Capitalists@Work

Mandygate: rumbles on and on, getting louder

2026-04-17T10:37:00.001+01:00

And there was Team Starmer getting cocky about how well their man was doing, seeing off Streeting and Rayner and Trump, basking in the glow of "wartime leader" etc - or whatever they thought was the case - and positioning himself confidently to see off the May elections fall-out.

The 3-hour period of utter, and highly uncharacteristic radio silence, after the Guardian story broke[1] and before the barefaced denial was issued yesterday evening, must have been a great time to have a bug planted in the (Chinese) coffee machine in No.10.

They must have been lining up Olly Robbins as the fall-guy - and negotiating his deal. That's not just some middle-management scapegoat, that's Very Big Indeed. A serious human sacrifice to appease the gods of Starmerdoom. Wonder what's in his "early retirement package"?

And - will it be enough?

Interesting to see, in retrospect, just how craftily the earlier Starmer statement was drafted[2]. Did lawyer Starmer - who must, surely, have been told how crucial it was to stick precisely to the script - not know why it was worded the way it was? Is that what we're to believe? Well, flat denial is his only option; so flat denial it must be.

And it's being reported he know about this on Tuesday. 48 hours is a very long time not to come clean: time enough for the leaker (see below) to get to the Guardian, and for the Graun itself to go through the very significant editorial operation that would be needed before dropping something like this. Now we know why No.10 was already said to be planning to prorogue Parliament early this season - no more PMQs this side of May. And "it's understood Lammy didn't find out until Thursday" - hahah! He's obviously (a) completely out of the loop; and (b) as disloyal as all Hell. (OK, I suppose we all guessed that anyway.)

My immediate thought is: how does this play for La Romeo?[3] Is it the making of her, because [perhaps] she wasn't involved when Fondlebum was set on - but now knows exactly where those bodies are buried? You can just hear her opening words in that panicky all-hands meeting:

"Now listen: before we can figure a way out of this, you all need to tell me exactly what happened. All of it. Everything!"

______________________

[1] Hats off to the Guardian, BTW: they've put themselves into the nuclear fallout zone. Their source must be truly excellent, hoho.

[2] “The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO.”

[3] I say this because she may well be the last person standing after this is finished. Even then, she's not in the clear: evidently there's that heavy-duty Deep Throat operator somewhere in Whitehall, for the Guardian to get this leak: and she has a shedload of enemies ... [BTL on that link]

Explanatory note to the previous post

2026-04-17T08:42:00.002+01:00

Hi C@W readers - you'll may have tried to open the previous post and found a warning, courtesy of our kindly blog platform hosts. It's safe to click through - we're not advertising anything lewd!

But some bot, somewhere, has auto-identified the topic as worthy of, err, deflecting readership away from. The warning came up about 60 seconds after I posted.

If I find from the stats that nobody is reading the post, I'll experiment with a defused version of the title, to see if that gets it past the censors for wider access.

And later I may post on this whole episode!

Like Epstein, Mandygate never goes away ...

2026-04-17T08:33:00.001+01:00

And - will it be enough?

Interesting to see, in retrospect, just how craftily the earlier Starmer statement was drafted. Did lawyer Starmer - who must, surely, have been told how crucial it was to stick precisely to the script - not know why it was worded the way it was? Is that what we're to believe? Well, flat denial is his only option; so flat denial it must be.

My immediate thought is: how does this play for La Romeo?[2] Is it the making of her, because [perhaps] she wasn't involved when Fondlebum was set on - but now knows exactly where those bodies are buried? You can just hear her opening words in that panicky all-hands meeting:

"Now listen: before we can figure a way out of this, you all need to tell me exactly what happened. All of it. Everything!"

______________________

[1] Hats off to the Guardian, BTW: they've put themselves into the nuclear fallout zone. Their source must be truly excellent, hoho.

[2] I say this because she may well be the last person standing after this is finished. Even then, she's not in the clear: evidently there's that heavy-duty Deep Throat operator somewhere in Whitehall, for the Guardian to get this leak: and she has a shedload of enemies ... [BTL on that link]

Starmer is getting cocky

2026-04-13T22:14:00.003+01:00

A while back I suggested Team Starmer had decided to tough it out: and I'm now utterly convinced of it. Among several straws in the wind is a flying wooden beam: he's boasting about taking us back into the single market by stealth! This is not a man who reckons he's done for at the end of May: quite the opposite, he visibly exudes the same kind of calm faux-authority over the heads of his pygmy-challengers that he did back in 2020, when he was obviously going to win the Labour leadership 'race'. [1]

Given the fallout amongst the ranks of his former advisers, we must presumably look to Miliband for Team Starmer's current level of brazen confidence; some kind of bargain that runs: you do what I tell you, and if you're still here in June - which you will be - you'll make me Chancellor. [2] Ominously, Miliband knows exactly what he'd like to do with the role.

It doesn't hurt that, even in the midst of endless and ongoing tactical miss-steps[3], Team Starmer have lighted upon a phrase to use in connection with Iran, which they clearly the believe to be highly felicitous: I won't be dragged into this war!

The bottom line is: he currently looks confident, which is 90% of the battle when it's just 330-odd fractious and frightened parliamentary sheep you need to get in line - with the Streetings and Rayners of this world left looking pretty sheep-ish themselves. Yep, Team Starmer have convinced themselves they are going to see the post-May period out, and in some comfort.

And those May elections? Is Reform really going to sweep the board, as sone thought inevitable not so many weeks ago? Well, maybe, but I doubt it. In my manor, they are a complete rabble, feuding like crazy amongst themselves. If by some strange twist of the electoral arithmetic they were to get the mayoralty and/or the council, they'd not have a clue what to do with it: and in the meltdown-process of colourful infighting and manifest incompetence thereafter, they would lose any hope of a decent result come the next GE. Is this representative of Reform across the country as a whole? I'm guessing so.

One might imagine that Greens, equally full of chancers and losers, are just that little bit less likely to blow things completely by way of fratricide in any council where they get power in May. We haven't had Peak Green yet; though I'll hazard a guess we've had Peak Reform. Meanwhile, Starmer struts confidently around his confected B-list gigs here and around the world, and the media portray him in exactly the way Team Starmer have scripted for them. His nerve, his brazen shamelessness, is holding.

__________________

[1] Who remembers Long-Bailey or Nandy now?

[2] Though I still maintain that, the longer he hangs in there, Miliband stands a chance of the leadership for himself

[3] E.g.

"You can't use our bases ...
... oh, actually, yes you can"
Chagos
HMS Dragon
RFA Lyme Bay
"I need to talk to my team"

... etc etc - and that's just the last few weeks. Then there was Mandelson, the by-election, ...

Asymmetric warfare: another mighty US fail

2026-04-10T09:40:00.001+01:00

In keeping with our readiness to slate pathetic Russian military & strategic performance in Ukraine, once again we must even-handedly slate the current US debacle.

Which started (as is widely commented) with a complete absence of anything that could honestly be described as a strategy - just large-scale deployment of powerful forces that may fairly be described as tactically accomplished. But (as, again, we all know) tactics without strategy is just empty waste of effort - and life.

And materiel! I'm not going to open a laundry list here, but take it from me, US losses of important kit have been very significant, betraying a complete and utter failure of US doctrinal development for the drone era.

By stark contrast, Iran has clearly been developing - and executing - very appropriate plans for making the very best of its conventionally much, much weaker hand. It's as impressive in its own way as Ukraine's efforts (- with equivalent lack of guarantees of ultimate success).

We may only hope that the risible, contemptuous (and contemptible) triumphalism of Hegseth & Trump doesn't prevent the US military & strategic community from quietly learning lessons seriously, thinking very hard, and doing the right things, urgently and in depth. Sadly, we know from the ridiculous UK aircraft carrier debacle (thanks, Gordon), when you've been set on to spend all your money on crazy WW2-type projects like that, and the new 'Trump Class Battleships", such mega-distractions seriously weigh on the ability to do anything else.

On the plus side: we do know that Ukraine has comprehensively figured out this very traditional asymmetric warfare problem, both in theory and in deeply impressive practice: Taiwan may yet have time (though not much) to do likewise: and even the UK + Europe might be positioned to do something intelligent.

But will we? One unhappy perspective on this might be that Miliband's (and other nations') NZ obsession is the new national distraction that hinders our efforts. Not a lot of time for this to be set on track. As Russian subs patrol our cables, pipelines and offshore energy facilities, the analogy with 1938 is very uncomfortable.

The subliminal impact of $4 gasoline

2026-04-07T16:07:00.005+01:00

As is well known, the USA as a nation is addicted to motoring. The "summer driving season" is a major phenomenon in the oil industry, when many Americans think nothing of driving thousands of vacation road-miles.

And various points along the price curve have mythical status. It used to be considered that "3 dollar gas" was something no President's reputation could survive: a simple metric for consumer inflation as it is felt in the pocketbook. More recently, "3 dollar gas" has become a semi-ironic [1] nostalgic look into the rear-view mirror: hey Bud, remember when we used to worry about $3?! [2]

But $4 is now a reality. I suspect that simple number alone could be a subliminal factor in dishing Trump amongst his regular base of support.

________________

[1] To the extent Americans do irony

[2] To be fair, it was known to hit $6 - in California. But that state, like NYC, is often thought of as not really America.

AI: crashing and burning foreseen, in plain view

2026-04-01T16:58:00.004+01:00

Munching our popcorn (while we still have fuel to heat it up) & waiting for Trump to crash and burn ...

We've discussed before the AI bubble, its seemingly inevitable forthcoming bursting, and the system-crashing potential it might hold. Well here's something to give anyone pause:

Source: CHARTR / date from Bloomberg

It's pretty remarkable to me that Uber needed such a long runway - surely its only major assets are software? Tesla looks pretty outstanding value & commercial discipline[1] by comparison - and Musk was shooting for the moon, with serious hardware involved, as well as software.

But why am I gazing at the foothills? Because then we step back and look at the mammoth on the mountain, and - wow! What type of revenues do they "forecast" - and persuade investors of - to make that even vaguely sane? And OpenAI isn't alone out there. What kind of economy can afford their products on the necessary scale?

Sometimes you have to look at something - a bullion price spike, a US president - and just tell yourself the obvious conclusion is the correct one. That Is Insane.

And the US economy[2] has been wagered on this? Hello China - the rest of the century belongs to you.

PS: for something more edifying on AI, try this:

__________________

[1] One would need to interrogate that tapering-off of the black bars: was it Tesla that bought X? Had greenie car buyers lost faith in Musk even before 2025 and his rogue DOGE behaviour?

[2] And I'm the one that has said, many times: in the long run, never bet against the US economy ...

Who said this ..? Weekend reading

2026-03-28T12:48:00.003+00:00

Two quotations for you, long and short. Who said these things?

1. ... a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions, and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other out of existence. We don’t want that.... The gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities. Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves, the people that are right here, the people that have lived here all their lives - developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies in your own way ... the so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves. They told you how to do it, but they had no idea how to do it themselves ... it’s something only you could do.

2. Despite employing some of the best and brightest analysts in the world, the advice given by the US State Department over the last fifty years could comfortably have been outperformed by a parrot that had been trained to repeat the phrase 'Don't start a war'.

The first, of course, is Trump. One could give many more quotations from that speech: "my greatest hope is to be a peacemaker and to be a unifier. I don’t like war / my greatest hope is to be a peacemaker and a unifier / far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it’s our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use US policy to dispense justice for their sins" etc etc, and feel like applauding it.

Ho hum. Trump talks a lot, and even the scripted speeches like the one above incorporate the usual mendacious, vainglorious narcissism which makes one glad one isn't a US military cadet, forced to listen to him and realise he's the Commander in Chief. Here are a couple, if you have the time: the first, from May last year, is actually the source of 1. above but this other, from November, is truly embarrassing and has virtually no redeeming features whatever. The judgmental decline had really set in by then, and it's only linked to here by way of illustration of how bad things are.

Yes, the prescient parrot of quote #2 has been well and truly stuffed. (It's from a writer called Dan Davies in The Unaccountability Machine.)

Negotiating with Iran? Waters always muddy there

2026-03-24T14:04:00.000+00:00

So are there any substantive negotiations taking place, as Trump avers? Or "talks"? Or even "talks about talks"? Well something, probably: but there's very good reason to be genuinely confused rather than just plain disbelieving.

Here's a first-hand story.

Back in the mists of time, when dinosaurs (Saddam, Khomeini etc) roamed the earth, I was working for a US oil company. Then, as now, there was an American embargo on selling stuff to Iran; but the Iranians needed specialised oil products that they were unable - strange though this may sound - to produce locally themselves: and somehow we had State Department approval to sell it to them. But it had to be done very discreetly.

Negotiations commenced, in London and Hamburg, with no American staff members involved. There were several difficult issues to resolve, so it wasn't a simple horse-trade on price; and the whole thing was quite drawn-out. We had an OK working relationship with our Iranian opposite numbers.

Then one day another Iranian turned up unannounced at our London offices and sought a meeting: he knew all our names & telephone extensions. We hastily convened, and he laid out on the table all the paperwork relating to the deal, announcing that we would be dealing with him from now on. Being somewhat taken aback, we were entirely non-committal and progressed nothing beyond making a few notes. Upon his departure we called our previous contacts, who told us to have nothing to do with this individual, and that the whole episode was "a mistake" and should be forgotten.

We could only conclude there were competing middle-men in play and that in this murky world, copies of the paperwork could be procured for a price. The complicated deal eventually came to completion after several more weeks.

But not without another remarkable episode. With a particularly knotty issue being thrashed out, one of our interlocutors suddenly leaned forward and said in agitated tones: you must concede this point to me, otherwise my family will be arrested!

I have been in many a difficult & protracted negotiation, including with Russians and Chinese counterparties. But this is not a gambit I have met, before or since. I have to tell you that we politely ignored his personal anxieties (genuine or otherwise) and proceeded with getting to the ultimate handshake by more conventional horse-trading.

Yes, customs & practices in that part of the world are, well, a bit different (I could tell you other stories about dealing with Arab counterparties - and Russians** & Chinese, too.) For all his vaunted "New York real-estate expertise" Steve Witless-Dummkopf doesn't look to me like the kind of person who'd be much good at figuring out what's really going on. Heaven help us all.

_________________

** The critical trap with Russians is their readiness to fall silent in meetings for very sustained periods of time - the record in my experience was something like 45-50 minutes: a tactic designed to make the other side's nerve crack & offer just any concession they can think of to break the apparently awful deadlock. Well, if that's all you are made of, it'll work every time. But 'silence implies nothing' is the operative axiom. Oh, and never get stuck with a firm homebound airline booking (which most people do, just to get out of the miserable surroundings). They'll back you up against it every time.

TACO Trump signals he's had enough

2026-03-23T14:48:00.000+00:00

Such has been the volatility of events in the Gulf, commentators have had very little of substance to offer beyond the macro comments that Trump has been dancing to Netanyahu's tune, that the mullahs' regime has a lot of intrinsic resilience & indeed strength in many dimension, and that the Gulf states need to come up with a new business plan. OK, we can all conjure up lurid worst-case scenarios. But what does it mean for mortgages and prices at the pump? Etc etc.

This uncertainty manifests itself in endless commentariat hedging (e.g. HMG, BBC) but also in outright hysteria. The very dubious Fatih Birol of the IEA has delivered himself of the view that the current situation is like the first two oil crises (1973-4 & 1979) plus 2022, all rolled up into one. Well, no, it isn't - yet. Like, not even remotely. I worry when people like him have influence on world affairs (if indeed he does).

Back, then, to Trumpety-Trump. His demeaning and very public flailing and railing over the past week clearly signals he doesn't like how things have turned out, one little bit. (Why wasn't I told Iran wasn't like Venezuela?) So now we know that a combination of negative market sentiment and negative MAGA sentiment marks the limits of his manic confidence. That's a comfortably low threshold for him recognising a need to sober up. One might have feared his personal pride, running up against the brick wall of Iranian intransigence, would result in a ratchet effect all the way up to a small nuke. We need our leaders to have some kind of restraints.

On the downside (and speaking of small nukes), we're left with the enduring problem of Netanyahu, who might very well find himself owning the broken vase in a short while from now. Now there's a man who doesn't sober up just because the Dow Jones slips a few points and the neighbours are banging on the walls.

On the plus, we have a lot more realistic input on the thorny issue of what air defence needs to look like in the late 2020's, coupled with a pressing need for the west's armaments industry to gear up for several years of serious production. We might also escape the nightmare of Iran becoming a failed state, which would make the Syrian and Afghan exodus of the last decade look like a picnic outing.

What it all means for NATO / Cuba / the mid-terms / Taiwan / Russia-Ukraine / Starmer etc etc etc ... time will tell.

Finally, it seems Trump won't be going on the planned trip to Beijing in the immediate future. Given that in all probability he'd have been induced to give away more of the family silver to the Chinese, that's a good thing. Let's hope he never goes there again.

Assisted dying

2026-03-18T12:15:00.002+00:00

A really difficult issue this, touching on the deepest aspects of what it is to be human. I certainly don't want to go out screaming or panicking, but I'm not at all sure that's where we are right now in most cases. Let me explain.

I have been present at the deaths of all four of mine and Mrs D's parents. One of them (at 88) was completely out of it already. Of the others, all in their 90s, two positively wanted to go and the third was taciturn on the subject, but didn't seem overly fretful. All were quite ill.

Here's the thing. At the end, they all went "peacefully" with a legful of morphine (in case you don't know, UK "palliative care" includes having a morphine-cocktail[1] pump strapped to your thigh) - administered by a senior nursing Sister and, (since the pump is authorised by a doctor) evidently approved a few days earlier by a doctor.

These four were in three different establishments: two hospitals and a nursing home (private, but which is qualified to administer end-of-life treatment in house[2]). It was, quite obviously, the standard procedure, or "pathway" as everything in the NHS is termed these days. I don't know if it's universal across the whole service.

This seems to me to be humane, and pretty satisfactory for very many circumstances. I might even say: that's how I want to go. It almost seems like the old system of legend, where at some point a doctor would "take a view" and quietly do whatever he did.

What would happen, though, if it all becomes formalised - two doctors, a panel, lawyers or whatever? You might argue that formality is necessary for cases where people are not already on their deathbeds, but are Definitely Doomed under whatever are the definitions of an assisted dying law (MND and other ghastly cases); and declare that Now is the Time. But what about the poor old person who at present can be eased out humanely at the end by Sister, as in my family's experiences, and for whom a big loop through paperwork and multiple sign-offs is not going to be remotely possible? Will the duty doctor be obliged to refuse the morphine because it's just not allowed any more?

I haven't listened to the Parliamentary proceedings: but does anyone in debate dare to mention the rather satisfactory (IMHO) status quo? None of us fancy MND - but which of us wants to be deprived of the morphine at the end?

All very difficult. What do we realistic grown-ups think?

UPDATE I forgot to add: the morphine pump is an 'and/or' with that other traditional expedient - allowing pneumonia to set in ("the old man's friend"), which is well-nigh inevitable when the antibiotics are withheld from a very sick / old person. I am never clear whether this badly distorts reported health statistics, if some vast proportion of deaths are attributed to pneumonia. Do they in practice just always read past the first line of the list of 'causes' on the certificate, and focus the top one of the co-morbidities listed below?

________________

[1] There's more than just morphine involved: there is tranquiliser, plus choking and vomiting suppressants.

[2] Which is why one of my Aged Ps chose that particular home, having had their fill of NHS corridors.

Borthwick in ... France, this time

2026-03-13T15:01:00.000+00:00

There's only one way for England to play in Paris this weekend - like the Barbarians. A few beers the night before, and lots afterwards.

Trump screws up as bigly as Putin

2026-03-12T08:15:00.003+00:00

From the outset of Putin's crassly conceived invasion of Ukraine, this blog has consistently criticised the sheer military and strategic incompetence of it. We can hardly forbear to do the same for Trump.

The Donald's theory of victory appears to be this:

prolonged, well-telegraphed buildup of forces
decapitate[1] the leadership
tell Iran to install new leader acceptable to Trump
new leader to hand over lots of oil via some splendid "deal"
walk away after a couple of weeks, handsomely in profit
not crow too openly about having tweaked Xi's nose
approach the mid-term elections as the Man Who Brought The Mullahs To Heel

In short, the 'Venezuela' gambit, attempted on a country that only a complete moron would mistake for Venezuela[2]. Another lightning "deal": it's the only trick he knows. Not a breath of strategy worthy of the name. Not a braincell in evidence. Tariffs all over again, with actual explosions.

We needn't dwell on how the reality is best described as Netanyahu coopting[3] the military might of the USA to make real Bibi's longstanding wet dream: it's how the whole world openly discusses it including, belatedly, 99% of the American public, which until now had been either (a) hoping Trump might somehow work out for the best (Maga Republicans) or (b) not daring to oppose Trump openly, for fear of some vaguely defined domestic retribution (Democrats plus liberal elites of all colours[4]).

If you want to lose sleep seriously this weekend, have a read of this. Small-boat crossings on the increase? We haven't seen a tenth of it.

_____________

[1] Well, tag along with Netanyahu's decapitation plan & pretend to be in control - read this, too.

[2] Funnily enough, the Venezuela gambit was working quite well, and Cuba was being lined up for a "quick deal" too, which could have played very nicely for the mid-terms[5]. Not any more.

[3] Did I say "coopting"? How about "hijacking and expending"? All Hesgeth's blather about "effectively unlimited magazine depth" was always, even a week ago, absolute nonsense. Stocks are already being drawn down from US forces in S.Korea. Taiwan looks increasingly like a lost cause, and S.Korea will presumably be readying its own nuclear programme. Indeed, probably the only reason L'il Kim doesn't chance his arm right now is the recognition that DJT is capable of anything.

[4] It was really noticeable how The US Establishment (media, judiciary, academia, NGOs, think tanks, institutes etc - even those that are essentially on the right) - initially went completely silent after November '24, and withheld much-needed criticism all through last year. Presumably they all feared for their funding (or worse) - and rightly so in many cases. That winter of silence has been thawing of late.

[5] The Dems had better not be complacent in their approach to the mid-terms: conventional wisdom of the "don't worry, it'll all be over soon" kind has been the downfall of many a lazy politician. The whole of the British left thought that about Thatcher in 1981. And we must be very cautious before assuming the US military will "refuse to obey illegal orders", as some spineless Dems have been urging.

Steve Borthwick in Italy

2026-03-07T10:35:00.004+00:00

He won't thank me for recalling this, but Steve Borthwick's past dealings in Italy do not encourage optimism for this afternoon. In his (brief) period as England captain many years ago, his team performed miserably in Rome, ekeing out a slender win against an Italian side a lot less impressive than today's. But in a deeply unconvincing post-match interview he lavished praise on England's "great performance".

He was shown the door shortly after, by Martin Johnson (IIRC), a man who knew what a great performance was.

I've never been convinced by Borthwick, his "technical knowledge" and that winning season at Leicester notwithstanding. This afternoon looks ominously like Italy's great chance to register their first ever Victory against England.

Iran, and two men's revealing speeches

2026-03-05T09:24:00.000+00:00

First, the utterly unspeakable Hesgeth, who should by rights be languishing in a gaol somewhere for his outrageous breach of security in running that insecure and actually compromised Signal chat last summer. There he is, mouthing off in ways scarcely befitting an unrestrained junior under-boss of a New York crime family, just before the capo decided he's heard enough ill-judged, unseemly braggadocio. (The Mafia idiom comes readily to mind in so many of Team Trump's doings.) And the empty boasting about the "effectively unlimited" magazine depth of US forces - it's clearly untrue, and who thinks it's clever? Xi will be at risk of splitting his sides.

Then, there's Starmer's performance when announcing that Trump may use UK bases "for strictly defensive strikes". Just look at the body language, from a man who, like a real political pro, can normally hold it together quite well when he's delivering absolute, calculating lies. His voice was shaky; he looked ill with worry; he wouldn't take questions. A shockingly unconvincing performance, in logic and delivery.

The sequence of events for this hollow man is obvious:

Lose by-election due to Moslem vote going Green
Half a dozen Cabinet ministers see their futures dwindling
Hasty strategy meeting (i): must start heavy-duty pandering to 'the community'
Trump off on another rogue mission of Netanyahu's devising, wants to rope in the UK: no! Channel Harold Wilson / Vietnam! Make it clear we're on the side of (peaceful) Moslems!
Trump lets it be known bigly that this is the Wrong Answer: reminds Starmer the RAF is already heavily engaged in the region; and that he'll do whatever he pleases anyway; but that "disloyal optics" are not permitted
Hasty strategy meeting (ii): "jolly helpful" that an itty bitty Shahed has landed somewhere in the Akrotiri region, and that RAF is been providing top-cover for Jordan (& Turkey?) anyway. Defensive defensive defensive! New statement. Grip podium. Square circle. Pander to both sides - & try to be convincing. Come on man, you can do it!

Then, hasty strategy meeting (iii). Ramp up on those other pandering-plans. Where are we with the new Blasphemy law? Hurry that up. And are we doing enough "blend and extend" to ensure the Grooming Gangs inquiry focuses on London, and child abuse in general? We need to do more: get Khan on the phone again, and those Anti Social Media campaigners.

Gah. It's so transparent. But, I tell you - he intends to tough it all out.

A great weekend for this p***k to resign quietly

2026-03-02T10:30:00.003+00:00

On any other news day, this would have been another nail in Starmer's coffin. That Special Relationship, eh?

By their friends shall ye know them

All in all, Starmer will be pretty pleased not to have been the wall-to-wall weekend headlines. Heavy price for the Middle East to pay, though, just to spare these b******s blushes.

By-election BS: open thread

2026-02-27T09:01:00.000+00:00

The 'first draft of history' on this one is quite difficult to essay: the number of variables in play has been quite remarkable, and continues in the same manner. 4-D chess? Try 5 or 6. The consequences for Labour, in particular, are complex and highly contingent on many things. (Could have been even more amusing if Your Party had been at the races - and in future it might just be.)

But we'll all have some early thoughts. Here are a couple of mine:

WTF was Reform doing, fielding a prize prat like Goodwin? Just about the worst candidate imaginable for fighting a working-class / Muslim seat. And Farage a man with his finger on the pulse? I have heard only two 'excuses': (1) this was always a big stretch for Reform - something like no. 440 on their list of potential targets, IIRC; (2) "Farage wanted to slap down a potential leadership rival" (yes, I've seen that surmised on the airwaves - but possibly a hypothesis born of the same bewilderment as my own).
Obviously this is a Big Test for them / him, but right now I'd say Team Starmer is determined to tough it out. (No guarantee of success, of course.)
Polanski will now be striving to get his lovable piss-artist act together properly - which may in turn piss off some of his "support" as he seeks to ditch the "our policy is dictated by Conference and the leadership is only allowed to parrot it" doctrine of the Greens: which can't possibly survive if he's to capitalise on this.

I could go on ... but I said I wouldn't - so over to t'readership.

Mandelson: a nation rejoices

2026-02-24T10:14:00.004+00:00

Was there a home or a hostelry in the land where a cheer didn't go up when the news broke?

Not knowing precisely what the law is as regards publicly discussing live (potentially) criminal cases, I'll settle for a few random, unworthy observations.

Gotta love the way Gordon Brown solemnly offered PC Plod his forensic account of how outrageously Mandelson betrayed him - sorry, betrayed the Nation - when in office just before and after the 2010 GE. Hell hath no fury ... and it's never difficult to tell the difference between a dour Scotsman and a ray of sunshine. Etc
Also enjoyed seeing Mandy crammed into the back seat of ... a Ford Focus! Of all cars. With three other coppers. He won't have sat in a seat as lowly as that for the best part of 40 years!
Channel 4's "sources close to Mandelson" said that when Andy was arrested but not him, he reckoned the storm had passed. Well, that's Mandy - always aggressive, shameless optimism in public, as we've said here before. But - how much sleep did Mandy get, do we think, after Andy was arrested?
Nobody has much scrupled to disguise the exact location of his "Camden" house (= Regents Park). Nice house!

The show rumbles on. Brightens up a damp February.

UPDATE - now being reported that at 4am this morning, just a short while after PC Plod let him go home, Mandy started briefing against the Met Police! The modus operandi never changes - take the initiative, brief, spin, attack attack attack !

Crossing Putin's Red Lines

2026-02-23T08:00:00.002+00:00

It's an observation often made, here and elsewhere, that the Ukraine-supporting West (as well as Ukraine itself) has many times crossed a large number of Putin's soi-dissant 'Red Lines' [1] since he mounted his inept, failed full-scale invasion of that country exactly four years ago tomorrow. Before and during this string of Putin-prodding acts of lèse-majesté, there was a head of steam building up among the weaker hands that he would respond with nuclear retaliation. Well, he never has - despite waving his wiener in that direction very demonstratively, several times.[2]

Well now. Last week, Ukraine's extremely effective campaign of deep strikes - sometimes very deep - into Mother Russia itself moved into new territory. In the past they've blown up entire ammunition depots (with explosions registering on earthquake detectors); seriously incommoded the Bear's very large petrochemical industry; and made some telling attacks on selected hi-tech armaments manufactories. Not to mention the astounding Operation Spiderweb. Oh, and very probably a handful of assassinations in Moscow.

But last week they excelled themselves:

... a FP-5 Flamingo missile strike against the Russian state-owned Votkinsk Machine Building Plant in Votkinsk, Udmurtia Republic (roughly 1230 kilometers from the international border). The Ukrainian General Staff reported that the Votkinsk Plant produces Yars-series intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), submarine-launched Bulava ballistic missiles (SLBM), 9M723-1 type Iskander-M ballistic missiles, and 9-S-7760 Kinzhal aeroballistic missiles. Russian opposition outlet Astra and a Ukrainian open-source intelligence project reported that the plant also produces Topol-M missile systems and Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM). Geolocated footage published on February 20 shows smoke rising from the Votkinsk Plant. Udmurtia Republic Governor Aleksandr Brechalov acknowledged that Ukrainian drones struck and damaged an unspecified facility in Udmurtia.

Here's the thing: as part of the sabre-rattling, a couple of years ago Putin updated his public policy on use of nuclear weapons, in a manner designed to convince the West that the threshold for a Russian nuclear response is now quite a bit lower. The new doctrine states that the use of nuclear weapons is possible in the event of the disabling of critical nuclear facilities, or massive attacks that pose such a threat.

So how does he classify last week's attack? If he was looking for an excuse to go nuclear - in the middle of the current "trilateral negotiations" - it rather looks as though he might find one.

I say this simply as an observation. Let's see if we all have further 'observations' in the course of the next days and weeks.

________________

[1] Too many to list them all, but here are some (NOT including the demands that NATO withdraw from the 'new member states' etc etc made before the invasion):

No Western arms of any kind to be supplied
No MiG 29s from former E.Bloc countries
No former USSR tanks ditto
No weapons whatsoever from Germany
No HIMARs
No Patriot missiles
No Storm Shadows
No Western tanks
No F-16s
No strikes inside Russia
No Ukrainian counter-offensives into territory already captured

He probably would have included "no 6-month incursions into Kursk" - if he'd imagined for one instant that the Ukrainians were capable of it. (Or given reliable reports by his ever-mendacious military.)

[2] Of course, Xi has told him to wind his nuclear neck in - an injunction that is probably still in force.

Does. Starmer. Never. Learn. Anything?

2026-02-20T10:01:00.000+00:00

How would anyone summarise Starmer's most recent month's worth of self-inflicted misery? Easy: he is accused of severe, sustained failure of judgement on personnel matters - in the face of prior knowledge and warnings. Oh, and of course disowning responsibility afterwards. No internalised ethics adviser inside that Max Headroom skull; and no internalised HR adviser either.

So, when needing a new Cabinet Secretary (and how did that requirement come about, pray ..?) what does he do but pick someone with a track record of bullying accusations[1]. FFS, why? OK, the Labour wimmin have been braying about the need to break up his "boys' club", but (a) so what? (b) Sue Gray, anyone?

Meanwhile, someone on Team Starmer is continuing the "good work"[2] with daily injections of supposedly ultra-pop, and/or left-pleasing "initiatives" - i.e. belligerent statements of empty intent - for Starmer to deliver as a mighty smokescreen for the non-stop string of genuinely damaging cock-ups. It's not a prime-ministerial look: and it ain't working.

Here's a simple prediction: the meejah has got it in for him to the extent that an editorial edict of "find a story that brings him down" has replaced "stay onside with Team Starmer no matter what" as a standing headline of the newsroom's Orders of the Day. They'll be doing whatever it takes to find stuff on the Romeo woman, too - given that there are evidently skeletons in her closet. There'll always be a disgruntled / slighted / insulted / sidelined / bitter ex-colleague out there.

A race, then, between which of them is turfed out first. Popcorn supplies are running low.

_______________

[1] Let nobody fall for "there was one complaint (a long time ago in a galaxy far away) ... but no case to answer".

[2] Of course, it may be that McSweeney is still having his instructions chanelled into TS from wherever he's skulking. Mandy's too - even if from one of Deripaska's yachts. Well, why not? They are trusted advisers, no?

When does the AI bubble burst - and what then?

2026-02-14T10:48:00.005+00:00

That AI is currently inflating a mighty economic bubble is a commonplace observation. A vast proportion of US economic growth (as conventionally measured) and stock market value is related to AI. Every damned company on the planet is trying to portray itself as somehow AI-contributing or AI-powered - and they are frequently getting a gratifying share-price kicker from it[1]. Presumably, the pension industry is pretty addicted by now.

In the real world, the vast and (we are told) exponentially-growing demand for electricity - 100% secure baseload electricity to boot - made by data centres is seriously distorting electric power-system planning for many a nation. Coming atop the average grid's already torturing itself - and its hapless bill-payers - to accommodate the diametrically opposed demands of a decentralised renewables-based future, this is a serious spanner in the works. And of course governments everywhere are anxious to play host to new data centres, Starmer's as much as any; and are making this a policy priority. But the (would-be) data centre builders have twigged that these contortions on the part of conventional grid operators may very probably not prove successful - and thus are talking about joint ventures with nuclear generators and ... sponsoring nuclear fusion development! [2] Yup, it's a completely irrational bubble.

But what does that tell us about AI itself? Not much, beyond the obvious fact that it has gripped the universal imagination to the extent that dollar signs rotate in every businessman's eyeballs.

Well. Railways had a mania, and many a railway company went bust. The technology and much of the infrastructure they built is still evolving and very much in use. We had a dotcom bubble. It burst, alright, but it didn't mean the internet was a phantasm. Enron was a bubble: but it didn't mean the Enron vision for how energy markets should be configured was wrong. (Even China is trying to figure out how to bring that revolution into its own constipated energy sector.) Etc etc - these techie-based phenomena are not like Dutch tulip mania: nobody needs tulips, but everyone needs railways / electricity / the www / .... and, probably, we'll continue to want and need the advances that are made under the banner of 'AI'.

So: if history is any guide, it'll be a painful financial collapse; a reshuffle of the runners and riders in the "AI industry" (for those who don't break a leg & are not shot by the vet); and the underlying new tech rumbles on to find a more stable way to become a permanent fixture in all our economies and our ways of life.

Views? Predictions? Timing ..?

UPDATE: a bucket of cold water over certain claims for AI:

________________

[1] Even Drax, FFS - a floundering, downsizing biomass-burning power company.

[2] On the eve of the 2007-09 financial crisis, a high-end energy-specialist VC firm of my acquaintance was looking for opportunities to invest in unsubsidised nuclear powerplant development. When money is aimlessly sloshing about on that scale, that's when you really know a financial crash is coming soon.

Mandelson, document-release ... and Polly Toynbee

2026-02-06T22:26:00.003+00:00

So what to make of the latest state of play over Mandy?

I'd say it's really clear: Team Starmer is utterly determined to tough this out, and they reckon they can do it: their man is no conscience-stricken wimp, likely to flake on them one fine morning. Grim determination is no guarantee of success, of course: but (a) it is at least a necessary condition of success; and (b) these are scheming, desperate people with a lot of levers available to them.

> the way things developed in Parliament on Wednesday shows that Team S's going-in point was to resist document disclosure, period. They were thwarted procedurally by the unholy alliance of Badenoch + Rayner, but we know what is plainly their aim: not to release docs.

> they are 'framing' like crazy to the media, and it still largely gets swallowed whole. As well as "It's all about Mandelson's lies - to my staff (not me, of course)" and "I wanted to release the docs yesterday" (see previous post), we read:

"There will be no leadership challenge, because ... [Rayner = tax dodger, still under investigation // Burnham = disqualified // Streeting = Mandelson-best-buddy // etc]."

"PC Plod has a serious point about not prejudicing their investigation / potential charges being brought."

"So-oo many docs - this is going to take months and months."

Etc etc. Yup, they are going for that oldest, most intellectually dismal, most sordidly shameless tactic of all: playing for time - and it's often successful. Let me give you a recent parallel: a case I have been reading up lately from my own patch (energy). A big corporate - Drax plc - had a run-in with an employee-whistleblower whom Drax fired, and who brought an employment case, early in March last year. Halfway through the unusually lengthy Employment Tribunal, they settled: by all accounts it amounted to a capitulation by Drax. Meejah organisations sought release of the court documents - which, had the case continued, they'd have had access to, it was a public hearing. Drax has stonewalled for nearly eleven months, only finally releasing the docs under a court order at the end of Jan. And even now, the docs are (a) not the complete set, and (b) in some cases, heavily redacted (on the usual grounds: "commercial sensitivity / privacy / yadder yadder"). In which time Drax has managed to secure 4 more years of juicy new subsidy, and a 40% increase in its share price, from which many execs will benefit materially, in cash.

If a corporation can behave like that, how much more easily can HMG, with all the resources of the State and the added killer pretext of "national security" (see below)? My prediction: we ain't gonna get anything much before those May elections - and we'll never get anything they truly don't want us to see.

Which brings us to La Toynbee, whose general run of risible Guardian offerings is occasionally but reliably punctuated with something half-worthwhile. Here's her latest. You need to look past the usual fatuous fawning - the idea that Starmer is "a decent PM" (she once idolised Gordon Brown, too - and Tony Blair before him) to get to the blunt & forthright expression of utter disgust at the "send-him-to-the-Tower treachery and treason". And here's a little nugget (my emphasis):

... he gave a wretched display of it in the Commons with a fatal attempt to hold back some vital documents on Mandelson’s vetting and appointment. Never mind that it was for sincere security reasons – mainly fear of what abuse of the US president the papers might contain – Starmer failed to measure the ferocity of the storm on his own benches

That Trump angle - another subtle bit of Team Starmer framing? Well, maybe: but it's a neat idea I hadn't seen aired elsewhere.

My prediction stands: many months of Strategic Starmer Stonewalling to come. Don't change your New Year predictions for 'name of PM on 24.12.2026' just yet awhile. Meantime - more popcorn!

UPDATE: her Gruaniad colleague Aditya Chakrabortty slaps down La Toynbee's characterisation of Starmer as a 'decent PM'.

The refrain that Starmer is a “decent” man does not fit his record of deceiving his way to the top of the Labour party, sitting on his hands during the massacre in Gaza or clamping down on protest against it.

Oh, those feuding Graun writers !

We know the Mandelson "vetting" was a stitch-up

2026-02-05T19:37:00.007+00:00

As ever, Starmer had a carefully crafted speech for deployment on Thursday. He vehemently - very vehemently - wants us to believe that whatever Parliament thought it had secured the day before, it's really all about a catalogue of "Mandelson's lies" which Starmer "had wanted to hand over yesterday" (if PC Plod hadn't told him not to hand them over; yeah, right). Nice try, Kier; but what your MPs actually want - and won't easily be deflected from - is what McSweeney's role in all this was, blow by, errr, blow.

And what McSweeney was up to is clear enough - orchestrating a sham of a vetting process. How do I know this? Because on top of outright secret sources (and who knows what they knew?), within the security services is an OSINT desk - open-source intelligence gathering. People whose job is to trawl everything available from open sources. And in this day and age of Bellingcat and the extraordinary online resources they've tapped into and made public, and when you have the resources of HMG, GCHQ etc at your disposal, OS is one helluva resource, properly marshalled. Be it immediately added that imposing QA on what is found online etc is a very significant analytic task, when all the OS stuff is assembled, tinfoil-hat dross / disinformation / Маскировка and all. But that's not the point in this case. What can be said for certain is that whatever was available in OS, worldwide, on Mandelson - and everybody knows that includes, e.g., the Deripaska affair - it was ready to hand within Whitehall. And cumulatively, it was all anybody needed to know to conclude he was a non-starter for Ambassador by any rational criteria.

Ready to hand - but seemingly not deployed. In other words - and let's charitably dump this all on the convenient fall-guy - McS ran a sham exercise in which Mandelson was invited to tell whatever lies he liked; and he was then taken at his word, without the security services being tasked to give it the old red-ink marginal annotation routine. Because if Mandelson had simply given them a big assemblage of lies, they could have demolished it, line by line.

The alternative explanations - that all his lies were indeed fisked, or even that he simply didn't lie at all - and still Starmer made the appointment, well, that would be even worse for Starmer. But since PC Plod is conveniently withholding the list of lies, we can only speculate...

Mandelson: endless, shameless optimism of self-promotion

2026-02-02T20:26:00.053+00:00

A few months ago we had cause to consider Mandy and his little ways. "Always plotting, always thinking creatively, always strategising" - even, or perhaps especially, when his back is against the wall [are we allowed to say that?]. Since then, he's been defenestrated from the Washington embassy and caught pissing up George Osborne's side street. But - the usual modus operandi - he waited for just a short time before he was back on manoeuvres. As Guido has documented, before the lame attempt to offer Trump-whispering advice in the Speccie, Mandy had been hawking himself around the meejah, and for some reason Laura Kuenssberg and her people decided to gratify him with a big set-piece Sunday interview. (Why??) Another carefully-crafted foray; and when he decided his week's work around SW1 hadn't quite had the desired effect, why then it was followed by another crafty tweaking of his tortuous, oblique "apology". And, as Private Eye noted, for the Mandy of 1998 it was Don't you dare say I'm a gay man! Now, it's Don't forget to say I'm a gay man!

Now here's the thing. These two big self-PR drives, separated by several months, have one significant factor in common (over and above his unvarying MO and the eternal willingness of the meejah to rise to his bait): on both occasions we may be sure he knew full well there was a barrow-load of shit coming his way. In such circumstances, maybe keep your head down? [are we allowed to say that?] No, not Mandy: all the instincts are still to get on the front foot and try to shape the agenda.

And what a barrow of ordure this one turns out to be! Has there been a bigger scandal since Profumo? As the hacks trawl the 3,000,000 new docs, more outrageous stuff turns up by the hour - and how much more might there yet be?

But, you know what? He'll stay down [are we ..?] for a bit: but somehow there will be a dream of redemption and another foray into the Westminster limelight. Maybe just a bit longer interval this time, though ...

James Allcock RIP, rogue [2]

2026-01-29T21:29:00.053+00:00

Continued from last week

So what disturbed Allcock's stately ~~scam~~ ship as it sailed serenely through the market? The first issue arose in the mid '80s when the laws of supply / demand / price caught up with him, as they always do eventually. You can suspend the laws of nature, but only for as long as you are willing to throw money at it.

What happened was this. He'd secured vast quantities of gas at ultra low prices (the units don't matter, but it was single-digit pence per therm) in the late '60s and early '70s - see part 1. This was amply sufficient, right through the 70's. But by the '80s there had been two oil crises, 1973 and 1979; and the price of oil had risen tenfold (sic). The prices BG was paying for its gas had jogged upwards a bit with inflation and other adjustments, but nothing on that scale. So the big producers, who were always oil companies au fond,[1] stopped drilling for gas, concentrating on the still bounteous North Sea oil reserves. There were whole years in the '80s where not a single gas well was drilled - not for exploration, nor even for extending already-producing gas fields. A complete gas-investment strike by the producers. BG did the sums, and correctly assessed they'd be facing a supply crisis in due course. And new gasfields took an absolute minimum of 2 years to bring onstream[2], often much longer if outright new exploration was to be involved.

Still, BG had a monopoly to go with its monopsony, and they knew who was going to pay for the business of digging them out of that hole - its captive customers! So Allcock did the rounds of the big producers, intimating that BG was now willing to pay prices above 20 p/th - a huge increase - for any new gas fields they could bring to the table in the next few years. This, of course, set off a new round of stately and highly enjoyable negotiations I described last time, as the producers dug down into the archives for overlooked gas discoveries, and indeed started drilling again for new resources. It worked: high prices have that effect. (I've written before about another, hilarious aspect of this episode as the crazy, artificial boom-and-bust cycle ran its inevitable course.) Thus did Allcock and his monopoly powers - a dismally blunt instrument indeed - avert the first storm that broke over his head.

The second, however, was to be terminal, albeit a protracted affair. On purely ideological grounds, Nigel Lawson persuaded Thatcher to privatise BG, a task given to Peter Walker. To make a long story short, in 1986 he succeeded in getting the public to buy the shares ("Tell Sid", for those with 40-year memories), and the legislation ended BG's de jure monopoly / monopsony. But it did nothing to eliminate or even, in the short- to medium-term undermine, its de facto stranglehold, not least because in the initial legislation, no regulator was appointed!

And it was Allcock who commanded BG's first and highly effective line of defence: making sure no other bugger could obtain gas with which to go into competition with the monopoly. In the next part we'll tell the story of his long, ruthless but ultimately unsuccessful rearguard action. And, no, I haven't forgotten the promised account of the colourful abuses of its monopoly that BG perpetrated over the years - some of which will feature in part 3 and others in a later episode.

______________________________

[1] Gas was always seen as a more-or-less unwanted by-product - something that came up from most oil-wells anyway, or something you discovered, disappointingly, when you'd really been looking for oil. In some places around the world, by-product gas was simply flared

[2] A lead time as short as 2 years would be for a geologically simple gas field in shallow waters, close to existing infrastructure, that had already been discovered but never developed because the price BG had been willing to pay was just too low - the producer had better uses for its development budget