Labour, “No Direction Home” 

 

“To be on your own, with no direction home” 

 

One hundred and twenty-six years ago, Labour was founded. Whilst the party’s primary goal was to get working-class representatives elected as MP’s, its raison d’etre was to combat industrial-era poverty, poor living conditions, and the political dominance of the employer, landed class. 

 

Their website still houses a “Legacy” section which talks about this… 

https://labour.org.uk/about-us/labours-legacy/ 

Today, that is little more than history. 

In February 2025, I penned a piece entitled “ Personality Crisis”, in which I question what and who Starmer stood for, writing: “He appears so confused by what he is and what he believes that becoming trans can’t be ruled out.” 

OK, perhaps I went a little overboard with trans, but…! 

This wasn’t the first time I had questioned his politics, in “Oh Dear”, I christened “light blue Kier, as it was increasingly clear that, after becoming leader on  “traditional Labour” promises, he was conveniently forgetting them. 

Today’s party is unrecognisable as Labour, and, as with all good plots, there is a power behind the throne. In this instance, it’s Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who, as former associate put it, “doesn’t have room for compromise with the hard left”, believing “they need to be eradicated from the party because they are so dangerous.”  

What Labour fail to understand is that many of the country’s problems stem for the Tory governments of 2010-2024, which is why voters turned away from them in such numbers. They voted for a change, not for more of the same, incompetence included. 

 

‘They voted for a change, not for more of the same, incompetence included’ 

 

Voter discontent with the unsatisfactory outcome will likely be expressed in the forthcoming Gorton and Denton byelection, where, last time out, Labour secured half the vote. 

A recent doorstep poll on 1899 voters undertaken by the Greens, shows Labour haemorrhaging support to Reform and the Greens.  Reform are currently ahead on 39%, followed by the Greens on 34%, with Labour languishing on 21%. 

The conclusion is inevitable; Labour’s left flank is mortally wounded. 

Starmer and McSweeney aren’t the originators of this Tory tribute act, it harks back to the 90s and New Labour. One of the instigators was Tony Blair, who made clear that his hostility to a more progressive agenda was principled, not simply tactical, saying: “I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.” 

Today, that mentality can be seen in their attitude to stopping migrants and refugees, anyone who does agree with them is dismissed as out of touch or contemptuous of ordinary voters. Alongside this, they refuse to countenance tax increases for the rich, reversing public ownership, and are happy to supply arms to Israel which, in-turn, enables their genocidal actions in Gaza.  

Another poll, this time by Persuasion highlights again how out-of-touch they are with voters; the poll found that 44% blamed “the rich and wealthy business elites and the politicians who let them get away with things” for Britain’s problems, compared with 38% who blamed “immigrants and asylum seekers and the politicians who let them into the country”. 

At this point, I will introduce the Mandelson scandal into the equation.  

Mandelson’s ultimate downfall (I am assuming even he can’t recover this time) was greed. He mixed with the uber-rich and wanted to become one of them, as he said: “I do not want to live by salary alone. That’s why I need to do as much as possible to build with JPM“.    

‘Mandelson’s ultimate downfall (I am assuming even he can’t recover this time) was greed’

 

Today’s Labour has strayed far away from its roots, the Starmer faction opposes the redistribution of  wealth and power. The party’s courtship of wealthy businesspeople, such as former Tory donor John Caudwell, who observed that Starmer had “taken all the left out of the Labour party” and replaced it with values “in complete alignment with my views as a commercial capitalist”. 

From Blair onwards, Labour ministers increasingly viewed politics as a springboard to lucrative careers in industries such as private healthcare or defence. 

As the party travels further right, it has started competing with Reform and the Tories over migrants. Whilst, most Starmerites are urban middle-class professionals who find such sentiments distasteful, they are realising that migrants are an easier target that the true villains such as bankers and CEOs. 

As a result, we are prioritising the introduction of one of Europe’s harshest asylum systems, attacking the benefits of the elderly and incapacitated. This is all disguised under the auspices of “priorities” and “tough decisions”. Government is about making tough decisions, and, whilst, there are always priorities, Labour’s have become self-serving, there to aid their progression after politics. 

In doing so, it has blinded itself to the harsh truths, preferring to pick on those denied a voice and unable to hit back, especially migrants. The cost of this foolishness, was highlighted this week in  research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (“NIESR”). 

Dr Benjamin Caswell, a senior economist at NIESR, said: “Net zero migration leaves the economy 3.6% smaller by 2040 and this reflects slower employment growth and a smaller workforce”. This would result in higher  taxes to combat an increased budget deficit. 

It also highlighted falling birthrates, which along with falling migration, would halt population growth growing at about 70 million in 2030. The latest official figures showed the UK population was 69.3 million in 2024. 

The thinktank said that initially real wages and disposable income would rise as firms would be forced to use more machinery and become more productive, with GDP per capita rising by 2% by 2040. However, these gains would come at the cost of weaker growth in the economy overall as a smaller and ageing population would lead to reduced tax revenues requiring greater government borrowing to bridge the gap on public spending. 

“Imagine it as like freezing the population where it is, and then just having a continually ageing population,” Caswell said. “In the short to medium term, it’s not too detrimental, but over 20 years this gap [in spending and receipts] becomes continually larger and larger.” 

The thinktank said the borrowing required to bridge this gap would cause the budget deficit to increase by about 0.8% of GDP, or £37bn, by 2040. N.B., this is  based on the assumption that government spending and tax rates up to 2030 follow the path estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility (“OBR”), and then the share of government spending as a ratio of GDP remains constant thereafter. 

Perhaps the question to ask is, who is driving policy decisions within government? Also, how much of this is driven by McSweeney? 

My own view is that, while McSweeney is his chief-of-staff, Starmer has little hope of success. Not only is McSweeney a closet-Tory, it’s likely he was driving force behind the appointment of Mandelson as ambassador to the US, as he was a former protege of Mandelson, with whom he consulted regularly before the election. 

 

‘while McSweeney is his chief-of-staff, Starmer has little hope of success’

 

Whilst I doubt that Starmer can survive this crisis of judgement, changing him will make little difference unless the closet-Tory cabal, which includes McSweeney, also fall by the wayside. Someone such as Streeting is just as Torylite, same dog different fleas as the saying goes. Burnham has been frozen out by Starmer’s mob, which leaves Rayner, who will be hamstrung by her tax issues, or perhaps deputy leader, Lucy Powell.    

The Epstein scandal that finally bought Mandelson down isn’t only about sex,  it’s a sordid tale of corruption, insider dealing, greed and arrogance which took root in the highest echelons of business and society.  

Buried within it are dark secrets about our society we would rather keep quiet, pretending they don’t happen, some will perhaps stay hidden, other will trickle out over time. 

This scandal might be the straw that breaks the back of the Anglo-Saxon Economy, as it exposes those in the “blob”, the “swamp”, the “establishment”; the powerful people who think they run the countries. 

This has now blown-up to such an extent that is no longer solely about a perverted paedophile who abused women, and those that joined in his sordid behaviour. It has moved on to a network that smells of financial corruption, insider dealing, greed and raw power. 

And that is going to make electorates very angry and shake their confidence in the system. 

 

‘a sordid tale of corruption, insider dealing, greed and arrogance which took root in the highest echelons of business and society’

 

Unfortunately for the disenchanted electorate, the supposed insurgents such as Trump and Farage are as much part of the “blob”, “swamp”,  “establishment” as the supposed establishment! Trump is certainly very keen at self-enrichment, and Farage is more than partial to “favours” from donors and city jobs. 

For example, document shows that his two-day trip to Davos cost more than £50,000 after he was given two guest passes by an Iranian-born billionaire. 

During his attendance at the conference, he gave speeches in which he pledged to “put the global elites on notice”. I’m not sure if that was meant as a warning to expect cuts in their influence and increases in their taxes, or simply of his “requirements and expectation”. 

He seemed to have forgotten how he previously had dismissed the Davos forum as a jaunt for “globalists”, as he happily accepted £1,100 of luxury hotel accommodation from the conference organisers. 

It had previously been revealed that this trip was being paid for Sasan Ghandehari. He was registered at the forum under the banner of HP Trust, which is the family office of Ghandehari, describing itself as having a portfolio value in excess of $10bn (£7.4bn). 

In summary, from the Major led-government onwards, we have seen the rise of politicians, using their roles as a springboard to enhance their wealth, and seeking high-profile jobs based on their rolodex. 

Mandelson may have been at the forefront of this, but he certainly isn’t alone. More recently, we have seen Messrs Johnson and Farage surrounding themselves with wealthy donors and living accordingly. 

As the Epstein affair shows, there are plenty of wealthy individuals happy to buy political influence. Unfortunately, in Epstein’s case the victims included the young girls he trafficked and abused. 

 

‘there are plenty of wealthy individuals happy to buy political influence’

 

As I have written before, capitalism, in its current form, no longer serves the majority. For the minority, the optics show a small cohort furthering their own interests, and putting themselves in a position where rather than being above the law, they have become the law. In this, they are supported by politicians whose interest are directly aligned with theirs. 

The conjuring trick that is keeping this alive is populism; the leader purports to be anti-establishment and for the people,. In truth, they are anything but, happy to enrich themselves and take “donations” when and where they can.   

This scandal should be the beginning of the end of this generations gilded age, unfortunately, it will live on under people such as Farage and Trump.  

 

 

“That’s me in the corner 

That’s me in the spotlight, losing my religion” 

 

@coldwarsteve

 

 

        

Philip Gilbert is a city-based corporate financier, and former investment banker.

Philip is a great believer in meritocracy, and in the belief that if you want something enough you can make it happen. These beliefs were formed in his formative years, of the late 1970s and 80s

Click on the link to see all Brexit Bulletins: