Jeremy's Den: They. Are. A. Disgrace.

Don't forget to click on the images for larger and easier to read versions.

Do you know that story about the journalist who interviewed a busy sort of woman and

said they were doing this survey about who makes the important decisions in your household.

She said: “My husband makes all the important decisions, I make all the trivial decisions

like what the children should wear and what they should eat and how much we spend on the

household budget, and where we should go on holiday and what sort of car we should drive".

(Stephen Fry)

"But my husband makes all the important decisions, like whether there should be

a United Nations presence in Bosnia, for example”. That sort of sums up basically

men fantasising about political things, while women get on with the real business of life.

(Stephen Fry)

For the last few weeks, a man and a woman have been getting on with the real business of their life, which is to win the Conservative leadership contest. And they have plenty of compelling arguments. My favourite has to be Liz Truss promising a bonfire of all remaining EU legislation in British law before the end of 2023. Never mind that it's totally unfeasible, and that Liz herself has already mentioned exceptions, she will never let facts get in the way of an 'EU Bad Brexit Good' soundbite. More worrying, and more to the point as it's actually doable, was the announcement by both that they would double down on Priti Patel's criminal Rwanda Deportation Scam, which looks like a vote winner with members of the Conservative party. Fucking hell. As soon as Rishi and Liz emerged as the contenders in the last round of the Conservatives' Drab Race, Opinium tested the credibility of both, with the historic list of items they use for all politicians' 'favourability' ratings. What they found for Rishi Sunak doesn't quack and walk like a ringing endorsement.

Wunderkind Rishi, despite all his self-aggrandising PR, does not have massive support outwith the Conservative voter base. At best, he could count on some indulgence from opposition voters, but probably not for long. His main asset is the aura of managerial competence, which the Truss campaign are doing their best to demolish. But his main liability is the widespread feeling that he his aloof and disconnected from the concerns of real people. Something he has obviously fueled himself in the past with some ridiculously staged photo-ops, and now the best brain in the Truss campaign is taking another angle on it. Say what you will about Nads, but she knows how to be absofucking hilarious, even if it's not exactly what she was aiming for. Now, if you think Rishi's ratings are bad, just wait until you see Liz's.

Liz may do better than Rishi on a few items, but in the end less that a third of Brits consider her genuine Prime Ministerial material. Which is pretty much the hard-core Conservative electoral base and nothing beyond, and before the competition began, she did not have better ratings. So nobody can claim they didn't know she's unfit for the job. Yet this is the person the bookmakers predict will be the next First Minister of England. This obviously suits Boris Johnson as he fucks off into the sunset mumbling "chaos... errr... panic and... uuh... disorder, my... errr... work is... arrr... done here". While actively undermining Rishi Sunak by any means necessary, including letting James Cleverly float the idea that he could be willing to serve under Liz Truss. Of course Boris is the only one who can rejoice at the prospect of a Truss government, because that's the kind of future times that would make people regret him.

When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn’t become a king

The palace becomes a circus

(Turkish proverb)

The snake which cannot cast its skin has to die. As well the minds which are prevented

from changing their opinions. They cease to be minds.

(Friedrich Nietzsche)

In the meanwhile, Keir Starmer's spads at New New Labour HQ were recording everything Rishi, Liz and their supporters were saying and tweeting. There was a wealth of material that would be used against the Conservatives during the incoming snap election campaign. But also some nuggets that could be recycled into the next Labour manifesto, though, to be completely honest, some have already been. In hindsight, Liz ans Rishi certainly wished they had listened to their supporters who urged them to cancel the debates. It certainly required quite a suspension of disbelief to actually remember that the two of them had been in the same Cabinet three weeks before. Early in the last stretch of the ferrets-in-a-bar campaign, Deltapoll tested alternative voting intentions scenarios for the next general election, where either of the two contenders was named as the Conservative leader, instead of the usual generic question. They found that Liz would do the same as the baseline, and Rishi would do worse, with both slightly boosting the Liberal Democrats. But the effect on the seat projections was minimal. Whoever led the Conservatives would still suffer a humiliating defeat and offer Labour an outright majority of seats. Back then, as we'll see there have been changes since.

There is an interesting side story in these alternative polls. Both candidates, when named, would tank the Conservative vote in Scotland. And boost both Labour and the Liberal Democrats here, with a non insignificant number switching from the SNP to Labour. So the domino effect would ironically cost the SNP a few seats, on an already lacklustre performance. Then we had the debates, which I did not watch, just read about in The Guardian. And on Conservative Home, for a fair and balanced view. Of course you can also rely on YouGov to try and feel the pulse of the Conservative grassroots base, or what's left of it after their darling Penny Mordor was kicked out of the Villa. Their survey of the faithful's reactions to the first debate on 25 July, is quite interesting in many ways. YouGov asked their panel which of the contenders had best exhibited some personal qualities, and which had been the most convincing on a number of key issues.

There is obviously little logic in these answers. Liz Truss gets better ratings on all character traits and policy issues, yet Rishi Sunak ends up as the most Prime Ministerial, whatever that actually means. Go figure. It gets even better if you add an Opinium poll to the broth, that was also conducted hot on the heels of the first debate. The general population were split on whom the Conservatives should choose as their next leader, with 43% going to Sunak and 41% to Truss. Labour voters picked Sunak 45-35, and Liberal Democrat voters also picked him 57-22, possibly because of polls suggesting he would be marginally easier to beat at a general election. But Conservative voters picked Truss 52-39, and most significantly Reform UK voters also picked her by a stronger 55-24. Which is quite ironic when you remember that Truss was an active Remainer in 2016, something Rishi Sunak will never let you and her forget. But fresh converts always make the best zealots, don't they? And it's fine with Liz as long as her target audience buys it.

The opinion of ten thousand men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.

(Marcus Aurelius)

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again.

But already it was impossible to say which was which.

(George Orwell)

While the two Conservative Big Dog wannabes were busy fossicking in each other's mullock, Redfield & Wilton tested their credibility with their panel. The game was to name the one who, at face value, looked the most able to manage, tackle, deal with,... a number of prominent issues of the day. Now we know a third of Brits don't trust either of them. If you add the usual share of Great Undecideds, less that half of the electorate credit either with any sort of competence, and Liz's lead over Rishi isn't even massive. The Conservative brand as a whole has obviously been devalued by having three 'worst Prime Minister in history' in a row, and the public are more resigned than enthusiastic about having a fourth one soon. The only upside is that, if sanity prevails at the next election, Truss will last less at Number Ten than Cameron, May and Johnson. Odds are her slot will be somewhere between Alec Douglas-Home and Anthony Eden. But of course you can still do a lot of damage on such a short lifespan.

The poll included crosstabs with the panelists' voting intentions at the next general election, so we also have the vision of the core Conservative electorate here, the ones Rishi and Liz are supposed to seduce. The most obvious difference with the general population's verdict is an overall shift from 'neither' to Liz Truss. I guess a lot or grassroots Tories love Liz because her PR staff relentlessly sell her as the 'Johnson continuity candidate'. Which is undoubtedly accurate if the definition includes a complete disregard for truth, shifting sincerely-held beliefs that amount to no belief at all, incessant references to a fantasy version of a historical role model (Churchill for him, Thatcher for her), bragging about imaginary achievements, running away from Andrew Neil, and a proven ability to flub their prepared remarks even when reading from a prompter. But, quite appallingly, this seems to be the recipe for success with the current Conservative base.

Quite damningly, Rishi Sunak's ratings with Conservative voters are pretty much the same as with the public at large, as the poll has a margin of error of 2.5%, and even 4.2% for the Conservative subsample. But, even with these caveats, Sunak has definitely not helped his cause with some of his recent statements. Even his most dedicated supporters must have choked on their tea, or their pink gin, when they heard him say that he is the most Northern of the candidates. Surely someone should tell Rishi that having been parachuted from the City of London to a safe Yorkshire seat does not make him Northern by any definition. Just like attending primary school in Paisley does not make Liz Truss Scottish. No matter what, the long streak of hustings promise to be a shambolic bloodbath, which is probably why the usually less cautious Conservative Home declined to support either of the contenders, confident in the certainty that anyone who wins the shitshow will also have lost the next election. Or not, if Owen Jones has anything to say about it. Or Keir Starmer, for that matter, but that's another chapter of the story.

If we remove mental illnesses from NHS treatment then we will have more capacity for real illnesses.

(Rishi Sunak)

Who is the third who walks always beside you?

When I count, there are only you and I together

But when I look ahead up the white road

There is always another one walking beside you

(T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land, 1922)

When you look back a few years, there was massive irony in Theresa May promising a 'strong and stable government', and now we have a perpetual change of Prime Ministers, who will leave a trace in history only because of their failures. The problem I have with this contest is that Rishi Sunak is so stuck up his own arse that, if he was chocolate, he would eat himself. And praise for Liz Truss, no matter how well-intentioned, always sounds like clapping a bedwetter for their first dry night, as you are never sure she's aware of how many beans make five. And I must confess that Kate McCann fainting during the second debate didn't even feel like the weirdest moment of the whole farce. Meanwhile the pollsters are still devoting a bit of energy to it, though surprisingly less since the final MPs' vote. In polls fielded after Recess Day, Liz Truss emerges as the clear favourite of the Conservative hoi polloi, especially after Rishi Sunak's 'Robin Hood In Reverse' video probably cost him votes in Northern England, where the Conservatives' soundbites were all about hopes of levelling up. Notwithstanding, there is definitely a whiff of a self-fulfilling prophecy about the whole process. I'm not even convinced that the Conservative grassroots genuinely believe that Liz Truss can be the one leading them to another election victory, but she's pretty much all they have left, isn't she?

The most worrying thought, after such a reflux of stultiloquent codswallop, is that one of them is genuinely one otter's toenail away from Number Ten, and their Cabinet will be just another gallimaufry of gingambobs. Of course the likely winner is, at time of broadcasting, the one with the brain of a senile turbot, who will look as out of place at the Despatch Box as a corgi in a coalmine. But it would be abhorrently misogynistic to name names, wouldn't it? Liz's Great Matter, as soon as the results are announced on the 5th of September, will be to find enough MPs willing to clap her from the frontbench at her first PMQs on the 7th. That shouldn't be too hard, as the perks of a Cabinet position massively outweigh all principles and reservations. And YouGov have conveniently done Liz's homework for her already, with a poll of their select Conservative-Party-members-only panel. Interestingly, only a wee majority want to see Boris Johnson's back while the door bumps his arse on his way out, and Liz's supporters even want him to stay on, presumably as her quockerwodger. But of course there's more to the full picture than meets the eye.

Admittedly, this midsummer's nightmare team looks more like a turkey than a goat, but that's all they have left on the shelves. Ben Wallace and Kemi Badenoch emerge as the massive darlings of the Conservative base here. Battling Ben has done his best to please everybody, including a belated ballistic strike on Rishi, once it had become clear that Liz's victory was no longer in doubt. Keeping Ben in charge of the MoD is thusly the just reward for his lack of courage and fighting spirit. Kemi has managed to make herself dear to Conservative hearts by her strong stance in the multiple-warhead culture wars of late. She definitely deserves a Ministry for the Cancellation of Cancel Culture, or a Ministry for the Awakening from the Woke, or it might be the Ministry of Silly Wokes to cover all bases. There also some interesting rifts in there, which don't always show in the overall results. Sunak's supporters want Javid, Gove and Hunt in but Truss's supporters want them out. In the opposite corner of the compass, Truss's supporters want Dorries and Rees-Mogg in and Sunak's supporters want them out. Surely both will make it in the end, as Liz desperately needs somebody stupider and somebody more repellent than herself in the Cabinet, to make herself look good by comparison.

Why bother about truth when you can go with emotion?

(James Steel, Law And Order UK: Duty Of Care, 2010)

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.

(Chinese proverb)

During the Conservative unisex mud-wrestling match, Deltapoll had the brilliant idea to ask their panel to identify what makes somebody the ideal Prime Minister, on a number of criteria they had to rank from 'very important' to 'not at all important'. Deltapoll listed thirteen different items of varying relevance which broadly fall into two categories, 'who they are' and 'what they are'. The Who part is pretty much an assessment of the persistence, if any, of the historic 'male white British hetero-normative' profile that fits pretty much all Prime Ministers since Dog domesticated Man. Aye, even Thatcher and May. While the What part is more focused on political traits. Deltapoll offered crosstabs with current voting intentions, which I used to extract the opinions of Conservative voters, as they still are the tribe in charge. For now. And it's certainly interesting to know if they really differ significantly from the average Brit in that kind of introspective survey. First, here's what the Who part says.

The first lesson here is that Conservative voters are not that different from the rest of us. A wee smitch more conservative, but what the fuck did you expect? But not massively reactionary, uninclusive or diverse-averse as you might have thought from watching the deranged bots on Twitter. Or Lozza Fox, Tom Harwood and Darren Grimes. Of course, they're biased towards a Christian white heterosexual, but not by a massive amount that would scream bigotry. And I'm quite sure you can easily find Northern working-class Labour voters who lean even more heavily in that direction. Even Scots, for that matter. Then there is quite a consensus that the classic 'white Christian married man with kids' profile, like Tony Blair or David Cameron, is not that important. There is also a strong majority in favour of having a Prime Minister who was born on British soil, which has a lot of irony in it, as you might have already guessed. The first not 'natural born' PM was Andrew Bonar Law, but you could argue that he actually was, as Canada pretty much counted as British soil in 1858. And he didn't leave much of trace in history anyway. The second one was of course... drum roll... Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. It's quite amusing to see Conservative voters supporting something that would have excluded their latest Big Dog, but never mind. Now let's see the What that the Deltapoll panel think makes the ideal Prime Minister.

Of course, he or she has to be honest and strong. We wouldn't want a lying waffler at Number Ten, would we? Not that we ever had one... err... forget that. Quite counter-intuitively, neither the general population nor the Conservative base are really fond of University graduates, even if that's pretty much all the various parties have to offer, and I don't see it changing any time soon. After all, even Hugh Grant is an Oxford 2:1. Interestingly, Conservative voters are more accepting of professional politicians with little experience of the real world that the average Brit. Of course, you have to wonder in which way his prior jobs outside politics and experience in Cabinet made Boris a better Prime Minister, or not, but that question is not mine to answer. Finally, the next First Minister of England absolutely has to be a Leaver, says the Conservative base who are ready to elect one who was an ardent Remainer. But she has repented, so all is forgiven. The general population are far less convinced that it matters, which is something Keir Starmer might want to factor in, if he ever listened to the voice of the people. One can dream.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, not even if I have said it,

unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

(The Buddha)

The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born.

Now is the time of monsters.

(Antonio Gramsci)

As you might expect after more than five months of an indecisive war, there is still talk of an alleged 'Ukraine fatigue' in the UK, which I already explored in an earlier article. We are even facing some defeatist editorialising from the self-proclaimed 'progressive' punditariat turned Lord Haw-Haw 2.0. There is a strong whiff of a self-fulfilling prophecy in this; claiming that sanctions don't work can only weaken support for them, and in turn strengthen Putin's dictatorship. This is typical circular reasoning by the metropolitan pontificatariat, who were never fully supportive of Ukraine in the first place because, ye ken, this is all Western neo-imperialism. As if Putin's neo-Soviet imperialism wasn't even worse, especially when it involves a de facto colonisation of some African countries, including numerous atrocities committed by the Kremlin-funded neo-Nazi mercenaries of the Wagner Group. In the meanwhile, YouGov continue to survey the British public's stance on Ukraine. Unfortunately, their latest update is more than a month old, but that's all we have for now. First the level of support to different types of action against Russia.

Support to the principle of action against Russia remains high, except on the two items that would imply direct British involvement in the war. Which is quite reassuring, and has been ruled out by all political parties anyway. Overall support remains just as strong as it was in the first month of the Russian invasion, and there is no sign of a significant swing towards opposing these actions. Which does not mean the supporters of Ukraine should be complacent and fall asleep at the keyboard. Odds are the war will be long, quite possibly into 2023, and the UK government must not be allowed to weaken their stance. The deal on cereal exports, sponsored by the United Nations and Turkey, is a first step in the right direction. But it doesn't mean peace is in sight or that the Born Again Soviet Union will not renege on their commitments. They always do when they sense weakness on our side. So we must stay firm and determined, and encourage our leaders to never give in.

The only item for which support has decreased, though remaining a massive majority, is the supply of weaponry to Ukraine. You hear some, usually from the Putin-apologist left, telling you that it only lengthens the war. Which is true, but they never tell you what the 'shorter war' alternative implies, which we have already seen in Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia. Submission to the New Soviet Order, ethnic and ideological cleansing, mass deportations to Russia, abduction of children to boost Russia's weak demography, forced Russification, rape, torture and mass murder... Need more gory details to open your eyes to the reality of Putin's Born Again Soviet Union? Or they question the amounts spent on weaponry and military supplies to Ukraine, which would be better spent curing hardships at home. Which has the ring of common sense until you realise the same people never question how much the government has spent on the Commonwealth Games, which is half of what was spent on military aid to Ukraine. Reframe your priorities, mates! So it is good news that British public opinion is globally not weakening in its support for the principle of strong actions against Russia. Which should encourage politicians to not relent in their efforts to put pressure on Putin's dictatorship, But it is of course not the full picture, unfortunately.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate.

And I can picture us attacking that world because they’d never expect it.

(Jack Handy)

The man who fears no truth has nothing to fear from lies.

(Thomas Jefferson)

It was always a self-evident truth that sanctions against Russia would have a boomerang effect, and generate some hardships at home. Even if the UK is far less dependent on Russian oil and gas than continental Europe, as they still have Scotland. But there is a classic domino effect which combines Putin's blackmail using energy supply and prices, disagreements between and within European countries about the right strategy, and the unwillingness of alternate providers to meet demand. There is also a political issue here, as the UK government is totally unwilling to put pressure on Ofgem to stop energy prices skyrocketing. YouGov's polling, when they recalibrate the support for sanctions against Russia with a mention of the consequences, clearly shows the impact of this situation: a significant drop in support, far below the approval for the principle of sanctions. This is sad but not really surprising, I will even say that it was predictable. I've just changed the chart from multi-coloured bars to single lines showing the total of 'strongly support' and 'somewhat support' for the four options surveyed by YouGov, to make it more instantly striking.

As I said earlier, you can't and shouldn't blame and shame people for this decrease in their support for sanctions. This is happening in the middle of the most serious cost-of-living crisis in living memory, and part of it is the result of the increase in energy prices. Arguing that the war in Ukraine is only partly responsible for it is demonstrably true, but also irrelevant to the people who suffer the most from it. Arguing that energy companies bagging huge profits, and massive pay hikes for their top managers, is also a major part of the problem is likely to fall on deaf ears too, and quite rightly so as both the Conservative government and the Labour 'opposition' are unwilling to do anything about it. So don't expect me to patronisingly middleclassplain to the working class why they should agree to more sacrifices to support Ukraine. Some Labour frontbencher will certainly do that better than me, and he might even believe it. What is even more impressive than the raw data on the level of support is the net support, as in (support minus oppose). And here we're definitely in massively negative territory, after significant positives in the first month of the war.

I still think that continued and unwavering support for Ukraine is essential right now, as there are conclusive signs of combat-weariness among the Russian military, resulting in successful Ukrainian counter-attacks in the South of the country. And also evidence, from various sources, that discontent against the war of aggression is rising in Russia, despite their government's propaganda, censorship and repression. So now is not the time to let it go, and let down the Ukrainians who have showed a magnificent spirit of survival in the face of criminal aggression. But it's up to the government to find the most efficient ways to do it without alienating public opinion. Up to the opposition to support the government over it, or propose demonstrably better options. Up to the media to give up on shallow populist rhetoric and stop offering cheap soapboxes to the Putin-enablers in their ranks. Not the easiest task for any of them, but Ukraine deserves it. And needs it. Now.

It is easy to look back at past generations and say,

“How could you not have known?”, but of course none of them knew.

(Stephen Fry)

War is God’s way of teaching Americans geography.

(Ambrose Bierce)

YouGov conducted the same poll in Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Poland, as an assessment of different attitudes in countries which have shown different approaches to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, despite claims of European 'unity'. It is not one international poll with tiny national subsamples, it is a full poll in each country resulting in one international megapoll. The questions are the same ones used in British polls since the day before the invasion, so offer direct comparison between the attitudes of the British public and other countries with a different historical background and political culture. Here's what you get on the first batch about the principle of strong action against the criminal Russian state. For obvious reasons, the Polish panel were not asked the question about sending troops to frontline NATO countries.

There is a lot to be learned form that polling, as the results are not always what you'd expect them to be. The German, French and Italian panels are far less sanguine about the whole thing than the British panel, while the Spanish and Polish panels hold pretty similar views. This reflects a general atmosphere in each country, fueled by their governments' attitudes and the stance taken by local political parties. Germany has a long backlog of ambiguity, from the Realpolitik of the 1970s to the so-called 'Schröderisation' in the current millennium. Their official stance since 24 February is also far from perfectly clear, with opposing views within the government and some awkward U-turns about assistance to Ukraine and energy policy. Strong support from Poland is quite what you would expect and they are acknowledged in Ukraine as their most reliable ally in the West. Similar levels in Spain are not what I expected, as they don't really have a dog in this fight. But Spain is not dependent on Russian gas, as they have long-term contracts with neighbouring Algeria. Spain has also been a member of NATO for forty years, with membership validated by a referendum in 1986. At the end of June, they have also agreed to increased US Navy presence at their base in Rota. The combination of all this is certainly a major factor in a tougher stance against Russia.

I have left the best, or the worst, for last: France and Italy. Both countries have been criticised by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, sometimes in rather strong terms, for apparent appeasement of Russia. This included France's refusal to call Russian war crimes in occupied Ukraine 'genocide', Emmanuel Macron's ill-advised call to avoid 'humiliating' Russia, and the aborted Italian 'peace plan', which amounted to Ukrainian capitulation to the illegal Anschluss of Crimea and Donbas. Their political landscape also includes parties who have a strong electoral weight, and have been at best ambiguous, or often openly supportive of Putin before the invasion. La France Insoumise and the National Rally in France. Fratelli d'Italia and the Five Star Movement in Italy. This naturally influences public opinion in ways that don't favour strong support to Ukraine. Interestingly, both countries have the exact amount and details of their military supplies to Ukraine covered by local variants of the Official Secrets Act. Though they obviously can't hide what is seen on the frontline, like the French CAESAR self-propelled artillery, which were reportedly the most powerful Ukraine had before the delivery of the American HIMARS systems. But conflict-averse Macron certainly values some discretion about all this, when he is facing a more complicated political situation since the last French elections.

The magnetic North Pole is moving imperceptibly slowly towards Russia.

Along with fashion, democracy and gay rights.

(Sandi Toksvig, QI: North Norse, 2016)

I am more afraid of an army of a hundred sheep led by a lion

than an army of a hundred lions led by a sheep.

(Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord)

YouGov also surveyed their international panels about their level of support for further economic sanctions, when the plausible consequences are also on the table. They found the same kind of patterns as with the first batch of generic questions. Support goes down, pretty much as it does in the UK. Again Poland and Spain are the most supportive, offering similar levels of support as the UK. Germany is close, but a wee smitch more reluctant, probably because of fears of actual energy shortages if Russia retaliates with a full stoppage of gas exports. And again, France and Italy are the less supportive by a rather wide margin. Italy is hugely dependent on foreign oil and gas, most of it coming from Russia. They have a backup source in Algeria, who are reluctant to increase exports to the amounts suggested by the EU, so this might explain a generally less supportive attitude. France is far less dependent on imports of foreign energy, especially from Russia, as they have a massive nuclear electricity production. And also long-term deals with other suppliers for oil and gas. So their lack of enthusiasm is certainly more rooted in politics than practicalities.

The most amazing result here is the French panel being the most reluctant to support sanctions if they result in higher energy prices. I certainly wouldn't want to badmouth the country of my birth, but I will. This is a spoilt-brat reaction, when you think that most of the gas and electricity is delivered there by state-owned companies and the French government has enforced a 4% cap on energy bills' hikes for 2022, very likely to be extended to 2023 in the next budget. Which is like 1/50th of the price hikes under the Ofgem energy price cap in the UK over the same period, and lower than the increase in bulk market prices. There is also a contrast between France and the UK, in the way the people feel about the cost-of-living crisis. In the UK, how people feel about it is pretty consistent with the reality of it, when faced with shortages of imported goods, measly wage increases and 13% inflation. In France, the people's feelings exaggerate the reality of the crisis, as they face no shortages, have more generous state-funded pay packages and a predicted inflation of 'only' 9%. More evidence that France and Britain don't live on the same planet, and it's sometimes hard to decide which one is best.

It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies,

but just as much to stand up to our friends.

(J.K. Rowling)

This version live at the Montreux Jazz Festival, 14 July 2003

We are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and

crippled than ourselves. That is our only certain good and great purpose on Earth.

(Michael Foot)

Fucking hell! It does really happen. Again. Labour's electoral curse is at it again. After a significant streak of good polling, when they enjoyed double-digit leads, the surge has subsided and Labour are back to single-digit leads. The Conservatives, who were threatened with their worst electoral performance since the turn of the century, are back to a solid third of voting intentions. Maybe it has to do with the Little Matter of Keir Starmer sacking a Shadow Minister for speaking on live TV from a picket line. And saying that Sam Tarry deserved it because he had been warned and did it anyway just makes it worse. It clearly sends the message that Labour MPs have no business standing up for the working class, and we fucking mean it, pinkos! It's absolutely flabbergasting that Labour don't get the message that, in the middle of the Tory bar brawl and the cost-of-living debacle, this time is time to up their game, stop triangulating and procrasturbating. Especially when the trends of general election polls are again moving the other way, clear evidence that even your potential voters of two weeks ago are totally disoriented by your shenanigans.

When even the self-appointed flag-bearer of the 'progressive alliance' tells you that you're totally fucking it up, you should admit that the time is now and move your arse to the left. You don't even have to endorse Sam Tarry's idea of 'recalibration', whatever the fuck that means. But you have to concede he has a massive point when he says that rail workers deserve a fairer treatment right now. And a lot of other workers too, whom Britain clapped two years ago and are badly letting down today. Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner should also think twice and reframe their unquestioning submission to the the gender voodoo cult, now that there are multiple signs that the tide is turning. Rosie Duffield being re-selected as the Labour candidate for Canterbury despite an orchestrated internal smear campaign they turned a blind eye to. The Allison Bailey ruling strongly reaffirming that 'gender critical' views are protected by law. The Tavistock Centre being shut down as an ideology-driven scam and health hazard. Some of their own MPs and peers urging them to reconsider the exclusion of the Labour Women's Declaration from their Conference. Stonewall being nailed to the floor for their abhorrent propaganda about 'trans toddlers'... Of course, that was a lot to digest in a very short time, but it makes it all the more urgent for Labour to cut ties once and for all with anything and anyone linked to the gender voodoo business. Your move, mates.

If you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived

of their initiative, I would answer “To hell with them!”. The top is greedy and mean and

will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do.

(Michael Foot)

The Englishman has all the qualities of a poker, except its occasional warmth.

(Daniel O’Connell)

I honestly fail to see the rationale behind Keir Starmer's logic that Labour must lurch to the right because the Conservative do. Nobody has ever been able to show me conclusive evidence that this is a win-win strategy. For example, Keir's position that Labour must be an election winner, rather than a party of protest, will convince only the opportunistic Blairites still barnacled to frontbench positions. Examples abound that Labour can be both. Just ask Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson or James Callaghan. Starmer's underlying premise, that Labour can succeed only if he outblairs Blair, only proves that he has been listening too much to Peter Mandelson, while Labour's grassroots were listening to Mick Lynch and thinking "Fucking hell, that bloke's right, mates!". A lot of voters probably felt the same, and were not impressed by Starmer's stance on strikes. There is ample evidence, both in polls and 'man on the street' interviews on TV, that a lot of Brits support the strikers despite the massive inconvenience, because they have this feeling of being 'on strike by proxy'. And their dissatisfaction at Labour shows in today's Poll'O'Polls. Here we have the last four polls, conducted by BMG Research, YouGov and Redfield & Wilton (twice) between the 26th of July and the 4th of August. Super-sample size is 6,915 with a theoretical margin of error of 1.2%.

Labour have lost quite a lot of ground since my last projection, when they led by almost 11%. And even more so on their peak, which was a 15% lead the day after Boris Johnson's pre-resignation. This is not the first time this happens and, as usual, they only have themselves and their leadership to blame. Recent events have also been a test of Starmer's willingness to stand his ground in the presence of internal opposition, or even just some frontbenchers' reluctance to follow orders and distance themselves from unions and strikers. And it's not an unqualified success, as he left everybody with the distinct impression that there are multiple standards, depending on whom does something and what they actually do. Or that he simply backed down under pressure, which is even worse for a Prime Minister in waiting. But, according to YouGov's latest omnibus Political Trackers, only 24% of Brits think he is, and only 27% believe Labour are ready for government. And you and I can agree there is no mystery as to the reasons why.

The most dangerous thing in the world is to try to leap a chasm in two jumps.

(David Lloyd George)

The people who cast the votes decide nothing.

The people who count the votes decide everything.

(Josef Stalin)

My updated seat projection, including the impact of polls' regional crosstabs, predicts that Labour would bag 27 fewer seats than two weeks ago, while the Liberal Democrats would bag 4 more. So there is no outright majority for Labour alone this time. But a Lab-Lib Pact, augmented by the SDLP and the Alliance Party, would enjoy a 43-seat majority. Enough to pass legislation without help from the SNP, and also enough to not fear hypothetical by-elections losses. Keir Starmer would certainly find this situation acceptable as it would allow him to exercise his skills for compromise, but surely many on his left would not be happy campers after recent polls gave them much higher hopes for the next election. It's Labour's challenge now to prove that they can get back on the horse, again, and do more. More seats than that, that is. If they are delusional enough to believe that there is no way they can lose the next election, they should brace themselves for a nasty surprise. 1992 déjà vu all over again, and that's the long and thick of it.

I guess that a lot of people, including Labour MPs and spads, want the whole current farce to be over, and a snap election called ahead of schedule. As you can see above, this would certainly be in Labour's best interests right now, as gerrymandering would leave the Lab-Lib Pact with a smaller 21-seat majority. Which is the same a John Major's in 1992, and he lost it after eight defeats in by-elections and four defections to other parties. A similar pattern is obviously not bound to exactly repeat itself, but starting with such a small majority would not be a good omen. Then Labour have no choice but to leave it to the Conservatives to decide when the next election will be called. Rishi Sunak, if he magically manages to beat the odds, would probably be more willing to gamble a personal mandate on a snap election before the boundary changes are enforced. Liz Truss has all the reasons to be risk-averse here. But as Harold McMillan reportedly remarked once, 'events, my dear boy, events'. Or, as Winston Churchill had put it much earlier and less succinctly, 'the only opposition we have to face is the opposition of events'. An Autumn Of Discontent, with Poll-Tax-like social unrest, could force Truss into a snap election she does not want, and then all bets are off.

When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.

But when you listen, you may learn something new.

(Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama)

This version live at the McNichols Sports Arena, Denver, Colorado, 9 May 1991

The Vikings, when they invaded Orkney, found there was virtually nowhere to live,

so they came back with supplies on longboats for prefab little houses.

And that’s presumably where Vikings got the idea of flat-pack furniture.

(Stephen Fry, QI: Mix And Match, 2016)

Once in the distant past, I compared Scotland under SNP rule to East Germany, which really angered MP-for-life Pete Wishart. But the more I think of it, the more the comparison makes sense. Did you know that the Socialist Unity Party, as the East German Communist Party was called, allowed other parties to exist, stand at elections and be represented in Parliament? All they had to do was agree to be part of an umbrella organisation led by the Communists, be subservient to them and their ideology, and only do what they were told to do. Any similarity with a bogus 'code of conduct', dictated by a handful of poundshop activists from a backroom in Aberdeen, is definitely not a coincidence, or is it? In the meanwhile, the trends of general election polling are still mediocre for the SNP, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, but improving for Labour. Which again supports the idea that a number of Scots, including Independence supporters, have sorted out their priorities, and consider that boosting Labour to kick out the Tories in Westminster matters more than boosting the SNP in an uncertain 'plebiscite election'.

There's definitely something weird going on within New SNP. They will obviously do all they can to unseat Neale Hanvey and Kenny MacAskill, fully aware that splitting the pro-independence vote will hand both seats to Labour on a silver platter. The deranged gender voodoo maniacs in the SNP's NEC will also certainly try and deselect Joanna Cherry, and possibly succeed this time, even if it means giving the Conservatives better odds of gaining the seat. Such is the level of blind devotion to the Suryong, and submission to a toxic ideology that is quickly being discredited and repealed everywhere else in the UK. The current rolling average of voting intentions, as deduced from my current Poll'O'Polls, and the seat projection you can infer from it, confirm that the SNP and the Conservatives should brace themselves for a wee tectonicish shift as Labour climb back to second place.

Under current polling, and factoring in known regional differentials, the Conservatives would hold Banff and Buchan and the three Border seats. The Liberal Democrats would hold just Orkney and Shetland and Edinburgh West. But Labour would emerge the clear winner with six gains from the SNP: Airdrie and Shotts, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, East Lothian, Inverclyde, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Motherwell and Wishaw. These seats, and their perennial Edinburgh South, may some day be Labour's lucky seven if, as is quite likely, they're the ones pushing them just past the majority hurdle. Labour are also predicted within a rat's ass's hair of gaining Glasgow North East, Midlothian, Rutherglen and Hamilton West. While the Conservatives are still breathing down the SNP's neck in Moray and West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. So there might not be a celebration at Bute House on Election Night after all. Then I guess that it's alright, Jock, as long as the Truest Believers John Nicolson, Alyn Smith and Pete Wishart hold their seats.

Somebody I know was doing a Burns Supper abroad and they had sent

the Address over to Germany. It was translated into German, but the Germans

translated it back and the line, instead of “Great chieftain o’ the puddin-race”,

was translated back as “Mighty Führer of the sausage people”.

(Fred MacAulay, QI: Highs And Lows, 2010)

Game Of Thrones is set in Westeros, a lawless country full of poverty, violence and dragons.

Like an upmarket Wales.

(Richard Osman, 8 Out Of 10 Cats, 2019)

The divinities of Wales are still kind to the Labour Party this time. The predicted voting intentions are quite similar to the 2005 benchmark for both Plaid Cymru and Labour, when you factor in that the People's Voice voters were pretty much Labour voters in Blaenau Gwent back then. The Conservatives still maintain a high profile in many parts of rural Wales, though not enough to match their unexpected 2019 result. But, in Wales just as in the North of England, polls suggest that Labour will succeed in rebuilding most of the Red Wall. The return of the Welsh Liberal Democrats is not as powerful this time as it was in my previous prediction, bringing them pretty much back where they were in the 1950s and 1960s. Which does not mean that a stronger comeback should be ruled out. Lots can happen before the next general election, including the LibDems feeling like a safe fallback option for both 'soft Lab' and 'soft Con' voters, in Wales just as plausibly as in England.

On these numbers, Plaid Cymru would gain Ynys Môn from the Conservatives. Factoring in the regional differentials, Labour would gain Bridgend, Clwyd South, Delyn, Monmouth, Vale of Clwyd and Vale of Glamorgan. This time, Brecon and Radnorshire would be a near miss for the Liberal Democrats, and stay with the Conservatives. This would be far from Labour's best result ever, as they bagged 34 seats in 1997 and 2001, but it would be just one seat shy of the Corbyn Surge result of 2017. So this would be a good result for Keir Starmer, as he is probably not the greatest motivator for Welsh Labour voters, who are accustomed to a more left-leaning approach from Mark Drakeford. There are no major trophies for Labour on the Conservative fatality list here. Just former disgraced Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns. But you also have two weird backbenchers who have put themselves under the spotlight too for all the wrong reasons: Jamie Wallis in Bridgend, and David Davies in Monmouth.

Carmarthen is the oldest town in Wales, its TK Maxx dates back to medieval times.

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

One of the intriguing things about English Common Law is it’s a mess.

And the further you go back, the bigger the mess.

(Bernadette Sullivan QC, Midsomer Murders: A Worm In The Bud, 2002)

When looking at predictions and projections for the next election, it's entertaining to look at what happened in the distant, or not too distant, past from 1945 to 2019. Just in the three statistical meta-regions, because that's where most of the actions take place. These three big blocks that split England in more ways than one: North, Midlands and South. Outwith London as Jack The Ripper's city has a life of its own, which does not always fit the general patterns. Of course, not the whole shebang, just a few selected dates that might be meaningful. 2017 and 2019 as they allow a comparison between Keir Starmer's performance and the Corbyn Age, which does not always turn to Keir's advantage. 2005 as it is, as always, the benchmark for a satisfying, if not great, result for New New Labour. And finally 1945 and 1997 as the two big Labour landslides in recorded history, and Starmer's dream scenarios. Time flies, and so do voting patterns across England, and not always the way you expect them too. So let's see first how vote shares have evolved. I've used 'Liberal Democrats' all along for simplification, but of course that was the Liberal Party of prehistoric times in 1945.

There is something already quite interesting in the voting intentions for the next election, which should even be alarming for Labour HQ. When the overall level of the Labour goes down, as it has done over the last two weeks, the regions where it's most visible are the historic heartlands in the North and Midlands. But the cursor barely moves in the South. Maybe Keir Starmer's spads should start exploring why it looks easier for New New Labour to gain middle-class voters in historically Conservative regions, than to gain back Labour voters in working class neighbourhoods, who deserted them barely three years ago. Or they shouldn't, because it would topple their whole ideological construct, and Peter Mandelson would be offended. Of course, the popular vote in not the beginning and end of the story on First Past The Post and, more often than not, the numbers of seats for each party reveal some oddities. But, in the end, they're what determines what are strongholds, heartlands and wastelands. Not just by showing how many seats you can get at any given time, but also how many you can hold through the ages, even by the skin of your teeth.

Now Starmer is predicted to do just one seat better than the Corbyn Surge in the North. But probably only because both the LibDem and Reform UK votes have unexpectedly increased there, hurting the Conservatives in some variant of pincer movement. He is predicted to do better than Corbyn in the Midlands, but not by really much. And the prediction still remains far below the more satisfying level reached in 2005. And, of course, the more shocking results come from the South. Stunning but not at all implausible, as it is pretty much a return to 1997, in a region that was massively Corbyn-averse. But this is just the first step, the macro vision, and lots of interesting things are also happening at the micro level. So now we can fly from here, and dedicate each region a close-up.

Dark times lie ahead of us and there will be a time

when we must choose between what is easy and what is right.

(Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, 2000)

Is there anything more Northern than handing your dad a jar of pickled onions?

(Lucy Beaumont, Meet The Richardsons, 2021)

The current batch of polls hint that there is a sizeable chunk of the electorate in the North of England, who still believe in the Conservatives' wondrous stories about sunlit uplands and levelling up. There are some odd regional twists here too, with Labour losing votes on 2019 in the North West, almost coming back to their 2017 level in the North East, and ending up halfway between 2017 and 2019 in Yorkshire and the Humber. Quite a letdown after the flamboyant Reconquista Del Norte we witnessed in many earlier projections, including just two weeks ago. There is certainly an element of doubt at work here, about the relevance of Keir Starmer's discourse to their every day life. Which is also passing judgment on the circular way this discourse is shaped: inspired by the output of focus groups and then formatted to elicit positive responses from the same focus groups. This might have worked for Tony Blair, but the world has changed in 25 years, and so have people. Clearly many in Britain's most deprived areas feel they deserve better than ideological constructs coming at them from the Metropolis. Another challenge for New New Labour.

There is also definitely a component of serendipity at work here for Labour, when you switch the focus from voting intentions to the projected number of seats. Despite being below their 2017 vote share in all three regions, they would still manage to bag one more seat overall. The high predicted vote share for Reform UK certainly helps Labour this time, especially in the North East. There might be a polling bias here, as the Brexit Party did not field candidates in Conservative seats in 2019, but generic polls assume they would now stand in all constituencies. This mechanically increases their share of the vote, though probably not to the extent seen in the regional crosstabs of the most recent polls. And I also have to conclude that the bulk of these votes is not Labour voters at previous elections failing to return to the mothership, but much more probably Conservative voters of 2019 deserting their new home for the more radical Europhobic faction.

Labour are expected to recoup their losses in Greater Manchester, but still struggle in the rural parts of the North West. There is the opposite trend in the North East, where they would match their best results at historic landslide elections. Then there would be an element of karmatic irony in Yorkshire, with Sheffield Hallam switching back to the Liberal Democrats, the one and only loss for Labour in this projection. But the ghost of Nick Clegg no longer haunts the woods there, and the LibDems can only benefit from their strong showing at Council elections in this part of the city over the last four years. Quite interestingly too, Labour's projected performance at the next election is, in proportion to the overall number of seats in each region, strikingly similar to their 1945 result, more so than to any other election in my comparison sample. History repeats itself in mysterious ways.

When you buy your council house and put two marble lions outside,

You’re either a Traveller or you’ve won the pools.

(Lucy Beaumont, Meet The Richardsons, 2021)

This version live at the Bourse du Travail, Lyon, France, 1 December 2009

What have we left in England, if not our past?

(Lovejoy, Lovejoy: National Wealth, 1991)

As you might expect, the Midlands are merciless for Labour this time, though with a marked contrast between East and West. There is something of a Midlands Curse here. When the Labour vote goes up all across Britain, it does not rise in the same proportion in the Midlands. But when it goes down again overall, then it falls more noticeably there. Of course, the last Conservative 'New Intake' there was twelve years ago, not three as in the North. While the younger plants prove easier to unearth, the older ones prove more resilient. Right now polls predict a mediocre result for Labour in the West Midlands, where their margin of recuperation outwith the urban centres looks fairly limited, not even matching their 2017 result. They are predicted a much more satisfying result in the East Midlands, overturning the Conservative majorities of the Corbyn Age. But still not good enough to totally overcome the incumbency factor, which does benefit the Conservatives there.

On these numbers, Labour would once again bag all the seats in Birmingham, while they had conceded one to the Conservatives in 2019. Otherwise, their gains in the West Midlands would be limited to three areas: Stoke-on-Trent, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton. And they would still fail to regain the complete representation of the two cities, still conceding one seat in each to the Conservatives.

The situation looks better for Labour at face value in the East Midlands, but their are some dark corners nevertheless. Of course they would do better than at both Corbyn Age elections, which were their local nadir, but they would still fall short of the benchmark 2005 result. The most striking example of Labour's waning prospects is in Derbyshire. Two weeks ago, they were spectacularly predicted to bag all of the county's eleven seats, an unprecedented feat even in 1945 and 1997. Now they are predicted to bag only seven, and concede four to the Conservatives. Not even as good as 2005, when they bagged eight out of ten seats on the then-current boundaries.

The public doesn’t know about wasting government money. We’re the experts.

(Sir Humphrey Appleby, Yes Minister: The Economy Drive, 1980)

Satellite navigation in cars, I’ve had that on tour and it’s useless.

You get to Milton Keynes and it just goes “turn left, turn left, turn left…”

(Bill Bailey, QI: Campanology, 2005)

Now brace yourselves for the biggest tectonic shift this week. But just don't be so astonished by what you see in the voting intentions for the South West. It was actually there already two weeks ago on a totally different selection of polls. It's just that I didn't show you the charts then, just the resulting map that, you might remember, had transitioned from dominant blue to tricolour. And it's been in the regional crosstabs of various polls from different pollsters for a long time now. It's just surprising that it happens in the South West much more conspicuously than in the South East and East Anglia, which are pretty much London's Outer Commuter Belt now in the post-lockdown age. And thusly more likely to turn redder as hipsters turn country gentry to reap more benefits off working-from-home, and escape the outrageously extortionist cost-of-living traditions of the Imperial Capital. A lurch to the left is happening in both Eastern Marches anyway, but even more strongly, even if somewhat counter-intuitively, in the nether regions of the West Country.

It's quite amazing to see that, in 1945, East Anglia was Labour heartlands. Back then, Labour was immensely successful in Essex and Hertfordshire, pretty much extensions of London's working class East End. And also in Norfolk, probably due to the growth of intensive agriculture during World War Two, that spawned something like a rural working class. Not for long though, as they lost a shitload of seats as early as 1950, and it has remained pretty much that way since, except for a short period of increased diversity in the early years of Blairism. Then the rest of the South was never really kind for Labour, with a peak of rejection under Corbyn.

On current polling numbers, looking for a Tory MP to the West of Plymouth would be like hollibubbers searching for scollocks around a dumblehole. In an unexpected reversal of electoral history, the South West as a whole would become Labour's success story, amidst a disappointing performance in most other regions of England. There would be quite a long list of fatalities among the Conservative Medium Dogs and Past Dogs down there: Tobias Elwood, Conor Burns, George Eustice, Mel Stride, Johnny Mercer, Robert Buckland, Liam Fox and Jacob Rees-Moog among others losing their seats to Labour. Alex Chalk, Michelle Donelan, James Heappey and some others would be unseated by the Liberal Democrats. Cases like these only illustrate that, in this ever changing world in which we're living, there is no such thing as a safe seat. The South West alone would account for 35 of the 111 seats lost by the Conservatives in England, no mean feat considering the region's deep blue background. The Liberal Democrats would have their own biggest trophy in the South East, Dominic Raab unseated in the marginal seat of Esher and Walton.

On the Isle of Wight, all the clocks stopped in 1952.

And all the shops are the same as they were then.

(Alan Davies, QI: Campanology, 2005)

This version live at Glastonbury Festival, 29 June 2003

The greatest sewage system of the 19th century was in London, thousands of miles of drainage.

It was the biggest civil engineering job ever undertaken by this man, Joseph Bazalgette, whose

great-great-grandson now runs Endemol and is busy pumping shit back into our homes.

(Stephen Fry, QI: Drinks, 2006)

Contrary to what you might expect, with the Imperial Capital being Keir Starmer's home turf and studded with Labour's past and rising stars, the Labour vote in London is silently falling way below what Jeremy Corbyn achieved, and nobody has noticed. They're only saved by the Conservative vote falling even faster and deeper, and the Liberal Democrats surging in the Southwestern Marches of the Capital. Elsewhere, the Green vote is biting chunks off Labour, especially in the Inner Hipstershire boroughs. The current prediction of voting intentions shows a nice balance between shifts within the right and shifts within the left. While the combined forces of both blocs remain roughly the same as in 2019, the Conservatives are hurt more than Labour by the shifts. The surprising element is again the increase of Reform UK's vote share, which is not what you would expect in 'progressive' and Europhile London. Just as if there was a hardline right faction alive and kicking in London, who consider that the post-Boris hopefuls haven't lurched enough to the right.

Fortunately for Labour, London has enough safely red seats to turn a loss of votes into a gain of seats, as long as the Conservatives also leak votes from all sides. Here they would unseat Iain Duncan Smith in Chingford and Woodford Green, Theresa Villiers in Chipping Barnet, and Felicity Buchan in Kensington. Just fancy Wills and Kate, and all the other regal scroungers who use Kensington Palace as their official address, being represented by a Labour MP. Which would actually be the second time in history, as Labour already held the seat for two years between the Corbyn Surge and the Corbyn Debacle. The Liberal Democrats are predicted to unseat former Health Minister Stephen Hammond in Wimbledon, a seat they oddly never held before. But the LibDems made significant gains there at the last Council elections, snatching all six seats from Wimbledon's two wards from the Conservatives. They would also reclaim Carshalton and Wallington, a seat they held from 1997 to 2019 and which was their only London seat after their 2015 post-Coalition meltdown, from Conservative newcomer Elliot Colburn.

In 1819, a German travel guide to London said “the kiss of friendship between men

is strictly avoided in Britain, as inclining towards the sin regarded in England as

more abominable than any other”. Queue-barging, presumably. That or sodomy.

(Stephen Fry, QI: Fingers And Fumbs, 2009)

It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them.

(Franklin Delano Roosevelt)

Twixt quintessentially essential polling, like our memories of the 2012 Olympics (spoiler: none) or what caused the queues at Dover (spoiler: Boris Johnson), YouGov have surveyed their panel about climate change, and more to the point, what they can and will do to tackle it. Or what they would individually do that, raised to the power of 67 million, would marginally shorten the odds of us surviving the Sixth Extinction. Some of the items YouGov selected sound just plain common-sensical, and the only surprise is that more people aren't doing it already. Some others will sound more 'controversial', as all things that require you to think outside the hive mind are called today, or even 'offensive', but you will soon realise that there is some wisdom in those too. There is quiet a lot of support for what you might call the 'softer' options, small individual gestures or relying on what already exists, rather than for things that would require more 'systemic global change', if you get the gist of the jargon. Anyway, every little thing matters, and I'd be happy with this being just a start towards more awareness and calls to stronger government action.

It's interesting to see that veganism is not a lost cause, with 7% of Brits already doing it and 13% considering it. The 'lighter' option, cutting down your intake of meat and dairy products to two or three meals a day, has the support of a majority. Which is fine by me. If you don't do it in the name of the animals, do it in the name of the planet, and step by step you will eliminate animal products completely. It is also interesting to see that large numbers of Brits are ready to reduce or offset their carbon footprints, either by small everyday gestures or by more significant ones that can trigger industry-wide change towards sustainability. Quite cleverly, YouGov then surveyed their panel of Conservative Party members about which measures they would support to tackle the consequences of climate change. And the results are probably not what you would expect from that corner of the compass.

Conservative Party members appear just as environmentally conscious as anyone else, and possibly even a bit more so. They even support stronger standards, which means regulation, a word that is blasphemy for Liz and Rishi. When you see the overall result, you might think that it's too good to be true, and that Little England Tories are, as usual, dragging the rest of the panel backwards. Except they're not. They're even more supportive of new wind farms and solar parks than average. Probably being in the hottest and driest part of the UK during recent heatwaves, or bearing the brunt of floods year after year, strengthens their realisation that we are close to the edge of annihilation, and must act on it. The Scottish respondents are actually the ones dragging the results down, sometimes by quite a wide margin. Most significantly, they are the ones most reluctant towards new wind farms. Is that something like "we've done enough already" translating into "not in my backyard... again!"? I guess that's the likeliest explanation, which goes quite against the usual Scottish Tories' proclamations of undying love for the Union. Not that anyone really cares...

You know that all the rats in England all face the same direction at any given time?

They’ve spent so long in lead-lined sewage pipes that they move with the curvature of the Earth.

(Alan Davies, QI: Campanology, 2005)

The United States are also the country where nine out of ten

high school graduates think Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife, so…

(Sandi Toksvig, QI: Maths, 2015)

Let's end again with a detour to the Thirteen Colonies and associates, to see how the Donkeys' and Elephants' prospects for the incoming midterms have evolved. I have factored in only nationwide 'generic' polls. A number of district-level polls were conducted before the 2020 elections, and most of them proved wrong. The seat projection using only uniform national swing, based on the generic polls only, proved to be closer to the actual results than projections tweaked by individual district-level polling. So I won't include such polls this time. Recent events, such as some Russian setbacks in the war in Ukraine, the continuing revelations about the January Six Coup Attempt, the 'neutralisation' of Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Nancy Pelosi's much publicised visit to Taiwan, have certainly influenced the electorate. The trend of polls still favours the Republicans, but the most recent batch shows the Democrats gaining back some ground. The referendum in Kansas, which upheld abortion rights in a strongly Republican state, will certainly also strengthen the Democrats' resolve to fight even the most uphill battles to the end.

As usual, there have been multiple controversies and court challenges during the current round of redistricting that followed the 2020 census. At the time of writing, new boundaries have been taken to court in 14 states, sometimes with several lawsuits in the same state. Some lawsuits claim racial gerrymandering, which has become something of a hot topic again since the United States Supreme Court struck down the most meaningful section of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965. Others are based on political gerrymandering, which is oddly easier to prove and get overturned, despite generations of it being common practice in both Democratic and Republican states. So far, these actions have resulted in 'neutral' redistricting, with new districts drawn by the courts, in seven states. Only three such cases had been recorded after the previous iteration of this decennial ritual, that followed the 2010 census. The rolling average of polls now says that neither party would bag a majority of the popular vote, with a far less dramatic impact on Democratic seats than previously anticipated.

Such results would not be a major catastrophe for the Democrats, as many midterms before have seen much more devastating defeats for the White House's party. The Midterms Curse is common popular wisdom in the United States, and for once is supported by historical evidence. The last time a President won the midterms was 2002 in the middle of George W. Bush's first term. Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Donald Trumps all lost all their midterms. Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson won theirs, but both failed to win a second term in the White House. The last multi-term President to win all of his midterms is Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934, 1938 and 1942, so that's almost prehistory for the American Average Joe. Losing control of the House of Representatives would be an inconvenience for Joe Biden, but it could be less damaging that it was for Clinton or Obama. A narrow Republican victory could even turn to Biden's advantage as it would prove there is no strong mandate for sweeping legislation inspired by the far-right. This could lead to a revival of bipartisanship, something that would suit Biden, as he made a career in the Senate as a broker of compromise, even sometimes against the wishes of his constituents in Delaware.

O say can you see, lovers of liberty, by dawn’s early light

A political catfight with nary an end in sight

(Sally Langston, Scandal: Buckle Up, 2016)

There are other ways to move this country in the right direction.

That do not involve the three square miles around the Washington Mall.

(Sally Langston, Scandal: Put A Ring On It, 2015)

There has been some more polling too for the Senate elections. Which revealed some significant changes, all favouring the Democrats. Right now, no seat is predicted to switch to the Republicans, and there are predicted to switch to the Democrats in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin; which I have highlighted in lighter blue on the map. Ohio and Pennsylvania are open seats as the Republican incumbents have decided to retire. In Wisconsin, Republican incumbent Ron Johnson is probably paying the price for his unquestioning support of Donald Trump after the 2020 presidential election and the infamous January Sixth attempted coup. It is worth bearing in mind too that Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are swing states, and the seats up for election this year were indeed held by Democrats in the not too distant past, in all three cases until 2010, the midterms of Barack Obama's first term.

If this result came true in November, it would be a massive bonus for the Biden administration in one key area: nominations, and especially those to the Supreme Court if any vacancy happens. With the current make-up of the Senate, there is a non-zero probability that a Supreme Court nominee deemed too 'progressive' could be defeated. Two sitting Senators, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, are notoriously reluctant to endorse Biden's 'woke' agenda. Only one of them defecting would be enough to defeat a nomination, a risk that would be eliminated if the Democrats bagged three additional seats. Remember that the Democratic Party is a big-tent party with its center of gravity to the right of Labour's, though they share a lot of Labour's social-liberal leanings. By British standards, the Democrats would cover the ground from Tom Tugendhat to Jon Cruddas, with the occasional outsider calling themselves a 'socialist', and pretty much as far to the left as Clive Lewis. So they have to live with their contradictions, for better or for worse.

There’s nothing….. and then there’s nothing.

(Horatio Caine, CSI Miami: Deadline, 2004)

R.I.P

Peter Banks (15 July 1947 - 7 March 2013)

Chris Squire (4 March 1948 - 27 June 2015)

Alan White (14 June 1949 - 26 May 2022)

Jeremy's Den

07/08/2022

They. Are. A. Disgrace.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Welcome To Their Nightmares