservatives to attack liberals on such fundamental issues is ultimately an intellectual shortcoming. Since at least Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) there has been something identifiably ‘conservative’ in modern British political thought which has existed in opposition to ‘liberalism’ (which is to say, the one needs the other). In other words, reaction vs. progress.
Yet upon hearing the monarchists make their defences, one can’t help but feel both the intellect and the gut have fallen out of British conservatism regarding such issues. Thus, the dismissal of the hereditary peers has passed without any serious controversy.
What is stopping from this happening to the monarchy within the next generation?
