Jeremy's Den: May 2022

You can observe a lot by watching

(Yogi Berra)

There is no surname in English that cannot be improved

By having the word Spanker put in front of it

(Christopher Hitchens)

Reminder: all images are full-size, but automatically adjusted to fit the page layout.

Click on them to get the original full-size and easier to read version.

I usually don't comment on other peoples' blogs, as I believe everybody is entitled to their opinions, and probably wouldn't give a shit about my opinion of their opinions anyway. But Craig Murray has put himself in the spotlight recently for all the bad reasons, namely his stance on gender ideology. And also for his stance on Russia and the war in Ukraine, with a post about his peace plan for Ukraine that drew my attention. It starts with the expected serving of bluster like "I've been there, I've done that, so I know best". Which of course he doesn't. His former career is totally irrelevant here and his ideas bear no more weight than anybody else's. Mine, for example. Because they are just opinions, and fairly biased ones too. Though, in Craig's case, 'unfairly' would be a better assessment. So let's go to the heart of the matter, and what Craig's bundle is actually made of.

Of course, Craig duly included some proposals that are Putin-unfriendly, to make the whole plan look 'fair and balanced'. But even these points are disingenuous at best. First of all, Ukraine does not need to be recognised as a sovereign state. It is a sovereign state, and recognised as such even by Russia for more than thirty years now. Craig's wording is also susipcious, as he calls his draft a 'start'. Which it would actually be in real life. If such a proposal was ever put on the table, it would not be the final state of affairs, but some sort of opening gambit for a negotiation. So why would Ukraine ever accept that their sovereign status be part of a negotiation? As others say, whom Craig likes to cuddle, metaphorically, 'our existence is not up for debate'. Nor is Ukraine's independent and sovereign status, and their unalienable right to joing the EU and NATO, or not, depending of what their democratically elected representatives decide. Which, in the case of Ukraine, means the Rada, as Zelenskyy does not constitutionally have that sort of power. Which is why Zelenskyy was always willing to address parliaments around the world. Ukrainian democracy is based on parliamentary power, and he aknowledged their role in foreign nations too. Devolution for Donbas is definitely a no-go too, as it would only embolden separatists and Russian attempts to have it recognised as 'independent', and it also contradicts the final proposal. What's the point of devolution if those demading it are relocated to Russia? Didn't think that one through, Craig, did you?

The status of Crimea is also a big stumbling block, with the obvious starting point being that its annexation by Russia has jack shit recognition worldwide, and was based on an illegal wildbear referendum. Why would Ukraine give it up when Zelenskyy's major talking point for weeks has been to restore Ukraine's territorial integrity? It could be part of a final settlement after months of talks, certainly not part of the opening move. Craig's argument that Crimea is 'in practice now Russian' does not stand on its hind legs, and I have historical precedent to prove it. Alsace-Lorraine, or Reichsland Elsaß–Lothringen as it was called after 1871 when it was annexed technically by the German Empire, but 'in practice' by Prussia. It was German territory for almost 50 years, and the huge majority of the population were native speakers of either Alsatian or Franconian Luxemburgish, two Alemannic German dialects. Yet they never accepted German rule and welcomed reunification with France in 1919 after the Treaty of Versailles. Which, coincidentally, has another part to play in this story, but that's a later chapter. So, instead of unquestioningly allocating Crimea to Russia and thusly rewarding brute force, why wouldn't we ask the people of Crimea what they really want? Remain in Ukraine, or Leave and legitimately become Russian? In a genuine democratic referendum this time, supervised by neutral foreign observers. What could possibly be wrong in asking people to decide their own fate in a referendum? Nothing at all, as Craig would surely agree. If you're so sure they want to be Russian, then let them tell us.

You can’t do proper peace-keeping without guns and bombs and stuff

(Phil Harrison, Midsomer Murders: A Tale Of Two Hamlets, 2003)

The trouble with having an open mind, is that people will insist

On coming along and trying to put things in it

(Terry Pratchett)

Then, Craig proposes a Truth and Reconciliation process to deal with war crimes. Which is pathetically manipulative, as Craig knows the wording will immediately remind people of South Africa. The truth is that reconciliation in South Africa was more of a mixed bag than Mandela's own narrative wanted us to believe. It probably avoided a full-blown civil war, but not individual acts of revenge and retaliation, coupled with feelings of betrayal motivated by political expendiency. Bear in mind too that Ukraine have already announced that all of their own involved in war crimes would be brought to justice. So, why would they agree to a process that would grant immunity to Russian war criminals, and especially Putin? Craig also advocates some kind of demilitarisation, but his idea of 'weapon control' is heavily booby-trapped in favour of Russia. Restricting weapons systems in Ukraine means removing all the modern weaponry Western countries have sent them, those weapons they 'never asked for' according to Putin enablers Noam Chomsky and Owen Jones. But restricting weapons systems in 'neighbouring Russia'? What the fuck does that mean? Of course, it means jack shit. 'Neighbouring Russia' is a fuzzy concept at best, and would never deter Putin from bringing weaponry from Central Asia, as he has repeatedly done since the start of the war. So this would leave Ukraine lacking essential means of defence when Putin decides to start another criminal war of aggression. Disarmement is a sound idea, but just not in this context. There and now, it's a trap. We already know too well how this will end if we don't put a stop to Putin's ambition of recreating the Soviet Union.

Next, Craig argues that sanctions against Russia should stop, which takes us back to the historical argument that reparations after WW1 hurt Germany disproportionately and caused the rise of Nazism. The only problem here is that this narrative was based on the work of just one man, John Maynard Keynes, and this myth has been totally debunked as early as 1945. And, even if it was true, Russia already have their megalomaniac ethnic supremacist dictator, so what the fuck? The original reparations scheme was de facto scrapped as early as 1924 with the Dawes Plan, and again in 1928 by the Young Plan, and formally scrapped altogether in 1932. Between 1924 and 1931, the yearly amount payed by Germany had been more than halved, and they didn't pay even that. So there is no serious 'economic precedent' case for lifting the current sanctions. Instead, there is a strong political one for extending them beyond the end of the war of aggression, and even strengthening them. Of course, the main sanction will remain: no more imports of Russian oil and gas into Europe. Everybody has learnt their lesson on energy dependency, and this one will not go away, no matter what the Putin appeasers want. Which will cut a major source of income, as there is only so much gas and oil alternate customers like India and China can absorb. And both have already made it clear clear they won't buy it at market prices, but with a substantial double-digit discount. Which will help the West if we stick to a very legitimate course of action: weaken Russia's economy to the point where they are forced to cut military spending to the bare necessities, and can no longer afford their imperialist ambitions.

Another argument against the sanctions is that they disproportionately hit the common people and not the oligarchs. There is a clear historical precedent here, the sanctions against South Africa during the apartheid years. They hit the already deprived black majority harder that the white minority, who had multiple connections to wealthy supporters around the world, including within the UK government of the day. Yet Nelson Mandela and the ANC always supported them and asked for them to be increased, and they were a major factor in the fall of apartheid. Besides, we too will be hit by the sanctions, as they will most likely trigger shortages of energy, or other price hikes on top of those we already have. Yet pollls have consistently shown the British public to be supportive of sanctions, even when one pollster clearly spelt out the price to pay as a massive £1,000 a year per household. So they obviously must be maintained and strengthened until the Russian economy is seriously and permanently harmed. You know I'm not Boris Johnson's Number One Fan, and he still has a lot of explaining to do about his Russian connections. Some also say, and with some reason, that he is just following Joe Biden's cues, but at least he's not going down Neville Chamberlain's way. Britain of yore wasted too many opportunities, trying to appease Hitler in the 1930s. There should be no place in today's Britain for those who want to appease Putin.

I had an imaginary friend, until he left me for someone else

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

I always find that, when people say “I make my own luck”
I think that’s the biggest load of nonsense
Because, if you make it, that’s not luck, that’s not how luck works
(Nish Kumar)

Factum est. Venit, vidit, vicit. A month ago, Emmanuel Macron won the French presidential election. Nobody doubted it would happen, certainly not Macron himself, and not even Marine Le Pen. It did not start that way though, as the very first poll conducted on Election Night on 10 April, just an hour after the exit polls had been released, had Macron on 51% and Le Pen on 49%. On my chart, this fateful poll is the dots just to the right of the vertical red line, which indicates the day of the first round. It was pretty much a one-off but its shock value certainly helped set the tone of the last two weeks of campaigning. An odd two weeks, where Le Pen campaigned mostly in areas where she was stronger, trying to solidify her already existing base. While Macron campaigned mostly in areas where he was weaker, and there was a substantial number of radical left votes up for grabs. He shifted his talking points from decidedly social-liberal to vaguely social-democratic, even invoking the memory of former President François Mitterrand on the very last day of the campaign. And it paid dividends. Last day polls, released on 22 April as French law bans the publication of polls on the day before the election, showed an 8% swing towards Macron, and a 2% swing away from Le Pen among Jean-Luc Mélenchon's voters, against a 5% swing from Le Pen to Macron in the whole electorate.

The interesting part is that the much anticipated debate, on 20 March, did not have the same effect as the infamous one in 2017, where Le Pen totally fell apart. Indeed, it initially didn't seem to have any effect at all. The trend of voting intentions had pretty much settled on 56-44 before it, and changes in individual polls had more to do with random variations than any real changes. But something happened then, that polls could not catch because of the ban on election eve polls. There was actually an additional wee swing towards Macron at the very last moment, that carried him to victory with a wider margin that anticipated, 17% instead of 12%. Below is the comparison between what the very last batch of polls predicted, and what actually happened, for both rounds.

Exit polls released on the second round's Election Night highlighted one of several probable causes for Macron's better-than-expected result. Jean-Luc Mélenchon's first round voters went 42% for Macron and 17% for Le Pen, with 41% abstaining or casting a blank ballot. Which is a substantial change from the first poll, published hours after the first round, where they went 33% for Macron and 23% for Le Pen. This swing towards Macron amounts to about 2% of votes cast at the second round. So, the radical left did not actually elect Macron, but they definitely helped him bag a more convincing victory. The notable exception is French overseas territories in America and Africa, which massively voted for Mélenchon in the first round, and even more massively for Le Pen in the second round. This is eruptive evidence of massive discontent and distrust in the French state, which has already led to calls for some variant of devolution, as is already enforced in Corsica, New Caledonia and French Polynesia. But it may well be already too late for that. Abnormally high cost of living, and opposition to Covid policies, have already led to massive unrest and rioting in several of these territories. This could again become a major issue very early in Macron's second term, when he is already facing many more challenges than five years ago. A lot of these will be on the table as early as the incoming legislative election, but we'll talk about that later.

You could have a whole oil rig just to you and him

And he would still dominate that space

(Jon Richardson)

Keep the company of those who seek the truth

Run from those who have found it

(Vaclav Havel)

The French president is elected by universal suffrage since a major revamping of the Constitution in 1962. Before that, he was elected by a joint session of the two chambers of Parliament. Eleven presidential elections have been held since, the first one in 1965. Only four incumbent Presidents have been re-elected for a second term: Charles de Gaulle in 1965, François Mitterrand in 1988, Jacques Chirac in 2002, and finally Emmanuel Macron this year. Interestingly both Mitterrand and Chirac had lost their parliamentary majority during their first term, in 1986 and 1997 respectively. So you have two competing narratives: either Macron is the first incumbent to win a second term in 20 years, or he is the only one to win a second term while still holding a parliamentary majority in almost 60 years. But the most important result is how the far-right has become a standard fixture in French politics. In 2002, the first time a far-right candidate qualified for the second round, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine's father, lost by 64% of votes cast or 20 million votes. In 2017, Marine Le Pen lost by 32% and 10 million votes. This year, Emmanuel Macron prevailed by 'only' 17% and 5.5 million votes. And he starts with a deeply divided country, as the maps of votes by département show. Who topped the vote in the first round on the left, who won in the second round on the left. Emmanuel Macron in yellow, Marine Le Pen in blue, Jean-Luc Mélenchon in red.

The first round map is the most revealing, as it shows the strength of Le Pen's National Rally in the former left-wing industrial heartlands in the North and North East of France. A strikingly similar pattern to what happened in the UK in 2019, with Conservatives making massive inroads in the industrial wastelands in the Red Wall North and Midlands. Both maps also show Le Pen making inroads in the backwaters of rural France, where people feel despised, neglected and forgotten by the metropolitan establishment. The biggest symbol of which is of course Macron himself. The geographical divide is even more striking when you look at the map of second round votes by commune. Obviously, French municipalities vary massively in population, with 52% of them below 500, and only 280 out of 35,000 over 30,000. But this map by area is far from being as misleading as you might think. It only emphasises the massive divide between metropolitan areas and rural areas, and the spread of the far-right vote across the latter. The urban-rural chasm is now stronger than it ever was over the last 50 years, and is already one of the major challenges Macron will have to face, especially as he doesn't have any oven-ready solution like a credible leveling-up agenda for rural France. On top of that, there is a widening rift too between deprived and affluent areas within the metropolises, for which Macron does not have a miracle cure either.

The next step is now the legislative election, to be held on 12 and 19 June. And promises to be quite suspenseful and possibly upsetting for the French establishment and punditariat. In the first round of the presidential election, Emmanuel Macron came first in 267 constituencies, Marine Le Pen in 206 and Jean-Luc Mélenchon in 104. In the second round, Macron carried 418 constituencies and Le Pen 159. Which is not a predictor of the legislative elections, as many voters didn't choose Macron because they actually support him, but because they didn't want Le Pen on the top rung, and will have a more diverse array of choices in June. The biggest challenge now for Macron is that 36.5% of registered voters deliberately excluded themselves from the process, either through abstention (28%), or blank or spoilt ballots (8.5%), which is an extremely high amount at any French election. What these could do next obviously injects an unprecedented level of uncertainty into the legislative election. More on this later.

Before you criticise someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes

That way, when you criticise them, you’ll be a mile away and you’ll have their shoes

(Jack Handy)

Brits feel guilty about a whole array of things that vary in seriousness

Hoovering after 8pm, forgetting World Book Day, colonialism, Ireland

(Katherine Ryan, 8 Out Of 10 Cats, 2020)

Of all elections held across the UK, certainly the most important was for the Northern Ireland Assembly. It will probably take weeks, if not months, before we have a clear picture of its consequences. It came at a key moment, when the First Minister of England had promised to 'fix' the Northern Ireland Brexit Protocol, which of course means breaking it and knowingly going into open conflict with the EU, and especially the Republic of Ireland. It's also likely to trigger a fight with the United States, who have repeatedly made it clear they wouldn't tolerate any breach of the letter and spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. There will be repercussions if the UK unilaterally withdraws from an international treaty, and here goes your last chance of a free trade deal for chlorinated chicken and HMOs taking over the NHS. Every cloud... This election made history with Sinn Féin reaching the top spot for the first time. But it did not eliminate Northern Ireland's biggest problem, the DUP turning into the local branch of the Brexit Party. Which it would have done if the DUP had come third, but that wasn't to be... So there is still some potential for a deadlock and yet another snap election, like in 2016-2017.

Interestingly, the biggest winner at this election was not Sinn Féin, though coming out first was indeed quite a feat. But they failed to gain any seat. The trophy actually goes to the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, the non-communitarian party who have pretty much become the local variant of the Liberal Democrats, the same way the SDLP are joined at the hip with Labour. The Alliance's number of seats, up from 8 to 17, has risen considerably more that their share of the vote, up from 9.1% to 13.5%. Which hints at quite a number of voters giving them second or third preferences from both sides of the divide, thus granting them many more seats than strict proportionality warrants. Proof that you can game Single Transferable Vote, even if it's not coordinated. The fallout of all this will be interesting to watch, once the English Government finally decide what they really want, other than asinine soundbites. We will probably see unforeseen and far-reaching consequences. One, that I can't rule out totally, would be the end of the power-sharing enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, which is again weaponised by the DUP to blackmail the English Government. Don't dismiss it as impossible, as voters moving away from the historic sectarian divide actually makes it plausible. Possibly not after this election, but certainly after the next. Remember you read it here first.

Brexit is like one of them 80s horror franchises

It just keeps on coming back but each time it’s more boring

(Chris McCausland, Have I Got News For You?, 2022)

I live in a small town, there are trees in it, and I’m pretty good with them

I was a bit nervous at first, but I can walk past them now

(Miles Jupp)

Local elections in England are strange beasts indeed. First, they don't have the same rhythms. Some local authorities elect the full Council every four years, others have one third up every two or four years, and others half up every two or four years. You also never have anything that fully qualifies as 'the previous elections'. This was again the case this year, even if the closest approximation was the 2018 elections. But three new unitary authorities were up this year, that did not exist in 2018 (Cumberland, North Yorkshire, Somerset). As a consequence, four district councils (Harrogate, Carlisle, Craven, South Lakeland) that were last up in 2018, four district councils (Mendip, Sedgemoor, Somerset West and Taunton, South Somerset) that were last up in 2019, and one county council (Somerset County) that was last up in 2017, have disappeared. Finally, three Councils were up in their entirety, rather than their usual third or half, due to massive boundary changes (St Helens, Gosport, St Albans). With all these caveats, let's see what this year's results in England were, and what we can deduce from them, if anything.

First obvious thing here is that we have Keir Starmer's most feared scenario: a Conservative defeat that is not quite a Labour victory. In the ever changing English political landscape, the joint winners this year are the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Which is not totally unexpected if you follow the trends of general election polling, which are not conclusively stellar for Labour, but show their possible partners in the hypothetical 'progressive coalition' gaining ground. The BBC also love to speculate about a 'general election equivalent' of local elections' results. In 2019, they deduced that it amounted to 35% for Labour, 35% for the Conservatives, 16% for the Liberal Democrats and 14% for all others combined. Which fits neither the 2017 general election, nor the 2019 general election. Even general election polls conducted around the same time as the locals did not fit, as the average said 40.5% for Labour, 38.5% for the Conservatives and 9.5% for the Liberal Democrats. Which is probably why even the 'progressive' media were so cautious in the run-up to this year's elections, and then even The Guardian had to admit that the results were not as clear-cut as the Labour leadership hoped. Then, just for fun, let's look back at what happened in years when both local elections and a general election were held.

The vote shares here are for England only, as it is always the key playground at all elections. Even when the locals and a general were held on the same day, in 2005, 2010 and 2015, there are visible discrepancies between the results. Part of the explanation is that the locals are never held all across England on any given year, which tweaks the results towards one party or the other, depending on which areas vote in the locals. Another, and probably more significant, factor is that independent candidates are a real presence in local elections, but are not at general elections. The discrepancies become more striking when the two elections are held at different dates. May and June in 2017, or May and December in 2019. Interestingly, this year's BBC 'notional general' based on the locals says 35% for Labour, 30% for the Conservatives, 19% for the Liberal Democrats and 17% for all others combined. Which of course it total bullshit when you look at current polls. Then the breakdown of the actual votes, in the eight regions of England outwith London, shows why you should never try to extract from local elections anything but what they actually say.

It's quite obvious, even for the most illiterate in politics, that there is fuck all chance of the LibDems ever reaching such levels at a general election within the next orbit of Saturn. A plausible scenario for the next general is that the LibDems would get about half the votes they bagged at these locals. It is also likely that most of these 'lost votes' would go to other 'progressive' parties, Labour and the Greens, rather than to the Conservatives. It will be interesting to see if local elections' results will be a factor in any future negotiation of a 'progressive alliance', if that ever happens. Labour would be daft to accept that sort of opening gambit, as it would lead to such absurdities as Labour standing down for the Liberal Democrats in Sheffield and Hull, and for the Greens in Bristol. But hazardous negotiations for seats are not even Labour's biggest challenge. First they need to clarify what they really want and reframe their manifesto, to avoid pandering with multiple sections of the electorate with conflicting priorities. The problems they have with this right now clearly illustrate the limitations of intersectional politics. You can have Lancaster Gate, or you can have Newcastle-under-Lyme, but you can't have both. Unless you get back to basics and an unifying perspective. It's called class politics and it's not a dirty word. By the way, before you google it, the orbit of Saturn is 29.5 years.

Of course I’m not from space, nobody’s from space

I’m from a planet like everybody else

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

The powers that be have sabotaged real working class humour

You know, people that I don’t think they even like comedy

And they’re in a little London-centric bubble

(Lucy Beaumont, Meet The Richardsons, 2021)

Before these elections, the punditariat often discussed what could possibly happen in London, Keir Starmer's and Boris Johnson's home turf. The couch-warriors' laser-sharp vision was focused mostly on the Borough of Wandsworth, which had come to be accepted as the litmus test of a genuine Labour success. Which it wasn't, despite Labour having gained the Commons seat of Putney in 2019, which covers about half the council area, and was their only gain at an otherwise disastrous general election. But whatever happened there provided an oven-ready headline for the wee hours of Friday. Just as Labour gaining Barnet, where they had allegedly suffered setbacks earlier because of alleged anti-Semitism. For some in the metropolitan punditariat, what actually happened within the M25 was not the important part, but how it could be spun on Friday to support a Starmerite narrative about Labour's historic gains on both banks of the Thames. Then the full results, which we got only after eleven days, tell a slightly different story. With all the numbers in, Labour have actually lost votes, and the winners are the Greens and Liberal Democrats.

So Labour have now convincingly strengthened the Soya Latte Wall around Inner Hipstershire. But the outskirts of Labourgravia didn't send the same message. If Labour is genuinely loved all around the Imperial Capital, how do you explain Harrow, Croydon and Tower Hamlets, Jason Perry and Luftur Rahman? So, despite all the fuss about Wandsworth, Westminster and Barnet, these elections ended up looking like the 2019 Westminster election when Labour and Conservatives both lost a seat to the other. A zero-sum game within a stalemate, far from what The Guardian said it looked like, written while outgoing Labour administrations were delaying the counts in Croydon and Tower Hamlets to avoid bad PR hitting the fan. Which is definitely not a conspiracy theory, just a massive hunch. Because they needed to have these results published only after a few days, when the public's attention had shifted away from the locals and back to Ukraine and PartyGate. Thusly ensuring that all that would remain in the collective memory was Labour beating the odds in historic Conservative heartlands. There could be a domino effect of this at the next general election, if Aspire decided to field candidates in the two Commons constituencies in Tower Hamlets. One of them, Bethnal Green and Bow, was George Galloway's seat from 2005 to 2010, in his incarnation as boss of Respect. Aspire could give Labour a run for their money in that one, and plausibly gain it.

The cartography of London's wards in 2018 and 2022 doesn't show massive changes, as we have a rather familiar pattern at work here: making gains in an area where you are already dominant achieves fuck all in terms of the big picture. But even slight losses in marginal situations do have an impact, like turning a majority into a hung Council, the most dreaded No Overall Control. And a few gains in marginal wards are definitely not enough to claim a massive endorsement by the electorate. Because, at the end of the day, what matters and makes the biggest headline, is how many councils you have gained and lost. Seen that way, London has clearly not turned into Red Heaven. What we have here is consistent with general election polls for London, which oscillate between a stalemate like in 2019, and Labour gaining a couple of seats. Which happens only when the poll shows the Liberal Democrats gaining enough ground and snatching votes from the Conservatives in key marginals. Incidentally, the Council election results confirm that Boris Johnson's seat of Uxbridge and South Ruislip is outwith the danger zone, despite some ill-informed interpretations of UK-wide polls saying otherwise. All the wards it overlaps, in the central part of the London Borough of Hillingdon, have remained strongly Conservative.

Never go to an Irish pub in America or London, that has a neon shamrock, because it will be crap

(Stephen Fry)

Never apologise to a donkey for fingering it up the bum, have you not heard that?

(Jo Brand)

Some interesting things happened at the Welsh Council elections too. Contrary to popular belief, the Conservatives were not erased from the map, they just lost 40% of their seats. Just like the SNP at the 2017 general election, so it mustn't be that bad. It's the proverbial half-full-half-empty story for Plaid Cymru, who lost a handful of seats while securing a majority in three more councils. They have now control of the three councils that overlap their four current Commons seats, which can only be reassuring if a snap general happens any time soon. They have also gained a majority in the Isle of Anglesey County Council, which is coterminous (or coextensive, depending on which level of vocabulary pedantry you are ready to indulge) with the Commons constituency of Ynys Môn, a three-way marginal currently held by the Conservatives after 18 years in Labour's hands. Of course local elections can't predict the next general, but Plaid Cymru just bagged an impressive 41% in Anglesey, up 3% on the 2017 locals, and 12% higher than at the 2019 general. Plaid Cymru have also held the cowhatever Senedd constituency countinuously since 1999. So I guess there is hope for them there.

Numbers don't lie, and they say that Welsh Labour have some reasons to celebrate. They did gain votes, unlike their comrades across England. But the other results are more of a mixed bag as they gained control of two councils, but lost one. They are dominant in South Wales, though they lost control of Neath-Port Talbot. But they also gained majorities in Bridgend and Blaenau Gwent, so the overall picture in that region is globally positive. The Welsh shocker this time was Monmouthshire, where the Conservatives not only lost their majority, but are now the second party behind Labour. The current MP for the cotermxtensive Commons constituency of Monmouth is global Brexiteer and climate change denier David Davies, with a 10k majority in 2019. But we've seen bigger ones overturned, haven't we? There's also an interesting situation in Powys County Council, where the Liberal Democrats surged from distant third to first party, kicking out both Conservatives and Independents who were part of the incumbent administration. Which doesn't look that meaningful until I remind you that most of the council area overlaps the Commons seat of Brecon and Radnorshire, which had its 15 minutes when the LibDems gained it at a by-election in August 2019, only to lose it at the general in December. But it's definitely a battleground, and high on the LibDems list of target seats.

A person who illegally exports sheep is called an owler

Unless you’re from Wales, in which case you’re a sex trafficker

(Jimmy Carr, 8 Out Of 10 Cats Does Countdown, 2015)

It’s as though Scotland and England got married when they were young

And it’s constantly under debate whether they’re better off staying together

For the sake of the pension and the house, or if they should get divorced

(Neil Oliver, Cunk On Britain: The Arse End of History, 2018)

Scottish councils are an exception as they are not elected on the classic first-past-the-post (FPTP) used in England and Wales, but on the pseudo-proportional single transferable vote (STV). It does give the appearance of proportional representation at national level, though it also allows massive tactical voting way beyond what happens under FPTP, at Council level. Raw results for Councils don't give a fully accurate picture of what happened in 2017 and 2022, as most fell into the infamous NOC category. So I added the 2017 data for the first party on Election Day, and the party who then claimed the Council Leader's position after some days of afterhours meetings in smoke-filled rooms. This clearly shows how these different steps stray far off what you might have expected on Election Night. It's evidence that STV is actually not more democratic, it just opens the door wide to shady backroom deals between parties after the elections. Which is just what is happening right now across Scotland, with deals reached in twenty-one of the NOC Councils so far. In the meanwhile, it was quite entertaining to see some SNP nitwits, and their PR squad at The National, whining about the way some of the deals went. Backroom deals are grubby only when the SNP is not part of them, otherwise they're just respecting the will of the people, or some similar-sounding bullshit. In case you had forgotten, grubby backroom deals are quintessentially part of proportional representation, so suck it up. Or change it back to FPTP, which I simulated for 2022. With only five hung Councils, it would have spared us the bulk of the backroom deals, and also lots of whining bullshit on social media.

Anyway this year's result confirmed some of the trends seen in Westminster and Holyrood polls: Labour and the Liberal Democrats coming back with a vengeance, while lots of Conservatives bit the dust. The SNP will probably make a big deal of bagging a majority in Dundee, but it's a small council where the majority literally depends on just one seat. More tellingly, the SNP lost ground to Labour and the Greens in Glasgow, including losing 9% of the vote and a seat to the Greens right in the middle of Nicola Sturgeon's constituency. They also failed to make any inroads in Edinburgh, where the LibDems and Labour did. So it's not all milk and roses for the SNP, as the round of backroom deals for the Big Dog slots in councils quickly proved. I'm quite sure it's not the last we'll hear of this, as fifteen councils and counting now have a minority administration, which is usually the recipe for getting jack shit done, except fucking up the bin collection schedules, and mid-term chaos and carnage. Interestingly, these elections were held only days after the release of yet another poll showing strong opposition to the Yellow-Green Axis's plan to reform the Gender Recognition Act, and two of its most iconic consequentials. The results, to fair and unbiased questions, are definitely not what the Scottish Government want you to believe about the state of public opinion.

I have selected the crosstabs only with the 16-34 age bracket, supposedly the 'woke generation' totally supportive of the Stonewall agenda, and with SNP voters at the 2021 Holyrood election. Even the Young Uns offer only lukewarm support to the idea that you can change 'legal sex' after three months 'living as' the other sex. The main reason is surely in the results of a more detailed question in the same poll. 72% of all respondents, 61% of the 16-34s and 68% of SNP voters admit that 'there is no specific way to “live as a woman” other than to be biologically female', to quote the exact wording of the question. There is also massive opposition to the two consequentials of GRA reform, both of which deal with situations within schools, so fully within the Councils' remit as supervisors of said schools. It's quite reassuring to see that massive majorities haven't fallen for the gender ideology cultists' brainwashing, though mildly depressing that it did not significantly translate into votes. Current debates about GRA reform in Scottish Parliament clearly show that the SNP consider that a mandate to impose gender ideology to the whole nation. Another missed opportunity.

It’s a bit like a marriage of an old couple

England looks to Scotland as the kind of person that snores

(Neil Oliver, Cunk On Britain: The Arse End of History, 2018)

The end of your life has already begun, there is a last place you will ever go

A last door you will ever walk through, a last sight you will ever see

And every step you ever take is moving you closer

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

General election polls are still roller-coastering, just as they always do. There seems to be some spell on Labour here. Every time they reach a double-digit lead, or close to it, it doesn't last. Something happens that pushes them back down again, and they're again struggling to gain a few points. Labour's lead since the local elections has been anywhere between 1% and 8%, and of course that generates vastly different seat projections, depending on where you catch Labour, on the crest of the wave or on the ebb. But, despite the obvious end-of-an-era stench surrounding Boris Johnson, we're still not in the situation where a massive Conservative defeat at the next general election is a done deal. It's still more like 2017 in reverse than 1997. The electorate clearly don't agree with Keir Starmer about 'Beige Is The New Red' being a winning strategy. The next Conference Season will be a day of reckoning for Labour, when they have to spell out what they really stand for, and come up with something that will be pretty much their manifesto for the next general election. Not sure the public will buy the acrobatics of pandering simultaneously to multiple corners of the compass, who have different and often conflicting expectations.

Notwithstanding, it looks like the "we can't change horses midstream" narrative has ceased working, especially when peddled by some Tories who obviously wish they had changed horse before the stream. Or when other countries have done just that, first Slovenia and now Australia, which is obviously more significant. Or when the most pressing issues facing the Conservatives is fighting back the fallout of PartyGate and the Sue Gray report. The most hilarious part of the never ending story is that Neil Parish watching porn in Commons looked like a minor offence, though Parish resigning is not as good news for Boris Johnson as you might think, for a whole array of reasons. Obviously, one resigning over tractor porn does not make the others look good, who have just earned an actual criminal record. Picking a random sacrificial lamb from the top of the civil service's food chain might also not prove to be the magic 'get out of jail free' card for Johnson. But odds are Labour wish that a badly bruised Johnson remains in charge until the next general election, as he is enough of a repellent to drive even hardcore Conservative voters away from their party and into abstention. It wouldn't be the most brilliantly convincing way to win an election, but it's all they have for now.

The end of the world is a billion, billion tiny moments, and somewhere

Unnoticed in silence or in darkness, it has already begun

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

Keir Starmer is not Mr Rules, he is much more boring than that

He is Mr Terms and Conditions

(Chris McCausland, Have I Got News For You?, 2022)

In one of their recent omnibus Political Trackers, YouGov surveyed their panel about which party they think would best handle a number of specific issues. They first tested a redux version in late April, and then a wider array this month. So here's what we have, and the results are far from stellar for either Labour or the Conservatives, and certainly help explain why general election polls are so confusing. On average, more people support Labour than the Conservatives, but the biggest block is those who doubt both, with a majority for the combined "neither' and "don't know". Neither of the two dominant English parties gets a majority on any item, even when they are considered significantly better than the other party. It is of course a verdict of failure for the Conservatives after twelve years in power, but also for Labour, who still don't appear convincing enough on issues that are the public's main concerns. This illustrates a challenge for both parties, namely the high level of distrust for both, which can be interpreted as a failure of our whole democratic system. This is what happens when the only thing you can trust the government with is handbrake U-turns, when they are found to be electorally expedient.

The paradox here is that the public actually welcome some of these U-turns, like the predicted one about the windfall tax for energy companies, which will undoubtedly happen before the two by-elections in June. This has become unavoidable, as a means to lessen the burden of soaring energy bills, when the government's oven-ready solution, more nuclear electricity, is now in doubt. Of course, anyone who followed the never-ending story of the Finnish and French EPRs knew this was bound to happen. What has surfaced about Hinkley Point is a perfect duplicate of what happened to the French EPR at Flamanville, and Covid is just a convenient scapegoat here. And now there are also doubts about the viability of the Sizewell EPR, even before any work on it has started. So the English Government has no oven-ready solution to the huge rise in energy prices, which has become the most potent symbol of the cost-of-living crisis. The energy price cap has now been largely discredited after an earlier 54% hike, especially after leaks hinting it will be raised again to £2,600 or £2,800 before the end of the year. The British public said earlier that they were ready to live with higher energy prices if that was a consequence of the economic sanctions against Russia, but they're certainly not willing to fund record-breaking profits for the energy companies and dividends for their shareholders. Let's hope the Conservatives read the room, for once, and act accordingly.

Some Tory MPs are still saying the party investigation is a waste

Of police resources and the Met need to get back to what it does best

WhatsApping racist and sexist abuse to each other

(Clive Myrie, Have I Got News For You?, 2022)

After delivering his Spring Statement, Rishi Sunak was pictured

Filling up a car with petrol, but the press instantly twigged

It wasn’t Rishi Sunak's car, as the driver’s side had no booster seat

(Clive Myrie, Have I Got News For You?, 2022)

There is a major issue at the heart of British politics right now, the cost-of-living crisis. Its impact is felt by millions in a very hard way. It has already cost the UK government a lot of credibility, as they failed to address it in the Spring Statement, and appeared totally out of touch with peoples' real concerns. It is not just a British issue, as it also was a liability for Emmanuel Macron, and obviously cost him a massive part of the two million votes he lost between 2017 and 2022. This happened when inflation in France is significantly lower than in the UK, as they enforced a cap on the rise of electricity and gas bills, instead of the huge increases seen in the UK. With inflation here likely to skyrocket above 10% this year, and probably the next as we haven't seen the last of the energy crisis, this is clearly an issue that could cost the Conservatives the next election. YouGov have gone to the heart of the matter in the update of their Political Trackers that was conducted between 16 and 18 April. They asked their panel to rate their personal financial situation on a five-steps scale, and the results are definitely worrying.

Opinium surveyed the same issue some days later, in their fortnightly omnibus poll conducted between 20 and 22 April. They didn't use the exact same wording and the exact same scale, but the results are just as alarming as YouGov's. They are even a wee smitch more so, probably as the wording was more open to interpretation, and 'coping' can cover a wider range of situations than YouGov's 'can cover the essentials'. I won't even indulge in one of my usual jibes at Generation Z, as it wouldn't be that appropriate here, would it? Just note that, in both polls, they're quite unexpectedly the ones closest to the average, while the feeling of financial comfort increases with age in the other brackets. Otherwise, the geographical divide is less prominent than you might have expected, which might be because people in different areas are used to different standards of living, and have different definitions of the terms used to describe their situation. Then the social divide is quite obvious, whether you measure it in terms of social grades as YouGov, or employment status as Opinium.

So that's where we stand, in the fifth most powerful economy in the world. A country where 'heating or eating' is not just a cheap slogan from an opposition politician, but everyday reality for millions. Millions for whom the most pressing concern is not James Acaster's definition of 'woman', but whether or not bread and beans will still be affordable at Lidl's next week. But also a country where the government can't be arsed to do anything meaningful, not because they can't, but because they don't give a fucking shit. It's Daniel Blake's Britain, not Will Thacker's. Behind the polls' wording, there is a reality: one in five Brits is near or in poverty, and two in five are just making ends meet. And the cost-of-living crisis is a double whammy of hardships for those who were already in difficult situations before it. Ideologically-driven cuts to the welfare system, inhumane decisions by box-ticking faceless bureaucrats at DWP, and neglect of the NHS's everyday missions, all make it even worse for the Daniel Blakes of today. Those for whom the light at the end of the tunnel is just the runaway train rushing towards them. Welcome to Jacob Rees-Mogg's Dream Britain of the New Victorian Age.

Rishi Sunak is very wee, and he’s done a brilliant thing

Which is that he’s also very thin, so he looks entirely like

A normal size person you’ve put in Photoshop and taken down to 80%

(Helen Lewis, Have I Got News For You?, 2022)

We are, so, strengthening the quills of the Ukrainian porcupine

As to make it, in future, indigestible, er, to, er, to the Russian, er, invaders

(Boris Johnson)

The favourability polling has not been kind to Mr Byobby over the last three weeks. Which is actually nothing new. Discontent has been spreading like Wi-Fi for months. The Covid Honeymoon of 2020 came and went. Then the Vaccine Honeymoon of 2021 came belatedly and went away quite quickly. And now the flag-shagging Ukraine Honeymoon of 2022 has been but a short bump that barely registered on the seismographs. The new series of PartyGate soon took over and dragged Big Dog down again. The most appalling thing, which obviously struck a nerve with the public, is Johnson's total lack of self-awareness. The inability to admit that you shouldn't do that sort of things when you're the one in charge of the kennels and setting the tone. It will be interesting to see how this evolves after the final batch of fines issued by the Metropolitan Police, as the public don't really trust the Met's investigation. Johnson might feel relieved for now, with his strategy of denial pretty much validated, but reactions prove that it might well be a Pyrrhic victory. Now everyone is expecting to feast on the juicy bits of the Sue Gray report, and the English Government has no choice here but to publish it unredacted, despite their desperate attempts to interfere, and brace themselves for the fallout.

It doesn't take PSI power to read the room here, though Nadine Dorries would certainly say that it does because she can't. Nadine would certainly be more at ease with the 'Preferred First Minister Of England' polling, that does show a genuine Ukraine Honeymoon, when Boris regained lost ground and almost caught up with Keir. Of course it wasn't built to last, but you never know what kind of flag-shagging reflex public opinion can have in times of crisis. Or what impact the conveniently dug up BeerGate can have on future polls. Probably none, as Keir Starmer has pretty much pre-emptively defused it. In the meanwhile, Boris Johnson is still in the danger zone, as the public know that he is no longer the joker, he is the joke. Not sure though that all this will be enough for the public's mood to transition from the end of the beginning to the beginning of the end.

This polling illustrates again a Very British Paradox: more people want Johnson as Prime Minister than approve of his handling of the job, and more people would vote Conservative than want Johnson as Prime Minister. It also shows that Labour clearly have a 'Starmer problem'. Which has definitely reached the heights of the bizarre, when some openly suggested that Sly Keir should stand down and be replaced by either Andy Burnham or Wes Streeting. I can get the rationale behind Burnham, though he'd have to deal with the wee issue of not being an MP. Or he won't, because he is an 'appier camper in Manchester, with the power and the glory without the burden of the kingdom, and the satisfaction of being treated by the media like Labour's Northern Light. But Wes Fucking Streeting? Of course, he has demonstrated more knowledge of human anatomy that all the rest of Labour combined, which is not what you would have expected from a former Stonewall product manager. But what does he know about anything, other than how to look good on TV more often than Lisa Nandy?

He may look like an idiot, he may sound like an idiot

But don’t let that fool you, he really is an idiot

(Groucho Marx)

Just because the Prime Minister has passed on information that turned out

To be incorrect does not mean he has made a deliberate effort to mislead

(Jacob Rees-Mogg)

Today's Poll'O'Polls is again a mixed bag for Labour, as it's again good enough yet not quite good enough. Still in the twilight zone where they defeat the Conservatives, but need outside help for a majority government. It's the aggregate of the last three published polls, conducted on 18 and 19 May. Super-sample size is 4,827, with a theoretical 1.4% margin of error. It has Labour leading by 6.3%, which does sound quite convincing at first sight, but is down on what we had a month ago. Oddly, Labour's problem right now is that the Liberal Democrats have regained some ground, but have snatched voting intentions from Labour rather than from the Conservatives. We still have something like 5% partyfluid voters who oscillate between a 'soft Labour' and a 'soft Tory' vote. And end up choosing the LibDems because they're the party of choice for those who don't want to choose. I guess a lot of ebbs and flows in that wee corner of the compass will still happen in the months to come, before Boris Johnson, or whoever else cosplays Big Dog at the time, calls a snap election. Labour's best case scenario now is definitely that the Sue Gray report proves to be merciless and damning for Boris Johnson, yet the Conservatives keep him because they're too daft to agree on a consensus successor.

Such polling is seen by many as the right time to promote some sort of pre-election pact between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, which Ed Davey fueled when he said that the LibDems would pretty much stand down in the Wakefield by-election, and concentrate on Tiverton and Honiton. Wee Dog Oliver Dowden was definitely pissing down the wrong tree when he said that such pacts 'deny the voters a proper democratic choice'. The Conservatives were not so picky-choosy when the Brexit Party decided to stand down in all Tory-held seats in 2019. There is also no sure way to assess the real impact of a Lab-Lib pact. A deal between the parties does not mean all voters will follow unquestioningly, especially when both parties have hit hard at each other in the recent past. Basic maths says that a 'progressive alliance' in 2019 could have switched about 50 seats from the Conservatives to opposition parties. But this is a textbook case where numbers do lie, as they ignore the human factor, so nothing really conclusive can be said. One of the problems being that the LibDems are probably in a better position to defeat the Tories in many seats where Labour came second in 2019, as the North Shropshire by-election has shown. Keir Starmer may have a wee problem explaining the natives that they should sit it out next time, even with his best forensic evidence.

We will stand on a platform of free woollen hats for all

So we can pull the wool over people’s eyes

(The Monster Raving Loony Party Manifesto, 2017)

The problem with having what you want, when you want it, all of the time, often means

You never see anything to make you take pause and appreciate new experiences

(Ian McKellen)

The seat projection is again, as you probably guessed already, a hung Parliament. Labour is predicted to fall 11 seats short of a working majority, but that's far from the end of it. The upside for Keir Starmer is that the current numbers save him the embarrassment of having to negotiate a grubby backroom deal with the SNP. The obvious Lab-Lib Pact, seconded by the SDLP and the Alliance Party, would secure a 35-seat majority. Which would rise to 47 if Keir Starmer, or whoever is Big Red Dog at the time, is sly enough to secure support from the Greens and Plaid Cymru on top. The regional crosstabs for the current batch of polls confirm trends we have seen before. Labour would come level with their benchmark result of 2005 in the North and South of England, do better in London and Wales, but still struggle and come short in the Midlands. Even Scotland is no longer the totally lost cause it looked to be just a year ago. Labour are now predicted to snatch back four seats from the SNP: Airdrie and Shotts, East Lothian, Glasgow North East, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. The SNP would partly compensate with two gains from the Conservatives: Moray, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. And this could be just the beginning as Labour are breathing down the SNP's neck in five more seats: Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, Inverclyde, Midlothian, Motherwell and Wishaw, Rutherglen and Hamilton West. Looks like only the Conservatives' confirmed slump can now save the SNP from a 2017ish humiliation.

The incoming by-elections in Tiverton and Honiton and Wakefield will be a good test of the accuracy of current polls and projections. Tiverton and Honiton was never identified as a likely Conservative loss, but the 2019 result there is disturbingly close to North Shropshire, and we know what happened at their by-election. This will also be a test for the English oppositions, and whether or not they are serious about doing everything to get the Tories out. The way I see it, it would make sense for the Liberal Democrats to not field a candidate in Wakefield, and Labour to not field one in Tiverton and Honiton, which would obviously maximise the chances of gaining both. If we go to the next stage, the general election, there are still many unknowns and unpredictable variables. The most important one is obviously who will be Big Blue Dog when the time comes. I'm fairly certain Keir Starmer will still be Big Red Dog, and Wes Streeting just an expectant frontbench puppy. But there is a lot of uncertainty on the other side, where I still won't rule out a reboot of the Ides of March. The other big question is about the timing of the election. The Conservatives would be foolish to call it before the next boundary changes are enforced, yet they may not have that choice if the public's discontent with them generally, and Johnson specifically, continues to increase. It then might be about what they choose to gamble on: a change of leadership, an early snap election, or both. Whatever happens will be quite interesting to watch.

Channel 4 is all young people and wall-to-wall sex, drugs and gratuitous nudity

You would have thought Boris Johnson loved it

(Tim Shipman, Have I Got News For You?, 2022)

Priti Patel is on minus 13.6% amongst voters of her own party

Blimey, that takes some doing

(Paul Merton, Have I Got News For You?, 2022)

Two days before the Council elections, The Scotsman published the headline results of the latest instalment of their Scottish Tracker conducted by Savanta Comres. Who, for once, did not need being reminded of the British Polling Council's rules, and published the full data tables the next day, on the eve of the Council elections. With the usual surveys of IndyRef2 voting intentions, Scottish Parliament voting intentions, and popularity ratings of political leaders. This last poll did not make the trends of IndyRef voting intentions look any better, just back to where we were two years ago. Before the SNP announced an 11-step plan to Independence. Which seems to have vanished to some cyberbin since, unless they plan to reboot is as a 12-step plan, with the mandatory first step of making amends to the whole world to make you feel good. Or they might come up with a more thrilling alternative and devise a 39-step plan. Or they might sit on their hands and just do nothing. Errr.... wait.... checks notes... that's just what they're doing already.

The weighted average of the four most recent polls is not a pretty sight either, probably because nobody within the Yellow-Green Axis could be arsed to do anything substantial about promoting independence. This is what happens when their wet dream was to get Stirling selected as UK City of Culture 2025. And I don't think for one second Sturgeon's Ninth Circle will get any more active on a future referendum, now that the bid has failed. I don't think bringing back the Wilson Report helps, as it's something of a blueprint for continued austerity after independence. Stating that an independent Scotland would keep the pound for years and years, as Ian Blackford has done, is not a vote booster either. And of course, the award for the shittiest proposal goes to Little Shit, the MI5 MP for Glasgow South and NATO spokesperson for the SNP. So now an independent Scotland should offer temporary accommodation for foreign nuclear weapons, because that goes with being a member of NATO. Aye, richt. What was that soundbite again, after the Council elections, about respecting 'what the people voted for'? Don't remember seeing 'shelter for stray nukes' on any SNP leaflet, Stew.

The truth is I don't really care any more about what IndyRef polling says, as we won't be having it in the foreseeable future. By which I mean before the next general election, whatever moment Boris Johnson chooses to hold it. And the result of any future general election won't change anything to the current situation, where the English government has the final say and will forever deny Scotland the right to decide our own future. And all the huffing and puffing from Ian Blackford will have jack shit influence on that, no matter how hard he pretends he really wants independence. Not to mention that basic common sense says that the foreseeable time-table for a future referendum just doesn't fit with having one in 2023. That would require the English Government performing a massive U-turn and agreeing to a Section 30 Order, which won't happen. Or the Court of Session and then the Supreme Court of the UK ruling that the Scottish Parliament has the authority to call a referendum without a Section 30 Order, which won't happen either. Or let's fancy that it does, and then the Unionist parties boycott the 'wildcat referendum' and it will be worthless. We're just so truly and deeply fucked...

Rishi Sunak was just a lockdown fad like sourdough, like the Tiger King

Unless he’s the Tinder Swindler, nobody cares anymore, right?

(Ria Lina, Have I Got News For You?, 2022)

Everyone has been saying “He’s apologised, let’s move on”

And I sort of think the point of an apology is that you’re not

The one who gets to decide when it’s time to move on

(Hannah Fry, Have I Got News For You?, 2022)

Voting intentions for the next Scottish Parliament election, as reported in this Scottish Tracker, are again far from stellar for the SNP. The poll's regional crosstabs show their constituency vote up in Lothian and Mid and Fife, but down everywhere else. Their list vote is down all across the nation, mostly favouring the Greens, and in some cases Labour too. Labour emerge as the clear winners here, over-performing as usual all across Auld Strathclyde, but also in Lothian and the North East. The Conservatives under-perform everywhere, except in Glasgow where it doesn't get them any seat anyway. The Liberal Democrats lose ground in Lothian and Mid and Fife, but vastly over-perform in Highlands and Islands and, more surprisingly, in the South, where the dominant Conservatives lose ground on both votes. The combination of all this leads to another strikingly different result from the one you get on the classic uniform national swing. And not in a good way for the SNP.

There were several examples at the Council elections that support the idea of Labour coming back with a vengeance, and biting into both SNP and Conservative territories. Just have a look at the results in Glasgow, Edinburgh or West Dunbartonshire for some evidence. Labour even managed to snatch back seats in Aberdeen, despite a poor performance and stains on their image there. Of course, local elections are not a reliable predictor of future parliamentary elections. But gaining back lost ground in a significant number of wards can only motivate you to campaign harder in the overlapping constituencies. Especially when polls about the next Holyrood election also predict better results in the exact same areas. And here we have all the elements leading to an upward spiral for Labour, a flatline for the SNP, and a downward spiral for the Conservatives. The leaders' approval ratings, in Savanta Comres' last Scottish Tracker, also pretty much point in the same direction.

Nicola Sturgeon dominates the competition here, for all the right and wrong reasons you can imagine. Her positives even go way beyond the SNP's voter base or the whole Yes camp. But Anas Sarwar is the Second Best In Show, with a better net rating than Keir Starmer and any of the Scottish contenders. The good part here is that the Teeny Weeny Greenies get the same level of positives as Doogie Ross, which must leave them green with rage. The sad part is of course Alex Salmond's disastrous ratings, when you consider what the man has done for Scotland over his career. I guess She/Her's Ninth Circle will celebrate this, failing to see it's a self-fulfilling prophecy after the war of smear they wage against Big Eck and the Alba Party. Of course, there are some shadowy types within Alba, those who advocate an ethnic Scotland and consider Putin the victim of aggression, but that's a tiny faction. What the SNP can't accept is that Alba, overwhelmingly, are more committed to independence and more to the left than them. And there is also some very ironic karma in Alba getting their best result at the Council elections right in the middle of Sturgeon's constituency. We haven't heard the last of them, mark my words.

Will Cabinet members tweet their support for the PM every time he is fined?

Or just retweet their original declaration of loyalty?

(David Gauke)

Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out

(Walter M. Kotschnig)

Before we call it a day, I'm going full circle and one step ahead. From the French presidential election to their incoming legislative election, which is French for a general election. For the National Assembly, which is French for House of Commons. Deputies, which is French for MPs, are elected on a chemically pure two-round system, with rounds held one week apart. Candidates can stand in the second round if they have bagged more than 12.5% of registered voters in the first round. Which is quite a high bar if there is a low turnout, as it can easily translate into 20-25% of votes cast. So the second round is mostly made of two-way contests, with a rare occurrence of three-ways. The number of seats bagged by each party is obviously quite different of what you would get on PR based on the first round results. But very few deputies are elected on the first round, which requires an outright majority of votes cast, so what matters in how many votes you get in the second round after transfers from eliminated candidates. And here the discrepancy between votes and seats is less obvious, as the results of their 2017 election show. I'll spare you a lecture about French political parties, as you can find all the details you need here. In 2017, Emmanuel Macron's La République en Marche and their allies of the Mouvement Démocrate bagged 350 out of 577 seats, well above the 289 required for a majority, on a combined 32% of the vote in the first round and 49% in the second round. So here's the detail of what happened at the 2017 election, and what's become of it at dissolution last March, after a series of splits and realignments.

Five years ago, the Macronists clearly benefited from massive transfers from the left in the second round. And also from moderate right-voters who wanted to keep the far-right out of Parliament, and it worked on both fronts. Current polls suggest that it might not be as easy this year. A significant change is the newly-formed alliance of the left around Jean-Luc Mélenchon, called NUPES, officially born on 1 May. Not everyone on the left is a happy camper here, and there will be dissident candidacies that could throw many a spanner in the works. Polls show a highly fragmented electorate, with Renaissance (Renew), the revamped version of La République en Marche, and their own coalition Ensemble (Together), doing less well than Emmanuel Macron at the presidential election. Don't overthink all the changes of monikers, as changing the names of political parties every few years is as quintessentially French as the béret and the baguette. According to current polling, the result is not as readily predictable as you might try and extrapolate from the 2017 election. What will help the Macronists is that they will get the votes of all those who don't want the radical left in charge, just like Macron got the votes of all those who didn't want the far-right in charge at the presidential election. It's far from subtle politics, but it's bound to work. Even if the whole Macronist coalition fall to 40-45% in the second round, it's still enough to get them a majority of seats. They can afford to lose 60 and still stay in charge without needing an additional coalition partner. And, if they did by some twist of fate, they would still find some right-wing deputies ready and willing to cross the Rubicon. Because the alliance of cynicism and pragmatism is a surer recipe for success than idealism.

Marine Le Pen has already conceded that her party won't win the legislative election, but Jean-Luc Mélenchon hasn't. He is openly campaigning to deny Emmanuel Macron a majority and get himself appointed as Prime Minister. Which will happen when hens have teeth, which is French for 'when pigs fly'. The rest of the campaign is likely to be a full display of all the many oddities in French politics. The far-right National Rally have U-turned from their former support for neo-liberalism, and now embrace traditional protectionism and strong state interventionism in the economy, pretty much the same policies as the French Communist Party proposed in the 1970s. The radical left La France Insoumise endorse intersectional and essentialist identity politics, which have far less traction with the general public than in the UK, and are also mostly rejected by the other left-wing parties who still promote the traditional French 'republican secularism', a concept as alien to British minds as eating snails at lunch. Which is, when you think of it impartially, not really worse than buckies. Back to the matter at hand, it's a safe bet that immigration will be a favourite campaign issue for the far-right, while Europe will be a divisive one, and Russia will take centre stage more than once, and more than the French public care for. Now, if I had to wager a tenner here, it would be on Macron bagging a reduced majority, probably around 300 seats. We will know four weeks from now, so keep this frequency open.

Where’s that from? A fortune cookie?

It sounds like crap when you say it, wisdom is all about the execution

(DCI Vera Stanhope, Vera: Telling Tales, 2010)

Jeremy's Den

23/05/2022

Craig Knows Best. Not.

We Must Be Dreaming