Jeremy's Den: Help Them Somebody!

We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring

Will be to arrive where we started, and know the place for the first time

(T.S. Eliot)

Hardly anything is evil, but most things are hungry

Hunger looks very like evil from the wrong end of the cutlery

Or do you think that your bacon sandwich loves you back?

(The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Pilot, 2017)

This time I will turn the table around and start with our trip abroad, again to France where the presidential election will be held in four weeks. I'm quite sure the British political establishment is paying attention to what is happening there, even if the British public don't. Now the cast is complete as they have reached the filing deadline, Emmanuel Macron has at last announced he is standing for re-election, and those who did not get the 500 sponsors required by the electoral law are out of the race. Let's just have a look first at the state of the polls the day before the filing deadline, and what sort of trends they showed. A couple of candidates are still listed in these polls, who have since dropped out, but their withdrawal will probably trigger only minor readjustments. The most important factor over the last two weeks is obviously the French electorate's reaction to the Russian aggression against Ukraine. It has strengthened Emmanuel Macron in first round voting intentions, despite earlier criticism of his handling of the crisis. Macron was criticised as naive in his dealings with Putin, but France's harder stance after the invasion seems to have restored the public's confidence in Macron, even if there is also an element of 'national unity behind the leader' at work here.

The recent events have also weakened the far-right conspiracist candidate Eric Zemmour, who found out the price to pay for his unquestioning support for Putin. But he still could get a double-digit vote share in an allegedly sane country. Oddly, a lot of Zemmour's lost votes seem to have shifted to Marine Le Pen, herself a Putin apologist and beneficiary of Russian dark money. Which means that the combined forces of the far-right bagged 30% of voting intentions in the last pre-deadline poll, compared to 21% for Marine Le Pen at the first round of the 2017 election. In the meanwhile, in a neighbouring country facing pretty much the same problems, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland fell from 13% at the 2017 Bundestag election to 10% in 2021. The only other Western European country who held a general election recently is Portugal, and the far-right gained votes there too, but bagged only 7% on election day. There is also some irony in the reportedly-extinct Communist Party slowly gaining back some red on their cheeks by explicitly targeting working class voters in deprived areas, who had shifted to far-right candidates or abstention over the last 30 or 40 years. Generally, the rolling average of the last six polls fielded before the filing deadline shows a wee swing towards left wing candidates, and a more significant one towards Emmanuel Macron, despite the minimalist campaigning from his supporters and his own complete lack of it. Looks like Macron's favourite talking point is working, that the country needs a firm hand on the tiller rather than a campaigning President.

Nevertheless, France is still facing the same political contradictions as when I first wrote about this election. The narrative is still that the country has massively lurched to the right over the last five years under Emmanuel Macron. Which is only partly true, as it is more of a return to the right. In the 63 years since the creation of the Fifth Republic, the right has ruled for 38 years and the left for only 20. The right have won seven out of eleven presidential elections, and the left only three. The right have also won ten out of fifteen parliamentary elections, and the left just four. I have deliberately left aside the ambiguously centrist Macronist era, which accounts for one of each election and five years in power, and is now considered more center-right than center-left by a majority of pundits. They may have a point here as the center-right candidate Valérie Pécresse has sharply gone down in recent polls, with her lost voters shifting to Emmanuel Macron. The trend started already some weeks ago, and the Ukraine War has amplified it. Pécresse's supporters tried to paint the first signs of decline as sexism, but there is obviously more to it. The most rational explanation is that Les Républicains' campaign has been quite chaotic and borderline cacophonic, so that the electorate don't just doubt Pécresse's own readiness for power, but her party's credibility and sense of statesmanship as a whole. This also shows in the small array of plausible second round scenarios, also as predicted by the weighted average of the last six pre-deadline polls.

Pécresse's early talking point, that she was the only one able to defeat Macron because Le Pen had been discredited by her failed bid in 2017, has been shattered to pieces by polls. The French electorate seem to have reached the point now where there is no turning back, and the second round will be a rematch of 2017. Polls conducted five weeks before the first round correctly predicted the two front runners in the first round, and the second round winner, at every presidential election since 1974, with just one exception in 2002, where they got the winner right but his second-round opponent wrong. There is a now just a very remote possibility this will be repeated this year, as the gap between the three right-wing candidates has widened over the last three weeks. So it's quite safe to assume that, save some completely unpredictable upset, Macron will face Le Pen in the second round, and win his second and last term. Honestly, and with all my usual caveats against social liberalism, there are worse outcomes than that, and it's probably the best the rest of Europe can hope for in these uncertain and dangerous times. Which is obviously also Macron's best talking point to support his re-election without actually campaigning.

I don’t know how to stop it happening again

Because I can’t figure out why it happened last time

(The Doctor, Doctor Who: Smile, 2017)

This version from June 1, 1974, recorded live at the Rainbow Theatre, London, 1 June 1974

Seeing your own mood might affect your own mood

It’s like a feedback loop interfering with the information being collected

Like a scale weighing itself

(The Doctor, Doctor Who: Smile, 2017)

Huc atque illuc in Britannia. As always, new voting intentions polls have delivered some unforeseen twists. Mostly due, I think, to politicians indulging is some twists and turns of their own. You might thusly wonder what the fuck Angela Rayner was thinking when she expressed vocal support for 'shoot to kill' policy. Not sure that one would increase support for Labour, as it was probably devised to do. Then this sort of details ceased to matter in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine. And things didn't really go the way Boris Johnson expected, just as the war did not go the way Vladimir Putin expected. There was indeed a wee Conservative surge in the polls fielded after the invasion, but they still registered Labour leading by a few points. Far from the boost Emmanuel Macron received in French polls. There is also massive irony in the contrast between Johnson always huffing and puffing about Churchill and the Blitz Spirit, and Macron being widely seen in European media as the actual 'New Churchill'. Not that this will really influence British voters, but international comparisons again don't make Johnson look good. Which is probably why he still brags about Britain being ahead in everything, despite massive evidence to the contrary, and the British public not really buying it.

There are some oddities in recent polling. Boris Johnson was lucky to have some PMQ-free time during the Commons' recess, and probably thought he then could use the international situation to cover up some more dirty tricks, like awarding serial failure Gavin Williamson a knighthood for services rendered to cover ups. The international crisis offered some well-needed breathing space to the Conservatives, who had been flatlining around 33% of voting intentions since the Southend West by-election, and even a few weeks before that. Labour's voting intentions have gone down and then up and then down and then up in a bizarre zigzag pattern, from a peak 44% just days before Southend West, to a mix of the high 30s and low 40s now. And again there have been some wild shifts from poll to poll, to and from the Greens and Liberal Democrats, but mostly benefiting Labour. Right now polls don't show a massive 'rallying around the flag' reaction, with some even predicting a wider gap between Labour and the Conservatives than before the invasion. What happens next is anybody's guess, as the British electorate has shown a lot of volatility in the last few months, and will certainly continue to do so.

There is an East wind coming all the same, it will be cold and bitter

(Sherlock Holmes, His Last Bow, 1917)

You can tell how smart people are by what they laugh at

(Tina Fey)

Savanta Comres have also recently surveyed the popularity of the government, the English opposition leaders and an array of Conservative big names in the current government. The results, with "don't know" excluded, are not necessarily fully consistent with the trends of voting intentions, but explain some of what we've seen earlier. Again Boris Johnson and his government are highly unpopular. The only caveat is that this poll was conducted before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, But another poll, conducted by YouGov just the day before the invasion, says that only 29% of Brits thought that Johnson had handled the situation well, with 34% thinking he had handled it badly and 37% on the fence. Later events are unlikely to have changed this much, as people are still more focused on what happens in their everyday life than on foreign policy. More on the Ukraine consequentials later.

Quite predictably, Priti Patel is once again the Most Hated Woman In SW1, though Boris gets the award for Most Hated Sentient Being In SW1. Oddly Priti has more positives than Michael Gove, Grant Shapps and Nadine Dorries. But all three have fewer negatives and many more neutrals. A bit like people can't actually be arsed to pay attention to them and form an opinion, one way or the other. But they do pay attention to Boris and Priti, and don't like them. So being ignored can also be a good thing. Same works for Ed Davey. People don't really like him or dislike him, they just don't give a fuck. While Keir and mostly Boris are closer to the stereotype of the Marmite Politician. Again Wunderkind Sunak comes out as better liked than Keir Starmer, and the least disliked of the Tory lot, followed by Sajid Javid and Liz Truss. Quite remarkably, Rishi is also the only one on the list with a net positive rating on +3%, when Starmer gets only a mediocre -6% and Johnson an abysmal -34%. Then I said it earlier and I say it again now: keep an eye on The Saj. We haven't heard the last of him and he will surprise us when the time comes for the next Tory leadership contest. You read it here first.

You know what’s wrong with this universe, believe me

I’ve looked into it: everyone says it’s not their fault

Well yes, it is, all of it, it’s all your fault, so what are you gonna do about it?

(The Doctor, Doctor Who: Oxygen, 2017)

Every trap you walk into is a chance to learn about your enemies

Impossible to set a trap without making a self-portrait of your own weaknesses

(The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Pyramid At The End Of The World, 2017)

Almost three weeks ago, attention and media coverage quite naturally shifted to Ukraine, before and after the Russian invasion. I have a hunch Boris might have secretly welcomed the news of the invasion, as it proved those who had mocked his earlier Russian War Scare wrong, including myself, and him right. He just was one week early in announcing Doomsday, which, from the perspective of the whole space-time continuum, is as insignificant as a yoctosecond. Boris should also remember that our disbelief was only the legitimate long-term fallout of all the lies the world was fed about Iraq in 2003. Otherwise, Boris had really very little to brag about in the early days of the crisis. Two polls surveyed Britain's mood back then: one from YouGov on 22-23 February, just hours before the invasion, and one from Savanta Comres on 24 February, testing the knee-jerk reactions to the invasion. In the YouGov poll, 29% thought Johnson had handles the situation well so far, and 34% thought he had handled it badly. The results of the Savanta Comres poll, that went into more excruciating detail, were even more damning. They asked their panel a simple question about his abilities: is Boris this or that and whatnot? Or isn't he? And the panel went strongly to "he isn't" on most items, concluding that he wasn't the right man to deal with such a situation. Ouch.

Of course this was early days, before Boris actually had an opportunity to really do something, but it didn't get better later. More on this down the line. But it is obviously a major problem when the public, on the eve of the most severe international crisis in 75 years, just don't trust the leader to handle it correctly. Another important issue two weeks ago was what public opinion considered an appropriate reaction to the invasion. Below is what YouGov found on the day before the invasion. Already, anything that could be described by Russia as an 'act of war' had little support. And both options listed in the poll would indeed be acts of war under international law. The public were more supportive of actions that would also involve military means, but outside Ukrainian territory. Obviously sending troops to Poland, Estonia or Romania, as some countries had already done when the poll was conducted, is a perfectly legitimate action and well within United Nations rules, and there's nothing Russia can do about it. But of course, the most widely approved course was already economic sanctions. Or the principle thereof.

But when it came to the practical consequences of economic sanctions, the British public were far less sanguine. The massive support for the principle of sanctions went down quite a few notches when some select examples of possible fallout were spelt out. It is indeed easy to understand why the British were initially reluctant to impose hardships upon themselves, when many were already hard hit by skyrocketing energy bills and inflation. But we will see later that it changed quite quickly and dramatically once the Russian aggression had become a reality, and not just a remotely plausible scenario discussed by media-savvy pundits. In that respect, the British public displayed far more genuine Blitz Spirit that the government. Which makes the government's attitude even harder to understand, when all they have to do is read the room. They could justify some modicum of restraint using these pre-invasion polls, but certainly can't any more now.

It is quite obvious that the only sanctions that can seriously hurt Russia are those that will also hurt us in some way. But, in the days before the invasion, there was legitimate concern here and there, that democratically elected leaders might prioritise the feeling of their public opinions over strong reactions to a Russian aggression. Doubters were quick to point out that Emmanuel Macron faced a crucial election just weeks away, and that Joe Biden could wish to protect Democratic incumbents from bad PR eight months before the midterms. They also imagined they were right to express doubts when Germany was the first country to impose serious sanctions by suspending Nord Stream 2, thusly allegedly proving that Olaf Scholz was the only one who could venture in those waters, because he had just been elected and was immune to popular backlash. Fortunately, they were soon proved wrong, and a strong stance against Russia has indeed proved electorally beneficial for Macron, and to a lesser extent for Biden and the Democratic Party.

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself

to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach

(Adolf Hitler)

When the soul slumbers and reason is withdrawn, then the wild beast in us,

Full-fed with meat and drink, becomes rampant and shakes off sleep

To go in quest of what will satisfy its own instincts

(Plato)

Savanta Comres then surveyed their panel on the 24th and 25th of February, just hours after the beginning of the invasion. Which delivers what you might call the British public's knee-jerk reaction to something nobody had seen coming, except perhaps the Chinese government, though they obviously deny it. The panel had to rank some chosen options as expected, desirable and justified. Fortunately, doing nothing was massively ruled out. The question about military support was vague enough to receive significant support, but later polls showed more nuanced responses when the exact options behind that were spelt out. The most important and significant part was of course the massive support for all kinds of sanctions. The British public have not swayed in their support for these, which should be enough reason for the government to stop procrastinating and looking for transparent excuses to shield their donors. Caution is not the way to go, and many foreign states have shown more baws that Boris Johnson here. Guess we will soon realise that what the Conservatives were ready to do was too little and too late.

Since the most obvious economic sanctions would also trigger financial instability, shortages and huge price hikes on our own turf, there was a feeling back then that governments would naturally favour a 'gradual' approach. Knowing full well that Putin did not give a fuck about gradual sanctions, and threatened doom and doom against really strong ones. The English Government are definitely not helping either, as they are dithering and procrastinating, giving oligarchs more than enough time to squirrel their dark money out of the UK. While France, Italy and Germany are acting swiftly and seizing assets, not just freezing some with an 18-month advance warning. Before all of this happened, Savanta Comres polled their panel about a rather wide array of possible sanctions. Interestingly, some of the then hypotheticals have become reality by now, and are enjoying widespread support. The point of the poll was identifying which sanctions were theoretically considered as going too far, not far enough or just about right. It showed there are no genuine red lines for the British public, and that a tougher stance already had strong support just hours after the invasion. Oddly, or not, the public showed some restraint only when action could hurt fitba and posh private education for the oligarchs' sprogs.

But why should we leave the kids alone? After all, the only message it sends is that we won't let them be groomed to become the same kind of entitled pricks as our Prime Minister. What's wrong with that? They should actually thank us for it. More seriously, the impact of economic sanctions should not be underestimated, because the Russian economy is weaker that Putin wants us to believe. It has been widely said that it is roughly the size of Spain's, and more importantly Russia's GDP per capita ranks only 85th in the world, on a par with Bulgaria and lower than Iran or Romania. Even when adjusted for purchasing power, which is a more accurate assessment, it ranks only 74th between the Seychelles and Malaysia. And these are 2020 statistics, before sanctions drove down the value of the ruble by 43% in two weeks against the pound. Even the low level of Russia's sovereign debt is no longer as big an asset as it used to be, as a major part of it is financed on international markets, through so-called 'Euro bonds' that are in fact valued in dollars, so its nominal value and interest payments have sharply risen. The worst of the crisis is certainly yet to come, but there are clear signs it will get much worse for Russia before it gets worse for the West. And that's where our windows of opportunity will open.

However bad a situation is, if people think that’s how it’s always been

They’ll put up with it, that’s 90% of the job done

(Nardole, Doctor Who: The Lie Of The Land, 2017)

It is a most encouraging thing to hear a human voice

When fifty thousand gramophones are playing the same tune

(George Orwell)

Nobody would have wagered a tenner on it three weeks ago, but the Johnson-vs-Starmer ratings in 'Preferred First Minister Of England' polling have become relevant again. And Boris has only Vlad The Invader to thank for that, not himself. Changed circumstances do not mean that Conservative MPs have given up on criticising Boris, but obviously they have to resort to other weapons than a no confidence letter sent to the 1922 Committee. Many must also feel it awkward to hit at the Prime Minister right now, but still have some punches left for the more irrelevant members of the Cabinet. Like those responsible for the stalling of sanctions against oligarchs, or Nadine Dorries. When in doubt, always blame Nadine for something, and you're almost certain to be right. Anyway, the shambolic handling of the sanctions is a sad sight. Just when the UK needs firm leadership from a new Churchill, the most efficient tool against Russia is in the hands of a herd of Humphrey Applebys. But the British public still fall for some of Boris' legerdemains, and his ratings have gone up back again, after PartyGate faded to the background and Defence Of The Realm became a major issue again.

Keir Starmer's ratings have not fallen dramatically here, but there are warning signs. Such as the last two Redfield and Wilton polls finding Boris again leading by a hare's breath. Or the recent trend showing undecideds swinging back to Boris' side. Sly Keir obviously doesn't want to put all his eggs in the same pie, and the plan is to try and seduce different niches in the electorate, no matter how acrobatic it is. Maybe he thinks he has the unique talent of making English nationalism and woke intersectionalism blend into one manifesto, without people noticing that the pieces don't really fit together. His greatest worry for the next election campaign should probably be mixing up his speeches, delivering one in Hampstead about making Brexit work, and one the next day in Stoke-On-Trent promising gender self-identification. The high level of 'none of the fucking clowns' is also a clear sign of how Britain has grown disenchanted with politics and politicians. Which is only to be expected when Boris Johnson is to Winston Churchill what Ed Sheeran is to John Lennon, and Keir Starmer is to Clement Attlee what Olly Murs is to Paul McCartney.

The thing with the Universe, you can always borrow, as long as you pay it back

(The Doctor, Doctor Who: Extremis, 2017)

Never underestimate the collective human ability to overlook the inexplicable

(The Doctor, Doctor Who: Thin Ice, 2017)

In that context, it was quite amusing to hear Sly Keir claiming a wee while ago that some Tory MPs had been confiding in him about their deep distress, especially when you realise it may actually have been true. Another unexpected twist, in that world of before, was that the Liberal Democrats might actually have benefited from the fallout of the PartyGate shitstorm, if they had actually managed to get the full and unredacted Gray Report published before all hell broke loose in the East. Back then, Savanta Comres tried a new twist on the popularity of the two most prominent leaders in their February Tracker, asking people who they would trust most in this or that totally non-political situation, Johnson or Starmer? There is some sense of nostalgia in looking at these results, when you realise that nobody would ask the same questions now. And that this Olde Worlde, where it looked like a good idea to ask them, is just barely a month away. Might have been how Americans felt in the autumn of 1940. Anyway, here's what the poll found, and it is strangely still somewhat relevant today, as it says a lot about how Brits feel about the two Big Dogs.

So Boris comes out as the jolly good fellow and Keir as the pub bore, which won't surprise anyone. Though one item is missing here, 'Best pub quiz team captain', and I'm quite sure Keir would have won that one by a wide margin. Also not surprisingly, people would trust the beige forensic lawyer more on all serious items, and all those related to real every day life outside their local. No matter what dramatic events might impact everyday life in Britain, there is still a strong distrust of everything Boris, which will probably lessen the impact of any 'rallying around the flag' reflex. Especially as the British public don't have a totally positive view of the steps taken by the English Government since the Russian aggression. More on this later.

I’m two thousand years old and I’ve never had the time for the luxury of outrage

(The Doctor, Doctor Who: Thin Ice, 2017)

Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business

And eventually degenerates into a racket

(Eric Hoffer)

A few days before the invasion of Ukraine, YouGov published the results of a poll the Fabian Society had ordered from them, to test the public's attitude towards some political parties. This one had actually been conducted in October last year, and left to collect dust at the bottom of a drawer ever since. Why anyone felt the urge to release it months past its sell-by date is beyond my understanding, but never mind. The panel had to rate themselves from 'Definitely will not vote' to 'Definitely will vote' for the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. I guess the Fabians probably expected Labour to do much better than the Conservatives in this somewhat futile exercise, and then the whole scheme fell flat on its belly. So half of Brits won't vote for the Conservatives and half won't vote for Labour. Fuck me sideways! Then we can assume these are not the same halves, though there might be some overlap in the dark corners of the nether regions of the political compass.

I'm quite sure we could do some Venn diagrams with all the crosstabs from this poll, like the metropolitan Zoomers love to do on Twitter, to prove that they failed their Maths GCSE only because they are the victims of systemic institutional bias in the English school system. Then it would probably only prove that a huge majority of the public will never vote for any party whatsoever, that they haven't already voted for before. Which is why so many elections are won on only a weeish swing and a weeish majority, and switching 10% of the seats is now called a landslide. Guess the Fabians will now think of many better things to do with their donations, than buying frivolous polls nobody is really interested in.

It sort of feels like we've got a dustpan and a brush on the deck of the Titanic here

(Jon Richardson, Meet The Richardsons, 2020)

Don’t sentimentalise me, I don’t just fly around helping people out

If I look purposeful, they will think I’ve got a plan

And at least they won’t try to think of a plan themselves

(The Doctor, Doctor Who: Smile, 2017)

Labour are certainly doing themselves no favour when they embrace the current climate of fake 'national unity' that has put legitimate debate over Conservative failures and mischief on hold. There is a thin line between Loyal Opposition and Complicit Opposition, and some in Labour seem to have a hard time deciding which side of it they're on. It's definitely weird to see that Angela Rayner has found time to outline the profile of a female leadership bid, which she probably dreams would have been her own, but not to demand that Evgeny Lebedev be stripped of his peerage. Which wouldn't have hurt him much as he can't even be arsed to show up in Lords to collect his daily £323 in lunch money. It's quite amazing that Labour don't hit harder at the obscene amount of Russian influence and dark money in the Conservative Party, which is just the visible part of a widespread infection of politics and business. Part of it is that successive Conservative governments have failed for four years to table a meaningful version of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill, and Johnson is now left off the hook by Labour because he endorsed some last minute half-baked amendments, that will have no effect, if any, for another couple of years. Calling for nothing more than an investigation into Lebedev is ridiculously weak, and it's quite flabbergasting that Keir Starmer doesn't realise it. Unsurprisingly, public opinion's disenchantment with Labour shows in the current snapshot of voting intentions, where they fail to clear the symbolic 40% hurdle.

Voting intentions polling has started again, after a short spell where pollsters switched their attention to the fallout of the Ukraine war, so my current Poll'O'Polls is made of four polls, conducted by Redfield and Wilton on 7 March, YouGov on 8 and 9 March, Techne on 9 and 10 March, and Deltapoll between 8 and 11 March. Super sample is 7,334 with a theoretical 1.14% margin of error. Interestingly, it is better for both Labour and Conservatives than three weeks ago, while the LibDems have taken a nosedive. The fallout of the Ukraine war is quite counter-intuitive here, as some voters might have felt uncomfortable with Labour prioritising foreign policy, not leading the fight against tax hikes and lacking solid proposals to tackle rising unemployment and cost of living. It's also quite disturbing to see Starmer praised for being more of an Atlanticist than Blair. Of course, now is not the time to open this debate, but people must be able to see this is not a black-and-white issue, Atlanticism vs Putinism. We'll talk about this later, won't we? In the meanwhile, this is surely not Labour's USP with a number of voters on the left fringe, who may prove crucial in winning the next election. But it has not hurt Labour's showing in the polls right now, so it might after all be the win-win trick Starmer thinks it is. But there's more to life than polls, innit? So we got a reality check from the Birmingham Erdington by-election on 3 March.

The electoral history of the seat makes it solidly Labour and it didn't disappoint. It's a good result for Labour as the vote shares are pretty much a repeat of 2017, save for TUSC snatching a few votes from Labour and Reform UK snatching some from the Conservatives. Labour held the set on a 4.5% swing from the Conservatives, compared to 2019, which is indeed a satisfactory result at face value. But it didn't go fully according to plan if you compare the actual result with what could be extrapolated from polls fielded before the by-election. These were indeed better than a return to 2017, so getting 'only' that is kind of a warning sign for Keir Starmer. There are obviously multiple explanations for this, and the fallout from Ukraine certainly doesn't cover it all. Bear in mind too that earlier polling showed that Labour haven't fully recovered from the 2019 shock in the Midlands, and that the Conservatives still have a voter base there that is not far from what they had around 2010-2015. The vote for TUSC here might seem negligible, but it certainly isn't and Labour Central knows it. If radical left candidates with some union support risked losing a quarter of a million in deposits, and reached the same level all across England at a general election, it could switch a fair number of marginal seats and jeopardise a Labour victory. Certainly not the kind of prospect Starmer wants to face.

The nice thing about life is, however bad it gets

There’s always one last option available, dying well

(The Doctor, Doctor Who: Oxygen, 2017)

It's lovely being clever when you're mental

(Alan Davies)

Labour's performance overall is just as disappointing as it was three weeks ago, and their only consolation is that the Conservatives are not doing massively better either. Two weeks after the Russian aggression in Ukraine, it hasn't changed the dynamics of British politics one way or the other. It is quite likely that the massive connections between the Conservative Party and the most corrupt parts of the Russian establishment outweigh any 'rally around the leader' reflex that might exist within the electorate. Likewise, Labour's position in some circles might have been undermined by their continued internal feuds and their all-out support for Atlanticism. Whatever the undercurrents here, it's as interesting as always to check who exactly has moved, and where to, in the devolved nations and the regions of England. So here's what the various crosstabs of the polls in my current snapshot say. This time, the regions of England come first.

Voting intentions across England are not that bad for Labour, though they fail to match their 2017 result in the North. There seems to have been only a minimal impact of the war in Ukraine. Voting intentions are slightly better for Labour in the North, compared to three weeks ago, and better for the Conservatives in the Midlands and the South. So the shift in voting intentions since the Russian aggression is pretty much a zero-sum game between Labour and the Conservatives across England. Otherwise Labour have regained most votes in Wales, that had previously shifted to Plain Cymru. Labour have also regained votes in London from the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Not bad overall, though there is also an interesting situation in Scotland, where voters have gone the opposite way of GB-wide trends.

It now looks like Keir Starmer is trying to woo Scotland with his plan to Make Britain Great Again, delivered at the Scottish Labour conference that nobody actually paid attention to. Let's just say that when my dug looks at me, with his eyes telling me how great and loved I am, I believe him. When Sly Keir comes to Glasgow to deliver the same message to the whole of Scotland, my instinct is to look for ulterior motives first. But Keir's hopes, and Nicola Sturgeon's too, are quite shattered by the very Scottish paradox. That it is the only nation where change in votes from 2019 is barely noticeable, except for the LibDems nosediving. Of course this is based on subsamples of GB-wide polls, which are obviously less reliable than a full Scottish poll. But all pollsters predict a mediocre performance for the SNP, which is also supported by the last Holyrood poll conducted in January. Interestingly, 8 out of 10 polls also say that women are less likely to vote for the SNP than men. Have to wonder why, haven't we? More about a related issue deep down at the end.

The greatest act of revolution, in a world that's trying

To grind away your humanity, is to enjoy yourself

(Rufus Hound)

Facts don’t remain stable, things we know or think we know

Will be untrue in a number of years’ time

(Stephen Fry, QI: Knowledge, 2013)

On today's numbers, Labour would be just seven seats shy of the first hurdle, the first magic number: 300. Which, if you remember the previous episodes, is what they need so that a broad coalition of the Left, excluding the SNP, has a chance to bag a majority. Here, that Small Rainbow Coalition would reach 319 seats, three seats shy of a majority. Not exactly the dream scenario for Keir Starmer, as he would have to accommodate five other parties in a coalition, and at least one of them also in government. Then, if three's a crowd, six can be a nightmare. I guess Keir Starmer would find it more convenient to offer a formal coalition deal only to the Liberal Democrats. Which would probably be binding also for the SDLP and the Alliance Party, given their organic links to Labour and the LibDems respectively. Then a looser agreement with the Greens and Plaid Cymru would be enough, as long as it abides by the usual rules of confidence and supply. In such a configuration, the SNP's attitude would be interesting to watch. Would a reality check at last hammer the point home, that they have jack shit influence on SW1 politicking? Just imagine the SNP following Sinn Féin and adopting an abstentionist stance. Then current polling would deliver 312 seats for the government and 274 for the opposition, an even better outcome for Labour. And emphasising the SNP's total irrelevance in the Westminster histrionics.

Here we have the Conservatives losing 99 seats on their 2019 intake. Actually they would lose 100, as they would also gain one in..... SPOILER ALERT..... Scotland! But we'll burn that bridge when we come to it, a wee smitch further down the road. Everybody, almost, would get their fair share of the spoils, with Labour taking 91 of those seats, the Liberal Democrats seven, the SNP and Plaid Cymru one each. Contrary to popular belief and expectations, Boris Johnson would hold his seat in London, but Iain Duncan Smith and Theresa Villiers would lose theirs. Further hunting trophies, if they're still not illegal by then, would include Dominic Raab, Alex Chalk and Steve Brine for the LibDems. Graham Brady, Amanda Solloway, Michael Ellis, Chloe Smith, Stuart Andrew, Alok Sharma, Mark Spencer, Grant Shapps, Robin Walker, Steve Baker, Maggie Throup, Robert Buckland and a Brexit-Bus-load of minor players for Labour. And finally Oor Doogie Ross for the SNP, and I'll let you decide if you should file him under Big Dogs or Wee Rats.

This is known by academics as the half-life of facts

You know that half of what you learn will be untrue in 10 or 20 years

But unfortunately you don’t know exactly which half

(Stephen Fry, QI: Knowledge, 2013)

I did a course at university called the Sociology of Science

I got a grant for it and it was a complete waste of time

But what I learned during that course is there’s no such thing as a fact

(Jo Brand, QI: Knowledge, 2013)

The breakdown of seats by nation and region, as predicted by the polls' crosstabs, has seen no tectonic shift from what we had three weeks ago. The better result for the SNP is mostly a matter of optics, as they would bag two more seats on a smaller share of the popular vote. It's another zero-sum game between the SNP and the Scottish Conservatives, as each would lose a seat to the other. Here we have Gordon going yellow-to-blue and Moray going blue-to-yellow. Nothing to write home about, as the SNP is benefiting only from the collapse of the LibDem vote, that shifts two marginal seats (North East Fife, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross). Otherwise, the Conservatives are still firmly entrenched in the Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, and most of the North East. Ian Murray in Edinburgh South and Christine Jardine in Edinburgh West are still predicted to hold their seats, obviously thanks to carefully engineered tactical voting, and also because the Capital City has not become friendlier to the SNP. Guess the Council elections will confirm this. Besides, polls can't factor in the likely internecine feuds between the SNP and the Alba Party, and splitting the pro-independence vote would plausibly deliver an additional two or three seats to Labour (Airdrie and Shotts, East Lothian, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath), and possibly one more to the Conservatives (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock).

Labour are also predicted to do well in Wales and London. In both cases, the relative weakness of the Liberal Democrats helps, as does the peculiar situation of Plaid Cymru in Wales. Plaid's vote, even in their best days, is far from evenly distributed, which is definitely a liability at any general election. The Slate Ceiling of five seats is a reality, and even just four might be a plausible outcome, as Ynys Môn is a close three-way marginal. London, on the other hand, is like the gift that keeps on giving for Labour. There is a unique situation there, as the votes lost by the LibDems over the last twenty years have entirely moved to Labour, while they went mostly to the Conservatives pretty much everywhere else. Ironically, the London Paradox also keeps some of Labour's contradictions alive, with Stephen Timms and David Lammy on one side, Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott on the other, massively entrenched in their respective constituencies. The Labour selections for the next election down there will surely be something to watch, if Keir Starmer doesn't cease and desist from his culling of the Left. These seats are quite safe anyway, unless they pick some really terrible candidates. Which they might do, actually, if they have the weird idea of enrolling some of Wes Streeting's old 'he/him' mob.

I am quite sure that Keir Starmer feels validated by current polls, that show him doing better than the Corbyn Surge of 2017. But this is kind of a double-edged sword. Right now, he doesn't match Tony Blair's results in 2005, which remain the minimal benchmark for a genuine success. The shifts in voting intentions and seat projections over the last three weeks also illustrate Labour's fragility in a volatile political landscape. Of course Labour have so far succeeded in turning the tide in the North, and reclaimed most of the lost ground between the Red Wall and Hadrian's Wall. But the shockwave of the invasion of Ukraine has also exposed their weaknesses in the Midlands and even more in the South. Compared to the seat projection of three weeks ago, Labour are five seats up in the North, but three down in the Midlands and seven down in the South, where they previously matched their 2005 result. Surely we haven't seen the last of the Conservatives, and appealing to some variant of English nationalism in the face of adversity still has some traction with significant parts of the electorate.

I love Blackpool, I think it’s proper cheesy, it’s proper corny

You know what you’re getting, it’s like the Benidorm of England

(Jon Richardson)

This is the main event, £50 million worth of nuclear missiles

That’s the real reason there aren’t many nuclear wars, we can’t afford to replace these

(WO1 Elliot Glover, Vigil, 2021)

Two weeks after the brutal Russian aggression against Ukraine, there are signs of growing frustration in the UK, including within the Conservative Party, over the lack of decisive action against oligarchs in Britain as the government are seen to be dragging their heels and looking for more or less credible excuses. In the meanwhile, other countries are making the most of the key option available to democratic regimes: economic sanctions. The French Economy Secretary Bruno Le Maire summed up the one goal in no uncertain terms: destroy Russia's economy. Which, for painfully obvious reasons, the English Government is reluctant to do. Disconnecting the City of Londongrad from Russia is as challenging a task as disentangling a Borg drone from the Collective, which doesn't mean you shouldn't try, especially when the public are increasingly ready to endure some hardships as a consequence of serious economic sanctions. YouGov polled their panel three times after the invasion, about their level of support for sanctions when some of the most obvious direct consequences are spelt out. Support for the sanctions has increased over time in almost all cases. The British public are just a wee smitch less sanguine when the rising price of energy is thrown into the broth. Which is hardly surprising when you consider how it had already skyrocketed before the invasion.

YouGov also tested the public's support for other options, which Russia would consider more aggressive. And some actually are. Direct intervention does not and never had much support. The two options mentioned by YouGov are pretty much what would be considered act of wars under international law, so lack of support for them is a clear sign of where the British public draw their line in the sand. Their attitude about sending supplies and weaponry to Ukraine is interesting, as it shows a slight decrease in support, though still approved by a clear majority. Neutrals providing belligerents with miscellaneous supplies including weaponry is nothing new. The United States doing just that basically saved Great Britain during the first two years of World War Two. So it's no surprise that a massive majority of Brits are now ready to do the same for Ukraine. But my point here is that the level of support increased considerably in the first days of the war, then stalled because more people are on the fence about it. Some Russian officials have threatened to treat such actions as acts of war, which they are not under international law, but this may have influenced a small portion of the public and decreased the level of support.

The cyber-attacks option was not on the table in the very first poll, fielded before the invasion, but has gained a wide support in the three later ones. Given the past between us and the Russians, it's quite a legitimate and foreseeable fac alteri ut tibi fecerunt. Jacob Rees-Mogg would get that one. A few days later, another YouGov poll found Brits going 39% to 28% against establishing a no-fly zone above Ukraine, with 33% undecided. The only surprise is that so few went against, as the wording of the question clearly indicated the plausibility of an armed conflict with Russia if it was enforced. Which is why it is not, contrary to Nicola Sturgeon's 'expert' opinion, something 'to be considered', not even remotely. The amazing, and honestly quite worrying, aspect of this polling is that 25-30% of the British public are ready to endorse options they know would lead to a war. That's not the Blitz Spirit, mates, that's the Kamikaze Spirit. Finally, I calculated the average responses to the four items about 'sanctions with associated hardships' mentioned above, as given by the very latest poll. Which is a way to sum up the public's feelings about them, which you could call the 'Blitz Spirit Index', and see if the various crosstabs provided by YouGov point to some geographical, political or demographical divide. Which of course they do, but not necessarily the way you would expect.

From these averages, you can calculate a 'net support' the usual way, and the full panel has a net +14, indicating a strong support to sanctions, whatever the cost. Interestingly respondents from the North of England are the closest to the average with a net +12, but also a breakdown of answers closest to the average. Conservative, Labour and LibDem voters are all strongly supportive, with an average net support of +26, which hints that other parties' voters, who were not crosstabbed, are far less supportive. There is also a clear generational divide, with under-50s delivering an average net +3, and over-50s an average net +26. 18-24s are the less supportive with a net +2. Not because more of them oppose the sanctions than average, actually fewer do, but mostly because far fewer support them. And, in typical Zoomer fashion, a third can't be arsed to give a fucking shit. Guess the thought behind that might be like "it can't hurt me because I never pay any bill, Mum and Dad foot them all for me". There is a geographical divide too, though it's less prominent than the generational divide. Interestingly, the Blue South and Scotland now offer the strongest support for the sanctions, the only two with an outright majority supporting them. It was not always the case in earlier polls, where London was the most supportive and Scotland the most reluctant. Finally, a later YouGov poll showed that the British public still has doubts about the sanctions alone preventing a Russian victory. Time will tell. Probably soon.

Being right is easy. We need to win.

(The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Pyramid At The End Of The World, 2017)

This version from 801 Live, recorded at the Queen Elizabeth Hall, London, 3 September 1976

Man is so selfish, he’s got women’s rights, and his own too

But he won’t give women their rights, he keeps them all to himself

(Sojourner Truth)

Finally, a word about a purely Scottish issue: the intended reform of the Gender Recognition Act. A new poll about this was conducted by Savanta Comres between 7 and 25 January, but full data were published only on 17 February. The last previous poll on the same issue was conducted by Panelbase, on behalf of For Women Scotland, between 8 and 13 December 2021, and I will use their results to track possible evolutions of public opinion. This might come in handy to fully evaluate some arguments used in the Scottish Parliament's debate about the bill. James Kelly, writer of the Scot Goes Pop blog, has raised some methodological issues with the Savanta Comres poll, and there are some indeed. I have one that wasn't mentioned by James, related to the panel's familiarity with the issue. Both pollsters asked a specific question about this, but with vastly different wordings that imply very different levels of actual awareness.

There is a huge difference between being familiar with the implications of a decision, and having followed the debate about it. Especially, as James accurately pointed out, when the overall climate is influenced by a constant fear of being labeled 'transphobic' and hounded down by extremist activists. Besides, there is an obvious subjective component in a debate, while knowledge based on the implications of a fact is of a more objective nature. The wording itself is also biased in the Savanta Comres poll, using the rather vague concept of 'transgender rights', which in itself already induces a positive outlook on any question that follows, rather than references to factual and neutral notions, as Panelbase does. It's the same kind of difference as between taking your cues on Covid vaccines from scientists, or from an episode of Question Time with Piers Corbyn on it. This only strengthens the caveats about the Savanta Comres poll, that is right from the start tainted by a bias in favour of the proposed reform. This is of course a serious and complex issue and it is worth spending some time looking at all answers to all questions, most of which are not the proverbial Yes-Or-No type, though Panelbase used such questions all along. Let's see first what people think about the key issues, and what they actually support or oppose (click on the image for a larger easier-to-read version).

Panelbase used a binary scale on these questions, instead of Savanta Comres' classic five-level scale, so I have mapped the Panelbase results to the two extreme shades of colour. Of course activists supporting the reform have made a big deal of the 57% supporting the concept of 'making the process to acquire a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) easier'. Then who wouldn't support the idea of streamlining an administrative process that has been relentlessly framed as cumbersome and traumatic? When Savanta Comres does come closer to the practical proposals, support falls dramatically, even with the poll's reform-friendly bias. This is also where you have to take into account the level of the respondents' familiarity with the issue, and where this awareness comes from. Is 41% support based on a biased debate really higher than 29% based on knowledge of the implications, that is the question? And my answer is obviously No, especially when you see a strong plurality or a majority opposing other key provisions of the reform, like shortening the delays and granting access to minors. There is also no massive support for the notion of a 'third gender', another demand of gender activists. Both polls also surveyed two other contentious issues: single-sex spaces, transwomen in sport and prisons,... and again the results are not what activists might have expected (also click on the image for a larger easier-to-read version).

Both polls have one thing in common: a minimal level of support for jeopardising single-sex spaces and women's sport. No matter how you spin it, the public has a hard time accepting than any individual with male genitalia should be allowed into 'women only' territory, as defined by the Equality Act 2010. Which is the key reason why the gender ideology activists either misrepresent what the Equality Act says, or openly call for its key provisions to be repealed. With the same rationale always: taking away women's rights to accommodate the whims and feelings of men. The public are also, through different questions, showing a healthy opposition to involving minors in anything that might result in life-changing choices. So the overall message is not overwhelmingly supportive. Basically it says "we're not really against you but there are red lines, you don't compete in women's sport, you don't mess with the kids and you don't come dangling your dicks in wee girls' locker rooms". In a sane and rational world, that would be a fair and balanced basis for compromise. But we know there is no such word in the gender activists' dictionary, all they want is total surrender and submission. They will likely dismiss the Court of Session's ruling that struck down the Gender Representation On Public Boards Act as irrelevant. But it isn't, as it actually is a constitutional issue: Holyrood can't legislate over the definition of 'legal sex', as it is a protected characteristic enshrined in the Equality Act, and thusly a reserved matter. Now the people still shouldn't miss the opportunity to send a clear message: drop that divisive bullshit once and for all and move on. Council elections, anyone?

If you know me, then you’ll know that there is a line in the sand

And I’m the man on the other side of it, and you want to keep me that way

(The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Pyramid At The End Of Time, 2017)

Jeremy's Den

13/03/2022

Help Them Somebody!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Welcome To Their Nightmares