On Brand

The trial of Russell Brand has proven to be a squalid affair. Not only in its substance but in the way it has been used by many on the political right and centre to berate the left: guilt by association or even book blurb. This desire to kick the left has even led to the disinterment and symbolic beheading of the late Mark Fisher's 2013 essay Exiting the Vampire Castle, which rather ill-advisedly used Brand as a vector to attack "the moralising left". You'll note that nobody is berating rightwing conspiracy theorists or evangelical Christians, though Brand veered towards both in recent years. You'll also note that few are questioning how Brand, a career gobshite as well as a career abuser, got the gig as the voice of a generation. It was the media that promoted him into the role, from The Guardian and The New Statesman to the BBC and Channel 4. The rightwing press have highlighted this route, with embittered ex-Guardian columnists like Suzanne Moore to the fore and Owen Jones firmly in the gunsight. But they'd done it in much the same way that they attributed the crimes of Jimmy Savile to the BBC, ignoring his chummy relationship with Margaret Thatcher and royalty.

Fisher's admiration of Brand's eruption into popular consciousness as a working class intellect was knowingly instrumental - you take what you can get in our improverished political culture - but it failed to fully consider the instrumentality of others, and in particular the image of the working class that Brand presented. Fisher correctly noted that the patronising and dismissive response of leftwing (actually liberal) moralisers to Brand was in the interests of capital, a point that remains true despite what we now know of the man, but he was less willing to admit that Brand was essentially a distraction cultivated by the politico-media establishment ahead of the 2015 general election. That may not have been clear to Fisher in 2013, but it became all too clear to the rest of us soon afterwards. That Brand was redundant as a faux-activist after 2015 came as no surprise, and nor did his re-emergence in the political sphere in 2021 as a Covid truther, after which he embraced a number of rightwing conspiracy theories. His eclipse owes as much to simple ageing as it does to the publication of his crimes.

Fisher's indulgence of Brand has been held up as evidence that the left are casually tolerant of sexism and misogyny. This is unfair, but it also misses the point that what Fisher was actually indulging was a fundamentally conservative vision of the working class. In his essay he notes that "when Brand was questioned about sexism by Mehdi Hasan, he displayed exactly the kind of good-humoured humility that was entirely lacking in the stony faces of those who had judged him. “I don’t think I’m sexist, But I remember my grandmother, the loveliest person I‘ve ever known, but she was racist, but I don’t think she knew. I don’t know if I have some cultural hangover, I know that I have a great love of proletariat linguistics, like ‘darling’ and ‘bird’, so if women think I’m sexist they’re in a better position to judge than I am, so I’ll work on that”". The grandmother is the classic stereotype of the incorrigibly vulgar and instinctively illiberal working class. The whole section reeks of the antique, from Brand's recycling of a vocabulary that went out of fashion 50 years ago to Fisher's use of phrases - "good-humoured humility", "stony faces" -  that wouldn't have been out-of-place in an Edwardian novel.

The historic significance of Russell Brand lies in his utility as a representative of the young, rather than as a representative of the working class, as Fisher imagined. This utility was built on his early career as a stand-up comic and presenter, in which he crafted a louche persona whose 90s-style lairiness already looked dated. His political promotion came after the 2008 financial crash and can be seen as essentially a nihilistic response to austerity. For all his witty retorts to Jeremy Paxman, it was the latter who was left smiling condescendingly at the end of their notorious Newsnight interview in 2013 because Brand advocated not voting: a democratic surrender by the young dressed up as revolutionary consciousness and wrapped in his bathetic "proletarian linguistics". He changed his tune at the 2015 general election, but by then the damage was done. He can't be held responsible for the Tories gaining an absolute majority, but he certainly played a small part in the politics of the UK becoming dominated by the fears and libidinal desires of the elderly over the next half-decade. 

Brand was never going to be an effective Pied Piper, a point brought into stark relief when an elderly backbench MP became Labour leader and enthused the young. Though the "youthquake" didn't rob the Tories of their majority in 2017 - there were many other factors - the determination to dismiss the role of youth was telling. This in turn fed into the classic media-led moral panic about antisemitism. Though notionally directed at older lefties ("Trots"), a key objective was to demobilise the young as political actors, which led to a satisfying fall in Labour Party membership under Keir Starmer. Moral panics obviously reflect the tenor of the age, but more pertinently they reflect establishment anxiety about the people. The foundational case study, dating from the period of nascent working class organisation, was Charles Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds of 1841. This is a book that has repeatedly bobbed to the surface of popular consciousness because of its chapters on financial bubbles, but it also highlights the role of the establishment as the author of calculated madness, for example the Crusades and the witch mania of the 16th century (feel free to draw parallels with today's military adventures in the Middle East and the media's anti-trans campaign). 

From the late-1940s onwards, establishment anxiety about youth (notably the recently-minted teenager) focused on its socialisation, a response to the postwar cohorts' historically novel economic independence and exposure to higher education. What we're now seeing is anxiety over youth's dissatisfaction as the reality of a generation that will be materially poorer than its parents, where wealth and opportunity are increasingly the product of birth rather than merit, becomes the dominant feature in our political landscape. This has led to a shift in focus towards constraining the ability of the young to organise and freely express themselves, for fear that this could get out of hand. Energised and engaged youth in Brazil and Serbia will be praised for exercising their democratic rights in elections to restore liberal rule, but the risk that they'll take to the streets, as in France recently, or that they may form an electoral bloc that shifts the polity to the left (consider the French centrist "nightmare" of a presidential run-off between Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen) means that they must be carefully corralled. 

In practice, that means proscribing certain topics, and particularly those that strongly appeal to the young. Despite the images of OAPs being arrested over Palestine Action, it is the young who have largely driven the protests (and direct action) over Gaza and the West Bank. Insofar as we have a "cancel culture" it is embodied in the attempts of the Labour Party to marginalise the Greens on local councils and the relentless campaign of the media to force party members, many of them young and recent recruits inspired by Zack Polanski, and not a few of them refugees from Labour, to repudiate their own democratic conference motion. The "moralising left" are not the problem, and arguably never were. As well as this rhetorical kettling, the young must put up with being presented as atomised and powerless, the chief characteristics of the "Neet" now being constructed by the media and the government. The problem of youth is presented not as an issue of political representation but as an inescapable consequence of the business cycle. The message is: We recognise your pain but you must wait for us to ameliorate it, and the market to ultimately fix it, and you certainly shouldn't make intemperate demands of the political system.

What we're seeing among the young is the emergence of class consciousness as modern capitalism drives growing inequality along generational lines: you can't get on the property ladder without parental wealth, you can't get a secure job to match your education, you'll never get a decent pension. The "obsession" with Palestine is no different to organised labour taking up the anti-Apartheid cause or boycotting Chile in the 1970s. What the establishment fears is another feature of that decade: the destabilising impact of the emergence of youth within the political party system. To that end, the cartel parties must be kept small and exclusive, and the young must be demobilised and censored. The ban on social media for children will undoubtedly lead to demands for an extension to young adults. The assault on higher education will continue until students are quiet. The unemployed will be encouraged to consider a stint in the armed forces, our leading growth industry, because war is surely coming. The "lefty" Russell Brand will be filed away with the "Tory" Jimmy Savile as just another entertainment industry wrong 'un. Meanwhile, centrist mums and dads will fret about their children's inheritance.

PHP stands for Put your Hands uP

When a major computer security vulnerability is discovered, there is understandably a rush to patch the affected systems. The perennial problem is that most computer users don't proactively update their operating systems or applications, because of a mixture of ignorance, misunderstanding and sloth. This is why companies like Microsoft push Windows Updates so hard, and incidentally why smartphone operating systems have been designed from the off to force updates. But even when a vulnerability has been widely publicised and every measure taken to encourage updating, not all systems will be patched. For example, the EternalBlue SMB protocol vulnerability was widely publicised in 2017, not least because it turned out to have been first identified a number of years earlier by the US NSA, who had kept quiet about it and developed an exploit for their own use in offensive cyber-warfare. The exploit was finally leaked to hacker groups (I wonder how that happened) and then used for ransomware attacks, notably via the WannaCry and NotPetya worms.

The scale of the damage those worms caused was amplified by Microsoft initially not releasing patches for older, unsupported versions of Windows, which affected organisations that had failed to keep pace either due to negligence or a lack of funding, the latter including much of the NHS (Microsoft relented after a month). Today, it is estimated that around 15% of Windows devices running the SMB protocol are still vulnerable. What this highlights is that vulnerabilities are actually commonplace and are rarely fully eliminated. Sometimes this is because the systems are of little intrinsic value, such as a hobbyist's public-facing sandbox, so being compromised may not matter. In other cases it's because they are part of a complex legacy system whose inner workings may be a "black box" that you tamper with at your peril (the Jenga Tower problem). Incidentally, "inscrutability" in computing long predates LLMs and their mysterious ways. Much of the banking industry depends on 50 year-old COBOL systems that only one well-remunerated contractor on the Isle of Wight understands.

Despite the widespread media hyperbole and the precautionary shutdown (aka arse-covering) of many government systems following the announcement of two major vulnerabilities in PHP, the vast majority of servers running that program have not yet been patched and it's likely that lots of them will remain unpatched for the foreseeable future. And yet the sky has not fallen in. There are a number of reasons for this. First, there is an entire industry and media ecosystem committed to the idea that everyone is under imminent threat, whether from criminals, Islamists, antisocial incels or Vladimir Putin. The result is an exaggeration of the possible impact, hence the emphasis on the risk to sensitive private data, such as passwords and credit card details, despite the plentiful evidence that cyber-criminals go after large organisations with enough money to pay a ransom, not small fry (that remains the speciality of phone scammers and email phishers who rely on social engineering - i.e. gullibility). 

Secondly there is an exaggeration of the significance of the technology itself. Contrary to the claims, the Internet does not run on PHP. The Internet runs on the Internet Protocol (IP). Even if we accept such language as a crude synonym for "used by lots of websites", this obscures that sites are served by stacks that include operating systems, web servers and databases. The most widespread is LAMP, which stands for Linux (the OS), Apache (the web server), MySQL (the database), and PHP. The last of these is a scripting language that sits between the web server and the client (your computer or smartphone). A scripting language is not a programming language but an application (PHP is written in C, an actual programming language). Its purpose is to generate on-the-fly web pages, in other words the HTML and CSS etc that your web browser renders. The reason why LAMP is so widespread is that the software is free to use. This obviously carries some risks, as the people who maintain the systems are themselves hobbyists rather than paid professionals (though most will have high-expertise day jobs in IT), and who knows, some of those may in turn be earning a little on the side by being helpful to state actors like the NSA.

Some embarrassing attempts to educate the public have noted that PHP is a recursive acronym, standing for PHP Hypertext Preprocessor (the visual analogy used in that BBC article imagines that burgers are served by waiters). This is a techie joke. PHP originally stood for Personal Home Page. It was written as a common gateway interface (the other CGI), which simply means an extension to the web server that dynamically generated the HTML output when a page was requested. The dynamic content may have been as simple as printing today's date at the top of the page, or it might take form input and run a query against a database, returning the results as a formatted table (think of a basic search function). PHP has obviously become more sophisticated over time, but it remains at heart a fairly simple technology. The reason it is so popular, beyond being free, is because it is ideal for many modern web applications, from commercial sites that require frequently changing content and interactivity (e.g. search lists and shopping carts) to blogs that require low maintenance (WordPress is built using PHP: an abstraction layer upon an abstraction layer upon a programming language).

The type of exploit the two PHP vulnerabilities could give rise to is more likely to be a remote command execution (RCE) than the extraction of passwords and credit cards from compromised memory. What that means is forcing an error that allows a subsequent command to be run against a database using privileged security credentials (like having a skeleton key). However, it should be noted that this type of vulnerability is already common. The most famous example of this is the class of exploits known as SQL injection. For websites that don't utilise a database, an RCE is unlikely to be able to do much damage beyond simple vandalism - e.g. executing system configuration commands that render it temporarily unusable (a reboot will fix that). Even where a database is used, the attacker may encounter the other perennial problem of modern, Internet-based computing, namely that the data is trash. The reality of cyber-crime is that criminals spend a lot more time identifying a target in terms of potential value, technical competence and public embarrassment (i.e. casing the joint) than they do in writing malware. 

As of now, there have been many reports of exploit attempts issued by security firms (who have an obvious interest in bigging-up the danger), but no reports of successful exploits (this doesn't mean they won't happen, but that the danger has been exaggerated). This is likely to be because most of those attempts will have been by relatively unskilled hackers running bots that scan public websites (which they do constantly). An important aspect of this is the number who will be relying on AI-generated code (and you can safely assume that AI companies will have choked that by ensuring the code doesn't work). In fact, the most interesting aspect of this whole affair hasn't been PHP (thank you for bearing with me up to this point), but the role that AI has played. According to press reports and industry boosters, the obscure vulnerabilities were discovered by AI. In fact, while AI may have played a role in nominating them as candidates and testing them, the source of the identification can be traced to humans actively looking for vulnerabilities. After all, AI doesn't take the initiative.

The other AI dimension is the belief that tools like as ChatGPT and Claude can be leveraged to not only discover but exploit system vulnerabilities (the claim that only "frontier AI", i.e. versions not yet publicly released, can do so is just marketing). This is akin to the idea that AI can be used to create powerful bio-weapons, the key difference being that while the latter require access to specific and often hard-to-find ingredients and processing capabilities, which proved beyond the powers of Saddam Hussein, the former just requires access to a computer. Behind this overt fear that the lesser people of the earth (fanatical Muslims, woke teenagers and the suicidally empathetic) might get their hands on weapons of mass destruction is the covert fear that AI itself might decide to do us harm by trashing our WordPress blogs. Indeed, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the PHP vulnerabilities are simply the latest opportunistic episode in a long campaign to convince us that we must go all in on AI lest AI goes in hard on us.

A Capital Idea

According to the Financial Times, "Chancellor John Healey has rejected calls by senior Labour figures to raise capital gains tax to the same level as income tax, amid warnings that such an increase would hit Britain’s attractiveness to investors." The report is based on four unamed sources, one of whom "called the proposal 'batshit crazy', while another pointed to the argument that people would change their behaviour by leaving the UK or delaying sales, resulting in a drop in income for the Treasury." One of the few people quoted by name, former Conservative Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, said "equalisation was always a non-starter. Every chancellor is briefed that the revenue-maximising rate of capital gains tax is 24 per cent after which you start losing money. Officials will never say [economist] Arthur Laffer has a point but that is the gist of it." (Nice to see the FT feels the need to explain to its financially-savvy readership who Arthur "napkin" Laffer was). The only other named source is Jim O'Neill, who claimed that equalisation "would pour more fuel on this idea that every other wealthy person is planning to move to Place X".

It's entirely possible that this is a bit of misdirection by Healey's sherpas, but he doesn't strike me as someone who likes to pull rabbits out of hats. He does strike me as a typical product of the Labour right, being obsessed with an image of probity (recall his self-important resignation as Defence Secretary under Starmer) and fiscal rectitude, the latter less a firmly-held principle than an unwillingness to challenge Treasury mandarins or the Governor of the Bank of England, which places him in a tradition that dates back to Philip Snowden in 1929. Whatever the outcome in two weeks time, it is worth understanding the debate around the equalisation of capital gains tax (CGT) with income tax, both as an indicator of the interests the government feels it must placate and the role of investment in our political economy, or at least its rhetorical role. The contingent argument in favour of equalisation is that CGT was not among the taxes that Labour's 2024 manifesto explicitly ruled out increasing, so it presents an opportunity for the Chancellor in filling his fiscal "hole".

The fundamental argument in favour of equalisation is that capital gains are just another form of income. This is actually made clear by HMRC when you do a tax self-assessment. The different rate is not because CGT is a distinct tax, despite the name, but because income tax is applied at different rates against different categories of income, e.g. pay and pensions, bank interest, share dividends etc. The more moral argument, traditional to socialists, is that a capital gain is unearned income, like rents. If we are to "euthanise the rentier", in John Maynard Keynes's phrase, then we should actually tax unearned (or "passive") income at a higher rate than earned (i.e. wages), not at a lower rate. Historically, starting in the nineteenth century, the UK has tended to do just that. This culminated in the 15% Investment Income Surcharge, applied on top of the income tax rate, in the mid-1970s. Under Margaret Thatcher, the higher rates of income tax were drastically reduced and in 1998 Nigel Lawson abolished the difference between income and capital gains with both now equalised at 40%. This is a fact that Jeremy Hunt either never knew or has conveniently forgotten.

The move towards favouring capital gains relative to earned income came under New Labour when Gordon Brown introduced taper relief in 1998 to encourage more patient investment (the tax rate would go down the longer you held the asset before selling). The flat rate of 18% was introduced by Alistair Darling in 2008, 20 years after Lawson's equalisation, along with a lower 10% Entrepreneur's Relief rate. In 2010, George Osborne reintroduced a tiered system with the higher rate at 28%. There have been lots of other tweaks to the rates, to special reliefs and to the annual exempt amounts (currently £3,000). There are two lessons to take from this potted history. First, that it is Labour that has been the more generous party in government to asset-holders since 1990. This, as much as the "pro-growth" shibboleth, suggests that John Healey is unlikely to break from tradition, despite his own voting record. The second lesson is that UK governments have never settled on a consistent approach to the taxing of capital gains, which is why equalisation remains a live issue. The two together explains why some in the Labour Party, and not just those on the left, think that CGT should be equalised with income tax.

There are three key arguments against equalisation, or more broadly against taxing capital gains at all. The first is the idea that people won't invest in UK assets. The second is that they will be dissuaded from selling their assets when they appreciate, leading to lower economic activity and macro inefficiency. The third, that they will be encouraged to leave the country (as per Jim O'Neill). These arguments are often deployed in combination even though they are not complementary - e.g. if you're not investing in UK assets then you won't have any to sell. The argument that having to pay a little more CGT might tip you into exile ignores that the sort of people who choose to become tax-resident abroad (e.g. Jim Radcliffe in Monaco) are thinking in much larger terms and avoiding many more taxes. The more coherent argument, though it often rests on these three, is that the tax will distort investors' behaviour. This is more credible, if you substitute "change" for the value-laden "distort", simply because tax is often meant to change behaviour (e.g. Pigouvian taxes on alcohol and tobacco). The question is what kind of changes are likely to arise if we tax capital gains? To answer that, you first need to ask who pays the tax.

According to the government, "Broadly, those paying Capital Gains Tax are business owners (for example, holding shares in an unquoted trading company), investors (for example, holding a buy-to let property, a second home or a portfolio of listed shares outside a pension or ISA) and employees (for example, who participate in share schemes)." To translate that into flesh and blood, the first category are people who start private businesses that they later either float on the stock exchange or sell to a competitor. Many of those businesses will already have a diluted share ownership because of options awarded to staff, particularly senior management incentivised to stick around after flotation or a trade sale. It's not just the founders who realise gains at an IPO, and it's not just in Silicon Valley that such options are widespread. The second category mixes rentiers (buy-to-let landlords), the well-off (second home owners) and the wide range of people who hold shares, from those who inherited holdings to day-traders. The last category, employees in share schemes, is thought to number around 1 million people. 

In short, it's mainly the middle classes, not the "entrepreneurs" beloved of financial journalism. Obviously not everyone who pays CGT has the same number or value of assets. At the top end, there will be people who have grown and floated a business, without diluting their ownership, who would face a considerably larger bill, and there will be speculators in UK shares and property who would also have to pay more tax. But neither is an issue as there are always loopholes by which the really wealthy and professional investors can lower their tax bills. There is an entire industry devoted to this. The people who actually pay CGT are predominantly those who already pay UK income tax and who treat their occasional capital gains (and regular dividends) as just another income stream. For the 2017-18 tax year, there were 265,000 taxpayers who paid some CGT (quoted in a government report from 2020), which is broadly 1 in 12 income taxpayers. So how would a higher rate of CGT, let's say 40%, change their behaviour?

The argument that CGT disincentivises investment is based on the idea of risk. Matthew Elliott (the Taxpayers Alliance, Vote Leave and ennobled by Liz Truss) puts it this way: "Start with the principle. A capital gain is not a wage. A salary is paid for showing up doing a job; a capital gain is the reward, if one ever arrives, for putting money and time at risk with no guarantee of return. The farmer who sinks a lifetime’s savings into land and machinery, the entrepreneur who forgoes a salary to build a company, the investor who backs a business before anyone else will: none of them are paid until, and unless, the risk pays off". This obviously ignores the level of risk entailed in zero-hours contracts, the gig economy, and the fact that wage-earners can be fired at will. But it also ignores that much farming does not produce enough savings to reinvest, which is why so many farmers have large debts and others are selling up. It also ignores that an entrepreneur who forgoes a salary must have other income lest she starve, and that investors who back startups operate on the principle that risk can be spread across a portfolio (they rarely back just one business) and hedged through insurance and derivatives.

As ever, the capitalist imaginary bears little relationship to the real world. For the vast majority of asset-holders who may pay CGT there is very little risk, if any, involved. Property prices might be flattening, but they aren't about to crash. The well-known imbalance of supply and demand won't disappear any time soon. And even if you have to hold on to an asset for longer, you may still have an income stream (e.g. dividends or buy-to-let rents). Likewise, while share prices may fluctuate, most shareholdings are through unit trusts or otherwise diversified portfolios. The idea that you need a 16-19% risk premium (the difference between CGT and income tax rates) to allow you to hold property or shares is ridiculous. Elliott quotes a HMRC model from 2025 that estimated the impact of specific rate changes on tax revenue. This assumed an annual loss of as much as £3.5bn by 2029 based on behavioural changes if the higher CGT rate went up by 10%. Given that the total CGT revenue is currently around £20bn, that's some pretty big changes.

The source for this was an Office for Budget Responsibility paper about anticipated taxpayer behaviours in respect of the 2025 budget. This foregrounded changing the date of asset sales in two ways: "forestalling", i.e. selling before the new tax rates come into effect, and "locking in", i.e. hanging on to assets in the hope of a more favourable future tax regime or avoiding CGT altogether through inheritance. The second behavioural change was shifting between asset classes for better tax rates or shifting between gains and wage income. The other changes were tax planning (i.e. avoidance), migration (defined as "either becoming non-UK resident for tax purposes, or diverting some or all activity to jurisdictions where the tax liability is lower"), and non-compliance (i.e. evasion). The paper itself is cautious on these impacts: "[forestalling is] not possible for the increase in main CGT rates as it takes effect on the day of the Budget", while "migration is not a significant factor in the response to the increase in the higher main rate of CGT". 

It's worth emphasising that this model only makes sense in relation to the proposed budget in 2025 and cannot be assumed to hold in all circumstances. Most of the claimed behavioural changes would be irrelevant if CGT rates were increased as part of a wider reform (and simplification) of the tax system, namely a move to treating all sources of income (capital gains, dividends, inheritance, gifts) as income and taxing them at the same (and ideally more progressive) rates. In fact, all that would be left would be non-compliance, i.e. tax evasion. It's also worth noting that an earlier report, by the Office for Tax Simplification in 2010, which contra the OBR said that "More closely aligning Capital Gains Tax rates with Income Tax rates has the potential to raise a substantial amount of tax for the Exchequer", saw the major "distortions" of CGT being due to its use as a means of tax avoidance, e.g. treating income as capital gains or converting cash bonuses into share awards. 

My own guess is that Healey won't do anything dramatic with CGT precisely because he isn't about to propose a sweeping and radical reform of the tax system. Given the institutional resistance at the Treasury, the ideological priors of the media, and the general timidity of the Labour Party in respect of fiscal engineering (New Labour notwithstanding), this is going to be a cautious and unimaginative budget, which means we can expect to see more cheese-paring on welfare. Investors will be happy, but those investors are not the entrepreneurs and market-movers of lore (though no doubt they will also be untroubled), but the petty capitalists who abhor risk and have no intention of becoming tax exiles. Sociologically, they are a step up from the traditional "savers" (nowadays, more likely to be young workers trying to get a deposit together for a flat). They are middle managers with share options, people who inherited unencumbered property (including ex-council houses), and people who started and sold a small business. The overlap with MPs is considerable.

The Representation of the People

The Observer is a pretty rubbish newspaper these days, its strengths in world coverage a mere memory and its commitment to flogging stuff exceeding even that of The Guardian. The one positive is that its football reporting has improved of late after a disastrous start under Tortoise Media. But it has the advantage that its remove from the daily news cycle means that it can take a more analytical, even judicious, view of what is going on in the world. Obviously it doesn't actually do that. What it does do is summarise the consensus of the media. Rachel Sylvester's report, headlined "Greens facing ‘existential threat’ as membership plummets after anti-Zionist motion", rehearses all the various claims made since Thursday's Holborn and St Pancras byelection, coming to the paradoxical conclusion that (in so many words) "The antisemitic left have infested the party so its Jewish leader must step down". It even goes so far as to quote the usual suspects on the subject, Ian Austin and Adam Langleben. Insofar as there is any analysis here, it is the speculation, based on a tiny sample, that Green Party membership may have "plummeted" by up to 2%, which is well within the bounds of seasonal fluctuation.

It is quite possible that many party members have resigned over the anti-Zionist motion, because party members routinely resign over policy turns and this one is undoubtedly substantial in nature and likely to be provocative for many. But it's equally likely that some members will have resigned because they can see the way the wind is blowing - i.e. that the party will now be subjected to a full-on antisemitism scare across the media and that senior members of the party (notably former leaders like Caroline Lucas and Adrian Ramsay) will leverage this for factional ends. If you think the purges are coming, you may well decide to jump before you are pushed, and one factor in deciding this may be the signals you get from the current leadership. Zack Polanski has been accused of a failure of leadership for not having opposed the motion, but he can also be accused of such a failure for not having immediately called out the media's bias and the wrecking of those party grandees. If this all sounds familiar, it is because it was also the strategic error made by Jeremy Corbyn.

It's worth recalling that after rising steeply under Corbyn, the Labour Party's membership fell by 40% between 2019 and 2025. This was only partially down to expulsions, with the bulk of the fall due to resignations in despair or simple hopelessness leading to lapsed subs. But the press saw that as a triumph, not a concern, as it meant the party was returned to its rightful "owners". There isn't a sincere worry that the Greens will lose Jewish members over the adoption of an anti-Zionist policy but a gleeful expectation that they can be harried into expelling left-leaning members, which will incidentally include Jewish ones (like Polanski) and also Muslims, who in UK politics are now coded as left, because of Palestine, regardless of their actual views. This repeat of what we might call the Corbyn manoeuvre won't follow exactly the same trajectory, however. While it is credible to suggest that you must destroy Labour to save it (from the left), because the depth of support in urban seats means it will always return a rump of MPs, you can't suggest the same for the Greens without reducing them to low single figures in vote share and possibly zero MPs.

The right of the Green Party of England and Wales understands this, but some are deluding themselves that agreeing to the media's demands will return them to the status quo ante of 2024, and perhaps even tempt Caroline Lucas out of retirement. What they don't seem to realise is that the aim is not to cleanse them ahead of a relaunch as a once more respectable party but to make them ineffective as an incentive for Burnham to steer left. Polanski's real offence was not his failure to kill the motion but his claim that a vote for the Green Party would keep Burnham honest. Plenty in the media have noted that it was the Greens that effectively toppled Starmer with the by-election win in Gorton and Denton and thus paved the way for Burnham's journey to Number 10. Their celebration of his recapture of voters that had drifted to the Greens is tempered by an insistence that he must not diverge from centrist orthodoxy to indulge them. Those recaptured voters must accept compromise, and they'll only do that if the Greens are no longer a credible threat. The "Burnham bounce" may not survive beyond the next budget, so it is important that the Greens are disabled now. Those on the left hopeful that Burnham will push "left wing solutions" should consider the extent to which the Labour Party's reponse this week has focused on delegitimising the Greens, not on emphasising the attractiveness of those solutions to the voters of Holborn and St Pancras.

The media only concern themselves with marginal parties insofar as they can be used as goads against the major parties. That, after all, is why Nigel Farage is always on the telly. The purpose of Reform isn't to supplant the Conservative Party but to keep it firmly on the right: eurosceptic, pro-US, small state, anti-tax etc. The racism and bigotry are incidental. This is something that Farage understands, which is why he has tried to draw a clear line between Reform and the far-right of Restore Britain and its neo-Fascist satellites for whom the racism trumps the nationalism. It is also something that Kemi Badenoch understands, which is why her conference speech focused on shoring up support among the upper-middle classes with promises on inheritance tax and childcare, rather than "culture war" nonsense. The aim is not merely to bolster support in the Home Counties seats the Tories lost to the Liberal Democrats at the last general election, but to reassure the Daily Telegraph et al that they can pick up the slack as the parties further to  the right of them descend into sleaze, rhetorical confusion (e.g. who can be English) and street thuggery.

When a marginal party approaches critical mass in terms of support and membership, it starts to exhibit the characteristics of a larger party. This includes bothersome ex-leaders, opportunist candidates and the promotion of technocratic managerialists who tend towards the political centre. But the chief change is that it becomes a coalition. The Greens have always been divided crudely into fundamentalists and realists, but over the last decade they have become more clearly divided between conservative ecologists, concerned about the evironment but fundamentally accepting of the social status quo, and eco-socialists who believe the safeguarding of the environment depends on the reform of society. This left-right dichotomy does not map precisely onto the more traditional one of "fundis" and "realos", for whom the dividing line was over the extent of their engagement with the political party system. In fact, both left and right of the party are realists, in that regard. The instinct of the media is to play upon the inevitable tensions of a party's internal coalition and to suggest that particular factions should move across party boundaries, and for that purpose a left-right orientation is necessary.

Though we like to think the British party system is historically stable, it has actually been marked by major reformations and splits, from the merger of the Liberal Unionists with the Conservatives to the launch of the SDP. In recent decades, we've had the farce of Change UK and the fragmentation of the right around Brexit. Much of this has been driven by the media. Today, you will still hear press voices urging the Tories to "unite the right", while others now demand that Labour rule out the possibility of a coalition with the Greens. The point is not the substance of what is being argued, which is entirely contingent and can change with the weather, but the idea that party politics is mutable and should respond to the demands of the media, rather than to the dictates of internal democracy The current concern that the Green Party must ensure it is not vulnerable to takeover by extremists is just the latest iteration of the belief that politics should be left to the professionals, not civilians. 

The plan to disable the Greens goes beyond forcing Polanski out and rests on a particular analysis of the party's current social composition. According to Andrew Rawnsley, "The Greens are an unstable coalition of middle-class planet-loving environmentalists, pro-Palestinian activists and ultra-left militants who have migrated from Labour and elsewhere". The objective is to prise the party apart. The respectable middle-class rump will be patronised (I'm surprised Rawnsley didn't refer to them as "tree-huggers") and generally disregarded as they revert to 2% of the national vote. The pro-Palestine activists and ultra-left militants are largely the same people, but it suits Rawnsley's purpose to suggest a more fragmented landscape of single-issue groups and cranks rather than a coherent left that draws parallels between rent controls in the UK and settler violence in the West Bank. They will once more be expelled into the political wilderness. The champions of proportional representation will again insist that some people should never be represented in our political system.

Going Down

If there is one thing we can be confident about after the Premier League's official announcement of Manchester City's guilt, it is that the club will face a severe, condign punishment. Given precedent, the breadth of the charges and their duration, and considering City's systematic non-cooperation, it would be incredible if they got off with a slapped wrist. The club hierarchy's continued belligerence suggests that they know this: they must get the judgement wholly reversed because otherwise they are going down. Relegation is the most likely outcome for three reasons. First, stripping them of their titles opens a can of worms in respect of teams that missed out on silverware or Europe or who were relegated. This is simply too complicated to correct, given the long period the offences covered, and would leave the Premier League open to years of litigation. It would also lead to reasonable calls for an investigation of City's practices since 2018 so that all disadvantages were corrected. The club's insistence that there was no wrong-doing suggests that whatever they were up to before 2018, they haven't changed their behaviour since. Indeed, if they had, that would be tantamount to an admission of guilt.

Second, it would be embarrassing and ridiculous if a City squad, assembled on the back of a dodgy history, went on and won the league this season. This points to a hefty points deduction that would guarantee relegation (a nice round 100, to match their 2017-18 record-breaking season, would be poetic justice). Third, the duration of the offences suggests that not only should the punishment be hefty but that it should endure for a number of years. We're not going to see City crowned as winners of the Championship in 2028. Additionally, the disruption and consequent resentment that relegation by a single tier would cause means that being forced to regroup much further down the FA pyramid is more likely. Some have suggested that the best way to cleanse the club would be for it to be formally wound up and then re-established, which has happened to other clubs, though usually due to bankruptcy. This would mean entry at no higher than level 7 (the Northern Premier League) and thus at best a 6 year journey to get back to the EPL. Ironically, this extreme case of "Cityitis" is one that not a few City fans themselves might accept, given their tendency towards gallows humour and the club's previous sojourn in the old Division Two (tier 3).

It's important to stress at this point that the fans are innocent. If there is one thing that characterises English football at the top level it is that fans have no say in the operation of the clubs they support. Likewise, the players and coaching staff are innocent. Even if some, like Roberto Mancini, lacked curiosity about the legality or ethics of their employment, you cannot blame workers when the bosses have been fiddling the books, no matter how many bonuses those workers earned as a result. No one seriously thinks that the judgement on Manchester City reflects badly on a generational talent like Kevin De Bruyne, or that Rodri should be summarily stripped of his Ballon d'Or. And if Erling Haaland elicits a common response among football fans beyond Manchester today it is not schadenfreude but pity that he may have wasted his prime years on a tainted project. But is that any worse than a player who signs up for the Saudi Pro League because he would rather have the money than the medals? 

The one person outside of the club's executive tier who has come in for a healthy serving of schadenfreude is Pep Guardiola, on the dubious grounds that "he must have known", as if head coaches were routinely involved in a club's financial management, or on the equally dubious grounds that his support for the UAE's sports-washing makes his support for Catalan independence hypocritical (hypocrisy is failing to practise what you preach, not the holding of inconsistent positions across unrelated matters). You cannot put an asterisk against Guardiola's achievements at Manchester City unless you also put one against his achievements at both Barcelona and Bayern Munich. In all three cases he has enjoyed an unfair advantage, namely the wealth and influence of the clubs he worked for, and the consequent sympathetic treatment by (and occasional outright bias of) politicians, officials and journalists. Guardiola is an elite coach precisely because he only works for elite clubs. He isn't about to parachute in to Coventry to try and rescue them from relegation. 

Football does not actively seek to balance the natural endowments or historic advantages of individual clubs, in the way that the US NFL partially does with its draft system, for example. In every football league there is an elite stratum of clubs that dominate. In Scotland, a team other than Celtic or Rangers hasn't won the league since Aberdeen in 1985, and there were only 14 such interruptions of the Old Firm duopoly over the course of the twentieth century. England is unusual in that its elite is both large and historically mutable: consider the varied fortunes over time not only of City but of clubs like Chelsea, Aston Villa, Everton and Leeds. This meant it was always going to take more resources (and the very best available players and coaches) to crack the EPL. Qatar has made a comparable investment in PSG, but that was always about achieving success in the European Champions League, not dominating the relatively small pond of Ligue 1. For Abu Dhabi the sports-washing rewards of dominating the English Premier League, the most popular in the world, were higher, but so was the risk.

UEFA isn't innocent as it could have properly sanctioned Manchester City years ago and nipped the problem in the bud. The EPL isn't innocent either, even if it has taken an ethically robust and courageous position now. We shouldn't forget that it only introduced its PSR rules at UEFA's prompting and would otherwise have been happy for wealth to continue to have its way with the league, as had been the case since its formation in 1992. The UK government isn't innocent as the nominally arms-length Football Regulator is clearly a waste of space, happy to wave through foreign states taking over English clubs with only the flimsiest of "fronts", as it recently showed with the Saudi takeover of Newcastle United. The government's public appetite for foreign investment, as much as our cultural discretion around footloose capital, has always meant a willingness to turn a blind eye if the money was big enough, something that Andy Burnham has rather clumsily made clear in his concerns that the Abu Dhabi United Group might pull out of Manchester entirely.

Manchester City aren't the only top-flight English club to have broken the rules. Everton, Nottingham Forest and Chelsea have all been found guilty in recent years. But City's case is egregious: an industrial scale operation. That said, it does make the indulgence of Chelsea, who were systematically and persistently dodgy during the Abramovich years, look even more peculiar in retrospect. If we have learnt one thing, it is that sponsorship deals are intrinsically suspicious. It always puzzled me that Arsenal never seemed to generate as much commercial revenue as its peers, despite having a global fanbase (a fact reinforced in the reaction to this year's league title), but it is unlikely to be the only club playing by the rules. After all, the directors were as guilty as others of disguised payments under the old maximum wage regime (Alex James had an undemanding second job as a "sports demonstrator" at Selfridges), and they were no stranger to "bungs" in later years, albeit in George Graham's case the club was effectively defrauded.

Opinion on what should be done is slowly settling on two basic options: a time-limited expulsion of the club from the Premier League (or demotion far enough down the pyramid to have the same effect) versus the permanent expulsion of the owners from the domestic game. As the Prime Minister's intervention has indicated, the latter could have much wider economic ramifications, which is why I think the former is currently more likely, though the balance of probability may shift if the owners continue to be obstreperous beyond their initial appeal. The chance of a state-engineered takeover of the club is zero while we have a government terrified of nationalisation. If there is one thing that neither the English Premier League nor the Football Association want to see it is more supporter involvement in the running of clubs, not because of their contempt for the swinish multitude but simply because they realise the game depends on the willingness of the rich to piss away millions, or even billions, of pounds on vanity projects. Football is a money-pit. 

The pioneers of the EPL were deluded in thinking that it could be made profitable (the cannier simply saw the opportunity to fleece fans through the novelty of sentimental share ownership, and later foreign investors through takeovers). While some owners still shamelessly extract dividends and load their clubs with debt (the other Manchester way), the imperatives of competition and supporter expectation mean that more money typically goes in than goes out. Were the Abu Dhabi United Group to leave the stage, Manchester City would struggle to acquire new owners willing to spend as much money, licitly or illicitly. That would be healthy for the game, but it would throw the club's achivements over the last quarter of a century into starker relief, as it became just another mid-tier fallen giant with hopes of one day "doing a Leicester". My guess is that the Abu Dhabi United Group will retain ownership but take a back seat as a new "clean" board is put in place. City will become just one of many assets in their portfolio. Meanwhile, City fans will have the pleasure of a derby with FC United of Manchester in the Northern Premier League, assuming the latter don't get relegated this season as well.