Jeremy's Den: June 2021

There is a new study from University College London, which has devised

A formula for the secret of happiness and went on to conclude

“You may enjoy yourself more if you don’t expect everything to go perfectly”

In that case, Matt Hancock must be like a pig in shit

(David Mitchell, Have I Got News For You?, 2021)

The main conclusion is that people should lower their expectations

“There are times, such as on holiday”

“When lowering your expectations might not be a bad idea”

Coincidentally that’s the new slogan of VisitEngland

(David Mitchell, Have I Got News For You?, 2021)

Politics is more like The Hunger Games than Eurovision. There's no complimentary points for coming second. You either win or you are the first loser, and here all losers get nul points. Boris Johnson has learned that lesson several times over because, ye ken, he's a bit thick and he didn't get the full gist of it the first time aboot. Keir Starmer has learned it the hard way too by now, though he probably thought at first that New New Labour would be the harbingers of a new age in British politics. Now he finds himself quite literally begging for a second chance on Piers Morgan's Life Stories of all places, where the only revelation was that he does not like his middle name Rodney. Guess his opponents within Labour will have a field day with that and switch from "we call him Keith because it has come to epitomise the beige banality of a man with all the charm of the pub bore who'd find himself outperformed by a talking potato sack", which is an actual quote that was reported on Have I Got News For You?, to "we call him Rodney because he hates it", which gets brownie points for simplicity. Even John Crace in The Guardian, who generally bears no ill will towards Starmer, found the exercise in self-appreciation-cum-self-depreciation had to swallow. Obviously there is a long way from "he's a party animal" to "he's a party leader", and even the former was not really convincing. So all the media circus did little to improve Keir's standing in the polls, with Boris Johnson still wildly outperforming him in Preferred Prime Minister polling.

Oddly, this was also the week Rishi Wunderkind Sunak chose to candidly share his tastes in nutty sitcoms and sitcomish period drama. Totally candidly of course, as he has no oven-ready plan to offer himself as the next First Minister of England, solely for the greater good. And of course, playing the part of the common-sense lad who still loves the BBC despite all their mischief can only help in that competition he absolutely is not planning on entering. And the thought has never entered his mind that it may earn him some goodwill from the 60+ Conservative base in Leafy Surrey, who enjoy nothing more than the multiple reruns of "Bargain Hunt" and "Gardeners' World", those shining beacons of English public sector creativity. Meanwhile the current First Minister of England was up to much more serious stuff, securing a marriage that would trigger spousal privilege for Dilyn's Mum, which might come in handy if Cummings' Panto Of Revelations unexpectedly results in some serious inquiries. Which is as likely to happen as Cummings not lying under oath but, ye ken, better safe than sorry. Of course there is a downside to it, as these things proverbially take time, so now Bozo can't divorce Carrie for the foreseeable future. Which might be less of an impediment as it seems at first glance as Bozo, like his new role model Henry VIII, has made it a habit of taking the horse to drink at every welcoming watering hole in SW1, and there is no reason this should not resume after a reasonable delay. Meanwhile, Rishi is still running circles around Sly Keir, even if it's not as overwhelmingly as Boris. Yet.

Of course, a lot of Rishi's popularity is based on shameless legerdemains, to use a word dear to Jacob Rees-Mogg's heart, like when he takes credit for an international agreement he initially opposed, signed only after it had been watered down, and might be easily tempted to renege on faster than a whippet with a lit firework up his arse, as proven by his attempt to circumvent it already. There was also talk on the "progressive" side that Johnson could be seriously damaged by a backbench revolt over foreign aid and then it spectacularly failed. The First Minister of England was put on the back foot at first, and he would probably have backed down on the 0.7% because, of course, it was a manifesto pledge, and there were more worthy hills to die on. But he was saved by the bellend, oops, the Speaker of the House of Commons, who ruled that the foreign aid amendment was not germane to the bill it was attached to. Be sure that, as soon as a more pressing issue will come up in Commons, the iron fist will be back. Remember the Policing Bill and how several prominent Tories demolished it during the debate, only to vote for it the next day. Because the whips threatened to expel them from the Parliamentary Party if they didn't, and none of them was ready to lose the status and the perks. And they're all as scared of Bozo and the whips as a very small nun at a penguin shoot, to quote the immortal Gene Hunt. We might also soon see a more promising Tory internecine feud, that or a fight between themselves, in the immortal words of Jim Taggart. One might be starting between Bozo and Wunderkind, about what "build back better and build back bolder" really means. Both of them know it means fuck all, which is no reason to avoid gaslighting the oiks with what they mean it should mean.

If you want to dream, keep those dreams massively achievable

I think if you set the bar low, you can literally reach the top

And then view things from there

(Richard Ayoade, 8 Out Of 10 Cats Does Countdown, 2020)

A global pandemic is used as a pretext for a bitch fight

Like Alexis and Kyrstle in the lily pond on “Dynasty”

For viewers under 50, it’s like “Hollyoaks”, but with a budget

(Richard Coles, Have I Got News For You?, 2021)

The trends of voting intentions have not really improved for Labour since my last article two weeks ago. The Conservatives' lead is even a wee smitch higher and Labour are still predicted to lose any incoming election by a wide margin. Oddly, there is something reminiscent of post-Iraq War voting patterns happening here. Back then a number of people deluded themselves into thinking that the Liberal Democrats were somehow a "progressive alternative" to an authoritarian New Labour. Which led to some success for the LibDems at the 2005 general election under Charles Kennedy's leadership. And also to some success at local elections across England, where they gained 358 Council seats and control of 9 Councils over four years between 2003 and 2006. But, when they kicked out Labour from the top spot on some Councils, but failed to gain a majority, their knee-jerk response was to secure one through deals with the Conservatives. Which might have left some former Labour voters quite hungover, and delivered some severe backlash when the same Councils were up for election again, with the LibDems losing 389 seats and 9 Councils over the next four years from 2007 to 2010. The massive irony was that Labour, after years of decline at local level, finally gained back a significant number of seats and Councils in 2010, on the same day they lost the general election that delivered the ill-fated Con-Lib coalition. Current polls show something similar happening with the Greens, who are definitely nicking potential Labour votes and making another Tory victory more likely. There is some hope within the English Left that "post-pandemic politics", whatever that means, might reverse the current trends. The big unknown here is of course when "post-pandemic" will happen, and your guess is as good as mine. There is also a plausible scenario where Bozo actually takes heed and calls another snap election. After all, the public could approve the idea that two-year terms are The New Normal and give Bozo another shot at doing what he does best: crap politics and massive fuckups.

Now a game-changer might be Keir Starmer's conversion to openly supporting gender self-identification. He chose a really odd timing for it, right in the middle of the scandal involving Stonewall UK over their deliberate misrepresentation of the Equality Act 2010, and the kind of protection it provides for LGBT persons. Something that was quite aptly described as representing the law as what you want it to be, and not what it actually is. It also looks quite ill-advised when #WomenWontWheesht on Twitter, which originated in Scotland, was being relayed by various feminist accounts in England and continental Europe, proving that a widespread movement to defend women's sex-based rights was emerging. There was also quite a "double whammy" element here for poor Keir, who issued his controversial statement at the worst possible moment, literally the day before a tribunal ruled that gender-critical views are protected under Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010, with all the wide-ranging implications you can imagine. There is also now quite conclusive evidence from polls that it might be a vote-killer, as more people become aware of all the practical consequences of unsupervised self-identification. Labour would have better chances of success by targeting the proposed reform of planning laws in England, especially after it emerged that developers donated huge sums to the Conservatives. But, with their usual luck, they might have that one hijacked from under their feet by the Liberal Democrats, or even Tory rebels representing affluent oik-adverse constituencies in the proverbially Leafy South. Meanwhile, the current snapshot of voting intentions is still quite 2019ish.

This is definitely not the kind of polling Sly Keir wants, but that's all voters are willing to give him. But they might change their mind now, after the First Minister of England officially announced that their eagerly expected Freedom Day is cancelled. No Summer Solstice for you, England, but the Autumnal Equinox will be much more fun. Which of course leads us to what may be Johnson's actual Nemesis: B.1.617.2, the Johnson Variant. Formerly known as the Delta Variant, formerly known as the Indian Variant until the World Health Organisation agreed with Humza Yousaf it was derogatory and discriminatory. We wouldn't want to make the same mistake as with the Spanish Flu, which originated in a whole array of locations except Spain, and was more properly known as H1N1 Influenza A. The same one that caused the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic, but that was derogatory and discriminatory against pigs. Anyway, the prospect of a Third Wave soon striking the White Cliffs of Dover spells doom and gloom for the First Minister of England. Or is it the fourth, as Bozo is not too good at math? And that's a frightening prospect only for those who haven't noticed the third has actually already struck weeks ago, and was just lying dormant, waiting for Andrew Lloyd-Webber's theatres to reopen. The sad truth is that the First Minister of England is truly stuck between a cough and a masked face here.The massive irony is that the clear and present threat to Johnson is the poundshop libertarian covidiots in his own party, not Labour. And if they prevail in future decisions, Labour will definitely never benefit from Johnson's failures in the short term, which is all that matters when we're talking general election and the always present possibility of a snap one.

It’s probably right to say the world doesn’t like Britain

But I think that’s because of our behaviour both now and in the past

If they don’t like us, it’s probably because we don’t want them to

(Jon Richardson, Ultimate Worrier: Global Affairs, 2019)

This version recorded live at The Matrix, San Francisco, 27 November 1969

Politicians and pantomime dames have so much in common

You can’t believe a word either of them says

(Joe Lycett, 8 Out Of 10 Cats Does Countdown, 2018)

Of course lousy polling translates quite naturally into lousy results. My new seat projection is based on the weighted average of voting intentions predicted by the last three GB-wide polls, fielded between 9 and 14 June. Super-sample is 5,632 with a theoretical margin of error of 1.3%. Interestingly, the Scottish subsamples of the recent GB-wide polls are also quite bad for the SNP, hinting at a repeat 2019 at best, rather than a 2015ish landslide. Of course I need more than that to alter my Scottish projection, so a new Full Scottish poll would definitely be most welcome. Unless it's from Savanta Comres, as I would not trust them with a stag do in a Dutch brothel, after their massive fuckup in the run-up to the Holyrood election. What we have now UK-wide is the exact same seat projection as two weeks ago, despite some tiny movement in the overall voting intentions and the regional breakdowns within England. This definitely stinks for Labour, two weeks ahead of the Batley and Spen by-election. Statistically, and in the context of a general election, it wouldn't be the most likely Conservative gain, and by a far margin. The regional breakdowns within England say that Labour are doing relatively well in Yorkshire and The Humber, better than anywhere else in the North, so their Yorkshire seats should actually be safer now than they were in 2019. But by-elections are notoriously unpredictable, especially with all the nutters, their dugs and the kitchen sink standing, as we have now in Batley and Spen with 16 candidates. This one has not been polled as Hartlepool was, so any prediction is a shot in the dark. Anyway, I still feel it in my gut that it's a trainwreck waiting to happen for Labour, though I would love to be proved wrong this time.

There is a wee game of musical chairs in this projection, as Labour would gain 7 seats and lose 6, while the Conservatives would gain 7 and lose 11. The Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP would have only gains, and the LibDems only losses. There is also evidence from the regional crosstabs that the Greens could prove to be a real nuisance for Labour. On current polling, the Greens' vote share would be higher than the Conservatives' margin of victory in 36 seats, including 4 of those gained from Labour. Containing the Greens to their 2019 result and switching their extra voters to Labour could thusly prove to be a real game-changer, though still not enough to deliver a Labour victory. At best that would be a 2015ish result, and there is but scarce evidence this could happen anyway, despite Sly Keir's efforts to seduce some of the demographics that are at the core of the Green vote. The breakdown of projected seats by nation and region is close to a status quo everywhere, though with some movements that would pretty much cancel each other out. For example, Labour is here predicted to gain back three seats in Yorkshire, but would lose another three to the Conservatives in North West England. The Green surge in the South of England, where they could plausibly reach double digits, is also bad news for Labour. Statistically, this could cost them between eight and fourteen potential gains from the Conservatives in that region alone. Not that it actually matters on current polling, but it would if GB-wide polls were much closer, and a dozen seats made the difference between Labour emerging from the election as the first party or still second. Not that this is likely to happen in the foreseeable future anyway, that is while Bozo can still use the vaccination programme as evidence he should stay in power.

The next question now is how the planned gerrymandering, the 2023 Boundary Review, will impact the projected results of the next election. Of course it's not "will it benefit the Conservatives?", because it will, but "by own many seats will it benefit the Conservatives?". We should know all the gory details of the initial draft by the end of July, because nothing shouts "transparency" as loudly as announcing the new boundaries during the post-Freedom-Day Benidorm Break. Unless there is no Benidorm Break because all attention will shift to Covid's Third Wave, which even Boris Johnson can't describe as "unpredicted". Now, even if it's not a popular statement, I have to say the review is not in any way designed to hurt Scotland. All we know so far is the number of proposed seats by nation and region, and this is pure basic math. Scotland losing two seats is just the mechanical result of changes in the electorate over the last ten years. Scotland's population has grown much more slowly than England's and, even with the usually higher voter registration, Scotland's electorate has also grown more slowly. And it would be even worse if the allocation of seats was based on population and not the electorate, as some areas combine a higher-than-average population growth with declining voter registration, such as London and North West England. Based on population, as is the case in France and the United States, Scotland would be down to 53 seats and the SNP could whine and moan even louder. If they could prove that one of their MPs celebrating his twenty years in Westminster has done anything to advance the cause of Independence and safeguard Scottish interests, that is. Methinks they can't.

Hastings is a little bit decrepit, actually, it’s like a really run-down Blackpool

(Jon Richardson, 8 Out Of 10 Cats Does Countdown, 2015)

This version recorded live at The Olympia, Paris, 16 June 1993

You know, there’s something good about Blackpool…. there’s a road out

(Jon Richardson, 8 Out Of 10 Cats Does Countdown, 2015)

There has been some agitation recently, within a wee Metropolitan media circle, to promote proportional representation (PR) instead of the first past the post system (FPTP) currently used at UK general elections. So it looks like the right moment to try and assess what the December 2019 general election would have delivered with different electoral laws. Of course it is a theoretical approach as the voting patterns would have been different under different systems, as we see in Scotland with separate constituency and list votes. But their is no way to predict how the votes would have changed with a proportional, or even partly proportional system. With all the obvious caveats, the election results under FPTP are all we have. So here is the breakdown in the proverbial "ONS Regions", that is for the three Celtic Nations, and then by region within England. The labels on the chart use rounded percentages, or else it would be way too cluttered. But of course I used the actual numbers in the simulations below, as we all know that the devil is in the decimal places. First, it's interesting to see that both main English parties, Labour and the Conservatives, have bagged sizeable vote shares even in regions where they got only a smallish number of seats. Also there is no region in England where the same party bagged all the seats, though it did happen in a few counties. Thusly no English region has the lopsided results we routinely have in Scotland at the Holyrood elections, which of course has implications on what other systems might deliver.

So I tried several options involving PR based on the highest averages method, commonly implemented as the variant known as the D'Hondt method. Some caveats first: every PR system includes a de facto threshold for representation, depending on how many seats are at stake. Rule of thumb is that the threshold would be aboot (100% / (number of seats + 1) ), which is also the formula for the D'Hondt quota used in the calculations. It also depends on the number of candidates, as a fragmented vote increases the number of candidates who end up not being eligible for seats. In real situations, the candidates eligible for seats very commonly account for 85% to 95% of votes cast, which is why you can get a majority of seats on just a plurality of votes. Bear in mind too that the highest averages method mechanically favours the parties with the highest number of votes, while the alternative highest remainder method favours the smaller parties. So I tried full PR at the UK level, which of course will never happen for a variety of political reasons, but is a theoretical benchmark of what you can expect from PR. Then full PR at the regional level, which is a realistic possibility if you factor in the obvious political constraints. Then Additional Members System (AMS), the well known method used in Scotland and Wales. I based it on the breakdown of seats used in Wales; two thirds on FPTP and one third on regional PR factoring the FPTP seats in the allocations. Finally a chemically pure Mixed Members System (MMS), with half the seats on FPTP and half on regional PR. But without factoring the FPTP seats in the allocation of PR seats, so there is no complex leveling mechanism as in Germany, or compensatory seats as in Quebec or New Zealand.

First of all, any PR-ish system would not help Labour, as you probably expected. Simply because Labour, including votes for Lindsay Hoyle, bagged 32.16% of the popular vote. And 32.16% of 650 seats is 209, a handful away from what they actually got. The big winners on FPTP are actually the Conservatives and the SNP, and the most prominent losers the Liberal Democrats, while the Greens and Reform UK obviously have more than a dozen reasons to support PR. Finally, it's interesting to look more closely at the breakdown of seats between the constituencies and the lists in the AMS and MMS scenarios. The AMS results are quite different from any preconceptions you might have, based solely on our experience with the Scottish Parliament. The key point here is that the Conservatives bagged a majority of the popular vote in several regions, and that grants them a few more seats on the lists, even where they already have a oversized majority of FPTP seats. This is even more obvious on MMS, without the wee leveling effect of the AMS mechanics. Here both the Conservatives and Labour would bag more seats than strict proportionality, purely because of the mechanics of the highest averages method that I explained earlier. And the lopsided FPTP component would still deliver a Conservative majority, which is not to be dismissed instantly as unfair, as they did bag a convincing plurality of the popular vote. I also can't find massive faults with a system that does deliver a majority for the party that voters wanted to win, and frees them from post-election backroom deals.

Now, of course, the decision on a change in the electoral law is purely political and would be based on the most favourable scenario for the ruling party at the time, the usual combination of self-interest and self-preservation instinct. Which of course leans towards a system that would maintain a strong element of FPTP while, at face value, handing a wee consolation treat to the proponents of PR. So any government in their sane mind would most probably go for MMS without any leveling or compensatory mechanism, just the one I simulated here. Personally, I welcome a change that involves just a wee dose of PR. With full PR you get at best a civilised mess as in Germany, the Netherlands or the Scandinavian countries, where the actual outcome of the election is determined in backroom deals that were never on the table before it. At worst it's a free-for-all like in Israel, where even the weeest pressure group can upgrade themselves to political party status, bag a couple of seats and then blackmail the larger parties who seek a coalition. And where you can end up ousting a Prime Minister just because one wee party sold itself to the highest bidder. Either way, the voters never get what they voted for, which is the polar opposite of a true representative democracy. Just remember German polls in the run up to their 2017 election, which said that only a quarter of voters wanted a CDU-SPD Grand Coalition, and that's what they got in the end. Let's just say I personally prefer something more solid and able to deliver a stable majority, like a true MMS that does not try to achieve strict proportionality. Small parties are totally entitled to representation, but not to become a nuisance when a strong plurality of the electorate clearly choose one direction over the other. Or you might try a two-round or instant runoff system, basically anything except STV, which is even worse than pure PR and adds the worst of FPTP to it, as it is even more prone to be gamed by tactical voting.

I’ve got an A-to-Z of Hull that I just refuse to get rid of

Because there may come an apocalypse and I may be in Hull

(Jon Richardson, Ultimate Worrier: Technology, 2018)

Jeremy's Den

15/06/2021

What The Fuck Is Going On?

We Must Be Dreaming