Now if Ann Widdecombe were still with us, I could expect an email missive from her later on tonight, which would go along the lines of… “I enjoy your Sunday Newsletter but I do NOT want to read about football. Honestly. Spare us!”. Anyway, here goes.

Now admittedly, I was one of the ringleaders in the West Ham campaign to oust Sam Allardyce back in 2015, but I’m not a great fan of calling for a manager to be sacked so early in the season. However, I’ll make an exception for West Ham’s Nuno Espirito Santo.

It’s not unusual for relegated teams to struggle in the first few games, and West Ham have been no exception. They lie in 19th place with only two points from their first three games. The 4-1 victory over Southampton in the Carabao Cup looked as if it would spark our season, but the manager then made eight changes for the match yesterday against Watford. He left out Luis Orford, who has had an outstanding start to the season, to the perplexity of all. Josh Ajaja, a 19-year-old striker who has come up through the youth system and who scored two goals at Southampton, remained an unused substitute at Watford. Unfathomable, in a team which only had three shots all match. He didn’t even get on for a last five minute cameo.

It’s not just the team selection, that is a problem. Just listen or watch his pre-match or post-match interviews. He mutters complete inanities, and it’s the same every time. No wonder he can’t seem to motivate most of the players. He also has a verbal tic, in that whenever he’s interviewed and under pressure he repeats most of his sentences. “We must all work harder. We must all work harder.” “We must concentrate. We must concentrate.” Kill me now.

Players know when a manager is on his way out. He won’t be sacked this week or next, although if we lose our next two home matches against Wolves and Derby, I suppose it’s possible. But unless things change, and change quickly, I can’t believe he will still be there at the end of October.

West Ham has had its problems for years. We had thought when David Sullivan stood aside, that Daniel Kretinsky would take full control and things would be different. Initially they were. He got rid of some of the old senior admin staff and appointed come good new people, but things were then upended by Amanda Staveley trying to buy into the club. This has totally disrupted the summer. We gained £200 million in player sales, yet have only spent £28 million. The rest is being used to stabilise the finances of the club and pay off debt. Good. But the boardroom situation needs to be sorted out before it starts really affecting the rest of the club.

On the bright side, we have a tremendous crop of youth team players coming through. I’ve already mentioned Lewis Orford, but we have left backs Oliver Scarles and Ezra Mayers, centre backs Airidas Olambeckis and Kaelen Casey, as well as attackers Josh Ajala, Preston Fearon and Josh Landers. They all have a bright future.

Returning to the position of the manager, of course, the grass is not always greener on the other side, as we found out when Graham Potter succeeded Julen Lopetegui but Eddie Howe or Kieran McKenna couldn’t be worse. Could they? Come on You Irons!

3 min read6 min

While Nigel Farage may have triumphed over a bin and an assortment of monster raving loonies, the farcical by-election that cost the taxpayer £250,000 won’t allow him to escape questions over his decision to accept £5m from a crypto billionaire living in Thailand.  

This donation scandal also leaves me wondering why it is that a businessman, who prefers to live in a tax haven on the other side of the world, would be so interested in becoming a political donor. I am sure it has nothing to do with Reform’s pro-crypto policies, and everything to do with the businessman’s interest in making sure our NHS, our schools, our roads are all the best they can be. But why, then, does that businessman not choose to live here? If he cares so much, why does he not pay his taxes here? Why does he not support our public services?

I am not a dinosaur; I am just a democrat

Advertisement

Following a different Reform politician’s conviction for accepting thousands of pounds in foreign money to make pro-Russian statements, former prime minister Keir Starmer launched the long-needed independent review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in our politics. Thanks to Philip Rycroft’s work, which I was proud to contribute to, the government is introducing two amendments to the Representation of the People Bill when it returns to the Commons this week.

The first amendment would introduce a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations. I have spent some time investigating the attractions of this currency and why people would want to use it instead of good old-fashioned cash. Overwhelmingly, the reason is that its ultimate source can be hidden. So why, then, would we even contemplate opening our democracy to crypto? So long as I can be reassured this “moratorium” will never be lifted, then fine. But I think we should just ban it. I am not a dinosaur; I am just a democrat.

The second amendment would introduce a £100,000 cap on overseas donations annually. But I don’t believe this goes far enough. We must be much bolder and much clearer. Quite simply, if you are not prepared to pay your taxes here, not willing to contribute to our health service and our children’s education, you shouldn’t be able to bankroll political parties using funds you’ve saved up by living in tax havens far away. That’s why I am proposing New Clause 85 to the Bill, which would ban overseas donations altogether.  

And if certain billionaires choose to come back to the UK to get around these restrictions, that’s great; we will welcome you back with open arms. But we will also be making sure you are fully contributing.  

The Foreign Income and Gains (FIG) regime, designed to help ease the transition back to the UK, allows returning tax residents to claim tax relief on their foreign earnings during their first four years of UK residence. My other amendment, New Clause 86, would prevent individuals benefiting from this scheme from donating to political parties. My view is that, for as long as you choose to reduce the amount you contribute to our public services, you reduce the contribution you make as a whole to our country and our democracy. It should flow from that that you shouldn’t be able to make political donations.

Trust in politics is at an all-time low. Too many are in it for the wrong reason, leaving the public understandably thinking we are all the same. We can start to rebuild that trust by getting dodgy foreign cash out of our politics once and for all. It really is about time. 

Emily Thornberry is the Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury and chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee

Something extraordinary happened yesterday. Very briefly, we absolutely genuinely thought someone in a position of some influence in the SNP had taken a meaningful step towards being serious about independence.

We are not being sarcastic. Look: here it is.

?

Dave Doogan is the SNP’s leader at Westminster. And let’s be clear: that is EXACTLY what the SNP’s stance ought to be. Its only purpose is supposed to be the securing of Scottish independence, and no peaceful democratic means of achieving that ought to be off the table.

The SNP was not formed with the purpose of denying England/the UK the government it voted for, it was formed to completely sever the governance of Scotland and England from each other as a matter of permanent principle, nothing to do with the prevailing political climate at any given point.

If England wants Nigel Farage as Prime Minister, that’s England’s business. The point of independence is that Scotland doesn’t have to get him too. No more, no less.

So obviously, the hapless Doogan’s brave and bright new dawn was brutally slapped down within a matter of hours.

His original comments had been spectacularly clear. He’d been pressed on the matter of working specifically with Reform by a gawping National hack. (Yes, not only was an SNP politician being serious about independence, a National reporter was actually performing conscientious journalism. What a day!)

And he was absolutely explicit – really couldn’t possibly have answered the question any more fully, directly or definitively, with the sort of blunt plain speaking that people yearn for in politicians but almost never get – that “anyone means anyone”.

But then, in a move which was clearly completely spontaneous, all his own idea and definitely NOT the result of a furious phone call from someone who wants to stay First Minister for the next decade, he explained that what he’d meant was the exact and polar opposite of what he’d repeatedly, carefully and unambiguously said.

You know how it is, folks. We’ve all been there.

“Would you like tea or coffee?”

“Tea, please. Milk and two sugars.”

Advertisement

“You’re sure?”

“Yes. Tea.”

“Definitely tea?”

“Yup. Tea is the best. I love tea. Mmmm, tea. Way better than coffee.”

Advertisement

“So just to be clear, you’d like a cup of tea.”

“100%. It’s tea for me.”

“Not coffee?”

“Tea means tea.”

Advertisement

“Here’s your tea.”

“Ah, sorry, I phrased my answer clumsily. I meant to say coffee. Black coffee. I would never ever drink tea under any circumstances. Awful stuff. I hate it with every fibre of my being. Honestly, I’m such a scatterbrain!”

We truly believe the leadership of the SNP is engaging in some sort of game of political Buckaroo with the party’s remaining supporters at this stage, readers – daring each other to make their total opposition to independence more and more blatantly, undeniably obvious and laughing themselves right out of their chairs as hopelessly gullible mouth-breathers in loyal blogs and newspaper comments sections contort themselves into hilarious logic knots to explain it away.

John Swinney’s already upped the stakes by standing in front of a Glasgow crowd in his shortbread-tin outfit and lustily belting out “God Save The Queen”.

?

So it can only be a matter of time before he gives Ian Murray a call and asks if he can borrow his Union Jack suit. Maybe for this year’s conference.

The last time independence looked like it might have found itself in a propitious set of circumstances – after the Brexit vote, as the UK government blundered from pillar to post like a punch-drunk boxer, stepping on rakes at every turn – the SNP suddenly switched its focus to trying to undemocratically deny England and Wales what THEY’D voted for, rather than using the situation as leverage to get Scotland out of the UK once and for all.

We’re told endlessly that the UK’s woes – whether it’s Brexit or COVID or Boris Johnson or the rise of Reform – will lead to a landslide in support for independence, yet the SNP bends over backwards to stop those things from happening.

And every time support does creep up a tiny bit, the SNP moves the goalposts further away. What used to be a threshold of 50%+1 becomes 60%, then 65%, and – this week, according to Brendan O’Hara – 75% or 80%.

All that matters is that the goal is always just out of reach, like the carrot on a stick dangled in front of a donkey. In the very same article, O’Hara gives the game away:

Alert arithmetic enthusiasts will have noticed that you cannot possibly achieve 75% or 80% if there are 30% who will NEVER vote for something no matter what. The target that would trigger the SNP into action is always designed by the SNP to be impossible.

Because when push comes to shove, the party always reacts the same way to any actual prospect of achieving independence – panic. They know it would end their reign in Scotland, and they really really like life on the gravy bus.

We’re not sure if it’s the gravy bus or the Brexit bus that Dave Doogan just got shoved under, but we suspect it was driven over him heavily enough to make sure he keeps his mouth shut for the forseeable future. Nobody’s going to let him talk to the media again for quite some time, and in fact we’ll honestly be surprised if he’s still the Westminster leader this time next year.

Because in the modern SNP – as Angus MacNeil, Fergus Ewing, Kate Forbes, Ash Regan, Chris McEleny and scores of others will readily attest – doing or saying anything that suggests you might want to bring independence even an inch closer to reality is the most unforgivable crime of all.

4 min read7 min

“I am not going to call an election”, Andy Burnham told ITV News this week, “I am ruling it out right in front of you.” The new Prime Minister has made many such statements, but they have done little to quell speculation which grows with every upwards tick in Labour’s polling.

There are three arguments against a snap poll: the gains are small, the risks are large, and the case is weak. Burnham has a huge House of Commons majority and three years left to govern. The claim that as an “unelected” Prime Minister he needs a personal mandate is constitutionally unfounded and historically unsupported. No PM is directly elected, and the lack of a mandate proved little obstacle to earlier leaders who took over mid-term with Commons majorities.

Manifesto commitments offer a stronger argument. A new leader does not want to be bound by the promises of their predecessor, but breaking such pledges brings criticism and legislative resistance. Burnham is already struggling with the fiscal straitjacket created for Labour by Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves’ tax pledges, which he has said he will honour. An early election offers a shot at greater freedom.

But while a personal mandate is gratifying, and a new manifesto liberating, the risks are huge. Labour’s massive majority is built on sand, the product of electoral efficiency and political good fortune. The best-case scenario for Burnham would be a smaller, more fractious majority. Some losses are certain, while even victory can bring costs: an electoral near-death experience can weaken backbench loyalties.

While the new PM has hinted at radical plans in areas such as devolution, social care and electoral reform, there is no obvious barrier to getting these done with his current massive majority

Worse outcomes are possible. Labour’s polls have rebounded under Burnham, but only from dire to poor. Current projections still suggest Labour would do well to emerge as the largest party, let alone win a majority. Then there is the ground game. The Labour Party is running low on money and members. Party members in Burnham’s North West region, who have pounded pavements five times in the last year, won’t welcome being called out again.

A short campaign mobilising grievances against a disappointing government could benefit opposition parties more than the incumbent, particularly if shocks from abroad weaken the economy and push up prices, hardly an implausible scenario with Donald Trump in the White House and the Straits of Hormuz still closed.

Snap polls have gone wrong before. Theresa May tried to bank a twenty-point poll lead, which then evaporated overnight. Rishi Sunak tried to get the jump on his opponents but instead wrong-footed his own MPs and activists.

Only Boris Johnson has recently turned an early election to his advantage. His example is instructive. Johnson pushed for an election from the moment he took office, arguing that only an election could break the deadlock in Parliament and “get Brexit done.” When Johnson finally got his early contest, he had to repeatedly underline what he wanted to do and why an election was needed to do it. A united and mobilised Leave electorate did the rest.

Burnham, like Johnson, would need a strong argument to convince sceptical voters and anxious colleagues. Yet while the new PM has hinted at radical plans in areas such as devolution, social care and electoral reform, there is no obvious barrier to getting these done with his current massive majority. A manifesto-breaking shift on tax and spending throws up more obstacles, but “elect me so I can raise your taxes” isn’t an appealing pitch to voters.

The main reason an early election looks unlikely is therefore simple: there is no need. That may change – current Budget plans price in eye-watering cuts in the final years of this Parliament, cuts Burnham may struggle to avert without breaking Starmer’s tax pledges. The temptation to seek a new mandate will therefore grow as this Parliament ages, particularly if Labour’s poll leads hold up, or opposition disarray intensifies. Burnham may well go earlier than he must. But I doubt he goes soon.

Rob Ford is an elections analyst and Professor of Political Science at the University of Manchester

spiked is funded by readers like you. Only 0.1% of regular readers currently support us. If just 1% did, we could grow our team and step up the fight for free speech and democracy.

Become a spiked supporter and enjoy unlimited, ad-free access, bonus content and exclusive events – while helping to keep independent journalism alive.