Jeremy's Den: September 2022

We are not the masks we wear. But when we don them, do we not become them?

(Dylan Hunt, Andromeda: Pitiless As The Sun, 2001)

Events, the politicians' greatest enemy, they say.

Plan till you're blue in the face, then things just happen, events take over.

(Francis Urquhart, House Of Cards: To Play The King, 1993)

It was not unexpected, yet it sent a ripple of shockwaves around the world, except perhaps in Ireland, India, South Africa, Kenya, Jamaica,.. Even a lot of those who have no sympathy for England's 19th-century revamping of its medieval institutions fell for it and stopped breathing 'out of respect'. At 18:30 on the 8th of September, Huw Edwards read the official announcement of Queen Elizabeth II's death on the BBC, the first part of the well-rehearsed 'London Bridge' scenario. Which pretty much brought the UK, its government and its Parliament to a grinding halt for ten days of official mourning. It was made worse by the infamous Conference Recess immediately following, which means a shutdown of Parliament for five weeks, when important decisions have to be made and key legislation has to be passed. This says, more than anything else, that Britain must rethink its relationship with the monarchy, and all the symbols and rituals of the monarchy. Obviously now is not the time. Yet. Or it is, and should be. Interestingly, a poll from PeoplePolling tested the public's attitude towards the monarchy, a week after Elizabeth II's death. 74% found here legacy 'good for Britain', and 5% found it 'bad for Britain'. 57% had a favourable opinion of Charles III, and 23% an unfavourable opinion. 68% thought that the UK should remain a monarchy, and 19% that it should have an elected head of state instead. Another 'instant karma' poll from YouGov found that only 43% of Brits think that Britain is a better country now than in 1952, while 29% think it has become worse. We will have to see how all this evolves in the near future. In the meanwhile, the show must go on.

I thought proving that Boris Johnson couldn't even run a panel show would immediately

mean that people would say he should run the country. And so it happened, just like that.

(Ian Hislop, Have I Got News For You?, 2022)

No one knows what it's like to be hated, to be fated to telling only lies.

(Pete Townshend, Behind Blue Eyes, 1971)

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

Iterum factum est. The United Kingdom of England and Colonies has a new Prime Minister. The fourth in twelve years, and expected to last for just another two at most. Which sets a new world-beating precedent for the fastest revolving door in recorded history. The Conservative leadership contest is at last over, and John Crace in The Guardian quite aptly drew then line under it even before it was actually over. Between Boris Johnson's resignation speech and Liz Truss's nomination, 61 days have elapsed. The combined length of the two previous leadership contests, to replace David Cameron in 2016, and Theresa May in 2019. Only the contest to replace William Hague in 2001 lasted longer, and then nobody gave a fucking shit because the Conservatives were in opposition, so it didn't impact anybody's life. This year, we've had two months of governmental void, brought to an unhappy ending by 160k members of the Conservative Party, with almost 142k casting a vote and electing Liz Truss by 57% to Rishi Sunak's 43%. Which is much closer than polls predicted, and also the first time the MPs' vote is overturned by the grassroots membership, Which, all considering, should be cause for concern at CCHQ.

The never ending panto of the Conservatives' Best In Show, all across the Summer Of Unrest, has raised many questions about the process, its rules and standards. Fortunately for us, the ever watchful YouGov polled their panel about the possibility of having political parties operating under the rules of a 'public function'. Which is stretching the concept a bit, as it has a legal definition mostly used in anti-discrimination legislation such as the Equality Act. YouGov's panel took the bait anyway and dutifully answered the question of principle, and then some describing some practical provisions that might be part of it, or not. All you can say for sure is that there is some sort of trans-partisan agreement that the internal electoral processes should be more closely modeled on those used for 'real' elections.

Of course this means jack shit in the short term, as political parties are legally associations of private citizens, and have no obligation to abide by any sort of standards, except the ones they impose on themselves. Despite the poll's seemingly conclusive results, it's hard to imagine widespread popular support for legislation or regulations that would deprive political parties of the right to set their own rules. Because most of the people probably don't give a fucking shit about this, and those who do would denounce an unacceptable intrusion of the Nanny State into citizens' private business. Oddly, political parties in the UK don't have a reliably defined legal status, presumably for lack of a proper Constitution. Unlike, for example, in France where parties are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and legally considered as 'contractual associations' as defined by common law, instead of the fuzzier concept of 'unincorporated associations' found in the UK. Similar legislation to France's would probably be considered unduly constrictive in the UK, so it's probably better to let sleeping dogs lie, and forget any concept of regulating British parties more than they currently are.

No one knows what it's like to feel these feelings, like I do, and I blame you.

(Pete Townshend, Behind Blue Eyes, 1971)

Boris Johnson's government has been described as a zombie government.

Which I think is unfair, because zombies value brains.

(Phil Wang, Have I Got News For You?, 2022)

This year's Conservative leadership contest has not only been the second longest, but also the most devastatingly dysfunctional. The Conservatives have had 12 genuine leadership contests in their whole history. Six happened while they were in opposition, so didn't have any consequences for the government. Two, against Margaret Thatcher in 1989 and against John Major in 1995, were only token challenges and quickly disposed of. That leaves four genuine ones held while the Conservatives were in office, and three of them happened in the last six years. And it's got worse every time. It took two weeks to replace David Cameron in 2016, and even Cameron himself was relieved it didn't last longer. Then it took almost seven weeks to replace Theresa May in 2019, and she was a walking dead and de facto caretaker Prime Minister long before that. Finally this year it took two months to replace Boris Johnson, after months of drama and chaos leading to it. Ending with a caretaker government that didn't take care of anything, except Boris's taxpayer-funded legal fund. Oddly, all this mayhem has not deteriorated Johnson's favourability ratings as much as you would have expected. They even have got a wee smitch better since he resigned. Which probably makes sense, when you think of it.

Just before Liz Truss took over, we also had the very last 'Preferred Prime Minister' survey involving Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer. The trends here come as no surprise. Both Starmer and Johnson bagged less support here than their respective parties' voting intentions in the same poll, and a third of Brits haven't made up their mind. The voice of reason says that Starmer should have had a much bigger lead in this confrontation, given Johnson's abysmal record. Then the voice of your guts says it was actually predictable, as nobody has yet seen Sly Keir displaying the sort of charisma many people expect from a Prime Minister in waiting. I guess it's alright for Keir to think it's better to look like the pub bore than the pub clown in times likes these. But he doesn't even fare much better in a more relevant one-on-one. More on that just below.

There is no doubt that we haven't heard the last of Johnson yet, far from that actually. He has pretty much made it clear that he will now position himself as some sort of Trump-cum-Berlusconi character in the background of the Conservative panto. Be a petulant media presence while preparing a comeback, as his party's only chance after they lose one or two elections to Labour. Remember that Berlusconi served three times as Prime Minister of Italy. First time at 58, second time at 65, third time at 72. Johnson is 58 this year, one year younger than Berlusconi when he was first kicked out of the Premiership. Just saying.

There is no such thing as an invisible legacy.

(Josh Lyman, The West Wing: Slow News Day, 2004)

We’re of the belief that, if you’re going to set policy, it’s a bonus to understand it.

(Sam Seaborn, The West Wing: The U.S. Poet Laureate, 2002)

From one rabbit hole to the next, let's see now what pollsters have to say about Mary Elizabeth Truss, who fucking hates being called Mary. And has now to wander into the real world after two months inside a cognitive bubble of cognitive dissonance. Let's start with her favourability ratings. There is far less backlog here than for Boris Johnson, as pollsters started assessing her only in early 2021, and less often than other top-tier politicians. Probably because she did not appear to be one until quite recently. Until March 2022, her negatives increased faster than her positives, supporting the common wisdom that 'the more you know Truss, the less you like her'. It changed then, although she hasn't yet enjoyed the massive levels of support Johnson enjoyed in the best moments of his Premiership. The period of increased media exposure, during and after the Conservative beauty pageant, has seen an increased number of undecideds. Probably more people ready to give her the benefit of the doubt, before she proves herself one way or the other.

What remains to be seen now is how the public will react to Truss appointing herself Chief Mourner, and chasing Charles III all across the UK for the various ceremonies. Photobombing all stages of the medieval ritual might look like a plus in the very short term in our image-obsessed media-driven world, but it could also backfire quite badly. But Truss has also been tested from another perspective, which became fully relevant only this month. The now well-oiled 'Preferred Prime Minister' polling is also quite not what you would intuitively expect, when you put Truss and Starmer face to face. Truss was definitely not competitive as long as she was in Johnson's shadow at Cabinet meetings, and you may even wonder why any pollster bothered to test her at all. Her ratings rose overnight, almost, when she threw her hat in the ring after Bozo's resignation. It's quite amazing that she even managed to beat Sly Keir for a while, despite her U-turns, inconsistencies and robotic delivery. Even after her one day of actual governing so far, she does better here than Johnson did in his last three months in office. Which is quite a feat in itself.

This polling is a!so surprising when you consider a recent poll from Ipsos Mori, that showed Starmer with a strong lead on an array of issues, which pretty much sum up whether or not someone is prime-ministerial. I can only hypothesise that the differences have something to do with the public's assessment of Labour collectively being fit for purpose, rather than just Starmer personally being fit. Which says that the problem now lies less with his persona than with their politics. The British public can accept the pub bore as their Prime Minister, as long as they believe he will rally the troops and deliver. But they still see Labour as a divided party, though admittedly less than the Conservatives, and question their ability to get the job done. The Labour Party in general, and its leadership specifically, fail to see this or just don't want to see it. That's probably because Sly Keir has his own brand of cognitive bubble of cognitive dissonance. He calls it a focus group.

The pessimist says, “Everything’s terrible, it can’t get any worse”.

The optimist says, “Oh, yes, it can”.

(Josiah Bartlet, The West Wing: Gaza, 2004)

To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting.

It’s like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

(Oscar Wilde)

Opinium have had their own take on Liz in their last fortnightly poll for The Observer, conducted just before she took over as Big Dog. I'm calling her that only because the gender-neutral word for 'dog' is 'dog', and the female-specific term would get me banned from Twitter for hate speech. Anyway, they polled her from two different angles, one that's recurring in their surveys, and one that's unique to her. And would have been unique to Rishi if he had been smart enough to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. The people's verdict is merciless, though not quite unexpected. Even before moving to Number Ten, and after two months of doing jack shit but babbling bullshit, Liz Truss gets worse ratings than Boris Johnson the last time Opinium polled him on the same array of items. On second thought, two months of doing jack shit but babbling bullshit might just be the reason for that. To sum it up, only a quarter of the panel find her prime-ministerial. She has, unsurprisingly, fewer positive on this than Keir Starmer. And, quite ironically, also fewer than Rishi Sunak.

There is something quite amazing and quite entertaining in these results. They are considerably worse than what Opinium found in their previous poll, fielded two weeks before in the middle of the hustings. Truss's positives, on the average of all items, have nosedived from 34% to 22%. Most enlighteningly, which might not even be a real word, the number of people who find her in touch with ordinary people has gone down from 30% to 20%, which sounds about right for the person who thinks tax cuts for tax evaders are smart policy and smart politics. The same person who thinks that redistribution of wealth is just a matter of optics, and that she has the magic powers to make trickle-down economics work, when they haven't ever since Dog domesticated Man. Just another confirmation that, the more people see Liz, the less they like her. Which is not a good start for a Premiership, even one bound to be shorter than Campbell-Bannerman's, and quite plausibly even shorter than Eden's. To add insult to injury, as the results were quite predictable, Opinium also asked their panel if they expect Truss to be better or worse than a select list of former Prime Ministers, from which they erased John Major for some unfathomable reason.

So the public fully expect Truss the be the fourth winner of the 'Worst Prime Minister In Living Memory' award in a row, all of them Conservatives. That's probably the only expectation we can trust her to live up to. There is massive irony in that part of the poll too. If you consider the net result, as in [sum of betters - sum of worses], Truss does better against Johnson than against any other past Prime Minister. Not because more people think she will be better, but because fewer think she will be worse. Because, ye ken, nobody thought anybody could be worse than Bozo. Until...

You know what they call a leader without followers? Just a guy taking a walk.

(Robert Russell, The West Wing: Shutdown, 2003)

Do people keep cliché thesauruses around for times like this?

(Josh Lyman, The West Wing: Disaster Relief, 2003)

Before we move on to the fun stuff about the incoming snap general election, let's have a look at some real issues first. To enlighten us, and possibly also the next Big Dog, YouGov conducted a poll about energy options on behalf of Radiant Energy Group, who appear to be consultants-cum-lobbyists specializing in clean energy. Clean meaning here everything that doesn't send millions of tons of soot and acid into the atmosphere, so nuclear, wind and solar. Don't expect me to discuss the 'cleanliness' of nuclear energy, that would take us past the end of Liz Truss's term. When you progress through the poll's questions, something like a hidden agenda appears in the background, which I will mention in more detail later. But first, nothing beats a set of mildly anxiogenic questions to set the tone.

So we have stipulated that people are concerned with both climate change and the level of their energy bills, across all political persuasions, even if Conservative voters are distinctly less worried about either. Which was quite predictable and would probably have been more spectacular if YouGov had asked about future energy bills instead of past ones. Then we have the first step towards the poll's real objectives, with the panel asked to asses the three select energy sources on three major items.

Interestingly, the panel have doubts about nuclear energy's potential to help tackle climate change, while both wind and solar have a much higher support. The crosstabs show that there is a gender gap, an age gap and a class gap here. Men are massively more convinced of nuclear energy's potential than women. The older generations are more convinced that the younger generations. The middle class is more convinced than the working class. The polls does not list the rationale behind these answers, so I can only assume they're linked to the awareness that nuclear power plants take pretty much a whole generation to be built, and that their construction is also heavy on carbon emissions due to the construction process itself. There are fewer discrepancies in the crosstabs about the reliability of the three sources and the amount of job opportunities. The only caveat I have here is that 'reliability' is probably not the right word to use about nuclear plants, as those next door to us, in France, are prone to major breakdowns. But 'availability' would probably be a better term for wind and solar, as they are more sensitive to unpredictable meteorological factors. 'Windy and cloudy' might be an apt description of the standard British weather, but there are always exceptions.

You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose.

You run a country, you deal in abstractions.

(Leo McGarry, The West Wing: Talking Points, 2004)

The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present.

(Abraham Lincoln)

Then comes the question that will be at the core of any debate about future energy sources. Pun fully intended. Have these three select options the ability to make energy bills cheaper, or should we fear that they will make them more expensive? There is no apparent consensus here, and also a political divide. Conservative voters have more confidence in the potential of nuclear energy, but don't appear fully convinced. Labour voters have more confidence in renewables, and do appear quite convinced. LibDem voters, in true middle-of-the-road Liberal Democrat fashion, appear convinced by all three. Of course, there is more to that question than instantly meets they eye. The informed answer is in fact the fine balance between high or low construction costs vs high or low operating costs. Foreign experience suggests that nuclear plants have the highest construction costs of all, wind farms have high construction costs and low operating costs, solar farms have both low construction costs and low operating costs. All in all, nuclear plants do not have a massive advantage here, as uranium has to be imported, and payed in US dollars, and its price is bound to skyrocket if demand increases and the value of the pound continues to drop.

The panel were then asked to assess their level of concern about the impact of nuclear energy on three different items. Only a minority say they are concerned by the use of natural resources by the nuclear industry. But I think we should link this to its net contribution to tackling climate change, or achieving Net Zero. Do you know which are the two most carbon-intensive economic sectors throughout the OECD? Construction and transport. Do you know what building a nuclear power plant entails? A massive construction site lasting ten years or more, with massive lorry traffic to bring all equipment and supplies to its remote site. Future nuclear plants are also likely to be built on the coast, rather than on rivers that are already full of English shit anyway. But the use of saltwater as a coolant requires much more frequent cleaning of the piping, using... you guessed it... industrial-grade pipe-cleaning chemicals. Which should be quite a concern, in relation to both the proper use of natural resources, and health and safety.

Finally, there's the massive issue of radioactive waste management, which is quite an important concern, according to the poll. The UK is massively deficient in that field, as the historic facility at Sellafield is unable to reprocess spent fuel from modern PWR reactors. The second newer facility at Sizewell also does not include reprocessing. Both offer only temporary storage, until a deep repository is available in the future, which actually does not fully address the issue either. The key factor here is the half-life of the waste products, the rate at which it vanishes into non-existence, which is mathematically an exponential decay. To cut a long story short, no matter how far into the future you go, the quantity of radioactive waste left never reaches zero. Just feel safe in the knowledge that, in about 150,000 years, the radiation emitted will be down to the level of natural radioactivity in Dartmoor. Which has never spawned anything weirder than Josh Widdicombe and the Hound of the Baskervilles. So what the fuck?

Turning and turning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer.

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned.

(William Butler Yeats)

I learn from the mistakes of people who take my advice.

(Patrick Bateman, American Psycho, 1991)

Now that these wee details have been dealt with, the last and final question of the poll proceeds to the only topic that really mattered all along. Testing the level of acceptance, or acceptability, for all their 'clean energy' options. To achieve the desired result, the question is quite blatantly biased, asking the panel to what extent they support or oppose using each selected source to generate electricity in the UK. Which is not even remotely neutral, as it skips the essential step. If we are going to use any of these sources more, to meet Net Zero targets or to reduce dependency on foreign suppliers, we first have to build new power stations. Even just the natural increase in demand, regardless of any political goal, would demand more available production sites on UK soil. With these caveats in mind, all options have massive support.

Despite the poll's obvious bias, nuclear energy has less support that the three renewables. Again, Conservative voters are conspicuously more supportive of nuclear energy, while Labour and LibDem voters lean more towards renewables. Then the poll features an attempt at identifying a possible geographical divide, which is not a true regional divide, but a habitat divide. Here we have a split between urban and rural, plus a 'something' in between that might cover Sevenoaks, Amersham and such places in the nether regions of the Realm.

I guess the rationale here is to identify hints of nimbyism here and there. If that was the case, the results are not really convincing. The differences between the levels of support in each area are tiny and statistically insignificant. Because the poll circumvented the genuine question, how people would change their mind if they were explicitly told it involved the construction of new plants in their back garden. This option would of course be more relevant for rural dwellers, as these things are usually built in remote areas. But other polls have not left the elephant in the room standing, more on that just below. I guess this poll has nevertheless met its aims, which are quite clearly to demonstrate public support for both nuclear and renewables being part of a 'green mix'. Which is not Conservative doctrine right now, as the anti-renewables lobby in their ranks is quite vociferous. But is, certainly not coincidentally, the official policy of the French government for their 'ecological transition', the local variant of Net Zero. Could this poll be a hint that this will become Labour's policy too?

Politicians like to panic. They need activity, it’s their substitute for achievement.

We must just ensure that it doesn’t change anything.

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

We’ll be looking at a whole range of possibilities, as it’s a complex and highly technical matter.

It’s under review and of course these things take time.

(Jim Hacker, Yes Minister: Big Brother, 1980)

Fortunately, other polls don't send the same message about a diverse nuclear-inclusive energy mix. Survation tested a wider range of options, and it definitely shows support for renewables, including some that YouGov didn't even mention. There is not much experience with tidal power so far, though the largest plant in the world is located in Scotland. The Scottish Government is also actively involved with innovative wave energy projects, which will probably not reach fruition for a number of years. But it doesn't hurt to be ahead of other nations in that respect. Interestingly, there is not much enthusiasm for biomass, probably because people know what it actually means. Which is basically burning rubbish or wood, and that does produce quite a lot of CO₂. Finally, and quite reassuringly, the least popular of all options is fracking. The public are undoubtedly aware that it is a desperate last-resort option, quite literally scraping the bottom of the barrel, and the cons outweigh the pros. It might provide juicy business opportunities, but the public have learned the hard way to be suspicious of such narratives.

Finally we had another survey from Opinium, testing an array of energy sources, labeled as 'ways to extract resources or generate electricity', from two angles. First whether or not people would be generally in favour or opposed to each one taking place in the UK. Then whether or not people would support these being built or talking place in their local area. Here at last, we address the proverbial nimbyism. I have spared you the usual rainbow bars here, and charted the net level of support instead. The usual [support - oppose] formula. And only wind energy emerges as a winner, both in principle, and as an 'in my back garden' possibility. Which is not quite the narrative we have heard from Liz Truss recently. There is clearly no support for her decision to lift the national ban on fracking in England, which she tried to sneak under the radar during the period of national mourning, but failed. And even more opposition when the option is to have it down your street. Looks like even Conservative Southerners have had enough already with droughts and floods and whatnot, and don't want to add earthquakes to the mix. Only coal is less popular, and then only by a small margin. Will Liz listen?

Opposition of the locals, and even their Conservatives MPs, might not be enough to stop fracking, but Councils can deal it some blows. Planning laws can also be used to stop fracking, and the local population would surely agree. It worked in Scotland, after the case was made that an outright national ban would be successfully challenged in court, and it could surely work in England too, before Jacob Rees-Mogg totally dismantles English planning laws to make them more 'business-friendly'. By an odd twist of fate, the change of monarch may offer a glimpse of hope here. Charles III wouldn't even need to overstep his constitutional prerogatives, which include "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn", according to Walter Bagehot in his seminal book, The English Constitution. It's no secret that Elizabeth II directly voiced her disagreement with Margaret Thatcher's stand on apartheid in South Africa. Maybe Charles III can live up to his green credentials, and do the same with Liz Truss about fracking, and succeed. As a soft influencer, and obviously not the blunt Leader of the Opposition his fictional self was depicted as in 'To Play The King'.

Maybe we should pay a little more attention to what’s being rendered,

and the rendering takes care of itself.

(Josiah Bartlet, The West Wing: Slow News Day, 2004)

If your neighbour’s house is on fire, you don’t haggle over the price of your garden hose.

(Franklin Delano Roosevelt)

Just so we don't forget, Redfield & Wilton polled their panel this month about Ukraine. More precisely, about their assessment of how the English Government and Their Majesty Loyal Opposition have handled the Russian aggression and its fallout. The wording of the Government's question is pretty straightforward, going 'To what extent, if at all, do you think the Government has taken the war in Ukraine seriously?'. Which is the same wording they used to survey other unrelated issues, so there's no hint of possible bias here. The results show quite a level of approval here, that cuts pretty much across all demographics and politics. Of course, you could argue that there is a difference between 'extremely seriously' and 'fairly seriously', and that the latter is actually closer to the subtly neutral 'somewhat seriously'. Or you could say that 'fairly seriously' is actually something like 'seriously seriously' and counts as approval. Anyway, I stand my ground here, whatever the nuances of semantics, and this is a good result for the English Government.

There is some geographical divide in the panel's replies though, and not necessarily where your intuition says it would be. The Tory-leaning Deep South is not as supportive as the average Brit, while the Labour-leaning North is more supportive. Even Scotland has more faith in the SW1 establishment on this than the South and London. Then you might also wonder how much the people's own views influence their assessment of the government, as this is not one of the usual easy agree/disagree questions. It's not exactly profoundly introspective either, mind you. But the definitions of 'taken seriously' obviously varies from person to person, just as the definition of 'done enough', which is also often used by pollsters.

There is lots to be said though, about Boris Johnson's visits to Kyiv, including his deathbed trip on Ukraine's Independence day, which was the combination of a shameless photo op and a soapbox for disingenuous soundbites designed exclusively for domestic use. Then we should not forget what happened to Ukrainian refugees and asylum seekers. True to form, the Conservative Home Office first unleashed the hellhounds of post-Brexit bureaucracy on them. As obsessed as ever with the process, and not the outcome, they knowingly left thousands stranded in a limbo of red tape, before reluctantly devising a half-baked rehoming scheme, with lots of strings attached, and often failing to provide the safe environment refugees deserve. And now the cost-of-corporate-of-greed crisis will put thousands of the refugees in harm's way, as their sponsors simply can no longer afford to host them when the Home Office's six-month plan comes to an end. Shameful and heartbreaking.

I do not want my picture in your offices. The president is not an icon, an idol or a portrait.

Hang your kids’ photos instead, and look at them every time you are making a decision.

(Volodymyr Zelenskyy, inauguration speech, 2019)

There is no present or future, only the past happening over and over again.

(Eugene O’Neill)

The question about Labour in the same Redfield & Wilton poll was definitely biased as it read 'To what extent, if at all, do you think a Government led by the Labour Party would have been taking the war in Ukraine seriously?'. Perry Mason would have strongly objected to such a wording, on the grounds that it calls for speculation. Keir Starmer is 'just' the Leader of the Opposition (LOTO), not the Prime Minister, and his actions should be assessed with the obvious limitations of his position in mind, not through the prism of an hypothetical alternate reality. The level of approval is lower than for the Conservatives, just as you might expect from the biased wording, but Labour still has a majority thinking that they would have taken the situation seriously enough. Then the legitimate question here would be to ask Labour what they would have done if they had been in charge. It was never asked in as many words, as the media seem content with Sly Keir offering unwavering support to the government, and boldly claiming that nobody would drive the weest wedge between Brits on this issue.

Some people may also feel critical of Labour because of Keir Starmer's belated plan to visit Kyiv. Which does sound quite unfair too, as every foreign visit is a strain on the Ukrainian security services, and especially Zelenskyy's personal detail. There are also many reasons why Zelenskyy prioritises meetings with heads of state or government over opposition politicians, on top of his proverbial bromance with Boris Johnson. LOTOs just can't deliver any sort of help to Ukraine, governments can and do. This being said, Labour's support for Ukraine is not new, under Starmer at least, as Corbyn was a wee smitch more ambiguous on this. As much as it pains me to admit it, given their dubious stance on other issues, David Lammy and Rachel Reeves were pretty clear, and on the right side of the divide, several weeks before the start of the criminal Russian aggression. With the added bonus that it allowed them to hit hard at the Conservative Party and their links to dodgy Russian donors. Keir Starmer's statements on the day of the invasion, both to Parliament and on television, went in the same direction, as he read out the exact same prepared remarks. So it's hard to sincerely fault him here. And just this once.

There is indeed a wee smitch of irony here as, unlike the Labour leadership who must have received specific information thanks to their positions in the Privy Council, a lot of us did not believe in Biden's and Johnson's Russian War Scare in the week before the invasion. Many said so unequivocally, and I totally plead guilty here. Because we were so used to governmental lies and fearmongering tactics. Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, you name it, you got it. But this healthy doubt never diminished our support for a free and democratic Ukraine against Putin's born again Soviet Union. We know Ukraine is a massively flawed democracy, ripe with corruption and nepotism. It was before Zelenskyy and still is. There is no romantic delusion at work here, and nobody is fancying himself Lord Byron at Missolonghi. We just believe that Ukraine's flawed democracy is for the Ukrainians to fix, not for the Russians to suppress. This is why I feel totally comfortable telling Labour that they should beware of those, in their own ranks, who have given anti-imperialism and pacifism a bad name, by turning them into obsessive anti-Americanism and unquestioning support for assorted authoritarian post-Marxist South American regimes, China, and Russia. Because, for once, it's all neatly laid out in black and white, and pretty binary. If you are not denouncing Putin, you are supporting Putin.

There are worse things in the world than no longer being alive.

(Will Bailey, The West Wing: Game On, 2002)

You can lay down in front of the train, or you can get on board. How’s this for a phrase?

(Josh Lyman, The West Wing: The Leadership Breakfast, 2001)

Meanwhile, we still hear the narrative about an alleged 'Ukraine fatigue' in Western Europe. Which is now fueled by a controversy about the efficacy of the sanctions against Russia. Critics of the sanctions don't bother with the raw facts, which are quite enlightening. Inflation in Russia has reached 22%, their GDP has fallen by 11% and their exports by 35%. If that's the effect of sanctions that don't work, you have to wonder where we would be if they worked. You also have to consider that most of this pro-Russian campaign comes from far-right parties like AfD in Germany, Lega Nord in Italy, Reconquête and Les Patriotes in France, and SPD in the Czech Republic. Who are sometimes opportunistically joined by part of the radical left, who have a hard time leaving behind their past allegiance to the New Soviet Union. This can unfortunately only grow, now that Ukraine is staging a successful counter-offensive both in the North East and the South East. This can succeed because Russia has a massive equipment problem. Their 'smart' shells and cruise missiles, almost 80% of which have already been expanded, need microchips to manufacture replacements. The two main suppliers, Taiwan and South Korea, have embargoed sales to Russia, and China refuses to supply them. So Russia is forced to resort to low-technology weaponry, including some bought from North Korea.

There have also been verified reports that Russia is trying to buy back weapons from India, which they have sold them just a few years ago. Which India is understandably reluctant to do, especially after reports that their arch-enemy Pakistan have started to supply weaponry to Ukraine. Multiple sources also support the idea that Russia has a major manpower problem. There has been reliable evidence that Putin first enlisted thousands of Wagner Group mercenaries, whose openly neo-Nazi boss recruited more combatants in prisons, including one who was serving a life sentence for murder and cannibalism. Then Putin recruited fresh troops in the far regions of the Russian Federation, as far East as central Siberia. Young men in these regions were reportedly payed up to £30,000 to 'volunteer' for Ukraine, with the implicit understanding that it was probably a suicide mission, and that the money was in fact a life insurance payment for their families. Finally about 80,000 older and ill-trained troops from the Russian equivalent of the Territorial Army have been incorporated into the Army, and some of them sent to the Eastern Ukraine front, which is now under intense pressure form the Ukrainian military. The only solution would be mass conscription which, under Russian law, can't happen unless there is a state of war. But Putin has painted himself into a corner here, with six months of relentless propaganda about the war of aggression being only a 'special military operation'. This has become a lose-lose situation for Putin, and now is definitely not the time to relent in our support for Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the most pressing issue is what is happening at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. It has become a war zone only because the Russian Army has occupied it, and then massed troops and equipment inside it. As usual, Russian propaganda is in full denial, but the whole world has seen the Russian military trucks stored inside the plant's turbine buildings, with IAEA inspectors standing next to them. It was broadcast under Russian control, and they still managed to give the whole world evidence of what they were denying, that Russia is using the plant as a military base. The IAEA inspection led by Rafael Grossi has clearly identified and described major risks to the plant's safety, and there are reports it has gone worse since they left. There is only one solution here, and it is not Putin's offer of some variant of a demilitarised zone. It has to be the full withdrawal of Russian troops and their equipment, and a return to full Ukrainian control of the plant's operation, if necessary under IAEA supervision. It's the only way to stop Putin's blackmail over a major nuclear accident, that the Russians may very well trigger themselves as a self-fulfilling prophecy, and then blame Ukraine for it. They are that desperate now.

I don’t know on how many fronts we can fight a war. You wanna find out?

(Josh Lyman, The West Wing: Ways And Means, 2001)

There is no dishonour in failure. The only dishonour would be not to try.

(Kate Harper, The West Wing: Gaza, 2004)

Redfield & Wilton published their usual Monday Poll at 5PM on the 5th, the last full day of Boris Johnson's presidency. Their polls are actually conducted on Sundays, with Monday used to do all the wizardry that converts the raw numbers into those used for publication, and writing some punditification around them. No offence intended here, as Redfield & Wilton's writers are better than most of those who have columns in The Guardian. Anyway, it will forever remain as the last voting intentions poll of Boris Johnson's term, or first term as he loves to dream about a comeback as a Roman who wasn't even mentioned in any Shakespeare play. This poll is also the benchmark against which to assess any 'honeymoon surge' for Liz Truss, or semblance thereof, or total utter complete lack thereof. And it's a fucking disaster for the Conservatives.

As usual, Flavible's algorithms are less Labour-friendly than mine or Electoral Calculus's, and Electoral Calculus has a less favourable view of the Liberal Democrats' prospects. Which does not make a big difference on the numbers we had on that Monday. Whether the Conservatives lose half their seats or 'only' 40%, whether Labour bag a 40-seat majority or a 50-seat one is borderline irrelevant. What matters is that Bozo's farewell gift and Liz's welcome gift is a poll predicting a massive disaster for their party. And is already predicted to be a massive disaster for the people, as no serious plan to tackle the cost-of-energy crisis exists, despite calls from the opposition parties, and a major financial crisis has become a plausible fallout of Truss's obsession with tax cuts. It's fairly obvious that the UK will face a combination of inflation and recession similar to Russia's if we fall deep down the rabbit hole of Trussonomics. If you liked Germany 1923, you're gonna love Britain 2023.

I think the professional term is ‘wanker’.

(Josh Lyman, The West Wing: NSF Thurmont, 2004)

There’s such a thing as leadership by example.

It comes right before getting your ass kicked in an election.

(Bruno Gianelli, The West Wing: Gone Quiet, 2001)

Right now, it's difficult to predict what the trend of polls will tell us over the next few months. Pollsters have created this uncertainty, with several of them playing mind games with us, fielding 'parallel universe' polls with a PM-neutral and a PM-ised option. The best, or worst, example being Survation's last Johnson-era poll, conducted on 31 August. It had Labour leading the Conservatives by 10% overall, and 9% in England, on the standard wording, the 'leader-neutral' option. Then they included the names of the leaders in the prompts for every party, and 'the Labour Party led by Keir Starmer' beat 'the Conservative Party led by Liz Truss' by 17% overall, and an unprecedented 18% in England. Quite puzzling, as it would require some 2.2 million English voters changing sides because they don't like Liz. If you accept the premise, the change of wording morphed an only mildly satisfactory result for Labour, with a 5-seat working majority, into a Blair-like landslide with a 195-seat majority. Interestingly and quite amusingly, 'the Scottish National Party led by Nicola Sturgeon' also did worse than the Scottish National Party, losing 3.5% of the vote in the Scottish subsample, and 9 seats to Labour.

In the two weeks since Liz Truss's accession, the trend of the polls has remained pretty much in the same waters as before. Some on the 'progressive' left fell for her stunt, having the most 'diverse and inclusive' Cabinet in recorded history. But even them could not escape the reality of it. This is a cronies' Cabinet, made up of the worst of the worst from a Conservative Party that is already the worst variant of itself since 1945. Hopefully, public opinion will not buy the virtue-signalling and judge Truss on what really counts, what she delivers to address the people's real concerns. Truss might not be the serial waffler-piffler her predecessor was, but she has yet to convince the people that her policies will be any better than her politics. She has failed so far, as the trend of voting intentions polls still shows a commanding lead for Labour. 'Not Being Boris' while being the 'Johnson Continuity PM' is clearly not the unique selling point she thought it was.

The last time the Conservatives topped a voting intentions poll was on the 70th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack, and we have since had an interrupted sequence of 244 polls with Labour in the lead. Kwasi Kwarteng's unexpected proposal to repeal the cap on bankers' bonuses has certainly not helped their brand over the last few days. Especially with a YouGov poll showing massive opposition to it, including two thirds of Conservative voters. Or it might have been the decision to let Lords, MPs and Phillip Schofield jump the queue at the laying-in-state, that YouGov's panel also strongly objected to. Anyway, Elizabeth II's death has added to the usual uncertainty, and Labour oddly seem to be the ones who have the most difficulties keeping their footing here. Being a strong opposition after the period of official mourning has ended should be a no-brainer, as all it requires is... being the opposition. For all intents and porpoises, business as usual restarts on the 20th after the funeral. The fact that Labour don't think it really does just shows how deeply a medieval reverence to the monarchy has polluted the whole of the English political system.

Vox populi, vox Dei. The voice of the people is the voice of a dog.

(Josh Lyman, The West Wing: Mandatory Minimums, 2000)

When everyone wears the same suit, how does anyone know which side they’re on anymore?

(Josiah Bartlet, The West Wing: Constituency Of One, 2003)

There's been a four-day black hole in polling this month, as most pollsters seem to have gone down the same rabbit hole as the Met Office, and stopped doing their job 'as a mark of respect'. Oddly Savanta Comres, who had been hibernating through most of the summer, came back just two days after the Queen's death, with a poll for The Daily Mail, that they spun as a huge success for Liz Truss despite Labour being convincingly ahead in voting intentions. They didn't even see the irony in it, that Truss's best ratings are about her adopting a Labour policy, the energy price freeze. Then YouGov fired the second shot, publishing a new poll five days after the previous one, instead of their usual one-week gap. My current Poll'O'Polls includes the last three surveys from YouGov, Deltapoll and PeoplePolling, all fielded after Elizabeth II's death. Super-sample is 5,068 with a theoretical margin of error of 1.4%. It's another disastrous result for the Conservatives, as Labour are shown leading by 11.3%, which is their highest lead in my projections since the last general election.

30-something is still a fairly high level of support for the Conservatives, more than what Labour bagged in 2010, and similar to what the Conservatives themselves got in 1997. But there's a fragility to it, as some recent polls have shown. It may look as wide as the Fens, but it's only an inch deep in many regions of England, ready to crumble further if Labour find a way to set the tone, and make Liz Truss dance to their tune. There's clearly a hostile environment for the Conservatives out there, and no way they can offer a strong and stable government. Which is something, and I can't even believe I'm saying this, the UK could get from the Labour Party. You also have to consider that, while some are punditificating about 'the death of social-democracy' in Western Europe, Labour are by far the strongest center-left party on the continent even in defeat, and are predicted to get even stronger when the people of the UK next cast their votes. Using national and regional crosstabs of the polls, rather than the age-old uniform swing, also allows insight into how the Labour and Conservative votes have evolved since the 2019 election.

Almost everywhere, the Conservative vote has dropped more that the Labour vote has risen, the only exception being the South West of England. The reversal of fortunes is especially striking in the East Midlands, where the Conservatives are predicted to lose half their 2019 votes. And also in Wales and East Anglia, where they are predicted to go down by 40%. Oddly, this does not benefit the Liberal Democrats, whose vote share here is lower than in 2019. There is some renewed interest in 'lesser' parties, like Plaid Cymru in Wales or the Greens in the Midlands. Compared to earlier recent predictions, there also seems to be a strong element of tactical voting. Which would, for example, explain why the LbDems are doing poorly across the South of England, while Labour are doing unexpectedly well. More on this later.

Hard enough caving on principle, without looking like you’re caving on principle.

(Leo McGarry, The West Wing: Slow News Day, 2004)

A representative owes not just his industry but his judgment,

and betrays you if he sacrifices his judgment to yours.

(Edmund Burke)

On today's snapshot of voting intentions, Labour would emerge with a 29-seat working majority, their best result since December 2019. The projection is less favourable for the Liberal Democrats than a few earlier ones, as they would 'only' double their number of seats, instead of trebling it as they did at their peak early this summer. They would indeed miss some gains from the Conservatives by very little, as their average vote share is now predicted to slightly slump. There is also circumstantial evidence that the LibDems' weak showing also costs Labour between six and twelve gains in Con-Lab marginals where the LibDems could have diverted just enough votes from the Tories to switch the result. What Labour might consider the most significant result here is that they would bag 119 more seats than the Conservatives, or 55% more. Which is better than the Conservatives' lead in 2010, 2015 and 2017.

I have also changed the predicted headcount for Northern Ireland, even without a Full Irish poll of the next general election. The results of the recent Northern Assembly election strongly suggest that, at a Commons election, the DUP would lose one seat (Belfast East) to the Alliance Party, with the other seats unchanged, so I have chosen to reflect this for now. Overall, this definitely looks really bad for Liz Truss. Labour were already doing really well in the last salvo of polls before she was appointed, and they're doing even better now. It's early days of course, but there is no sense of a Honeymoon Surge or even a Mourning Surge in the most recent polls. Which doesn't mean there won't be any ever. We all know that Keir Starmer is his own worst enemy, and things could change in the next few days. Nobody expects anything from the incoming Conservative Conference, not even the Conservatives themselves. But a lot could depend on what happens at the Labour Conference, on whether or not Sly Keir chooses to treat it as the last one before a possible snap election, and delivers more than the usual midterm non-committal platitudes. Though his choice to devote the whole first day to acts of royalist devotion doesn't really point in that direction, does it?

I am an educated man, but when somebody tries to explain cricket to me,

all I want to do is hit him in the head with a teapot.

(Josiah Bartlet, The West Wing: What Kind Of Day Has It Been, 2000)

Queen Victoria was terribly keen, mad keen, on bagpipers.

There was no telly then so, you know, fair enough.

(Sandi Toksvig, QI: Highs And Lows, 2010)

I was genuinely expecting a new instalment of Savanta Comres's Scottish Tracker for The Scotsman this month, as we haven't had one since the day before Nicola's Big Announcement. Alas, poor Alba, it seems they toed the SNP's "don't menshun ze independence now" line, so we got nothing during the period of official mourning for the late Queen of England. So all we have to gnaw on is another plausible prediction based on the usual run-of-the-till polling. What we have now, compared to past elections held in the short era of SNP dominance, is nothing to write home about. It still includes a serendipity factor for the SNP, benefiting from the others' weaknesses. It's also a quite unexpected disappointment for Labour, who seem to have leaked quite a lot of votes to the Conservatives over the last month. As it stands, Labour would gain only two seats for the SNP: Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Airdrie and Shotts. Then you could argue Labour would actually gain just one seat on their own merits. The SNP would offer them Gordon Brown's old seat back on a silver platter, because they'd rather split the pro-independence vote and lose a seat, than letting a sitting Alba Party MP get re-elected. And then whine about it and blame Alex Salmond for it. Brat. Toys. Pram.

The Conservatives would hold only Banff and Buchan, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, and Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. That's Alister Jack gone now. The Liberal Democrats would also quite unexpectedly hold all their current seats, despite losing quite a few vote nationwide. There's an oven-ready recipe for that, just lose fewer votes than the SNP in the seats you hold, even if you lose more everywhere else. And it works. What remains to be seen now is whether the current trends hold until the next election. If they do, that would be bad news for the SNP, as the total of pro-independence votes is still far from clearing the majority hurdle that would make it Nicola's 'plebiscite election'. Nevertheless, the SNP are now officially bracing themselves for a snap general election, and have started the selection process in a genuinely weird way, leaving potential candidates only nine days to apply. Of course, that was before the events at Balmoral, so it may have been rescinded now, without the public knowing. But, whatever happens now, many people smelled a fucking big rat here. Like in "it's never too early to find a way to kick Joanna Cherry out". For some reason, I'm quite sure the SNP won't disappoint on that one. For once.

Shropshire Blue comes from Scotland, and it was originally called Inverness Blue or Blue Stuart.

I don’t know why they thought, if they renamed it Shropshire, people would be more likely to buy it.

(Sandi Toksvig, QI: Night, 2016)

Beef’s safer than veggie burgers. God knows what’s in them, mate.

(Inspector Doug Kersey, Wycliffe, 1996)

For Labour, Wales is again pretty good value for whatever kind of money they invest in campaigning there. Or it might be just Keir Starmer riding on Mark Drakeford's coattails. There's something of a win-win combination for Labour here. They surge back, but barely to their 2017 result, while the Conservatives are dragged down to a Blair-era share of the vote. Then FPTP does its magic and it's enough to grant Labour a massive majority in seats. The odd part is the Greens bagging more votes than the Liberal Democrats in this snapshot. It might be something of an outlier, or it's just some variant of the England-wide trends extending to Wales, which is not totally impossible.

On the current snapshot, Labour would gain Aberconwy, Bridgend, Clwyd South, Delyn, Monmouth, Vale of Clwyd and Vale of Glamorgan from the Conservatives. Plaid Cymru would gain just Ynys Môn, again hitting their Slate Ceiling of five seats. And the Liberal Democrats would gain fuck all. There is no real upset here. Even Monmouth, though being a rural constituency with a strong Conservative majority in 2019, was something of a Con-Lab marginal in earlier eras. Otherwise it's mostly Labour recouping their losses on the Welsh side of the Red Wall. The only Conservative fatality on the the government payroll is Simon Baynes in Clwyd South.

Did you know that, in Wales, sheep outnumber people three to one?

So there is not much to do except…. well…. things with sheep .

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

That’s politics. I mean, if you aren’t prepared to lose, don’t enjoy winning.

(John Major)

Before drilling down deeper into the bowels of England, let's first see the bigger picture that the current snapshot of polls has painted. Not just what it says about the next election, but also how it compares with some notable past ones. The inclusion of regional crosstabs in my projections again delivers quite diverse situations. Which are not all fully to Labour's advantage. Keir Starmer's Reconquista Del Norte is stalling, as he is now predicted to do worse than Corbyn, Blair and Attlee at their respective peaks. Which is quite surprising when even Red Wall Conservatives of the 2019 intake are warning Liz Truss about the negative impact of her policies in their constituencies. The situation has become somewhat better for Starmer in the Midlands, where he is now predicted to do better than Corbyn, but still not a match for Blair and Attlee at their best.

The most remarkable situation here is the one in the South of England. Down there, we're closer to the 1945 result than any other, and Starmer is doing conspicuously better than both Corbyn and Blair. There is quite a tectonic shift Doon Sooth, that looked totally implausible when it first registered on some pollsters' radars, but has now become a solid trend. This is certainly, at least in part, the fallout from Boris Johnson's unpopularity among the last standing bastions of the ancestral One Nation conservatism. And it won't get better if Liz Truss insists on keeping Johnson's brand of right-wing populism alive and kicking. It is also the result of demographic changes over the last couple of years, and there is clearly jack shit Liz Truss can do about that. She would have first to accept that even residents of the Home Counties suffer from the unprecedented cost-of-living crisis, and won't take a belated £2,500 energy price cap for a suitable answer. These are just the electorate who might find New New Labour's centrism, and its distinct lack of sharp edges, quite appealing.

How all this is predicted to translate into seats also highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the current variant of the Labour Party. Which don't necessarily reside in the numbers themselves, but rather in the political and ideological consequences thereof. Starmer will surely be inclined to think that doing better in the South than in the North validates his lurch to the right and the culling of socialists. That's what he wants to hear, and that's what Wes Streeting, David Lammy and Peter Mandelson will whisper to his ear. What the next batch of polls say about this will be interesting to watch. A Conservative surge in the North and status quo in the South would send a massively different message from the opposite situation, and both have pretty much the same odds of happening. How the LibDem vote evolves will also be a point to watch. But we will know for sure only after the Labour Conference, and by then it might too late for Sly Keir to change gears if voting intentions swing against his own instincts.

Sometimes things are going so smoothly, you don’t see it coming till they fall apart.

(Clifford Calley, The West Wing: A Good Day, 2005)

Do you know what Blackpool is? Faded glory. It’s like a bigger Bridlington, in’t it?

Do you know what Whitby is? World Heritage.

(Lucy Beaumont, Meet the Richardsons, 2022)

The North of England does not always send the good news Labour HQ expects, and this is again the case this time. The reasonably plausible range of Labour seats there is 120 to 135, and they're now predicted to end up almost at the lower edge of the range. There are contrasts from one region to the other. Labour would not even recoup all their 2019 losses in the North West, ending up on 53 or one short of the Corbyn Surge of 2017, and eleven short of the Blairslide of 1997. They would match 2017, but still be two seats short of 1997, in the North East. Their best result is predicted in Yorkshire and the Humber, especially the Yorkshire part, where they would match the 2005 benchmark and do better than in 1945, though still three seats short of 1997. It surely says a lot that New New Labour would do worse in the North than the 2005 variant of New Labour. That should be food for thought for Keir Starmer a few days ahead of a Labour Conference that could plausibly make or break him for good. All it takes is a strong message to the traditional working-class unionised grassroots, instead of the message Peter Mandelson and the metropolitan focus groups want to hear. Simples.

There are not many Conservative big names among the 37 predicted to lose their seats, as there are few Conservative big names anywhere in the North to start with. Actually there are only 36 names on the fatality list, as Christian Wakeford would have lost Bury South as a Conservative, but will hold it now that he has transitioned into a belief-fluid Labourite. Still on the list are Graham Brady in Altrincham and Sale West, William Wragg in Hazel Grove, Dehenna Davison in Bishop Auckland, Craig Whittaker in Calder Valley; Alec Shelbrooke in Elmet and Rothwell, Andrea Jenkyns in Morley and Outwood, and Stuart Andrew in Pudsey. Though many of them are big names in name only, and would never had made it to the list if Liz Truss hadn't been forced to scrape the other side of the bottom of the barrel too, so that she could find enough names to fill the government payroll. Which should be an asset for Labour, but they surely have it in them to turn it into a liability when election time comes.

Northerners, they’re just more hospitalitable.

It’s probably the shite winter, you have to invite people in and put the kettle on.

(Lucy Beaumont, Meet the Richardsons, 2022)

The difference between a town and a city is that a city has a multiplex and a Nando’s.

(Alan Davies, QI: Quads And Quins, 2020)

Some interesting things have happened in the Midlands, with the ebbs and flows of polls and projections. The Corbyn Debacle of 2019 left Labour with only 23 seats out of 105 there, their worst performance since the Second World War in what were once working-class heartlands. Now the plausible range of Labour seats at the next election is 50 to 65. Which would at best match their 2005 results, as there is little hope they could climb back to the heights they reached in 1997. Right now, the projection has them close to the upper edge of the range, with 25 seats in the West Midlands and 37 in the East Midlands. In the West, Labour still struggle to regain lost ground outwith the urban areas in Birmingham, Stoke-Newcastle and Coventry. Conservative resilience in rural areas is also illustrated by the Liberal Democrats predicted to lose back North Shropshire. Or it may simply be a reflection on LibDem by-election gains usually being just candles in the wind, to stay in the realm of royal references.

There is a distinctly different situation in the East Midlands, with the biggest predicted swing from the Conservatives to Labour anywhere in the UK. This would deliver seven more seats in the region than they bagged in 1997, their peak so far. One key point is that Labour are again bagging a full slate in Derbyshire, something that never happened in the real world, not even in 1945 and 1997. And happened only once in my projections since the 2019 election. There is also a quite incredible tectonic shift in Northamptonshire, with only one seat out of seven remaining in Conservative hands. Tom Pursglove in Corby and Michael Ellis in Northampton North have been regulars on the fatality list for a long time already. But now Labour would wipe out even Andrea Leadsom in South Northamptonshire, a safely Blue seat since 1910. There's an interesting side to all this. Compared with Labour's earlier peak in my projections, two months ago, the number of additional gains in the East Midlands make up for the seats lost in Scotland, and a few beyond. That's something Labour HQ, and especially Angela Rayner, should think twice about. What if the key to the next election wasn't in Scotland, and never has been? And was instead in the Midlands all the time.

If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you will never learn.

(Ray Bradbury)

There’s one of them down in Lulworth Cove in Dorset, where there’s a tank firing range.

And there’s massive traffic signs that just say, “Warning, sudden gunfire”.

I mean, I don’t know about how the rest of you live, but all gunfire is sudden for me.

(Andrew Maxwell, QI: Quiet, 2020)

Interestingly, both Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss have been accused, during the Conservative Best In Show hustings, of neglecting the Conservative voter base in rural England, which of course means mostly the once leafy South, and may explain why the Conservatives are doing pretty badly down there, and have been for months. Even died-in-the-sackcloth Tory voters are now switching in droves to Labour without going through the LibDem decompression chamber, because the Johnson-Truss brand of Conservatism is alien to what they have believed in their whole life. On top of that you get the Lockdown Exodus from London to the Outer Commuter Belt, and Bob's your uncle. The most interesting part is that most changes are now predicted to happen in East Anglia, which was definitely Red Territory back in 1945 when its southern part was some sort of extension of London's working-class East End. Now Labour are projected to do better there than even Tony Blair in 1997. Interestingly, the most visible gains are now in Hertfordshire, where the Conservatives are predicted to shrink from ten seats to three out of eleven. That's definitely an Outer Commuter Belt phenomenon more than anything else. The biggest trophy for Labour down there would be Grant Shapps in Welwyn Hatfield.

Labour would also unseat George Eustice in Camborne and Redruth, Chloe Smith in Norwich North, Alok Sharma in Reading West, Robert Buckland in South Swindon, and Jacob-Rees Moog in North East Somerset, surely the one they would be most proud of. If you like symbols, Labour is also predicted to gain Huntingdon, John Major's old seat, which has been safe Conservative territory almost continuously since 1910. The Liberal Democrats are still predicted to bag most of their gains in the South, snatching ten seats from the Conservatives. But there are some disappointments in there too, as they are predicted to lose their two recent by-election gains (Chesham and Amersham, Tiverton and Honiton) back to the Conservatives. They would still unseat Alex Chalk in Cheltenham, Dominic Raab in Esher and Walton, and Steve Brine in Winchester. But this time they would miss Jeremy Hunt in South West Surrey, though they would shrink his majority from nearly 9k to about 2k. On a good day, they could still have better than even odds in St Ives, Wokingham and Chelmsford. Maybe that day will come if Liz Truss goes on with that plan of hers to revive fracking in rural areas, that she tried so hard to hide from the public last week.

I feel like the locals need just a little bit of bling down in Devon.

(Josh Widdicombe, 8 Out Of 10 Cats Does Countdown, 2016)

The colour of the Thames is mostly down to silt.

There is still some pollution in there, but mentioning that just muddies the water.

(Sandi Toksvig, QI: Rogue, 2021)

London is still predicted to remain faithful to Labour. But this time, polling predicts a slump in the LibDem vote. Which is not enough to deprive them of any seats, but they would miss the gains that previous polls predicted, including the very symbolic one in the Cities of London and Westminster. Interestingly, even Labour's annus horribilis in 2005 was not such a massive success for the LibDems in London. That was their attempt to rebrand themselves as the true progressives, in opposition to an authoritarian New Labour losing ground in the fallout of the Iraq War, and it didn't really work as planned. It helped the Conservatives more than the LibDems themselves, and Labour probably considered George Galloway to be a bigger thorn in their arse back then.

Conservative fatalities in the Imperial Capital still include Felicity Buchan in Kensington, Iain Duncan Smith in Chingford and Woodford Green, and Theresa Villiers in Chipping Barnet. Everything looks good for Labour, but with one caveat. Polls so far have not measured the possible impact of Aspire, Respect's true heir apparents, after their massive success in Tower Hamlets at the last Council elections. This is certainly something pollsters should investigate. It may have the potential to become a major embarrassment for London Labour, or it may not. Either way, I'm sure Keir Starmer would really love to know.

Let’s just say the biggest enemy of truth is not the lie, it’s the myth.

(Ryan Pierce, The West Wing: Constituency Of One, 2003)

Schadenfreude, enjoying the suffering of others.

The whole rationale behind the House of Representatives.

(C.J. Cregg, The West Wing: Disaster Relief, 2003)

Meanwhile in the USA, the Democratic Party have regained some hope about the House of Representatives elections. First estimates, before the repeal of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court, predicted they would lose about 30 seats. But the ruling backfired politically, as it didn't boost the right-wing 'pro-lifers'. Instead, it triggered a massive mobilisation of pro-abortion activists, most of them politically close to the Democrats. The first sign that it worked was a referendum in Kansas, a strongly Republican state, where anti-abortion legislation was rejected by 59% of voters. Prognosticators then cut their estimate of Democratic losses to 10-20. Then came a by-election for Alaska's at-large seat, where Democrat Mary Peltola defeated far-right icon and former governor Sarah Palin, on a 12% swing from Republicans to Democrats. And Democrats started dreaming aloud that they might end up holding control of the House. Recent polls definitely support that, with Democrats holding a tiny lead over Republicans in the 'generic polling' trend.

This election is actually more challenging for Democrats, as heavily gerrymandered redistricting was allowed to proceed in several Republican states. The snapshot of voting intentions illustrates American common wisdom, that the Democrats need a lead of about 4% nationwide to achieve a tie in the number of House seats. This was already true when Bill Clinton was President, and still pretty much holds today. Democrats have tried some counter-gerrymandering of their own in states where they control the redistricting process. The most publicised examples are Illinois and Maryland, which have probably deprived the Republicans of four to six seats overall. But this is quite insignificant compared to the gerrymandering in Republican states. Democrats have also been quite naive about the whole thing, as more Democratic states have switched the responsibility of redistricting to an independent commission. So the results we have no are not surprising at all.

This snapshot shows that the most recent batch of polls deliver a status quo. Which means that Democrats would have held control of the House by a hare's breadth, if gerrymandering had not flipped a handful of seats to the Republicans. That would be a powerful oven-ready talking point for the Biden administration, if they have a similar result on Election Day. "We didn't lose the elections, the Republicans stole them". And, unlike Trump's claims after the 2020 presidential election, that would be demonstrably true. Such an outcome would also restore some hope about the 2024 presidential election on the Democratic side. A status quo is just what they need to win it.

There may not be anything anymore that outpaces the hatred the right

feels for the left, or the tonnage of disrespect the left feels for the right.

(Josh Lyman, The West Wing: Evidence Of Things Not Seen, 2003)

If women were the only voters, the Democrats would win in a landslide every time.

If men were the only voters, the GOP would be the left-wing party.

(Amy Gardner, The West Wing: Dead Irish Writers, 2002)

What is happening in the Senate elections sheds some light about a uniquely American legal oddity. When you register to vote, you also have to register your party affiliation as Democrat, Republican or Independent, which is used to identify the electorate at primaries. Which matters only in states that have a 'closed primaries' law, where only people registered as affiliated to a party can vote in that party's primaries. Other states have an 'open primaries' law, where pre-registered affiliation is not a condition to vote in any primary. Democrats have reportedly used that loophole extensively this year and voted in Republican primaries in swing states, to ensure that the most unelectable Republican hopefuls would be selected. This has reportedly been the case in Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania where the Republican candidates are dyed-in-the-wool Trumpian stock, likely to freak out moderate and independent voters. If true, the stunt seems to work as all three states are predicted to switch from Red to Blue.

I have identified the seats that are predicted to change hands with a lighter shade of the winning party's colour. The only Democratic seat in the danger zone is Georgia. But polls are quite volatile there and flip it from Blue to Red and back all the time. So it's more of a tossup, as Americans call ultra-marginals, than anything else. It was already a knife-edge result when the seat was last contested at a by-election in 2020, and will likely be so this year too. What will matter for the Biden administration is the bigger picture. The likely outcome is a split Congress, with a weak Republican majority in the House, and a stronger Democratic majority in the Senate. Many Presidents have been dealt a much worse hand at midterms, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. This is definitely a situation Joe Biden and Kamala Harris could turn to their advantage with the proper messaging. Republicans might even grant them just that on a silver platter if they keep on rebranding themselves as the Trump Party. To paraphrase Roosevelt, the only thing Republicans have to fear is their fear of Trump itself. Brushing off the remains of Trumpism would surely reset the game, and Democrats must be praying that the Republicans never do it.

You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever

you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you

how deep the rabbit hole goes.

(Morpheus, The Matrix, 1999)

Jeremy's Den

19/09/2022

Curtain

We Must Be Dreaming