Jeremy's Den: July 2022

I’ve got a brilliant new strategy, that’s to make so many gaffes that no one knows

which one to focus on, and they cease to be newsworthy.

You shell them, you pepper the media. You've got to pepper their positions with

so many gaffes that they're confused. It's like a helicopter throwing out chaff, and then

you steer on quietly and drop your depth charges wherever you want to drop them.

(Boris Johnson, 2016)

As I write these words, Gordon Brown is still holed up in Downing Street.

Isn’t there someone – the Queen’s Private Secretary, the nice policeman on the door of No 10 –

whose job it is to tell him that the game is up?

(Boris Johnson, The Telegraph, 10 May 2010)

La commedia è finita. He's gone. Or not. Or whatever. But it did feel so good, didn't it? In the afternoon of 7 July, just hours after the news was leaked that Boris Johnson was resigning after all, or not actually resigning at all, Redfield & Wilton released the very first general election poll that was fielded after the shit hit the fan in the evening of 5 July. It is worth mentioning as the prelude to more recent stuff, as it sets the proverbial Point Zero for everything that follows. It was also the day when the Next Big Thing in the news was that Brexit is a threat to pigeon racing. Can't make that shit up, can we? Anyway, Redfield & Wilton found that Boris Johnson's parting gift to Keir Starmer was doubling Labour's lead in voting intentions, compared to their previous poll that was conducted just four days before. Thusly delivering the Conservatives' worst performance in their weekly polls since mid-January. And an outright 65-seat majority for Labour, according to my model. Fucking ouch!

This poll was confirmed by another one from Techne, that was also fielded on the 7th but released on the 8th. Then we had two more, from Survation and YouGov, which had been conducted before Boris's Almost Last Stand, but were released only after it. All polls in that early batch pointed in the same direction, that a double-digit lead for Labour had become the New Normal. This was also the timeframe when YouGov asked their panel if there should be a snap general election if Boris Johnson resigned. Which he kindly and dutifully did before the results were published. Can't think of a better timing, can we? And the people's verdict was clear. Yes, there should.

There was pretty much a consensus here, except for Conservative voters, which was pretty predictable. Interestingly, the geographical divide mostly matched Conservative voting intentions. There were also two distinct patterns emerging in that poll, that we would see again in others later: the further North you live, the less you support Johnson. With London being an anti-Tory island amidst the Leafy Blue South, and Scots strongly positioning themselves as the most dedicated Boris-bashers. Then the older you are, the more Boris-compatible you are, which also comes a no surprise. But even the old geezers offered only lukewarm support to Boris then, as even they could't ignore the reality of his massive failures. What actually happens on that front after the Conservative Conference will be something of a popcorn moment, as they have as many incentives to call a snap election as they have to wait for the natural end of the term. And will undoubtedly stage a cats-in-a-bar moment about it.

I suppose I do get sad, but not for too long. I just look in the mirror and go

‘What a fucking good-looking fuck you are’. And then I brighten up

(Liam Gallagher)

You should always go to other people’s funerals.

Otherwise, they won’t come to yours.

(Yogi Berra)

Just after the not-quite-a-resignation speech, YouGov also tested their panel about Boris's legacy, precisely what kind of Prime Minister they think he was. And they didn't even need Guy Verhofstadt to tell them, they knew. Once again, Brits didn't have no mercy for Boris. Yes, he was a lousy First Minister of England, and even a quarter of Conservative voters rated him as poor or terrible. Quite amusingly, YouGov repeated the survey just two days later, in a more concise form, and the results were even worse for Johnson. The main reason was a significant loss of support among Conservative voters. After two days of his antics, only a third still rated him as 'mostly good', almost level with those rating him as 'mostly bad'. I guess the story about Boris and Carrie wanting a 'real' wedding at Chequers did not help, until they were forced to give up on that too. More press coverage of the backlog of unresolved scandals might have been a factor too, like the uncovered story of Johnson knowingly meeting a Putin-backing former KGB officer, while he was in charge of the Foreign Office.

In the immediate aftermath of the meltdown, Johnson was shamelessly gaming the system, and the time frame of the events helped him. But this could work only because the system is asking to be gamed, literally. In 2019, Theresa May announced her intention to resign on 24 May, the same starting gun that Johnson fired on 7 July. The process then slowly unfolded until Johnson was anointed on 24 July. Exactly two months, and Commons were not in recess at any time. This year, the summer recess offered Johnson an oven-ready excuse for limping on way past his sell-by date. The first two weeks, before the recess started on 21 July, were pretty much a warm-up period when all putative candidates flexed their muscles. Then everything was expected to stop, as you wouldn't want to disturb MPs sipping warm Carling on the beach, and restart only when Commons reconvened on 5 September. Only to go on recess again on 22 September for the Conference Season. All the pieces of Johnson's trap thusly seemed to fall nicely into place, with the official announcement of his successor effortlessly pushed to the Conservative Conference in Birmingham, between 2 and 5 October. But even the best laid plans... and Graham Brady had one of his own, which did not include A Month In Provence, so now the 1922 Committee's deadline is firmly set on the 5th of September.

If you can’t be convenient when you’re dead,

then you know you might as well forget about it.

(Jack Dee, QI: Gothic, 2010)

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing

If you can fake that, you’ve got it made

(Groucho Marx)

Then the scene was set for an expeditious resolution of the Queen's Great Matter: whom would She have to indulge as the replacement Prime Minister until a snap general election put the Conservatives out of their misery. In a simpler wording: the Tory leadership contest. Which started with all the dignity of a Saturday night at a Wetherspoons' car park. In the early days, there was fleetingly a preliminary question, which YouGov asked their panel: should Johnson genuinely go and a caretaker Prime Minister be appointed? This was indeed contemplated by some pundits for a wee while, despite the obvious constitutional roadblocks. If you kept track of what happened, some argued that Theresa May should be the caretaker, while others went for a simpler option, appointing Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab as something of an Acting Prime Minister. And the public liked the idea, but probably not by a big enough margin to make it a serious option.

Then Johnson himself managed to make the question irrelevant, and nipped any attempts at ousting him in the butt, when he pretty much appointed himself as Caretaker, with a brand new Cabinet of non-descript backbenchers, under standing orders to not do anything except getting the bins out on the proper day. This being settled, the show could go on, much to the pleasure of the pollsters who went into something of a polling frenzy during the three days of the Great Government Meltdown. YouGov tried to poll the serious stuff, in a survey of Conservative Party members conducted on the 6th. The idea was to get a hint of what the profile of the ideal future leader was. And the answers were quite on the lame predictable side. Of course nobody expected them to say they wanted a lazy incompetent bastard who would lose the next election. They had just got rid of one, for fuck's sake.

Despite the complete lack of imagination in these answers, there are nevertheless a couple of interesting points. Remainers are not welcome and how you feel about Johnson's shenanigans doesn't really matter But winning the next election is more important than having sound policies. This sounded like the perfect blueprint for some nice and reasoned, almost Science Project Day-like competition. But it's obviously not how the Conservative Party works. They wouldn't be the Nasty Party of they weren't first abhorrently nasty on each other. And they did not disappoint, with Boris himself setting the tone just hours into the competition. Of course nobody was really surprised, as this is just what you have to expect from a party that is always keen to demonstrate that what divides them matters more than what unites them. With some indulging in some weird post-WW1-Germany rhetoric about Boris's downfall. The weirdest being that this lot are the ones who really got the gist of Johnson's last words: I was always the best, but you're too fucking dumb to deserve me. Them's the breaks.

If you have a persona, it is like a ventriloquist act. It's sitting on your lap but it's not you

I guess you could call it convenient at times, but there are also times when it's very inconvenient

(Tom Waits)

We are all hands in glove in this dastardly scheme to sell our products

But I consider it as part of the gig, so there we go

(Keith Richards)

As you might expect, pollsters couldn't resist the urge to poll hypothetical voting intentions in the Conservative bar brawl even before it had begun. At the risk of forgetting some who declared later, while including Ben Wallace, who quite soon thought it wiser to stay on the outside looking in despite a credible level of support, and his proven ability to stand his ground in a pissing contest. Savanta Comres were the first to come out with their straw poll, on the 6th, and oddly asked their whole panel whom they would like to see as the next Prime Minister. So I extracted only the crosstabs for Conservative voters, as they're the only ones whose opinion matters, and the early winner was 'what the fuck?', with Wunderkind Sunak a distant second.

YouGov followed on the 7th, with a poll of Conservative Party members only, whom they must have a-plenty in their standard panel. And they found Ben Wallace leading, with perennial casting mistake Penny Mordaunt on his heels. Alas, poor YouGov, Battling Ben dropped out of the race two days later. One explanation is that he didn't have it him to fake belief in the true religion of the Church Of Boris, which is bound to exert some influence on the future of the Conservatives, the same way the Church of Donald is still a strong presence in the American Republican Party. Of course, a more likely scenario is that he did not want to risk his chickens coming home to roast in a bare-knuckle fight, and just chose to safeguard his chances of staying as Defence Secretary no matter who won the contest.

On the Sunday after the Great Meltdown, my tenner was still on Sajid Javid, even if he didn't seem to have the best oven-ready-to-roll campaign. Then I didn't rule out a dark horse coming from far behind at flank speed and overtaking all the seasoned elders. Aye, that was Tom Tugendhat. I sensed something of Emmanuel Macron in him, the 2017 variant of primeval Macron. The one whose main talking point was that he'd never been fully part of the Old Boys' Club and would offer everyone, the country and their dog a fresh start. It was unclear how far Tugendhat could go without the backing of a whole herd of MPs, but I definitely fancied him doing better than Rory Stewart in 2019, who also tried and played the 'fresh face' card. And you have to scroll down right to the bottom to see how it actually looks like now three days into Recess.

Believe in yourself, work hard, never give up and anything's possible

Or kick back, relax and aim low, you'll never be disappointed

(Mark Hamill)

A lot of universities are short of funding, so they have to investigate stupid things

(David Mitchell, QI: Family, 2008)

In the early days of the Conservative leadership contest, and even before it had actually begun, pollsters tried their hand at Best In Show surveys, also know as popularity ratings or favourability ratings. All of them asked their whole usual panel to rate the Johnson-wannabes, and provided various crosstabs including political affiliation. But I will give you only the results for the whole panel, as we need to know what the general population thought of the various candidates on the eve of their bar brawl. And we have other ways to test their standing with the Conservative core, like MPs votes and Conservative Home surveys. Survation fired the opening broadside on the 6th with a poll for Good Morning Britain, asking their panel if the then-known contenders would be a good or a bad Prime Minister. And nobody came out of it unscathed.

Clearly the British public had little enthusiasm then for any of the contenders. Only Rishi Sunak got more positives than the Conservative vote share, as predicted by general election polls held around the same time. The Conservative subsample of the polls also showed patterns that would be found again in later polls. Of course, all persons tested got better ratings with their own voter base, but not by very much. The differential was 6 to 8% for all, and none of them got an outright majority of 'good'. There were also differences in the order, the most striking being Jeremy Hunt ranking lower with Conservative voters. Which of course meant little, as MPs would have the choice of the last two contenders, and their brain patterns are obviously not the same as the average voter. Ipsos followed suit on the 7th, with a five-step scale from 'fucking disastrous' to 'fucking awesome', or something like that.

Rishi Sunak and Sajid Javid again emerged as the top two choices of the electorate, but this time the Conservative voters ranked Ben Wallace higher than The Saj. Which only makes his decision to drop out of the race later more illogical, and can only validate speculation about his ulterior motives. Or maybe there was a simpler explanation, that there is less of Battling Ben in Ben than we thought, especially when facing the prospect of a wild cats-in-a-bath campaign that could have damaged his well-crafted public image. Or it could have been the realisation that gaining the upper hand over Pen Farthing with dubious arguments was way easier than gaining it over Rishi Sunak with solid ones. Never underestimate the deep layer of cowardice below the upper crust of toughness.

Arthur C. Clarke had this theory, of ‘Toilets of the Gods’

An article he wrote suggesting that maybe even our lifeform

was descended from poo from another civilisation

(Stephen Fry, QI: Greeks, 2010)

I never knew a man could tell so many lies

He had a different story for every set of eyes

How can he remember who he’s talking to?

(Neil Young, Ambulance Blues, 1974)

During the early days of the polling frenzy that followed Big Dog's Meltdown, both Opinium and YouGov felt they had to rush straight ahead of the rest of the fast crowd, and polled hypothetical configurations of the final round of the Conservative leadership contest, even before the list of actual contenders was known. Picking likely last round scenarios was a risky business, as the whole thing soon turned into such a circular firing squad that you couldn't really know who would survive. Evidence of this, with some dose of irony, is that YouGov tested duels involving Ben Wallace, as everybody at that point was sure he would be part of the circus. I have left these out now, to concentrate on hypotheticals involving people who were actually in the race. As you might expect, the two polls contradicted each other when dealing with what already appeared as the most likely final confrontations, those involving Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss and Penny Mordaunt. And that was before the rounds of culling, where MPs pre-digested the choice for their base.

There could have been an interesting twist in all this, as all three top candidates (Sunak, Truss and Mordaunt) might have considered they had a vested interest in helping Jeremy Hunt, as all three would easily defeat him. Or they might just as well have concluded they had a vested interest in not helping Jeremy Hunt, as there was no way of knowing which of the three he would have eliminated from the race. Then the point became mute very early on, with Jeremy being kicked out of the Villa, and revealing his undying love for Rishi. There was further evidence of the race's uncertainty in a lengthy piece published by Conservative Home, basically drowning its readers in a whirlpool of word salad, and carefully avoiding to take sides because you never know how vindictive the winner could be. The only sure thing here is that it was not a shoe-in for Wunderkind Rishi. And, with the usual 20/20 hindsight, it probably never was, despite the legend he built around himself. Be seeing you further down for the later stages of the race.

The scientific name for an animal that doesn’t either run from or fight his enemies is ‘lunch’

(Michael Freedman)

The principal difference between men and women, in my view,

is that the amount of loo roll that women use is unbelievable

(Alan Davies, QI: Girls And Boys, 2010)

Right in the middle of the Conservative Beauty Pageant, and the controversy about Penny Mordaunt's sincerely-held views on 'trans rights', if any, YouGov fielded and released a poll about 'transgender issues'. I won't elaborate about the part polling the perception of prejudice against certain groups in society, as it pretty much indulges the culture of victimisation that is philosophically engineered into the intersectionalist ideology, the competition to describe any group of people as 'the most oppressed in history'. What's important here is the second part, about attitudes towards 'rights for transgender people'. Fortunately, the actual questions are phrased in a balanced and common-sensical way, and address real issues more than fuzzy 'principles'. The poll was conducted across all of Britain, so I have also extracted the results from Scotland, in case there were some significant differences from the overall panel. Quite craftily, YouGov introduced a progression in the questions, from issues that sound more 'consensual' to those that are expected to be 'controversial'. So here's the first batch.

The first question demolishes the TRA's argument that the UK or Scotland are 'hubs of transphobia'. Neither are as the vast majority of the people have a 'live and let live' attitude. Then the answers change as questions go into more detail. I am just surprised by the split about the right to change 'legal gender', which is already the law of the land all across the UK since 2004. It's the whole point of the Gender Recognition Certificate, and I personally don't have the slightest problem with that. It's not the principle that's on debate here, this has already been asked and answered, it's the process. The last three questions are more important as they address just that, core provisions of the proposed Scottish reform of the Gender Recognition Act. And both Brits and Scots say that the process should not be made easier, that medical supervision should stay, and that there should be a reasonably long waiting period. This blows out of the water the arguments of the Scottish Yellow-Green Axis, that they have the support of a majority of Scots for their reform of the GRA. Clearly they haven't, as poll after poll has shown over the last three years, and they probably never had one, even in the days of yore when the public were uninformed or misinformed about the real issues. Then YouGov had some questions about the so-called 'trans healthcare', and there's a lot to digest here too.

Again, I personally have no problem with sex-change treatments and surgery being made available through the NHS, and free at the point of delivery. If you agree that people have an unalienable right to choose to go through such procedures, you should also agree with them being delivered in the most professional and safest environment, and I'm surprised that so few people agree with that even in Scotland. But, again, that's not what's on debate here. What's on debate is whether or not such treatments should be allowed for children, instead of being available only for adults making fully informed decisions, and willing to go all the way to the surgery. And here I totally agree with YouGov's panel, both British and Scottish, that it should be a massive and resounding No. Significantly, Scotland is just as massively against inflicting these procedures on minors as the rest of Britain. You wish the Scottish Government would listen, which is obviously not their forte, and drop any provision that would open the door to body-altering and potentially life-threatening 'treatments' for under 16s, which would be the parents' decision and not the child's own. There are safeguarding and health issues here, that have quite rightly been raised by Joanna Cherry during the debate on the ban of conversion therapy. Such concerns are legitimate and should not be dismissed as 'not valid' or caricatured as 'transphobic'.

The truth is that without undressing them or testing their DNA,

You can’t be sure what sex someone is, so be careful out there

(Stephen Fry, QI: Girls And Boys, 2010)

The Thatcher effect is when you get the country to bend over

And you give it one until its eyes water

(Phill Jupitus, QI: Fingers And Fumbs, 2009)

Now that Conservative backbenchers have proved that they can be an unstoppable force against an unmoveable object who clearly didn't wanna go, it's up to Labour to prove they can be an unstoppable force against very moveable objects, the Conservative backbenchers. The early polls after the Great Meltdown were quite encouraging, with eight polls over a single week predicting a double-digit lead for Labour. Just the kind of situation that would deliver an outright majority and possibly enable them to win in a 1997ish tsunami. The current trends of polling hint that Labour might finally have broken the spell, that had them lose ground again as soon as they had gained some, in some cursed tango-ish move. Right now, it looks like the trends have improved for Labour because the Green vote is going down again, while the steadily high LibDem vote now snatches more off the Conservatives.

Of course I don't underestimate Labour's uncanny ability to paint themselves into a corner and score massive own goals on 'divisive' and 'controversial' issues. They have a golden opportunity now with the Forde Report, and I wouldn't put it past Keir Starmer to use alleged anti-Semitism as a factional weapon to disprove claims that alleged anti-Semitism was used as a factional weapon. Or we might have the 'progressive' variant of female mudwrestling, with Rachel Reeves and Angela Rayner discussing the merits of calling women 'non-men' and enforcing 'all-transwomen shortlists' for the next election. Which will have the useful upside of keeping Keir Starmer out of the public's eyes when he again makes the stunningly brave decision to oppose industrial action in the public sector in the name of working class values.

It was great, actually, when she became Lady Thatcher

Because then she sounded like a device for removing pubic hair

(Jo Brand, QI: Fingers And Fumbs, 2009)

The Tory Party is of course deeply split between three factions

Bastards driven by a ruthless ideology, bastards driven purely

by personal gain, and bastards driven by both

(Craig Murray)

Interestingly, Boris Johnson's pantomime of a resignation seems to have triggered an epiphanic realisation in thousands of people, that the Conservatives have been in power in the kingdom for way too many years, and have nothing to offer but another ice age of austerity and decline feeding each other. Or the very Tory obsession with made-up culture wars, which they love because the gullible wokextremist left always fall for it and make fucking arses of themselves. But there are signs that the public don't fall for that anymore and are ready for a major political change. One example is a recent poll by SavantaComres on behalf of Unison, that found the public strongly supportive of a possible NHS strike, and considering it justified. The levels of support were pretty much the same as for the earlier rail strike, proving that the Conservative's anti-strike narrative has less and less traction. You can see something of the same trend in my current Poll'O'Polls, based on the last four polls fielded by Deltapoll, SavantaComres and Redfield & Wilton, who had two in quick succession, between 15 and 23 July. Super-sample here is 7,090 with a theoretical margin of error of 1.16%. And we have the largest predicted vote share and the largest lead for Labour, in any of my regular projections since the 2019 election.

But, before you start passing judgment on the wee third of Brits who would still vote Tory now, remember the UK is the place where 25% of people believe that Man never set foot on the Moon, and it was all Stanley Kubrick's special effects. Four times as many as Americans, whom we so love to mock because they're so gullible. And also pretty much the hard core of the Conservative vote, those who would vote for Peppa Pig with a blue rosette, no matter what. Quite revealingly too, in the run-up to the Conservative MPs' last vote, both Redfield & Wilton and Opinium tested Keir Starmer in the classic 'Preferred Prime Minister' survey, against the top three Big Dog wannabes. And Sly Keir won hands down in all cases.

There are some significant differences between the two polls, which are obviously the direct result of them being held two days apart. The two days, at the very start of the last week of the competition, when the already visible chaos turned into a complete farce. Classic blue-on-blue moments certainly didn't help, like Ben Wallace telling Liz Truss to shut the fuck up about defence spending. That and the opposition tearing Rishi Sunak a new one about his total cluelessness on energy issues. Or conclusive evidence brought back to light, that Penny Mordaunt is out-honorary-ranked by a Scottish penguin. Of course strong support for a Starmer-led government does not mean that the UK is turning conclusively 'progressive', whatever that means now in metropolitan NewSpeak. What has unfolded over the last couple of years, with the rise of all toxic variants of identity politics, is Labour quacking more and more like American Democrats, and Conservatives walking more and more like American Republicans. In my world, this is definitely not an improvement over the classic class-driven politics of the previous millennium.

Nostradamus published a book of, essentially, gibberish

In fact, its only use is to predict something just after it's happened

(David Mitchell, QI: Hoaxes, 2010)

We’ve suffered great defeats before and we have always come back

Because there is something in the Conservative philosophy and Conservative instinct

That runs absolutely with the grain of the British instinct

(John Major, Election Night 1997)

The seat projection based on my current Poll'O'Polls confirms that the British electorate are more than ready to let go of the Johnsonian variant of Conservatives, the ones who thrive on tax cuts, high debt and food banks like junkies on angel dust. Don't get your nipples in a twist over that though, as it would be delusional to expect anything like a massive lurch to the left after the next election, as the combined efforts of the Johnsonian Tories and New New Labour have moved the Everton Window quite significantly to the right. But it shows the Conservatives finally have to pay the price for thinking the truth is such a rare commodity that they have to be economical with it. Labour should nevertheless remember that nothing is ever carved in the Edstone, and the precedent of 1992, when they expected a Stamford Bridge and got a Hastings. They also should take better care of what are technically internal matters, but might influence the vote in some parts of the electorate. A highly questionable way of dealing with sexual harassment claims, combined with a very objectionable approach to women's rights, is definitely a vote-killer. But they know that already, even if they don't care.

This is the highest number of seats for both Labour and the Liberal Democrats in my projections since the 2019 election. And also the lowest number for both the Conservatives and the SNP. The use of regional crosstabs instead of uniform national swing favours Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the South of England, and oddly both Labour and the Conservatives in Scotland. But we'll come to that later. This projection delivers an outright 23-seat majority for Labour alone, enough to give even Keir Starmer a boner, methinks. If Sly Keir doesn't feel safe with that, a Lab-Lib Pact would make it a 83-seat majority, or 89 seats if they are inclusive of their sister parties in Northern Ireland. But he might want to make it quick, before Angela Rayner rules that the word 'sister' must be erased from the party's vocabulary, as it is abhorrently exclusionary and transphobic. They could possibly try 'partner parties', though it has a whiff of afterhours in the City about it; which Keir would probably not mind, when you think of it.

When people talk about the thinness of the Labour Party programme

I think that is an advantage for the Labour Party

Because they haven’t over-promised, they have relatively few promises

And if they can do better than that, it would be splendid

(James Callaghan, Election Night 1997)

The citizens have a right to be ignorant

Knowledge only means complicity and guilt, ignorance has certain dignity

(Sir Humphrey Appleby, Yes Minister: Open Government, 1980)

On these numbers, the effect of the proposed gerrymandering would be so minute you would need the Robert Webb Telescope to see them. The impact now is as close to Net Zero as we have ever seen, instead of switching a dozen-and-a-half seats, as was calculated on the basis of the 2019 results, and also closer than ever to full-blown dummymandering. The key to this is that the opposition votes have increased more than average in areas that were traditionally considered True Blue and recarved accordingly to maximise the number of Tory seats, like the South of England, than in historic battlegrounds like the Midlands, or traditional Labour heartlands in the North of England and Wales. Interestingly, the proposed boundaries would benefit the SNP and cost both Labour and the LibDems some Scottish seats. This can't be a coincidence, as there is massive evidence everywhere that the work of the Boundary Commissions is far from fully neutral, as I discussed in an earlier article. But the projected results in England and Wales pretty much make that wee Scottish stunt useless now.

The whole convoluted process of boundary changes might become a damp squid pretty soon anyway, as the probability of a snap election long before the scheduled date is literally rising exponentially, and this would have to be fought on the existing boundaries. I'm quite sure both of the final Big Dog wannabes are enough in love with themselves to think that they can win a snap election on their personal aura only. Both are probably delusional enough to think it would work for them because it worked for Boris Johnson in 2019. But Boris had two major assets back then, that nullified the effects of his own ineptitude. A man and a slogan. Jeremy Corbyn and Get Brexit Done. Both are gone now, so Big Dog 2.0 would have to make up something else. Like blaming the French for the fucking mess at Dover because, ye ken, when in doubt, always blame the French. I mention this only because it's a textbook example of how Little England nationalism works. Vociferously demand Hard Brexit, then whine about Hard Brexit because you were never willing to personally bear the consequences of Hard Brexit. That's the kind of mob Rishi and Liz have to pander to, to bag the keys to the Villa, but definitely not the demographic who wins an election.

When a country is going downhill, it’s time for someone to get

into the driving seat and put his foot on the accelerator

(Jim Hacker, Yes Minister: The Official Visit, 1980)

It seems hard to block a Scottish Independence referendum, but we should

push the timing until after Brexit, so the choice is clearer for people.

(Rishi Sunak, 2017)

Just after Nicola Sturgeon decided to become proactively performative about a second Independence Referendum, Panelbase conducted a poll, paid for by the Sunday Times, that highlighted some interesting changes in Scottish public opinion. The most important one is of course finding Yes and No tied in voting intentions, after nine successive polls over five months showing No in the lead. Strictly speaking Panelbase found Yes leading by 0.6%, but this is well within the margin of error on a sample of 1,010, so let's call it a tie for now. The crosstabs show some classic divides, that we have seen before in many polls and will see again in later ones. Unfortunately, none of the crosstabs even hinted at the start of a significant tectonic shift that might deliver an overwhelming majority for Yes in the near future.

Commenting on these results would amount to repeating what has been said three dozen times before about similar polls, so it isn't of much interest. Except to hammer home one specific point again: if all SNP voters also voted Yes, that would switch the headline result to about 54% Yes to 41% No. Not quite the infamously proverbial 60% hurdle, but getting closer. That poll says that Nicola Sturgeon's move might not have been as vacuously defiant as some painted it. I'm clearly not her Number One Fan, but what we have here says that the move might work, even if we need more polling for a confirmation. Panelbase sort of tried to get that with a follow-up question about voting intentions at the next general election, with a convoluted wording clearly painting it as the infamous 'plebiscite election'. Here's what they found, and how various prediction models translate it into seats.

Clearly, the incentive to vote SNP, to secure a majority for pro-independence parties, is not fully working yet. Even if you have that fanciful notion that the 'other' votes would all be for smallish pro-independence parties, which they obviously wouldn't, the grand total without rounding would still be only 49.93%, one bat's whisper shy of the self-inflicted hurdle. Of course, the craftily reframed wording delivers a much better result for the SNP than the trend of standard polling says, we'll come to that later. But we're still far from the momentum that the SNP gained in the run-up to the 2015 election, and they would still have to accept the Alba Party as valid partners to scrape past the hurdle. Then even I could fall for Nicola's stunt and vote SNP at the next general, no matter whom they pick as a candidate in Edinburgh South West. Ironically, the only rationale for this would be that the SNP are totally useless and harmless in Westminster, and probably even more so under a Labour government, so only the symbolic value of clearing the 50% hurdle would matter. Of course, the next Holyrood election would be a wholly different game, played on vastly different rules.

There's a paraphilia called harpaxophilia, that's someone who gets off on being robbed

(Stephen Fry, QI: Horrible, 2010)

In the 19th century, Charles Stewart Parnell used London's own rulebook to bring

Westminster to a standstill, to force attention on Ireland's cause. The SNP still has

44 seats, Alba has two. Perhaps it's time to play Parnell on Westminster.

(Alex Salmond)

The Panelbase poll also included useful information about the Scottish public's perspective, that you don't usually see in other polls. First they measured the level of support and opposition to Nicola Sturgeon's plan to hold the referendum in 2023. And it's not as cut and dried as you might have anticipated, it's pretty much a tie again, though slightly tilting towards opposition. But it's still a far cry from the 'no appetite' talking point peddled by the unionist parties. And it's far better than what YouGov's last poll, fielded in early May before Nicola's announcement, had found. Back then 28% supported a referendum in 2023 and 59% opposed it. Again, the obvious conclusion is that a public commitment to get it done did influence public opinion. Then the generational and political divides here are pretty predictable. There is also a noticeable and interesting difference in the crosstabs, between the remembered vote in 2014 and voting intentions for 2023. The 2023 Yessers are more determined in their support than the 2014 Yessers, just as the 2023 Naysayers are more determined in their opposition. Something the Scottish Government should bear in mind when honing their talking points.

Another interesting angle is when people think Scotland will become an independent nation. A large third think it will happen within the next five years, and a small third that it won't ever, with a mix of possible nuances in between. The generational and political divides are again 100% predictable, based on voting intentions and support for the principle of the referendum. And again the 2023 Yessers are more determined than the 2014 Yessers. So all is not lost with the Scottish Generation Z after all. It's not all Billie-Eilish-TikTok-Unisex-Loos, there's a wee smitch of political nous in there too. But this does not say anything about the actual probability of achieving Independence at any of these dates. Especially when Labour HQ agrees with the Conservative Big Dog wannabes that there is no way they will let Scotland go until England has looted all the natural resources. Which is pretty much a Putin-In-Ukraine attitude. Or just plain old English colonialism.

We have reached the point now where there is something of a new hope, despite Nicola's Ninth Circle doing their best to alienate everyone who hasn't got their Stonewall-validated seal of approval. Then we should probably just ignore the deranged maniacs for now, and not get all doomy-and-gloomy at every setback on the way. Sadly, the English Government's response to Nicola Sturgeon's request was fairly predictable. After all, all they had to do was a cut/paste of the Court of Session's ruling against Martin Keatings. It also did not help that the current Lord Advocate clearly said she did not believe the Scottish Government had a case. This was not blatant deliberate sabotage, as the previous Lord Advocate had done with Martin's case, but it came fucking close. But, in moment of doubts, remember that, 15 months before the 2014 referendum, polls predicted 35% Yes to 65% No. Then Alex Salmond's strong motivational leadership got us a 10% swing to Yes. If we collectively achieve the same now, we win.

As long as you’re not asking me to resort to crude generalisations

And vulgar oversimplifications such as a simple “Yes” or “No”

I shall do my utmost to oblige if you ask me for a straight answer

(Sir Humphrey Appleby, Yes Minister: The Writing On The Wall, 1980)

Everywhere there is a sense of imminent change

Whether it is a change for good or ill, no one can tell

(G’Kar, Babylon 5: Z’Ha’Dum, 2260)

There is no doubt that the best political moment of the month happened when Speaker Lindsay Hoyle totally lost it and had the two Alba Party MPs expelled from Commons. There is a lot to be said about the attitude of the SNP MPs here, who didn't even try and trigger a division about the Speaker's ruling. Which would have happened if only one of them had said 'No' when the Speaker asked if all members agreed. This is clear dereliction of their duty to stand up for the people of Scotland, and asininely offensive tweets by Pete Wishart and John Nicolson only made it worse. Who do these mendacious wankers think they are? Who gave them a mandate to decide who is worthy to be part of the Yes Movement and who isn't? This, more than anything else, shows why the SNP can shove their 'code of conduct' up their arse and leave it there. They should also remember that the aforementioned Panelbase poll is just unum inter alia, and the result was a wee smitch squeezed, while the overall trends of Scottish polling don't point to stellar results for the SNP, quite the opposite actually.

The paradox here is that Labour might not always be the clearest and presentest danger to the SNP. The only seats Labour will surely gain at the next election are East Lothian and Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. Not on their own merits, but because the SNP will have no problem with fielding candidates against the two Alba MPs and splitting the pro-independence vote. Because, ye ken, it we can't have it, neither can you. The typical spoilt-brat attitude you can expect from New SNP. And Labour would need to close the gap and bag 25% of the popular vote to score further gains. But a surge of the LibDem vote could be more of a thorn in the arse for the SNP, who could be deprived of a couple of seemingly easy gains, and even lose back East Dunbartonshire. But we're not quite there yet, and it's funnier to see it on a map for once.

Current Scottish polling, as reflected in my Poll'O'Polls, has the SNP down to around 42% and Labour up past their target on 28%, which would allow them to reach a magnificent nine seats with eight gains from the SNP (Glasgow North East, Glasgow South West, Rutherglen and Hamilton West, Airdrie and Shotts, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Midlothian, East Lothian). The LibDems are predicted down to around 8%, but the differential has actually increased in Lib-SNP marginals, so they would hold their current four seats. The SNP wouldn't even benefit from another bad streak for the Conservatives, predicted to be down to 18%, because the regional differentials predict they would lose only one seat, Moray. And here goes Oor Doogie Ross, who probably will not be missed. There is definitely an upside here for the SNP, because Stephen Kerr would be the most likely next leader of the Conservatives in Scotland. And that could only boost the vote for Independence.

Whenever they mention on the news 'Scottish devolution',

I always think that sounds like they're losing their opposable thumbs

(Jimmy Carr, QI: Humans, 2010)

The things people do to each other will tell you whether they're happy or not

Happy people are less inclined to glass people in pubs

(Alan Davies, QI: Happiness, 2010)

Maps are definitely more fun than my usual charts, so I will use them all along to illustrate the seat projections by region. The Before and After, labeled Current and Next. The 'current' maps reflect the allocation of seats at the date of publication, factoring in changes after by-elections since December 2019. Constituencies in grey denote seats where the current MPs have been withdrawn their party's whip and now sit as independents. That's ten of them at the moment, according to official sources, and with a worrying number of them on charges of harassment, assault or racism. The big black hole in the middle of the North West map is Chorley, the seat held by the Right Honourable Sir Lindsay Harvey Hoyle MP, Speaker of the House of Commons. Who is himself some sort of a black hole. Anyway, the Current and Next maps of the North of England clearly show Starmer's successful Reconquista Del Norte.

The Labour revival is especially spectacular in the North East. Relative to the total number of seats, it would be Labour's best ever result in that region, better than 1945 and 1997. It's much less satisfactory in the North West, not even reaching the same number of seats as in 2005. Then the map of Yorkshire and the Humber is a bit misleading, as the Conservatives would hold some of the much larger rural constituencies, while Labour would gain back many of the smaller urban constituencies. The actual headcount shows a massive swing towards Labour, with 44 seats to 9 Conservatives, matching their 1997 result, in proportion of overall seats. Again relative to the total number of seats, Labour's global result in the North is predicted to be level with 2005, the benchmark of a return to shape, slightly lower than 1997 but higher than 1945. And of course a massive recovery from the Tumbling Down Of The Red Wall in 2019.

There’s something about the whole culture of the white van

They always drive them as if they just stole them anyway, don’t they?

They’re the worst road users there are

(Jack Dee, Room 101, 2015)

Wales was the capital of British leech farming, so they were called lleeches.

(Stephen Fry, QI: Horrible, 2010)

You can't deny that Wales is a nation of opportunities for all of Dog's creatures, but especially the Labour Party. Getting some seats back in North Wales is part of the rebuilding of the Red Wall, but right now they would fall some seats shy from past performances, with only 65% of Welsh seats coloured red. They did much better in 1945 (71%), 2005 (73%) and 1997 (85%). It's actually a repeat of their 2010 result there, and that definitely wasn't a good year for Labour. But it does contribute to their predicted overall success, so diolch i Dduw am drugareddau bach. In the meanwhile, Plaid Cymru MPs have firmly entrenched themselves in Western rural Wales, now including the three-way marginal Ynys Môn. But they're still banging their head of the five-seat Slate Ceiling. Their only plausible target seat, Labour-held Llanelli, is still quite a distance away. Even if the Westminster voting patterns aligned with the Senedd voting patterns, it wouldn't help really Plaid Cymru, as their current Senedd constituencies are the exact same as their predicted Commons constituencies.

There is obviously some margin of progress for Labour. For example, it is quite surprising that they are still predicted to miss Wrexham and Vale of Glamorgan, both of which are solidly Labour in the Senedd, but predicted to be marginal Conservative holds in Commons. So Blue Wales are less endangered than you might think. Another interesting result this time is the Liberal Democrats gaining back Brecon and Radnorshire, which was an unexpected and transient by-election gain in 2019. But they are predicted to gain it back again only by the weeest of margins, and it's not like we're seeing anything like a rebirth of the Libs in Wales, which was pretty much theirs from around 1880 to the end of World War One. Even Ceredigion, which they held for 12 years early in this millennium, is now out of reach and strong Plaid Cymru territory.

What is a sheep tied to a lamppost in Cardiff? It’s a leisure centre.

(Rob Brydon, QI: Campanology, 2005)

In the 1970s, if you went to the old Birmingham housing estates, when they all used to work

for British Leyland, everybody’s bathroom was Maxi green and the front Marina beige.

(Jeremy Clarkson)

As usual, the Midlands do not deliver the best of results for Labour. This is a trend we have already seen earlier. The Midlands were true industrial heartlands for Labour in 1945 when they bagged 70% of the region's seats. Even in post-industrial 1997, Labour still bagged 72% of the seats there. Then they suffered a massive fall at the 2010 election and never recovered, even with the Corbyn Surge in 2017. So, bagging a majority of the region's seats again, as current polls predict, would be a success. But of the glass-half-full variety, as they would still fall short of what the achieved in 2005. There are fewer Tory frontbenchers from the Midlands than the number of current Tory seats would make you think, but they would still lose a few minor characters: Tom Pursglove, Amanda Solloway, Maggie Throup, Robin Walker and Lee Rowley. Plus the three best backbench nutters of the current House: Jonathan Gullis, Ben Bradley and Peter Bone.

There is still an interesting contrast between East and West here, which was already there in 1945, but markedly less visible in 1997. The most striking example is Derbyshire, which is the northwestern part, or the upper left in lame man's terms, of East Midlands. Current polling says that Labour would bag all the seats in the county, something they did not achieve even in 1945 and 1997. Both times they missed the full slate by just one seat, High Peak in 1945 and West Derbyshire in 1997. Labour are not predicted to reach this level of success in the West Midlands, other than in the urban areas (Birmingham, Coventry, Newcastle-Stoke, Worcester). Quite interestingly too, the Conservatives are predicted to snatch back North Shropshire, more evidence of the volatility of Liberal Democrat gains at by-elections. Sic transeunt...

All the paint-shop paint was just taken home and everything was painted in car colours.

It was a period when orange was popular, burnt-orange sitting rooms as Allegros were orange.

(Jeremy Clarkson)

Brighton is not a place I would come to on holiday

It’s a bit like Malaga, isn’t it? Brighton is the Viagra of the South Coast

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

Of course, the most visually striking changes are in the South of England, and not necessarily in the part of the South where you expect them. Even factoring in LibDem gains in by-elections, the overall map is still dark blue, with 172 out of 197 seats still held by the Conservatives. I identified just one constituency by its MP's name here, our beloved Jake's North East Somerset, though there is a whole swarm of Tory Wee Dogs elected from the nether regions of the Realm, including a majority of Boris Johnson's Cabinets over the years. Six in three years, in case you haven't kept count, including the current caretaker government. Current polling predicts major changes Doon Sooth, with Labour bagging 28% of the seats, which is not even their best ever result, even if it's almost three times what they got in 2019. But they had reached 31% in 1997 and an unequalled 41% in 1945. But Labour's strongest region back then was East Anglia, where they bagged a majority of seats, and it never happened again, even in 1997.

The Next map illustrates what the regional crosstabs of polls predict for the South West, a red wave transitioning into a shockwave, with even Jacob Rees-Mogg losing his seat. Here, the Tumbling of the Blue Wall is the perfect mirror image of the Fall of the Red Wall, with seats switching to Labour, that hadn't seen red since 1832 or thereabouts. There is also a massive return of the LibDems, who were quite a strong presence in the South West during the 2000s before the Coalition doomed them. As you might expect, there would be a massive list of Tory fatalities all across the Leafy South. Liam Fox would lose his seat, next door to Jake Rees-Mogg's. Grant Shapps, Alok Sharma, Chloe Smith, George Eustice, Conor Burns, Will Quince, Iain Stewart and Michelle Donelan would go down, among recent and sometimes short-lived members of the English government. As would Cat Killer Tobias Ellwood, who quite ominously benefited from a Schrödinger's Whip during the closing stages of the Big Dog Race. In case you wonder, and you surely do, the green blob near Exeter is the East Devon constituency. Which technically would not fall to the Green Party of England and Wales, but to an independent candidate who used to sit with the Greens on Devon County Council. But green looked better than 'independent grey' on the map.

Stonehenge is a word with the word 'henge' in it, but it's not a henge

As 'spigot' has got the word 'pig' in it, but it isn't a pig, you see?

(Stephen Fry, QI: History, 2011)

Have you been to Number 10 lately? Jesus, it’s like, it’ like… the breakup of The Beatles during

the fall of the Roman Empire, all happening at the same time in a tiny fucking terraced house

(Malcolm Tucker, The Thick Of It: Episode Thirteen, 2009)

I have added names on the map of London constituencies, because the Imperial Capital is full of political celebrities, have-been celebrities and aspiring celebrities. And you wouldn't know they live literally next door to each other. There are some names you might have never heard in the Labour constituencies, but I added them because they are members of Keir Starmer's Shadow Cabinet. That's not exactly a London Mafia, just a bunch of friends who happen to do the same job, innit? London has earned the aura of Labourgravia in recent years, with the ascent of the turquoise-stubble culture in Inner Hipstershire, but it was actually a battleground during most of the postwar era. It even had streaks of Conservative dominance in the 1950s and all along the Thatcher-Major years. It was a close shave for Labour even as late as 2010, and only twice delivered a majority of the popular vote for Labour, 1945 and 2017.

The Next map is proof of real success for Labour, who would bag 73% of the seats, up from 67% in 2019. But Keir Starmer would still be outperformed by Clement Attlee and Tony Blair, neither of whom were Londoners, but nevertheless respectively bagged 75% of the Capital's seats in 1945, and 77% in 1997. Interestingly, the Camden Town Pravda... oops... sorry... The Guardian, devoted a whole column this week to the massive thorn in London Labour's fat arse, which I mentioned twice already since the Council elections: Tower Hamlets. Where the dominant party's complacency collides with the rise of ethnic communitarianism. Just don't rule out Aspire transmogrifying into Respect 2.0, with Lutfur Rahman reprising George Galloway's part in the original. The Westminster seat projection also shows the Liberal Democrats managing to capitalise on their gains at the Council elections, that hinted that the seats of Wimbledon and Carshalton and Wallington were within their reach. And the current projection has them changing hands indeed.

From time to time in our great island’s story, it falls to one man to lead his people

out of the valley of the shadow and into the sunlit uplands of peace and prosperity

(Jim Hacker, Yes, Prime Minister: The Grand Design, 1986)

This government has run this country into the ground, this used to be a green and pleasant land

Now it’s the colour of the fucking BBC weather map and it looks like anaemic dogshit

(Cal Richards, The Thick Of It: Episode Sixteen, 2012)

The Conservatives' Best In Show contest has offered more evidence that they do not go gentle on each other when a position of power is at stake. Which is certainly why Graham Brady decided to change the rules, less that one week after the Great Meltdown, hoping it would make the whole fucking circus shorter and avoid a shitload of damaging headlines. Interestingly, the 1922 Committee announced the changes on the 11th, on the heels of a poll published by the 'grassroots' Conservative Home, that had Penny Mordaunt and Kemi Badenoch topping a hypothetical party members' vote. Definitely not the choice CCHQ or the parliamentary party wanted. But the change of rules did allow to slim down and speed up the part where only MPs cast a vote. Sadly, Grant Shapps, Michael Green, Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox chose to withdraw, after they realised that they had longer odds to win than Ben Wallace, who wasn't even standing anymore. I must confess that I was pretty miffed that Sajid Javid didn't make it, as I had great hopes for him. No shit. And that 'happy ever after' group photo wasn't what I expected to see. I was expecting fewer to survive the initial culling, actually.

Of course, there was no such thing as a family photo after Graham Brady announced the results, The Guardian photoshopped it, as a real picture would have shown the bruises and scars already. In case you didn't pay attention, that's how it unfolded between the candidacy deadline at pink gin time on the 12th and the final MPs' vote on Recess Eve on the 20th. The numbers on the leftmost bar indicate how many MPs publicly endorsed each of the original eleven candidates, themselves included. Per 1922 Committee Rules, candidates needed 20 sponsors, other than themselves, to qualify, but the exact numbers were not disclosed, so we have only approximate information here. So now we are left with Rishi and Liz, probably not the result most people expected. I fully expected Rishi vs Penny, something like the posh sequel to Godzilla vs Kong. There must have been some weird undercurrents at work here along the eight days of voting, and I will be forever wondering what an outright STV vote would have delivered. Most probably not what we actually got.

There were some fun moments, even with a very small window for an all-out pissing contest. First came claims that some were sending negative coverage of their rivals to Labour HQ, who will find it useful in the snap election campaign. Then there was a poll from YouGov asking their panel if it mattered that candidates had previous experience in government, probably in an orchestrated move to undermine Tom Tugendhat. Which badly backfired, as even a plurality of Conservative voters said it was not necessary, with a tiny fraction saying it was preferable that they had none. But the juiciest part was undoubtedly Boris Johnson unleashing his hellhounds against Rishi Sunak, in a typical entitled man-child fashion. If I can't have it, neither can he, so there! Though using James Cleverly as the vanguard hellhound was probably not the cleverest move, Dilyn might have been more efficient. Now come six weeks of Rishi and Liz pandering to Conservative Party members, telling them what they want to hear, and never wondering if it's actually doable. Expect a pick'n'mix of laughter and facepalm moments.

You join a Facebook group with like-minded people, they send you witty remarks

Eventually, you send them a photograph of your genitals

(Alan Davies, QI: Happiness, 2010)

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition

There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind,

alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect

(Frank Wilhoit)

The MPs' vote was only Phase One, and now we're gonna have sixish weeks of Phase Two, the campaign for the 'popular vote'. Which will have some entertainment value as the weapon of choice in the final duel will be bullshit slinging, a perennial Conservative favourite. With the mandatory side order of bottom-feeding culture wars, and fairy tale promises that nobody expects to be ever fulfilled. The only certainty is that the winner's manifesto will be something of a pact with the devil, after everyone in the race lurched to the right, even the few who previously self-identified as 'centrists'. This did not come as a surprise, as the opening skirmishes in the New Tory Civil War were pretty much an invitation to transition into some variant of UKIP 2.0, like endorsing Priti Patel's failing Rwanda Deportation Scam. Which is probably why YouGov very opportunistically released the results of a poll they had conducted back in May and kept in a drawer so far, just as the Tory Bar Brawl was getting into top gear. The panel were asked if they would support or oppose resettling refugees from four different countries in the UK, and the findings speak for themselves.

This proves again a point that has already been made repeatedly. That there is, especially for Conservative supporters, a 'wrong kind of refugees'. Just try to guess which ones, on the evidence you have here. Also note that "don't know" seems to be the safe answer for those who fear being accused of 'unconscious bias'. Or racism, in real pre-NewSpeak English. But the well-timed resurfacing of a forgotten public event from Penny Mordaunt's chequered past has brought to the fore another debate, that nobody expected to be part of a Conservative beauty pageant: could gender ideology become the new state religion under a Tory Prime Minister? If you had that on your 2022 Bingo Card... But it added to the Saturday-Night-At-Wetherspoons atmosphere of the contest, as Penny Mordor's competitors were quick to use that, and other unscientific shenanigans, against her, not fearing potential accusations of whatthefuckphobia. Meanwhile, and right from the start, pollsters also tested different plausible combinations for the final round, the party member's vote. From which I have extracted only those with the two actual finalists.

Obviously, Conservative Home polled only members of the party. YouGov and Opinium also have their oven-ready panel of Conservative Party members. So their findings can be considered somewhat predictive of the final choice. There was some funny talk all along the contest, that MPs might select a different leader from the one the members wanted. Which was quite silly, as MPs just pre-digest the choice, like parenting birds do for their young. And the losers will certainly all get second chances of proving what a disaster they are, when the winner offers them positions in his Cabinet in the name of party unity, but actually because the talent pool has dried up. But now it's down to a fight between a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a killer whale, in Boris Johnson's immortal famous last words. Or it might be more like a soliloquy for two, just aimed at a captive audience. Actually, Boris's last words in Commons, which he unexpectedly graced with a quick last appearance, were "Hasta la vista, Baby!" Not really a good omen for anyone who succeeds him, as he probably got his movie references all mixed up and actually meant "I'll be back!". Now, at the beginning of the Shagaluf Break and its megafuckload of suspense, Rishi hopes he will win the battle of wits against Liz, which is not the most uphill battle of his life. I will not risk a prediction right now, as my crystal ball has failed me in the earlier stages of the Tory bar room brawl. But Rishi does look like the underBigDog, nobody can deny. And I do wonder why...

A silver lining, with so many of the so-called “homeless” being veterans,

is that they have been through survival training in the British armed forces,

and can therefore easily manage through the winter

(Rishi Sunak)

Expose yourself to your deepest fear. After that, fear has no power

and the fear of freedom shrinks and vanishes. You are free.

(Jim Morrison)

Let's end this now, with the last chapter of the saga of the 2022 elections in France. Emmanuel Macron is definitely not finding it easy now to get anything done. The breakdown of seats in the National Assembly and the Senate just after the 2017 and 2022 elections, by parliamentary group, and by party for members not affiliated to any group, illustrates why. The right-wing opposition already had a majority in the Senate in 2017, but it didn't matter. The massive Macronist majority in the National Assembly could override anything the Senate had voted for, just as the House of Commons start the third reading of any bill by repealing the House of Lords' amendments. It doesn't work anymore with both the radical left and the far-right in full frontal opposition, and not afraid of voting together to defeat the government in an odd game of wolves and lambs. There is only one reason for this: the French two-round first-past-the-post system failed to deliver a working majority in the National Assembly, for only the third time in more than 60 years, as I pointed out in an earlier article. But instead something pretty similar to proportional representation based on the second round votes. So the French government now has only two options: compromise with the center-right opposition, or legislative impotence. The latter being of course the most plausible outcome in a highly fragmented and confrontational political landscape, and a pretty strong argument against proportional representation for the House of Commons, if we're willing to learn from foreign experiences.

Proponents of proportional representation are also quick to point to the alleged 'culture of consensus' in German politics. Which is just more self-serving bullshit. German politics were highly confrontational before 1933, and did not become 'consensual' overnight in 1949 because, ye ken, Nazis and Communists, blah blah blah. German politics remained confrontational until the 2000s when changes in voting patterns made coalitions more likely, and plausibly involving more than two partners. The earlier SPD-FDP and CDU-CSU-FDP coalitions were just like a Lab-Lib Pact or a Con-Lib Pact in the UK: the larger party making only minor concessions to the smaller party. The so-called Grand Coalitions between the CDU-CSU and the SPD had nothing to do with consensus either, just with political expediency, and the resulting governments did not achieve more than a caretaker government. Because they were not based on consensus, but on both partners reneging on 'controversial' manifesto pledges that defined their identity as right-wing or left-wing. I wish you would not confuse the very real German sense of realpolitik with an alleged culture of consensus. The current SPD-Grünen-FDP coalition is arguably the first one built on an actual negotiated consensus, and even it has a hard time dealing with current events, as 'tough choices' highlight what divides them. You can be sure it wouldn't work any better in the UK, where we do love confrontational politics.

Weaselling out of things is important to learn, it's what separates us from the animals

Except the weasel

(Homer Simpson)

Jeremy's Den

24/07/2022

Feels So Good

We Must Be Dreaming