Late Britain, Parody Nation
As Late Britain cracks and breaks under the strain of its own ridiculousness, it is descending into pure farce. As the two-party system collapses and the rise of the far-right continues, curated and nurtured by the super-wealthy and their useful idiots, the Labour government stumbles on intent on destroying itself from within, and with it, ‘the country’ too.
I thought it was a spoof at first, but no, here is the Prime Minister’s attempts at comms to Scotland a few months before the Holyrood election. The optics are pathetic. All that’s missing is a See-You Jimmy Hat.
In the grand scheme of things it really doesn’t matter. But, To see oursels as others see us! it’s quite an insight.
Elsewhere, you can see, what’s still euphamistically described as the ‘United Kingdom’ descend into farce. Here, Malcolm Offord, tries to cobble together some Scottish policies and attempts to hold a straight face while explaining that there is NO connection between his donation of £150k to the Conservatives and his being awarded a life-peerage.
NEW: Reform’s Scotland chief Malcolm Offord says you ‘can’t make a connection’ between him giving the Tories £150k and being made a Tory Lord.
‘Those donations were not given with anything in return whatsoever’ pic.twitter.com/PKjCRPTbRA
— The National (@ScotNational) January 26, 2026
Cui bono? as they say in Paisley.
Also appearing a little, economical with the truth today was our very own Secretary of State for Scotland, Douglas Alexander, here pushing the bounds of credulity even for SKY News:
BREAKING: Sky’s @SophyRidgeSky questions Secretary of State for Scotland Douglas Alexander on why Andy Burnham was blocked from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election pic.twitter.com/mzj82KfmXD
— Peter Stefanovic (@PeterStefanovi2) January 26, 2026
Coming Home
Everyone is saying they want to avoid the ‘Psycho-Drama’. Alexander said it today and Bad Enoch said it a few days ago when she outed Jenrick’s plot to defect to Reform. But, in reality, ‘Psycho-Drama’ is all there really is. Speaking of which, today’s announcement is that the wonderful Suella Braverman is the latest to jump ship. Here’s her ridiculous speech:
BREAKING: “I feel like I’ve come home.”
Former home secretary Suella Braverman is the latest Conservative to defect to Reform UK.https://t.co/dHpG6ve8RA
📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233 and YouTube pic.twitter.com/NlRh3szcYL
— Sky News (@SkyNews) January 26, 2026
Owen Jones tweeted saying: “So basically Reform UK is now Rishi Sunak’s Cabinet, just led by Nigel Farage.” Well, no, actually it’s Boris Johnson’s Cabinet led by Nigel Farage.
Johnson’s Cabinet included: Chancellor (Zahawi); Communities Secretary (Jenrick); Culture Secretary (Nadine Dorries); Attorney General (Suella Braverman); Political Secretary (Freddie Kruger); Skills Minister (Andrea Jenkyns) ; Northern Powerhouse Minister (Berry); Health Minister (Caulfield); Scottish Minister (Malcolm Offord).
Now, they’re all Reform. It’s a party of All the Talents. Just imagine Boris Johnson’s Cabinet, just with less discipline.
The Officers Mess
But if Reform looks like a retirement home for talentless but desperate Tories, others have different ideas on their mind. Move over Reform UK here’s Prosper UK, the new vehicle for Colonel Davidson and her sidekick Andy Street, who was, apparently, the former Managing Director of John Lewis. Prosper UK has launched today, sort of.
It’s difficult at first to see what exactly it is, but after rummaging around a bit it’s probably best described as a sort of vacuous Tory fluff-tank. Their website Prosper UK is full of garbled homilies and weird, vague commitments to ‘Listening’; ‘Strong defence in an increasingly dangerous world’ and ‘Protecting the environment for future generations’.
Prosper UK explains:
“We believe there is an urgent space for practical, pro-business politics that unites rather than divides, that stands up to both the left and the populist right, and that refuses easy answers and empty promises.”
But when you drill down, this is a desperate effort to shore up the Conservative Party’s collapsing electoral fortunes, and maybe a handy wee vehicle for The Colonel’s career if the Tories completely disintegrate (highly likely).
Prosper UK explain:
“We think the UK deserves better than a choice between Labour and Nigel Farage at the next election – and only the Conservative Party can provide that alternative. But to do so, it must be fully committed to a practical, centre-right approach. That’s where the space is in British politics. And that’s what will deliver the prosperity we need.”
It’s not that it’s a bad idea, it’s just that it’s a terrible one. Launching on the day the Conservative Party empties itself into the Farage project, Prosper is an exercise in the bland, beige and the meaningless. Frightened by the collapse they themselves have cultivated, figures like Davidson, Amber Rudd and David Gauke (Vice-Chair) have re-emerged with nothing to say about anything.
Davidson has always been over-hyped. Remember back in 2018 when the scribe Chris Deerin wrote: (“Why Ruth Davidson is Heading for Westminster“) “…there will be around two years until the 2021 devolved election, which will decide what she does next, and she will be chafing at the reins. She could conceivably, at that point, become first minister as leader of the largest party”.
Matthew Norman joined in writing: “Ruth Davidson is the relatable leader the Tories so desperately need as PM”.
John Rentoull joined the throng penning a ridiculous piece: “I’m convinced Ruth Davidson could be the next prime minister…”
Chris McCall chipped in with this “Could Ruth Davidson be Prime Minister?”
Political commentator David Torrance joined in pointing out that, constitutionally, being an MP is not a prerequisite to becoming prime minister. “Sir Alec Douglas-Home was PM for two weeks without being an MP, pending a by-election in Perth,” he said.
It may well be that Ruth Davidson, like Malcolm Offord turn down their role in the House of Lords to – at great personal sacrifice of course – take up politics again.
Here’s Andy and Ruth in all their glory:
Millions of voters are turned off by populism & are looking instead for competence and realism@Prosper_UK_ exists to support a Conservative Party focused on growth, opportunity & responsible government
Britain can do better & prosper again
Join today: https://t.co/mKsbzTzA6a pic.twitter.com/2cLageWjiP
— Andy Street (@andy4wm) January 26, 2026
Ruth and Andy are like the pilots of a small ship approaching the Titanic asking: “Permission to board!”
As Britain collapses in on itself, we’re increasingly oscillating between tragedy and comedy, fascism and farce, and it’s more and more difficult to distinguish between them.
We are supported only by our readers. We don't have corporate backers and we don't take advertising, so we rely entirely on your support.
Help to support independent Scottish journalism
” … a handy wee vehicle for The Colonel’s career if the Tories completely disintegrate (highly likely).”
__________________________
I thought the ‘handy wee vehicle’ for the Colonel was a tank. Wait. You’ve already covered that:
” … it’s probably best described as a sort of vacuous Tory fluff-tank”.
Mike. I think Danny Kruger was in Johnson’s Cabinet and is now in Reform, not Freddie. Equally scary, though imho….
I’m glad someone’s paying attention Richard
I reckon it was Freddie all along.
Starmer’s twelve fucking fingers are absolutely sending me!!
Talking about an officers’ mess and odd timing, the Guardian yesterday announced:
UK military sexual abuse investigation widened as more than 500 contact police
“Inquiry into enlistment medical examinations has been expanded from army to also include navy and RAF”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/26/uk-military-sexual-abuse-investigation-widened-500-contact-police
I don’t think the actual history of British armed forces is ever really told in mainstream culture. Certainly according to what my officer grandfathers told me about WW2, in what is academically available in critical works, even pro-military charity reports that don’t get press coverage, and sometimes appears in overseas dissenting opinion. Does that matter?
As Thucydides notes, in peace and prosperity, people observe higher morality; war brings out violent passions. And with violent passions, all manner of ingenious machinations and vicious atrocities. The commonplace British myth is that military service generally improves a person; but what if it makes nearly everyone worse?
The weekend’s events with Andy Burnham and Gorton & Denton by election just shows how insecure Starmer is at present.
If Starmer was popular and secure he wouldn’t need to bother whether Burnham became an MP.
If Starmer was popular and secure it is highly unlikely Burnham would even want to become an MP at this point.
All Starmer has managed to do is make the by election a vote about himself which considering how unpopular he is means Labour are now more likely to lose by election. This will only make Starmer even more unpopular, less secure and make May elections even more a verdict on his performance.
Starmer appears to be looking more and more like Biden post 2020 USA election a lamentable leader increasing the chances of a far right racist successor.
But then again, Burnham could have lost the by-election, and either way, the mayoralty could then have gone to Reform.
Imagine being on the NEC with that dilemma?
Yes by not accepting Burnham’s application they knew Gorton could be lost to Reform (or possibly the Greens), but it would be far worse to lose the Mayor of Greater Manchester in similar fashion. And Burnham is a good mayor but still with two years to run. The cost to the tax payer of running an election for mayor would be very significant so is not a bogus reason either. Reform would have made hay about his bailing on it because he wants to be leader and that would have been very good fuel for both the Gorton by-election and the mayor election.
And that is even before considering the almost certain challenge to Starmer’s leadership.
I am of the view that Burnham knew all of this and so knew he would be refused, but applied anyway.
I think it a shame as I like Burnham, but he has not gone up in my estimation with the way he has done this.
Niemand – all polling that I have read indicates that probably only Burnham could have won the by election for Labour. He is popular in North West of England and his polling figures in mayoral elections of 60+% are astonishing. He is more popular nationally than Labour (not difficult)while Starmer is less popular nationally than Labour (very difficult).
If Burnham had lost by election his career would have been finished and Keir Starmer would have actually come out of it looking stronger. Starmer is perceived as being weak by voters and this whole episode will only reinforce this perception in voters minds.
Burnham has been mayor for 7 years so eletorate would have probably forgiven him for standing down early.He could have helped successor in mayoral contest by adopting them as the continuity Burnham candidate. Remember both Burnham and his policies have been popular in Manchester.
If Reform won mayoral contest they would have been a setback for Labour but Reform would have been exposed to running a large council, trying to follow a popular and successful Labour mayor. They could well have got found out, as they have in other much smaller councils, but exposure in Manchester would have been on a much larger national scale. Incumbency in any form is a potential problem especially for a so called anti establishment party.
The money used to rerun mayoral election would have been a potential issue but Burnham’s popularity and connection with electorate would have minimised this issue in voters mind IMO. It would have primarily been a problem for Labour nominee trying to succeed Burnham.
If Starmer held Burnham close after elected as an MP it would keep Burnham as an asset which may have helped Labour partially recover which would have helped Starmer survive oust next May elections. Burnham couldn’t be too outspoken initially as it would’ve harmed any potential leadership challenge especially as colleagues would have seen how supportive Starmer had been to allow him to run in by election.
Starmer, by killing Burnham’s bid to be a MP will now be the focus of Gorton by election which will turn into a vote on Starmer personally and he will be blamed for potential defeat. This will further discontent with Starmer both within and outside Labour Party which will then be even more likely to get a hammering in May elections. Starmer may well only survive because there is no obvious successor but he will then not only be extremely unpopular but also perceived as a lame duck. The voters appear to have made up their mind on Starmer and this whole episode makes it even more difficult and unlikely that he can recover from his current record low unpopularity. He may struggle onto 2029 General Election where he will be an albatross around the Labour Party’s neck reducing any possibility of Labour holding onto power either with a majority or ina coalition.
I am no longer a Labour Party supporter and am aware that Andy Burnham has a chequered history before being Mayor of Manchester. I would recommend you to watch the Channel 4 cast which includes contributions from the political correspondent of Liverpool Echo who knows far more about politics in North West of England than either of us do. It underpins just about everything I have written here.
I of course could be wrong but it appears extremely unlikely to me that Keir Starmer, or even any successor in cabinet over last 18 months, can lead Labour to victory at next General Election. Time will tell.
Sorry John but I won’t be joining in the continual attacks on Labour and Starmer on this site, left / nationalist whatever, nor with any of the usual right wing outlets, or the big corporate interests (hi Elon!), who all do it, day in, day out. Frankly I am sick of the unholy alliance to destroy Labour, because that is what it is – a concerted effort to bring them to their knees and remove them from government, to be replaced but who exactly, and why? It is like Starmer is the Devil incarnate or something. I find it ridiculous.
Burnham put the leadership of the party he is a member of and with a very powerful voice, in a very difficult, almost impossible situation, in the glare of the public eye and he knew what he was doing, and now carries on complaining about his rejection to make sure that damage increases.
Niemand this is the post from a Labour councillor in Rutherglen, called Martin Lennon: “I am actually astonished at how little reaction there has been to the collapse of support for @ScottishLabour There seems to be a total refusal to acknowledge what is happening.”
Niemand – I am having a conversation (debate) with you and I certainly don’t expect you to necessarily agree with me.
I am not naive and it is clear to me that if Starmer was not an unpopular leader Burnham would not be seeking to return to House of Commons at present. Similarly if Starmer was more popular and felt stronger he wouldn’t be blocking Burnham’s appointment. I think this is apparent to everyone and Starmer’s other reasons for blocking Burnham make him look a bit disingenuous.
I remember Burnham from when he was an MP and I have no truck with him but he is very popular in North West of England where Labour are haemorrhaging votes to Reform. If Burnham had been returned in by election there is no doubt it could have been difficult for Starmer personally but I think it would have been better for Labour’s election prospects in next General Election.
I have often voted Labour in past and would certainly prefer them in Westminster government to Tories or Reform. They have introduced some policies I would praise but they have made too many policy errors (hence so many u turns). Starmer (McSweeney?) has also been too authoritarian in policy and outlook which is in itself a sign of weakness and this blocking of Burnham is just another example.