Jeremy's Den

07/10/2024

Waiting For The Fun

When the men on the chessboard get up and tell you where to go

And you've just had some kind of mushroom, and your mind is moving low, go ask Alice, I think she'll know

(Grace Slick, White Rabbit, 1966)

When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead, and the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's off with her head, remember what the Dormouse said, feed your head, feed your head

(Grace Slick, White Rabbit, 1966)

Back in USA for the penultimate time before the Big Election Night that could signal the end of Elon-Musk-As-We-Know-It, if Donald Trump loses it again. Today's soundtrack is The Doors' third album, Waiting For The Sun, a too often overlooked gem released in 1968. Starting, for once, with the bonus track. The full-length studio version of the legendary epic Celebration Of The Lizard, that was added to the 40th Anniversary Expanded Edition of the album. Lots of food for thought in this one. Plus a few more tunes, embedded in the quotes. For a reason. The clues are in the quotes. If you know, you know.

Remember to click on the images for larger and easier to read versions, if you didn't know already.

We must always look on the bright side of life, or die trying. There is indeed one such opportunity in the American presidential election, no matter how ridiculously nasty the campaign becomes. That's of course Elon Musk never missing an opportunity to make a fucking arse of himself, and getting 'community noted' every other day on his own platform, for knee-jerkingly approving and relaying every item of already-discredited fake news spewed by Donald Trump, J.D. Vance or their Number One Fan Vladimir Putin. Astonishingly, Musk looked totally unfazed when J.D. Vance openly admitted, live on national television, that the dog-eating-Haitians story was a complete fabrication, and that he would continue making up fake news if that was good for the media coverage of the Republican campaign. But the current trend of polls says that it doesn't really work, as they remain massively favourable for Kamala Harris.

Now the Trump campaign's newly-deployed talking point is that polls were wrong in 2020 and overestimated Biden's lead over The Donald. As always with assertions from the MAGA mob, this is partly true and partly false, which is actually more true than their usual fabricated bullshit. 2020 polls did not overestimate Biden's share of the popular vote. The last week's aggregate of polls predicted Biden on 51.4% and he bagged 51.3% on Election Day. You can't get closer than that to being spot on. What the polls did was overestimate the vote for the other candidates, Libertarian and Green mostly, but also minor local fifth-party candidates and write-ins. This does not mean we should take all of this year's polls at face value, but not for the wrong reasons Trump is trying to push in his current narrative. Which came out only because generic presidential polling now points to a repeat of the 2020 vote.

Looking back on the campaign, you can see there have been four phases. Phase I lasted until 21 June and Joe Biden's retirement, and it spelt doom for the Democrats. Phase II lasted from 22 June to 23 August, when Robert F. Kennedy Jr also withdrew, and it only showed signs of a slow recovery for Team Blue. Phase III was the one Republicans did not really expect, from 23 August to 10 September, the day of the one and only presidential debate. Voting intentions for Harris had steadily improved during that period, until they made her the front-runner, though not yet in a totally assured way as state-level polls sent contradictory messages from the swing states. Now we are in Phase IV, The Last Mile, that looks better and better for Kamala Harris, though we all know that it ain't over till it's over, and the future ain't what it used to be. There are wee signs, in just a couple of polls so far, that we should brace ourselves for a Trump surge in the next few days. Who really knows? Despite the Democrats' many flaws, starting with their capture by absolutist woke intersectionalism, it's obvious that Trump is a much bigger threat when you consider the big picture and the plausibility of a new American isolationism. That makes it our problem too, not just theirs, and no European in their sane mind should wish for a Trump victory.

That's what they do, don't they? They show you the world and then they tell you you can't have it.

(Virginia Wilson, 1899: The Ship, 2022)

If you've been bad, Oh Lord, I bet you have, and you've not been hit by flying lead

You'd better close your eyes, ooooh, bow your head, wait for the ricochet

(Ian Gillan, Child In Time, 1970)

The raw numbers don't tell you everything about the presidential election, even if they are quite good at predicting the outcome. Buy you also have to wonder why voters will ultimately lean in this or that direction. That's why Redfield & Wilton probed their American panel about abortion, the economy and inflation. All three are key issues in that campaign, as well as divisive ones, and Redfield & Wilton chose what is probably the most meaningful approach. Not what the people actually think about these issues, but which party's or candidate's position they feel closest to. And that polling, deployed only in Redfield & Wilton's ten 'states to watch', is definitely good news for Democrats. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Democrats have quite astutely used abortion in their campaigns, under the woke NewSpeak label of "reproductive rights", as they are under standing orders never to say "women's rights" because it's transphobic. This was obviously their lifeline, and enabled to save the day at the 2022 Midterms, which basically ended in a stalemate instead of the usual crushing defeat for the governing party. And this new poll shows that majorities support the Democrats' views on abortion in all ten selected swing states, with an average 55% supporting their position against only 35% supporting the Republicans' stance.

This is not as surprising as it seems when you consider two significant ballot measures, which is American for referendums, that have been submitted to voters in Kansas, a strongly Republican state, and Ohio, a Republican-leaning swing state. Kansas voters rejected constitutional restrictions to abortion 3-to-2, and Ohio voters approved enshrining 'reproductive rights' in the state's Constitution by an almost as big majority. These two unexpected wins have emboldened pro-choice activists and changed their tactics, as pro-abortion measures will be on the ballot in ten states this year, most as amendments to the states' Constitutions that would make abortion a constitutionally-protected right. We just have to hope that voters also remind Democrats that only women can be pregnant and give birth, and that all the virtue-signalling sloganeering in the world won't make a fucking difference. Redfield & Wilton also probed their panel about the economy, and they also lean more towards the Democrats' position.

The Democrats' lead is less convincing here, on only 9% average. Significantly, they do rather poorly in Michigan and Pennsylvania, two key swing states that proved essential in delivering the Presidency to Trump in 2016. Kamala Harris's problem here is that her own positions on the economy have not always been clear, and the whole issue is actually obscured by both parties relying on abstract constructs that don't really connect with the people's very pragmatic concerns. She has managed to be criticised from the right as another 'populist tax-and-spend' Democrat, which has become quite a tired cliché from that side of the debate, but also from the left as not bold enough and pushing counterproductive measures on taxes and regulation. That's clearly one case where making everyone unhappy doesn't prove you have found the right compromise. One of the American people's main concerns, like pretty much everywhere in the civilised democratic world, is inflation. Quite intriguingly, Redfield & Wilton found that Democrats have only weak support on this.

Democrats have a majority supporting them on inflation only in Georgia, while they have one on the economy in seven of the ten states included in the poll. It is arguably a bit unfair, as inflation in the USA was 2.5% in August, the lowest yearly average in three-and-a-half years. Food prices have increased less than the average Consumer Price Index, and energy prices have actually gone down 4%, something that would sound like a miracle in the UK, when our resident energy regulator is keener on allowing highway robbery by the energy companies than on protecting the consumers' interests. Republicans have a field day stressing that Joe Biden's much-publicised Inflation Reduction Act was misnamed as it actually did not reduce inflation in 2022 and 2023, and inflation would have gone down anyway thanks to the mythical 'invisible hand of The Market'. This works because Americans want the same as Brits, not being lectured about how well the government is doing because inflation is slowing down, but seeing prices actually go down from the outrageous levels reached after two years of double-digit inflation. The usual routines, blaming Covid and the war in Ukraine, have clearly exhausted their credibility and don't work anymore. Not here, not there. Not when the only thing the people see is that their weekly groceries are 20% more expensive than when Biden was sworn in.

Sometimes, one has to adjust to a situation as it unfolds. With every calamity comes opportunity.

(Virginia Wilson, 1899: The Boy, 2022)

Under a blue moon, I saw you, so soon, you'll take me up in your arms, too late to beg you

Or cancel it, though I know it must be the killing time, unwillingly mine

(Ian McCulloch, The Killing Moon, 1984)

It's common wisdom that foreign affairs issues are not high on the American public's list of priorities. Unless one suddenly pops up and stays in the news cycle, like the situation in Palestine since Hamas perpetrated the worst pogrom since the Nazi extermination camps a year ago. Sadly, this debate has been polluted from the start, in pretty much the same way as in the UK. Or rather, in a way that was born in the USA, and then imported to the UK by mushbrained activists. The historically and ideologically illiterate woke lunatics who have hijacked the legitimate political fight for the Palestinian people's unalienable right to freedom, democracy and safety in a state of their own, and turned it into support for terrorist militias like Hamas and Hezbollah, whose only project is to impose theocratic totalitarianism on their own people. Sadly, this asinine posturing has delivered the opposite of its intended effect, and boosted support for Israel, when the United States should be denouncing its war crimes against civilians, that are of the same nature and magnitude as Russia's war crimes in Ukraine, under cover of a similar rhetoric of 'self-defence'. But the Great American Public's stance is not without ambiguities.

Americans are more likely to support Israel, but that support massively comes from the old MAGA Right. While the young Woke Left is on the Palestinian side. And we know that significant fractions of these factions are fuelled by concurrent sloganeering of 'We Love Bibi' vs 'We Love Hamas'. Both are even daft enough to not see that they are two cheeks of the same arse preaching to the same choir, those who want to destroy our standards of freedom and democracy, and promote religion-infused ethnic-supremacist totalitarianism. The issue of humanitarian aid to Palestine promises to be a touchy one if it is ever raised in the campaign. The Republicans will have a field day stressing that, whatever the USA pour in, it's of little comfort to Gazans, as there is widespread evidence that huge chunks of it have been embezzled by Hamas dignitaries to fund their lavish lifestyle and their kids' education at posh schools far far away from Gaza. There is a clear split of American public opinion in the ongoing debate about military aid to Israel and humanitarian aid to Palestine, again shown by YouGov's latest poll.

This has all the potential of being more of a gotcha situation for Harris than Trump. The Biden-Harris administration has never questioned the massive amounts of military aid to Israel, a systematic $3bn per year with a top-up of a few more billions every other year, while a clear majority of Democratic voters want it to be decreased, and this has become their dominant view in the last few months, after Israel's massively disproportionate response to Hamas atrocities. As expected, Republicans massively support it, with even a plurality wanting to increase it, which would obviously not be smart policy in the current context. There is almost a mirror image of that on the issue of humanitarian aid to Palestine, though support from registered Independents is enough to deliver an overall majority supporting it, and a plurality even willing to increase it. YouGov added a twist to that, with a question that is usually raised only in debates about Ukraine, allowing the use of American-provided weaponry by Israel to strike outwith their own territory.

More Americans object to Israel using American weapons than support it. This is embarrassing for Harris as the highest levels of opposition are in the younger generations, the one she counts on to win the election, and registered Democrats. But this is also a rhetorical question. Ukraine has always abided by American restrictions on the use of the weapons they provided, even when it cost thousands of innocent Ukrainian lives. It would be foolish to expect the same of Benjamin Netanyahu. It is safe to assume that Bibi doesn't give a fucking shit, and would continue to use everything he has, even in the very unlikely event the next US administration explicitly imposed restrictions on his indiscriminate revenge strikes on civilians. Besides, Israel's defence industry is strong enough to fully compensate for a highly unlikely embargo on American-built weapons, so that's pretty much a moot point anyway. Notwithstanding her personal beliefs, and her desire to cuddle the woke pro-Hamas youth, Kamala Harris can't afford to withdraw support from Israel. It's just a matter of electoral math and political survival, so no U-turn will happen. Simples.

Human behaviour is quite predictable. Desire meets opportunity. Et voilà. This might hurt a little.

(Virginia Wilson, 1899: The Fog, 2022)

All our times have come here, but now they're gone

Seasons don't fear the Reaper, nor do the wind, the sun, or the rain

Forty thousand men and women everyday redefine happiness, another forty thousand coming everyday

(Donald Roeser, Don't Fear The Reaper, 1976)

Ukraine will probably be a much more pressing issue for the next President and the next Congress. We know exactly where Donald Trump stands, which is worse than anything Neville Chamberlain did vis-à-vis Adolf Hitler. Trump is way beyond appeasement, and is clearly an accomplice to Putin's imperialist vision and war crimes. Admittedly, supporters of Ukraine say the same about Biden more and more loudly, but there is still a difference between guilt by procrastination and active involvement on the side of the colonialist oppressor. I honestly don't understand why Democrats are not campaigning more heavily on Trump being The Russian Candidate, Putin's partner in crime and obedient lapdog, with no plan to end the war other than coercing Ukraine into accepting enslavement and colonisation by the Russian Reich. But they may feel encouraged to do so by the Great American Public's state of mind, as also revealed by YouGov. Starting with a slightly less pessimistic assessment of Ukraine's position in the war.

Of course, optimism for Ukraine is still devastatingly lower than at its peak at the start of the Ukrainian counter-offensive. But the invasion of Kursk seems to have weakened Russia's position, especially as they have been unable to repeal the boarders, and that's a significant change from six months ago, when Ukraine seemed to be in a desperate situation. Ukraine's proven ability to strike back with their own hardware, and inflict serious damage on the Russian military even without Western missiles, surely played a part here too. This does not of course exonerate the Biden-Harris administration of their massive responsibility in the bloodshed, as much of the same Ukrainian successes would have happened much earlier and more decisively if the United States had not imposed imaginary red lines on the use of Western weapons delivered to Ukraine. The most astonishing part is that it is not even a divisive issue in the eyes of the American public. YouGov's last poll shows that a majority support allowing Ukraine to use everything they have in every way they want, and only a small minority oppose it.

This is actually more of a hot issue for the Putin candidates, Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, as more of their own voters support it than oppose it. It should be a no-brainer for Harris and Biden, as more than two thirds of both registered Democrats and Kamala's prospective voters support it. It appears even more incongruously indefensible after the latest developments in the Middle East. American warships stationed in the Mediterranean, acting on direct orders from the White House, shot down Iranian missiles targeting Israel. While NATO countries are ordered to do nothing about Russian missiles and drones massacring the civilian population of Ukraine, even when they fly over their own territory. Then Israel flattened and razed to the ground a Russian base in Syria, and Biden's favourite appeaser bureaucrat Jake Sullivan never warned Netanyahu about the 'unacceptable risks of escalation'. Biden's legacy will remain soiled by his two-tier foreign policy, his procrastination and his continuous criminally appeasing stance making him Neville Chamberlain 2.0, rivalled only by the perennial coward Olaf Scholz. Even if the exact opposite attitude would be an electoral asset, as YouGov also found a majority of Americans in favour of maintaining or even increasing military aid to Ukraine.

Trump's and Vance's populist and isolationist discourse about 'money better spent at home', also shared by the far-left faux-pacifists infected by Putinist propaganda, does not really work. A huge majority of registered Democrats and Harris voters support Ukraine, and even a majority among the woke TikTok generation, Kamala's pet demographic and the ones most likely to be exposed to Putinist propaganda on social media. Even Trump's prospective voters are not fully convinced and registered Republicans are split, with Trump's pet demographic of older voters massively supporting Ukraine. Which only shows that the Orange Baboon values Russian blood money in his campaign, and Russian interference via bots, the far-right media and Elon Musk, more than the reasoned opinion of the American people. It is now quite clear that, if Trump wins, the first victims, besides the American people themselves, will be Ukraine and the rest of Europe by ricochet. Putinism, like Nazism 90 years ago, is not a plague Europe should be left facing alone. It's also the United States' duty, and in their best interests too, to be clearly involved in destroying it. Only Putin-bribed 'influencers' and Putinism-infected halfwits can say otherwise.

When we face a situation like we do now, with innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help, and then we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye.

(Barack Obama on Syria, August 2014, before turning a blind eye)

Misty morning, clouds in the sky, without warning, a wizard walks by

Casting his shadow, weaving his spell, long grey cloak, tinkling bell

Never talking, just keeps walking spreading his magic

(Terence "Geezer" Butler, The Wizard, 1970)

I will not bore you with the full charts of voting intentions in all twelve swing states this time, but cut to the chase, with just the weighted average of the last six polls in each, and how it compares with their votes in 2020. Some pollsters publish two variants of their results, one for registered voters and one for likely voters. I use only the latter, which is similar in approach, though less elaborate, to the British pollsters' weighting by likelihood to vote. As you might have guessed from the trends of generic national polls, what we have know looks pretty good for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, and quite disappointing for Donal Trump and J.D. Vance, which might explain their campaigning frenzy four weeks before Election Day. They have been especially active in the three Rust Belt states, that gave the Presidency to Trump in 2016 and to Biden in 2020, and remain key battlegrounds.

Harris's has to improve her poor average ratings on the economy, so she has to hit the nail on the nose here, with her oft-repeated reminder that 200,000 manufacturing jobs were destroyed during Trump's Presidency. That's the kind of messaging that goes right through and stays there in those three states, America's worst post-industrial wastelands. Harris is even predicted now to do better than Biden in Wisconsin. Michigan and Pennsylvania are far less good, but what matters at the end of the day is that you win, not by how many votes you do. So long as your lead is bigger than what would trigger an automatic mandatory recount, the threshold in Michigan being a measly 2,000 votes. Pennsylvania sets it at a more reasonable 0.5% of votes cast, which means it would indeed happen if the result was similar to current polling, and that's definitely something Kamala Harris must avoid. Back to the beginning now, with the first three swing states in alphabetical order, that have both bad and good news for the Democrats.

Arizona and Georgia both went to Joe Biden by a hare's breadth in 2020, after years in the Republican column. Of course, Biden would still have won the election without their votes in the Electoral College, but with a majority of only 20 instead of 74. With the Great Lakes states too close for comfort, Kamala Harris cannot afford to ignore Arizona and Georgia, and polls saying both have swung back to Trump. The Democrats now have more money in the bank than the Republicans, so it's smart strategy to force Trumps to spend more in tossup states, with the very plausible possibility to decisively outspend him. In that respect, Florida being closer than in 2020 is manna from Heaven for Harris. It's just one door down the East Coast from Georgia, and it can shift the burden of 'tough choices' from Harris to Trump. Less money from donors, more states to spend it on. That's definitely the dilemma you want the other side to struggle with.

Hearing voices is not a sign of God. It’s a sign of madness.

(Tove, 1899: The Calling, 2022)

There must be some way out of here, said the joker to the thief, there's too much confusion, I can't get no relief

Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth, none of them along the line know what any of it is worth

(Bob Dylan, All Along The Watchtower, 1967)

Then we have one state that is actually swingy and two that are not really, which Redfield & Wilton nevertheless added to their cart. Interestingly the one true swing state here, Nevada, shows a wee swing towards Harris, while the not-so-swingy two, Minnesota and New Mexico, show a swing towards Trump. There's no grounds for a Red Scare in either, as they are still conclusively in the Blue Column, but it's quite funny to see that the Walz Magic does not quite work in his own state. Of course, the swing towards Trump in Minnesota is as itsy bitsy teenie weenie as the proverbial yellow polkadot bikini of America's pre-historical era, Trump's teenage years, and won't even last as long, but it's one of very few things that could bring a smile to Trump's face when looking at current polls.

Finally we have three more Southern states that could act as distractions for the Trump campaign in their quest for every possible vote. Including one that is the genuine upset in that round of polling. Texas is still predicted to remain in the Red Column, probably with a slightly higher margin than in 2020. But that's definitely a state where Democrats can play mind games with the Trump campaign. They surely have an opportunity to instil doubt and fear in their adversaries' minds, especially if they devote more resources to the Senate race where arch-MAGA loon Ted Cruz is seeking another term. It may not lead to victory, but could be money well spent on distraction. Virginia is going the other way, with Democrats in a weaker position than in 2020. There they need the exact opposite strategy, baiting the Republicans into a false sense of hope, thusly luring them into spending more in a state they can't win. Finally, North Carolina is the real miracle for Kamala Harris, but one she should enjoy fully now, as it may not last.

Democrats gaining North Carolina by a hair is not as far fetched as it sounds. It was a really weak hold for Trump in 2020, weaker than in 2016, and chose Barack Obama in 2008, which is not that far back in time. Democrats have also gained ground in the state at the 2022 midterms, thanks to Republicans picking some ultra-MAGAs who eventually proved unelectable. I definitely don't rule out something similar happening this year, including the presidential vote. The American punditariat and prognosticators rate North Carolina as a tossup with a tiny advantage for Trump, but I disagree on the basis of the most recent batch of polls. These show Democrats capitalising on some sort of ricochet effect from the hugely contentious gubernatorial election, which I will discuss in more detail later, with all the juicy gory details. Seeing a certifiable lunatic, whom Trump will not disown, handing North Carolina's 16 Electoral College votes to Harris would definitely be massively ironically karmatic. But Harris will need more than just that to hold the state all the way to Election Day.

People are oblivious to reality. They only see what they want to see. Imprisoned by their mind’s restrictions. When all they have to do is shift their perspective to see the full scope of things.

(Henry Singleton, 1899: The Pyramid, 2022)

I listen to the wind, to the wind of my soul, where I'll end up, well, I think only God really knows

I've swam upon the devil's lake but never, never, never, I'll never make the same mistake, no, never, never

(Cat Stevens, The Wind, 1971)

The updated prediction for the Electoral College looks better for Kamala Harris than a month ago, but also shows where her weaknesses lie. The number of tossup states and their electoral votes is the same, but more are now in Harris's column, including those where either candidate's position is the weakest. That's why Trump has been seen campaigning so heavily in Pennsylvania, and also unleashing his bots to spread fake news in and about North Carolina. If both swing back to his side, he wins. That would be a lacklustre win, on 281-257, but clearing the 270 hurdle is all that counts at the end of the day, especially for the candidate who has convinced his followers that the ends justify the means, any means. Including already stoking the fire of conspiracy theories, as if he is already grooming public opinion to fall for a renewed claim that the election was rigged and stolen, just like in 2020. I seriously think this is the real subtext of many of Trump's attacks on Harris and Democrats, and what's behind J.D. Vance not ruling our relying on further fake news and manipulation. The certification of the election results by Congress is scheduled for the 6th of January again, by the way. Beware the anniversary.

With all the caveats you can infer from the volatility of polls and the excruciatingly close results in several battleground states, I nevertheless stick with my prediction that Kamala Harris's position has improved, and that she is only one state away from matching Joe Biden's result in 2020. This is not the safest place to be for Harris, though, now that Trump's abysmal performance in the debate, and his cowardly refusal to accept a second one, have faded off the news cycle, and thusly off most people's minds. That's a lucky combination for Trump, that of short attention span and short memories, that pretty much defines his post-truth alter-verse. Harris has not closed the deal yet with the American people, and she surely needs to inject more down-to-Earth relatable content in her campaign events over the last four weeks. Fighting off Trump's relentless claim that the Biden-Harris administration is weak, powerless and no longer respected would be a good start, especially to get swing voters in swing states back on her side.

Hilariously, speculation has now started about the possibility of an October Surprise, but the only hint you can see that it could actually happen is Elon Musk openly promoting a massive influx of fake news on Twitter about the way the Biden administration is handling the fallout of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina, a lot of it with a thinly-disguised veneer of racist dogwhistles. It's obviously no coincidence that it is the only state mentioned in fabricated nonsense pushed by Russia-based bots, when eleven other states have reportedly been hit. But only North Carolina has been identified by the MAGA mob as the top key swing state that could decide the election, and Elon thusly got his marching orders from Mar-a-Lago's golf course. These also include the relentless flooding of Twitter with 'news' about 'imported voters'. Forget the second dose of racist dogwhistles, and enjoy the massive irony in Musk promoting this, as he is an imported voter himself, having acquired US citizenship at 31 in 2002. But never mind, the ends justify the means, and converts are always the best zealots, aren't they?

Reality is more than neurons firing around in your brain. Reality is not what’s on the inside. It’s what’s happening on the outside.

(Daniel Solace, 1899: The Storm, 2022)

There's a starman waiting in the sky, he'd like to come and meet us but he thinks he'd blow our minds

There's a starman waiting in the sky, he's told us not to blow it 'cause he knows it's all worthwhile

(David Bowie, Starman, 1972)

Voting intentions polls for the House of Representatives are still quite good for Democrats, though in a less conclusively massive way than generic presidential polls. It will be interesting to see how the various variables at play here will interact. Will there be a trickle-downballot effect from the presidential vote? How well will Democrats do in seats they gained in Red States at the midterms, on the coattails of strong pro-choice campaigns? How well will Republicans do in seats they serendipitously gained by a bat's whisker in Blue States like New York and California? How many voters will fall for the fake news peddled by Republicans, and by Elon Musk and Putinist bots on their behalf? How many will vote for Gaza? How many will vote to punish Democrats for their radical wokeism? There's a lot to unpack here and, for all we know, any two of these factors might cancel each other and end up delivering a regression to the mean. Which is what first-past-the-post usually does when voters are offered a binary choice between two parties that bag 98% of the votes between themselves, and vindicates a purely statistical approach with few exceptions.

There is also some constituency-level polling, which is done only very sporadically in the UK. It is more widespread in the USA, as pollsters are quick to identify 'swing districts' that may go against the dominant trends and have an impact on the shape of things to come. Where individual districts go usually matters only because of the basic principle of strength in numbers. But it becomes of paramount importance if a tie in the Electoral College leads to a contingent election, where the rule shifts from one-person-one-vote to one-state-one-vote. One lone district changing sides, and swinging a state delegation from one party to the other, could thusly decide who becomes President of the Free World, or summat. Right now, the aggregate of all available polls over the last week predicts that 22 seats would change hands. 19 from Republicans to Democrats, 3 from Democrats to Republicans.

Democrats would gain back the House, which would be highly meaningful politically in a nation where not everything is always about race, but most of everything is about who's got the biggest whatever. Which would be the Democratic Party here, back in the driver's seat with a slightly bigger majority than in 2020. Control of the House of Representatives matters because they have the final say on the federal budget, and a President-friendly House is the best way to avoid the legendary bogeyman of American politics, the shutdown. It's a typically American thing as it can actually be avoided by passing a continuing resolution, allowing uninterrupted month-by-month funding on the basis of the previous year's appropriations, until a real new budget is passed. Which is what all other countries do when the proper budgetary process is blocked. But Americans are such drama queens they have kept this weapon of mass destruction in their Constitution, just for the sake of staging over-dramatised pissing contests between the White House and Capitol every now and then, and it was also great screenplay fodder for The West Wing. In real life, only six shutdowns have lasted more than a day, and only three of those saw the whole of government turn off the lights. Ironically, Trump is the only President who ever suffered the humiliation of a shutdown by his own party. Twice.

If you’re brave enough, I can show you the truth. I'll show you the truth. Trust me.

(Henry Singleton, 1899: The Key, 2022)

Fold down your hands, give me a sign, put down your lies, lay down next to me

Don't listen when I scream, bury your doubts and fall asleep, find out I was just a bad dream

(Sasha Ring, Goodbye, 2011)

Just a month ago, it looked like there would be little suspense in this year's Senate elections. The writing on the wall was there, predicting that Democrats would lose control of the Senate as they would lose both the Montana and West Virginia seats, and also the constitutional bonus of having the Vice-President cast the deciding vote in a split Senate, for a tiny one-seat Democratic majority. But it now looks like we should always have counted on the volatility and unpredictability of the American electorate, including in states where you least expect it to be a deciding factor. There is indeed some of that in the last batch of state-level Senate polls, and that could lead to a very interesting outcome. But the juicy case is not in the first batch of my select swing seats.

No surprise in Montana, as Jon Tester is still predicted to lose his seat after three terms. In eighteen years, Tester has failed to gain the same level of influence as another famous Democratic Senator from Montana, Max Baucus. Baucus managed to make himself a kingmaker and was instrumental in strongarming Barack Obama into watering down his health care reform in 2009-2010. But Senate arithmetic in later terms never allowed Tester to gain that sort of power, even if he had wanted to, and this year is probably the proverbial 'one election too many' for him. No surprise either in Florida, where Republican incumbent Rick Scott has solidified his position after a knife-edge gain six years ago. And a mixed bag for Democrats in Arizona, where newcomer Ruben Gallego is in a better position than expected despite poor presidential polls, and Michigan, where the other newcomer Elissa Slotkin may be in for a serious scare in a state where Democrats look surprisingly weak in this election cycle. And then comes the big upset.

And this is now predicted to happen in the state where it can't happen, or at least that's what the whole Beltway punditariat said until last week, rust-red Nebraska. Now polls say that Republican two-term incumbent Debra Fischer is likely to be unseated by Libertarian-turned-Independent Dan Osborn, who is hugely benefiting from the state's Democratic Party's decision to sit this one out. It's a safe bet that the decision was actually made out-of-state, at the highest level of the DNC, as they knew no Democrat could possibly win that race and it would be better value for money to boost an Independent, whose credentials are not limited to membership of the Libertarian Party, but more importantly also include trade-union activism in a leadership position during a high-visibility strike that made national headlines. There's actually more to Osborn's plausible future than just an upset win, but I will burn that bridge when I come to it. The other three races in this batch have an air of déjà vu all over again, with Democrats in a better position than expected in Nevada, but worryingly weaker in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The last four in my selection go pretty much in the same direction.

Calgary-born America Taliban Ted Cruz again appears to be in a weak position in Texas, but should nevertheless secure a third term as Democrats have failed to pick as formidable a candidate as Beto O'Rourke was six years ago. There has been no new poll in West Virginia since last month, as even the DNC has lost any hope of holding it, and it's bound to go Red by the same kind of margin Trump will enjoy there. Tim Kaine in Virginia, Hilary Clinton's unlucky running mate in 2016, and Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin are both predicted to hold their Senate seats with smaller majorities than six years ago, but also with stronger margins than Kamala Harris in the presidential vote. This only says that Harris and Walz still have significant perceived weakness in the public's eyes, and are not benefiting from cross-pollination with the campaigns of successful incumbent Senators. That's not what might possibly cost Harris the presidency, as she will carry both states eventually, but that definitely casts a shadow of doubt on the efficiency of the Democratic campaign machines.

The big things and the little things don’t follow the same rules. We might not be able to alter the grand scheme of things, but the details. We change a grain of sand. And with it, the whole world.

(Jonas Kahnwald, Dark: Endings And Beginnings, 2019)

I'm standing on a stage of fear and self-doubt, it's a hollow play but they'll clap anyway

I'm living in an age that calls darkness light, though my language is dead, still the shapes fill my head

(Win Butler, My Body Is A Cage, 2007)

This last batch of polls has brought quite a twist to the predicted composition of the Senate after the elections. Of course, there is no massive movement, and nobody expected it anyway. This means that the days of XL majorities are also gone. The last time anyone bagged a veto-proof 67 seats was 1964 election, and the Democrats lost it again at the 1966 midterms. The last time anyone got a filibuster-proof 60 seats was a brief period in 2009-2010, between the moment Democrats gained a seat thanks to Arlen Specter's defection from the Republicans, and the moment they lost Ted Kennedy's old seat at a by-election. Oddly, the filibuster has made an unexpected come-back in the campaign, as Democrats appear willing to fully abolish it. Which is of course total heresy to the Republicans, who did contemplate abolishing it in the past, as Democrats using it was undemocratic. But obviously it's now the End Of Democracy As We Know It to even think of abolishing it, as Elon Musk dutifully tweets in his new incarnation as Trump's HMV doggo. Back to the real world after that last surprising batch of Senate polls, we have a situation that is hugely reminiscent of 2020, with the Republicans on just 50 seats, but also hugely different, as what may plausibly happen next is more unpredictable than ever before.

Now let's talk about Dan Osborn again, as we have reached that bridge now. If elected, he will not only be the one and only true working man in the Senate, and the first one in more generations than I can count, but he will also be the Ultimate Kingmaker. In this situation, with control of the Senate at stake, Democrats would be the ones with the most to gain if Osborn decides to side with them, but also the ones with the most to lose if he doesn't, so the ones with the most to offer. Osborn would be like the last candidate up for grabs in the first round of an episode of Head Hunters where the pot has reached £10,000, the one who can afford to overplay his hand and be choosy. He would also have very good reasons to not join the Republicans, having just knocked out one of their own with the help of local Democrats, which is not the way to make yourself loved. His undeniable working class profile would also make him just the kind of person Democrats would want on their side, to boost the credibility of their love-of-the-common-people messaging. The suspense would be nail-biting. But probably for just a few days.

I have of course chosen to close this chapter for now on the scenario where the Republican Caucus includes only their own 50 Senators, while the Democratic Caucus includes their own 47 and the 3 Independents of diverse shades. Which is what I am ready to gamble will happen if Kamala Harris wins the presidential election, and will allow Tim Walz to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, for a 51-to-50 Democratic majority. Bear in mind that, if Donald Trump wins, what Dan Osborn does or does not do becomes totally irrelevant and he vanishes from the news cycle quicker than he gained unlimited access to it. In that case, Republicans would have their own 50 seats plus J.D. Vance's tie-breaking vote, and wouldn't need anybody's help to totally wreck the United States, starting with their international credibility. And that would fit with Osborn's smartest plan in this case, which would be to play the long game, caucus with the Democrats and collect his bonus when the MAGA mob unavoidably get totally trashed at the next election.

I’ve seen it before. People taking power who don’t deserve it. It never ends well.

(Jérôme, 1899: The Fight, 2022)

I see skies of blue and clouds of white, the bright blessed days, the dark sacred nights

I hear babies cry, I watch them grow, they'll learn much more than I'll ever know

And I think to myself, what a wonderful world

(George Davis Weiss, What A Wonderful World, 1967)

This year, eleven states and two overseas territories will also elect their Governors. Nine of the eleven states will also elect their Lieutenant Governors, as the position does not exist in New Hampshire and is appointed by the State Senate in West Virginia. There is a wide variety of constitutional arrangements for the governorships, as these are totally devolved to individual states. Two states have two-year terms with elections on every even year. Five have four-year terms with elections on odd years. The rest have four-year terms with elections on even years, but only nine have their election cycle coinciding with presidential elections. There is usually little suspense and competition at these elections, as the incumbency bonus and the incumbent Governor's personal stature are major factors, even in states where the incumbent has to stand down because of term limits, more often that not with the incumbent Lieutenant Governor as the designated successor. This year, only one seat looks genuinely competitive, in New Hampshire, a marginally Democratic state at presidential elections that has elected a Republican Governor continuously since 2016.

This does not mean that the other races do not deserve some attention. In my opinion, two are 'races to watch', in North Carolina and Vermont, as they're definitely the odd ones out. Both states elect the Governor and Lieutenant Governor on separate ballots, instead of a joint ticket, and both have delivered a mixed result at their previous election. North Carolina, an important swing state at presidential elections, elected a Democratic Governor and a Republican Lieutenant Governor, both on quite narrow margins. Vermont, the most leftist of all 50 states, elected a Republican Governor on an unprecedented landslide, and a Lieutenant Governor from the Vermont Progressive Party, a uniquely local left-wingish party whose most prominent figure is United States Senator Bernie Sanders. Though he is not actually a member, but just a part-time affiliate, opportunistically alternating with the Democratic Party when it suits his personal agenda, namely when it's the Democratic primary season. The American pollster corps have been polling these races with very unequal levels of attention, but enough to get a rather good idea of what is likely to happen.

Oddly New Hampshire, the only plausible switcher, has been polled only twice this year, just enough to prove that it is indeed a tossup. North Carolina, on the other hand, has been polled 24 times in just the last three months for the Governor's election, but just four times for the Lieutenant Governor's election. Vermont, probably seen as the least interesting of all, has been polled only once for the Governor's election, and not at all for the Lieutenant Governor's election. There is nothing much to say about Vermont, where Republican incumbent Phil Scott's unique selling point is that he is 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal', and he has indeed subscribed to a lot of the usually Democratic woke agenda. Then, the best news here for the Democrats obviously come from North Carolina. Not only are they predicted to hold the Governor's seat with an increased margin, but also to gain the Lieutenant Governor's on a knife-edge. Of course, Democrats are massively helped by Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson's unbelievable rants, describing himself as a 'perv', a 'black Nazi', a supporter of slavery and a Holocaust denier, amidst lots of other unsavoury stuff revealed by CNN. Which, quite ironically, prompted serial fake-news-fabricator J.D. Vance to cast doubts on the 'reality' of stuff Robinson himself never denied. This is a very good omen in a state that is also on a knife-edge in presidential polls, and could plausibly be the tipping point state for Kamala Harris's victory. This one, and every election in the state more generally, will definitely be the ones to watch in the remaining weeks before Election Day.

Im Sturz durch Zeit und Raum, erwacht aus einem Traum, nur ein kurzer Augenblick, dann kehrt die Nacht zurück

(Carlo Karges, Irgendwie, Irgendwo, Irgendwann, 1984)

23/09/2024

An Air Of Normality

Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil. It can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.

(Dietrich Bonhoeffer)

Against stupidity, we are defenceless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here. Reasons fall on deaf ears. Facts that contradict one's prejudgment simply need not be believed. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one.

(Dietrich Bonhoeffer)

Back in the UK this time, with a soundtrack from King Crimson's live album USA, first released in 1975, and then upgraded in 2002, 2005 and 2013. The final version is the full concert played at the Casino Arena, Asbury Park, New Jersey on the 28th of August, 1974. In my opinion, that's the most sensational progressive rock live album ever released by any band, so listen and enjoy. Even the harder stuff is more than worth it.

As always, click on the images for bigger and clearer versions.

If anything, we are now suffering of a scarcity of polls. And that's also a King Crimson reference, if you know, you know. Just eight voting intentions polls since the general election, which is fewer in almost three months than we got in one week in June. That's clearly dereliction of duty by the pollstertariat, as enough has happened in these three months to let us guess that voting intentions have plausibly changed a lot. Eight polls are definitely not enough to see genuine patterns and trends emerge. But, contrary to common wisdom and scientific evidence, we can for once clearly see what is not happening. There is no honeymoon for Starmer, no grace-under-pressure period, no sense of 'first hundred days' expectancy. More than anything else, the dominant feeling is a clear sense of unpreparedness and improvisation, which is quite alarming for a party that had two full years, since Boris Johnson's resignation, to really get their act together. Besides, the "we didn't know it was so bad" excuse does not sound that credible when you consider that seventeen members of Starmer's Cabinet and fourteen of his Junior Ministers have been members of the Privy Council for years, and thusly granted access to more detailed and confidential information about the state of the State than anyone else.

There has not been much polling of Keir Starmer's popularity either. To be fair to him, he has never been really popular, no matter what the proverbial Other Lot were doing to boost his credentials-by-default. Most of the time, the public has been split three-ways between those who like him, those who don't, and those who don't give a frying duck. But it's getting worse since he has been anointed Big Dog, and the Great British Public are slowly awakening to the reality of a bloke who has more political blunders than Rishi Sunak and more PR disasters than Humza Yousaf to his credit, and probably more skeletons in the closet than Boris Johnson. After a brief period when people seemed ready to grant him the benefit of the doubt, his net ratings are now double-digit negatives for most pollsters. That's quite an achievement after barely three months in charge, and only Liz Truss's credibility eroded faster than that in recent times.

It's really unlikely that the Labour Conference will offer Starmer, Rayner and Reeves a breath of fresh air. Even with the best thought-policing of delegates by the Starmer Stasi, it's likely to be noisy and doused with infighting, as they all know they did not win the election on their own merits and many of their voters are already questioning the way they won it. Deception barely covers it. It surely doesn't help when Angela Rayner, supposedly on the left flank of Starmerism, has no better punchlines than 'it will get better later' because they are 'fixing the foundations' by 'being responsible'. Even The Hipstershire Gazette can't hide their scepticism over this sort of blandness, that would just as well fit in the mouth of a Conservative minister. The irony is that Conferences, besides the really important work done there (naw, just kidding, mates, there isn't any), are also an opportunity for donors to get their moment in the company of the high and mighty, and some photo ops for their Insta. Which is probably not what we can expect at this year's Labour Conference, after ClothesGate and stuff. Then there is still the prospect of another confrontation between Jess Philips and Owen Jones, for our entertainment.

I was dreading the Starmer regime, thinking it would be slow death by stupidity. But I’m quietly encouraged by the sheer kamikaze lunacy of it all. It’s like watching a masturbating chimpanzee host a dinner party. I don’t think they’ll make it past hors d'oeuvre.

(Dr Philip Kiszely, Twitter/X, 10 September 2024)

The fact is, a lot of politics is just shit, it’s choosing the least bad option. Life would be easier if colleagues paid their expenses on time, and didn’t snort coke and sodomise each other.

(David Cameron, some time in 2014)

Seat projections are always a risky business, even when you have a fuckload of polls to back them, but I will nevertheless venture one here and now. We have had two GB-wide voting intentions polls in September, for a super-sample of 3,659, as usual excluding Northern Ireland. On top of that we also have had two dedicated Scottish polls this month, which I will come back to later, for a Scottish super-subsample of 3,257. These polls are not a complete disaster for Labour, even if the party in government doesn't usually lose that many votes so quickly after a massive election victory. Even John Major did better in the first three months after the 1992 election and even longer, until the Sterling Meltdown doomed him. In 1997, Tony Blair even managed to almost treble Labour's lead in some polls, and double it in the very last polls of the year. Keir Starmer can obviously not expect anything of that sort this year, and all because of self-inflicted wounds when he is enjoying a very weak opposition, totally embroiled in their own self-destruction process.

The Labour vote has decreased quite visibly, but the Conservative vote has too, so we have just a very tiny swing of 1.3% from Labour to the Conservatives. What is more significant is that the Liberal Democrats are holding their ground and then some, and that Reform UK is on the rise again after a rather lacklustre performance at the general election. There is another worrying factor for Labour in there. The Independent Left vote, namely the 'Gaza candidates' and Jeremy Corbyn, may not be massive at first glance, but they don't need a strong evenly spread vote to be a real pain in the arse. All they need is holding their ground where they came first or second on Election Day, and they're doing just that and even better in London. They may even surpass this if Jeremy Corbyn's plan for a new radical left party comes to fruition, and manages to coalesce the dissident voices to the left of Labour, that have also been tempted by a Green vote at the last election. That would undoubtedly be an odd patchwork of wokeism, political Islamism, student politics, populism and Putinism, but Labour should never underestimate the strength of deliberately simplistic sloganeering from the Loony Left.

Labour would hold a strong majority on these numbers, but there are numerous warning signs all over the map. Reform UK may even be the least of their worries, despite quadrupling their number of seats, including an unlikely one in Wales. Nigel Farage has high hopes for Reform UK and their electoral prospects, but we're definitely not quite there yet. Especially as his own constituents in Clacton are not conclusively happy with him. Capitalising on the Vote Of Discontent all the way down the East Coast, from Fraserburgh to Thurrock, does not a majority make. Ed Davey probably has more reasons to be cheerful, though he shouldn't entertain too great expectations about being propelled to Downing Street any time soon, other than as a guest. Mister Ed should realise that the Liberal Democrat vote is quite fragile in some parts of England, with evidence in the seat projection. They would hold all their seats in regions where the Conservative vote is going down again, but they are predicted to lose one in London, where the Conservatives are quite unexpectedly improving their position. London, quite ironically, is also where these polls predict Labour would suffer their most symbolic and embarrassing defeat, with Wes Streeting losing his Ilford North seat to one of Corbyn's associates.

What we ended up with, over the last fourteen years, was the worst Prime Ministers in the wrong order.

(Graham Brady, The Telegraph, 13 September 2024)

Magpies. You want to sum up how broken the whole thing is, you can do it in one word. Magpies.

(Paul Peveril, Nightsleeper, 2024)

It looks like the Labour government's most damaging own goal, so far, was their decision to cut the Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners on pension credit. It passed, but with a significant level of dissent among Labour MPs. There were in fact two votes. In the first, and most significant, vote, 348 MPs voted to enforce the cut. In the second vote, which was more of a Conservative rear-guard action, 335 MPs voted for the cut. To their credit, the SNP MPs were all present for both votes and all voted against the cut. The way the government defended it, including Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds pretty much feeding us Margaret Thatcher's 'there is no alternative' catchphrase, is evidence that they were fully aware of the discontent, and possibly felt quite uneasy about it. Pensioners are obviously and justifiably outraged, but they're not the only ones. More In Common fielded an instant poll just after the vote, which shows less that a third of Brits approving the cuts.

Opposition to the cut is quite widespread across the generations and political persuasions. Only the 25-34 age bracket and Labour voters are split, and opposition neatly outweighs support in all other demographics. The wording of the options offered by the poll may look biased, but the government themselves opened that door. It's quite appalling that this supposedly smart lot did not see that they offered the right a golden opportunity to pit the train driver on £70k, who will get a 9% rise, against your granny on a £10k pension, who will either have to eat her kitten or freeze to death. That was so fucking predictable, on top of the classic rhetoric about Labour being the hostage of the public sector's unions. The discontent is also widely shared among all Three Nations that were polled, Northern Ireland being again ignored. Even Labour MPs from Scotland have to reluctantly acknowledge it, while still promising to double down on it when the opportunity arises. From Keir Starmer's perspective, the most damaging part is that opposition to the cuts is dominant in all regions of England, whether they voted Labour or not. Only London is an odd one out, kind of. Look no further to find the explanation of Labour's slump, and Reform UK's localised surge, in voting intentions.

Now, the most alarming part of this fiasco is that it is obviously just the first of many 'tough choices' that Keir Starmer will blame on the previous Conservative government. This argument will soon become inaudible, not because it is wrong, but because it reflects the government's total lack of imagination in seeking proper solutions to the budget's black hole. Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed it when she doubled down on it, with a statement announcing more austerity, proving that she treats the budget as a zero-sum game, where spending in one area has to be balanced by cuts in another. This bold statement will obviously make her even more unpopular than she already is, as a YouGov poll showed that a majority of Brits think that 'sorting out public finances' should not be Labour's priority. It comes third, with less than one-in-seven supporting it, while the people's first and foremost priority is cutting NHS waiting times. Which, I feel compelled to remind you, would apply only to NHS England, as Whitehall and Westminster have no authority over the three devolved NHSs. I see another problem ahead, as Keir Starmer's 'reform or die' approach, to fix the 'critical condition' NHS England is reportedly in, is unlikely to meet popular assent. I also have a hunch that his 'controversial major surgery' will not include sacking the massive number of useless 'DEI managers', who get paid more than a Band 8a 'advanced clinical practitioner' and contribute fuck all to public health. Just saying.

As apart from any reality that you've ever seen and known, guessing problems only to deceive the mention

Passing paths that climb halfway into the void as we cross from side to side, we hear the total mass retain

(Jon Anderson, Close To The Edge, 1972)

I believe the SNP an irrelevance to the real needs of the people of Scotland, which is to remove the Conservatives from Downing Street. A party with three MPs is never going to rid Scotland of the Conservatives.

(Douglas Alexander, Perth and Kinross by-election campaign, May 1995)

We may lack generic voting intentions polls, but we have been gifted a quartet of Scottish polls, not all of them Full Scottish, in commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the first Independence referendum. More In Common polled just the independence referendum and directly related topics. Survation did too, in a poll commissioned by Scotland In Union, which also included Holyrood polling. As always, I have chosen to ignore their independence part, because it used the biased manipulative Leave/Remain wording imposed by Scotland In Union on their pollsters. Then Opinium and Survation again, this time on behalf of Progress Scotland, probed the whole trifecta of IndyRef, Westminster and Holyrood. What the various pollsters found about the not-incoming Independence referendum is not encouraging, as we now have a 54-46 split, worse than what we had in the spring. The weighted average of the last six polls, covering half of the summer, says so. Not one poll in the last three months has found Yes ahead, and just one predicted a tie. The More In Common poll also showed a more worrying side of the situation, with an extra question that nobody had asked before. Less than a third of the Scottish public think that Independence will be achieved during their lifetime. And the current incarnation of the SNP are doing jack shit that could restore faith and hope.

I also feel much less buoyant than The Scottish Pravda in their selective headline about the results of the Opinium poll. Of course, when you boil it down to a very binary spin, not The National's preferred approach usually, a clear majority of Scots want a second referendum some time in the future. But the full spectrum of options shows that the Scottish public are not really in a hurry to see it happen. Only a quarter want it during the current Holyrood term, fewer than those who prefer having it later. The Great Scottish Public agree that we should be able to have that referendum without asking permission from the colonial government of the UK with our cap doffed, but are definitely not optimistic about the prospects of an Independent Scotland. Opinium polled it and found that the net ratings are negatives on everything except the environment and, very narrowly, the NHS. This bleak vision clearly says that a lot of work still has to be done to counter the Unionist narrative embedded in GERS and most of 'Scottish' Labour's talking points. Sadly, what we have seen over the last ten years proves that we can no longer rely on the SNP to do that, least of all on John Swinney.

There have been three polls of Scottish Westminster voting intentions since the general election. First came Norstat on behalf of the Sunday Times, showing very little movement that could significantly impact the allocation of seats. Then we had an Opinium poll and a Survation poll, that contradict each other, but paint situations that could very plausibly happen at a general election. Namely a reversal of fortunes putting the SNP back in the lead, for Opinium, who fielded their poll right in the aftermath of the massive outrage over cuts to the Winter Fuel Allowance. Or, per Survation, Labour and the SNP tied in the popular vote, not because the SNP is massively gaining back voters, but because Labour is losing quite a lot. Before the 4th of July election, a tie usually delivered a narrow plurality of seats for Labour. These new simulations show that the new voting patterns inherited from this election have massively changed what you can expect from a tied vote.

My model and Electoral Calculus agree on the Norstat poll, which is not surprising when you have a poll that says nothing would change. They also agree on the impact of a major change in the popular vote, as predicted by Opinium, and don't differ too much when we have a tie, as seen by Survation. But the overall picture is the same in all three cases. Labour got a full slate of the marginal seats at the last election, and with such a swing from the SNP that most have now become solidly Labour. Only one Labour seat, Stirling and Strathallan, was won by less than 5%. But 30 out of 37 were won by more than 10%. This means that the era of small swings delivering big gains is over, at least for the SNP. The 4th of July results say that the SNP would need an average swing of 8% from Labour to gain back a majority of Scottish seats. And this trio of polls confirm that. A 2.5% swing from Labour to the SNP, resulting in a tie, would still grant Labour a clear majority of Scottish seats. A 6% swing, putting the SNP almost 7% ahead in the national popular vote, would still leave Labour narrowly with the most seats. No matter how unpopular the Labour government has become in Scotland, and is not likely to see that improve any time soon, I don't see a reverse landslide coming. Yet.

I think loyalty is, it's not everything but it's almost everything. Comradeship, solidarity. Although loyalty isn't everything because talent, ability, performance matter a great deal, but it's almost everything.

(Alex Salmond, Salmond And Sturgeon: A Troubled Union, 2024)

Loyalty is the characteristic without which the SNP will never achieve its objectives. The only way an organisation can upset the applecart of the British State is if it is together and cohesive.

(Alex Salmond, Salmond And Sturgeon: A Troubled Union, 2024)

For the tenth anniversary of the referendum, the English pollsters have walked the extra mile, and asked many follow-up questions that are like a treasure trove if you want to better understand what could motivate the Scottish public for or against independence. Opinium even devoted a whole pamphlet to it, while The Hipstershire Gazette solicited enlightened point of views from various players who may have had a part in the 2014 campaign. Then watching a full hour of full-blown inspired satire is surely a better use of your time than reading the sanctimonious ramblings of political grifters who sacrificed Independence to pursue extremist woke student politics that a majority of Scots reject. Now, even the SNP's Depute Leader has conceded that we will never get a Section 30 Order ever again, but the people still have an opinion about when the second referendum should be held. YouGov and Opinium have both polled it, with different options and quite similar results.

You can clearly see here that there is no apparent sense of urgency among the Scottish public, which a bit surprising, and might be due to either deep disenchantment or just brutal pragmatism. No pollster has ever tried a radical option like a popular insurrection or a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), though it would surely be interesting to know how Scots feel about both. Even if they avoided these extreme options, YouGov, always eager to please and answer questions nobody asked, probed the Great Scottish Public about a rather wide array of constitutional arrangements for the future of Scotland. Some of these options may very well be on the table at some point during the next five years, even if a couple never will and were probably thrown in just to test the most extreme options at the opposite end of UDI.

The level of support shown here for independence is quite close to what the average of polls predict, on 53% No to 47% Yes with undecideds removed. So the other findings definitely have some credibility. It is quite clear that the Labour government will neither abolish devolution, nor reduce the powers of the Scottish Parliament and Government. This is neither in their manifesto nor in their best interests, if their plan is to win the next Holyrood election. This is fortunate, as these are the two least popular options. What remains then is quite surprising. The status quo is more popular than either independence or the 'all powers' option that is, for all intents and porpoises, federalism, even if YouGov avoided the proper descriptor. So the most popular option, and the only one supported by a majority, is the proverbial and elusive DevoMax. Which will obviously please Keir Starmer, as we have massive hints already that it is just what he intends to do, so that Scotland does not feel left behind by his 'English Devolution' project. Finally, to take us full circle to the Independence debate, YouGov also tested support for it with various strings attached, not all of them negative.

Unsurprisingly, independence is far less popular if you link it to a rising cost of living, border checks or an exodus of businesses. All of which were perfect talking points already for Better Together ten years ago, and could easily be recycled in a future campaign. Then we have the two most tricky issues, which are just the kind of 'gotcha questions' that could be weaponised against both the SNP and Independence, and deliver totally contradictory replies. Joining the EU boosts Independence, but leaving the pound hurts it. Problem is that, in the real world, the two don't and can't fit together. Here we need to go back in time. A few years ago, saying that joining the EU would coerce Scotland to join the Euro was a blatant lie under then-existing EU rules. But the rules have changed, and now joining the EU does imply joining the Euro. Unless the Independent Scottish Government deliberately gambled on never meeting the Eurozone's convergence criteria, which would be risky, disingenuous and plain stupid. In the short term, the SNP's obsession with linking Independence and re-joining the EU could very easily blow up to their face if the Unionists use it to trigger summat like a currency scare. Even Alex Salmond stumbled on the currency issue, and I don't think anyone has found a way to avoid that trap. Yet.

It's one thing to not think you can achieve the referendum which had been promised in successive polls. It's another thing to keep announcing you're going to do it and then not doing it, and that has a demoralising effect.

(Alex Salmond, Salmond And Sturgeon: A Troubled Union, 2024)

You LizTrussed your way into that position, ignoring every warning, and now you've just got to accept the consequences.

(Paul Peveril, Nightsleeper, 2024)

Two weeks ago, the Scottish Government suffered two symbolic defeats in Parliament. They are symbolic because the opposition motions on free school meals and peak rail fares are non-binding. They are nevertheless politically significant because the Greens voted for both motions and celebrated the SNP's defeats with glee. They are also a bad omen of dark skies to come, as the two issues will unavoidably resurface when Parliament will debate the budget. If the Government fails to get a budget passed by the usual deadline, which would be 28 February 2025, odds are it would lead to a vote of dissolution, which requires a two-thirds majority, and an early election. If this happens, it would be an awkward situation for everyone involved, as Section 3 of the Scotland Act 1998 stipulates that a Parliament elected at an early election can only serve for the remainder of the term, unless it happens less than six months before the ordinary election. So, a major political crisis leading to an early election in March or April 2025 would still have the scheduled election happening on 7 May 2026 anyway. Besides, the current trends of Holyrood polling show that nobody should be wishing for an early election.

There is a reason why the French call a hot-and-cold shower douche écossaise. That's a tribute to the Scottish people's uncanny ability to say two totally contradictory, and mutually exclusive, things in quick succession. The French know best, they have had since the days of the Auld Alliance to learn that lesson. We have had three polls of voting intentions for the next Scottish Parliament election since my last Scottish article, over just two weeks, that prove just that. Survation went first, in the field between the 27th and the 29th of August, and it already hinted that something was not quite right. They found Reform UK suddenly jumping to almost 10%, within shooting range of the Conservatives, and a tie between the SNP and Labour. Then we had Opinium, in the field between the 5th and the 11th of September on behalf of The Times, who credited the SNP with a significant lead. To their credit, they also identified a surge of the Reform UK vote on the regional lists. Thirdly, Survation were at it again, between the 10th and the 13th of September, having changed sponsor from Scotland In Union to Progress Scotland. And they again found a tie between the two Big Dogs, plus a substantial slice of the vote for Reform UK.

I don't know which of these pollsters we should believe, as neither has a brilliant record at predicting past elections, whether Scottish Westminster or Holyrood. But the seat projections from their findings make for interesting reading, confirming Ian Murray's educated hunch that Labour still have a steep hill to climb before they become the next Scottish Government. As usual, a tie delivers a plurality of seats for Labour, but even a 7% lead does not protect the SNP from heavy losses, including the near certainty of Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf losing their seats in Glasgow. We now have two polls out of three putting Labour at the top, who would then be faced with a tough choice. On paper, both the Unionist Great Coalition and the 'progressive' Traffic Lights Coalition would get a majority from these two polls. But both would be doomed from the onset by the presence of mavericks in their ranks, Reform UK on one side and the Greens on the other side. If Labour have learnt just one thing from the SNP's recent shenanigans, it's that you never put your fate in the hands of fucking extremist lunatics, and that alone would rule out both of these coalitions. So, in a not-quite-so Sherlockian way, all that remains after you have eliminated the impossible is the implausible. Once again, a Labour-SNP coalition, that would also conveniently be the one with the largest number of seats, whichever projection you pick.

Now, you can also legitimately ask what the point of a nominally 'pro-independence' majority would be, when the pretendy 'pro-independence parties' joined forces with the Unionists to defeat a motion that affirmed and validated one of the SNP's own talking points for the next Scottish Parliament election. One they even once promoted as their sole strategy for that election. Just because it came from Ash Regan, the Alba Party's sole MSP, and the SNP are using the same stunt they so vociferously whined about when Labour used it. The Bain Principle has become the Swinney Principle. But is there more than meets they eye here, and should we look at it more cynically? Could this be the first step the SNP leadership has chosen to take to normalise the unthinkable, the unholy alliance with Labour after the next Scottish Parliament election, thusly ditching any vestigial pretence they are still the Party Of Independence and not closet devolutionists? After all, Stewart McDonald, the former SNP MP for MI5 who was quite rightly dubbed Little Shit by the Great Dennis Skinner, has just had a column published by The Spectator and relayed by The Scottish Pravda, advocating just that. Did John Swinney and the SNP's Ninth Circle give the imprimatur to this? Or are they keeping their powder dry for now, thinking, "we'll burn that bridge when we come to it"?

I know the feeling and it was never in response to anything like this actually happening. It was just the fear of it by people thinking, as people always do, something never having happened, or just never happened to them, means that it never will.

(Paul Peveril, Nightsleeper, 2024)

Some railway stations have clocks that have three hands. You see, time didn't really exist before the railways, you know? Like it is now. People went by the sun. Their own time. Then London stepped in, as London does, you know?

(Fraser Warren, Nightsleeper, 2024)

There are more bad news for the Labour Party coming from Wales, of all places. They were already not doing well in Senedd voting intentions before the general election, and it has not improved since. There is no doubt that Welsh Labour have been deeply hurt by Vaughan Gething's shenanigans and all the hoopla surrounding his reluctant resignation. Their collective image has surely not improved either by the way they avoided a full-blown War Of Succession. Which was basically strongarming all alternative candidates at the previous leadership contest to sit that one out, so the party establishment could shoehorn Eluned Morgan into the First Minister's chair. It is quite telling that Morgan's first two significant moves were to reshuffle her Cabinet after barely six weeks, and then ditch plans for 'gender equality' in the Senedd, that had been denounced as bringing back gender self-identification through the back door, after the Welsh Government was warned it would be illegal under reserved UK legislation and likely to be denied Royal Assent if passed. The trends of Senedd polling show that the good people of Wales are not amused, let alone convinced, by this new variant of a Labour Government.

You have to wonder now if Welsh Labour still think it was a brave, stunning and clever move to change the electoral law to full proportional representation, instead of the previous mixed system. They gave away their built-in advantage embedded in the first-past-the-post component, just when they would need it the most. Now we have four parties nationally clearing the D'Hondt quota hurdle of one-seventh of the popular vote, which is the implicit threshold for guaranteed representation in six-member constituencies, even if the exact breakdown of the vote can get you a seat on a lower share. The more votes the smaller parties bag, the lower the hurdle gets, possibly as low as 11%. The latest Senedd poll, from Welsh Election Study on behalf of Cardiff University, is the worst for Labour since the last election. Not only does it show Plaid Cymru breathing down their neck, but it also confirms Reform UK as a growing force in Brexit-friendly Wales. We still don't have, and probably never will have, a breakdown of votes in the sixteen new constituencies, but we can still approximate it using known trends in the former five electoral regions.

The only flaw in Meddwl Cymru's seat projection is that it fits what you could infer if there was just one massive 96-seat constituency, or national lists for short. But access to representation will be more difficult in the real six-member constituencies. I'm cautiously confident that my own projection, even if it has its own embedded flaws, is closer to what the next Senedd is likely to look like. We nevertheless agree on one conclusion, it would be a very close shave for Labour, with Plaid Cymru finishing just one seat behind. This opens the way to some sort of 'progressive' government alliance between the two parties, summat like a Great Welsh Coalition mimicking German practice. It's hugely unlikely Plaid Cymru would turn down such an opportunity, even if they vociferously walked out of an earlier deal with Labour, and they would surely be less lunatic and embarrassing partners than the Greens were in Scotland. Especially as the constitutional debate, Independence in plain English, is much less prominent in Welsh politics. Quite opportunistically, YouGov probed their Welsh panel about the same set of constitutional arrangements as their Scottish panel, with some intriguing results.

The most interesting result, though it is not surprising if you are familiar with Welsh politics, is that abolishing devolution is more popular than independence, and almost as popular as Labour's implied policy of federalism. Just like in Scotland, DevoMax is the preferred option. But you can genuinely call it 'most popular' in Scotland, and just 'least unpopular' in Wales, as it does not have the support of a majority and only a very tiny net positive. No Welsh party, and Plaid Cymru even less than anyone else, has a vested interest in making independence a core issue in future campaigns, as it would conclusively fail if a referendum was held. Plaid Cymru's best strategy is obviously to highlight the Welsh government's multiple failures, from the demise of Part Talbot to skyrocketing NHS waiting times, and the widening rift between Welsh Labour's 'progressive' politicking and New Model Labour's 'Tory-lite' approach in Whitehall. Only this sort of aggressive campaigning would save them the bother to fully disclose their own solutions, which might not be that different from Labour's anyway. So we can probably expect the next Senedd election to be quite a shitshow in its own right, surpassing the next Holyrood election in that respect.

People didn't like it, but they had to tolerate it, you know, if they wanted to catch a bloody train. But they had no intention of giving anything up. So they kept their own time as well. And stuck a third hand on the clock.

(Fraser Warren, Nightsleeper, 2024)