Jeremy's Den: Leaders Are Hard To Find

Funny how life is so like surgery. Sometimes you can make that Rocky-Davis in the right lower

quadrant. And then there are those days when your bowel ruptures and spills into your peritoneum,

and all you’re left with is intense pain and sepsis.

Oh, brother! My kingdom for a ten-blade when that happens!

(David Morgenstern, ER: Let The Games Begin, 1996)

What the herd hates the most is the one who thinks differently.

It is not so much the opinion itself, as the audacity of wanting to think for themselves.

Something they do not know how to do.

(Arthur Schopenhauer)

As always, click on the images for larger and easier to read variants in a pop-up.

Nobody will be surprised by what the November polls are telling us, after five weeks of Sunak Government. There is indeed a 'Rishi Bounce' for the Conservatives. This was fully expected after Liz Truss dragged them down to unprecedented world-beating Mariana Trench depths. And should also be taken with zen serenity on Labour's side for now, as their lead still conclusively points to a landslide victory at the incoming snap general election. Even if many punditificating columnists told us to brace ourselves for it, there isn't a 'Rishi Tsunami' just yet, and there will probably never be. But it's always fun to see John Curtice once again stating the obvious and telling us what everybody with a brain already knew, that the Tories are fucked. The trend of general election polling says just that. Rishi may have scraped some points back, but nobody genuinely expected Labour to hold that triple-digit lead until the next election, especially not Labour themselves. But the damage to the Conservative brand is such that they are still doing worse than in the darkest days of the Borisdämmerung.

There is irony of a historic magnitude in what polls have told us since the summer. The last poll before Liz Truss was appointed Prime Minister had Labour leading by 12%. Which would have delivered a Labour majority, but not a colossal one. More like 330-340 seats and far from the Blair Tsunamis of 1997 and 2001. Then the last poll before Rishi Sunak was appointed had Labour leading by 33%. Which would have translated into 500-510 Labour seats, with the Conservatives finishing fourth behind the SNP and the Liberal Democrats. An implausibly one-sided election, the like of which had not been seen for more than 90 years. So Rishi inherited the most challenging mission, something like unscuttling the Hochseeflotte, and he actually has done quite a good job of it, gaining back up to 10% in less than a month. Many Conservative members surely find themselves now dreaming that Sunak had directly succeeded Johnson, and that the whole Truss Interlude had been but Season Nine of Dallas. Labour would again be on the defensive and Starmer's leadership questioned, just as in the sunlit days of the Johnson Presidency. Alas, poor Rishi, they can only blame their genetically inherited subconscious racism for not choosing you the first time around.

The only time he ran in a competitive election, he got trounced by the former Prime Minister.

Who herself got beaten by a lettuce.

(Keir Starmer, Prime Minister's Questions, 26 October 2022)

There’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ‘tis not to come.

If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all.

(William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 2)

But let's face it, Rishi Sunak may have patched the leak burst open by Liz Truss when she detonated the demolition charges deep down in the bowels of the flagship, but it's still foundering. The Conservatives have just traded Barham for Ark Royal so far. They have rearranged the chairs on the flight deck, and gone on with their usual games of snakes and mirrors. Like reappointing Sue-Ellen Braverman as Home Secretary after Grant Shapps, Michael Green, Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox had taken turns in the position for only six days. Or, more to the point, despite Braverman pretty much confessing to having breached the Ministerial Code six times. The whole mess definitely did not scream competence, reliability and integrity. And all the YouGov polls in the world won't make a fucking difference. My current Poll'O'Polls includes the last batch of four, conducted between 29 November and 2 December, with a super-sample size of 5,618 and a theoretical margin of error of 1.3%. It clearly shows that Rishi's Accession was mostly a dumb squid, as far as massively shifting votes is concerned. And you know what they say, if it walks like a dud and quacks like a dud, then it is a dud. Which is what we have here with Labour predicted to get twice as many votes as the Conservatives.

But what we have here is also evidence of a major problem surging on the event horizon for Keir Starmer. Transitioning Labour into a centrist middle-class business-friendly party is probably not the stroke of genius Keir thinks it is, as it has moved them to a quadrant of the compass that is as crowded as Charles's and Diana's marriage. That neck of the woods is already the Liberal Democrats' and the Sunakservatives' favourite hunting ground, so the potential gains from Keir's strategy might not be as big as Peter Mandelson predicted them to be. The return of Reform UK, with thrice the vote share they bagged three years ago when they self-identified as the Brexit Party, might also become problematic for Labour in some remote Eurosceptic corners of Northern England. Or it may become more of a challenge for the Conservatives, if Crazy Man Nigel decides to not renew their unilateral pact of non-aggression, and stand in all seats regardless of the incumbent's favourite colour. In the current state of affairs, the Brexiteers have fuck all chance at bagging a seat, but they might be able to decisively influence the outcome in some marginal seats.

People, change is like a freight train. You're either on board, or you're gritting the gears.

(Donald Anspaugh, ER: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, 1996)

Sometimes I have felt like a sheriff with no posse. Like a general with no grunts in the field.

A lone shepherd, high up on a hill with no sheepdog. Everywhere you look there's sheep, sheep, sheep.

(David Morgenstern, ER: Something New, 1997)

The current seat projection is both crystal clear and merciless. This would be Labour's best result since Dog domesticated Man, and also the second-best result ever for a single party, bested only by Stanley Baldwin's Conservatives in 1931, on 470 seats. But the math is not as deceptively simple as it looks at first sight. Don't even think of stating authoritatively that it is a 250-seat predicted majority for Labour, because it is not. Factor in real-life events, like Sinn Féin not taking their seats and the SDLP faithfully caucusing with Labour, and you will find out that it is a 261-seat majority. Which is actually quite a moot point, as Labour's majority would be large enough to make them immune to any sort of industrial accident. Just bear in mind that Labour did not lose any seat at by-elections during the First Blairslide Parliament in 1997-2001, and only two during the Second Blairslide Parliament in 2001-2005. New New Labour could certainly count on the same sort of momentum, pun quite deliberate, after a tsunami election of their own.

The most important part here, as we will see in more detail further down the road, is that it would deprive the Conservatives of the minimal base they need to bounce back quickly. They suffered a less severe defeat in 1997, and it took them 13 years to come back, even with New Labour shooting themselves repeatedly in the foot. Keir Starmer certainly lacks the stratospheric level of hubris Tony Blair had, and he has the analytical brain to avoid the most obvious traps. Could New New Labour then outlast both Blair-Brown and Thatcher-Major? Even just the former would be quite a feat, delivering the longest stretch of Labour government ever. Then, of course, ye ken, even the best laid plans...

You can only make it possible when you win elections. How's that going for you?

(Jess Phillips to Owen Jones, Labour Conference, 2022)

We put our trust in our ruling class, we put this great country in their hands. And what do they do?

How do they pay back our trust? By a shameful, dishonest misadventure.

(Aneurin Bevan, The Crown: A Company Of Men, 2017)

The current sequence of awful polling, even after Saviour Rishi was anointed, has sent waves of panic across the Conservative Parliamentary Party. Their MPs have a 5 December deadline to make their intentions about the next general election clear, and quite a few announced they would not seek another term. It sounded quite natural for newcomers like rising star Dehenna Davison, who was obviously bound for an uphill battle in Bishop Auckland. It was more of a surprise when more seasoned MPs like Sajid Javid also announced they will be standing down. Javid's seat of Bromsgrove definitely looks like a quite safely Blue seat, so there must have been another kind of fatigue at work here. Interestingly the deadline for the final proposals of the 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster Constituencies is now also 5 December, brought forward about six months. This has led to increased speculation that Rishi Sunak is indeed planning on calling a snap general election in the spring of 2023, after fast-tracking the latest variant of gerrymandering through Parliament early in the year. Not that it would really help, as my seat projection on the new boundaries shows.

Like many times before, we are in this ironically karmic situation where gerrymandering turns into dummymandering, and is predicted to help Labour more than the Conservatives. I'm still working here on the initial proposals, until the full details of the final ones are made official, and I have time to digest them. But they will probably not make a massive difference, as data already published suggest the final proposals will be less favourable to the Tories by only a wee handful of seats. It seems that some of the most offensive cases of butchering perfectly healthy constituencies have been removed, but the overall pattern is pretty much the same, as are the reasons why it is predicted to backfire under current polling trends. I will update after the final boundaries have been officially announced, and some data about the notional results of the 2019 election are available.

One learns, when one has the benefit of experience, that sometimes time off is the most sensible

course of action. It might give you something more important than pleasure. Perspective.

(Princess Margaret, The Crown: The Balmoral Test, 2020)

Live at Warner Bros Studios, Burbank, California, 23 May 1997

The Prime Minister needs to be given a chance. Even if it's only to hang himself.

(Clement Attlee, The Crown: Act Of God, 2016)

Rishi Sunak is the kind of lad who holds a Periodic Review of himself, trying different People's Something personas in turns, but in real life he couldn't assemble flatcap furniture if his wife's dividends depended on it. That's why his approval-favourability ratings are so intriguing. People loved him when he was Chancellor. His multiple failed attempts at sounding less like a University Challenge contestant from King's College, London didn't matter, as long as he gave away fuckloads of dosh to each and every oppressed and marginalised community on These Isles, or every lobby that asked for it. Like an American politician, befitting his status as a Green Card holder, he literally bought his popularity with taxpayers' money. And wasn't too concerned with where the money went, when it was one of his Cabinet colleagues requesting it for their publican or their mistress on government contracts without competitive tenders. Then his popularity foundered after revelations about his wife, but has somewhat recovered since. There are thusly some intriguing patterns in the trends of his approval-favourability ratings.

Rishi has regained a slight and fleeting positive net rating, not because a lot of people love him more, but because a lot are sitting on the fence since he became Prime Minister. Not that he is an unknown quantity, but you get this disturbing impression people think he is, and are still cautiously giving him the benefit of the doubt. There are probably some interesting underlying patterns here. In the days of yore, two years ago, their was something of a veneer of competence, reliability and relatability about Rishi. Though you probably had to be just a wee smicth gullible to buy it all. Then it was soon scratched away when Rishi found himself exposed in the spotlight. I guess his life was way more comfortable as the smiling cardboard cutout sitting next to Boris Johnson, or as your friendly waiter at Wagamama's. But he who thrived as Wee Dog will die as Big Dog. So hint the trends of the classic one-on-one between Sunak and Starmer as the public's Preferred Prime Minister.

Keir Starmer did not have any problem convincing public opinion that he would be a better Prime Minister than Liz Truss. Of course the bar was set really low and Truss did most of the heavy lifting herself, quickly convincing most of the UK that the safest route was to airlock her at the earliest opportunity. Now Starmer's task looks just a little bit harder when facing Rishi Sunak. Common wisdom is that Starmer performs well at PMQs while Sunak does not. But, by their very nature, PMQs have a short shelf life, so the impression remains that Starmer's general performance is underwhelming. Even The Guardian offered only lukewarm support after Labour's victory at the City of Chester by-election. Could Keir have reached the limits of the pub bore persona, that ended up being successful against Boris Johnson's pub clown act?

The people of England regards itself as free, but it is grossly mistaken.

It is free only during the election of members of Parliament.

As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing.

(Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762)

I’m happiest with numbers. You can trust numbers. They’re honest.

There’s no mystery or deception or allegory. You know where you stand.

What you see is what you get. And I prefer things that way.

(Harold Wilson, The Crown: Olding, 2019)

An unexpected, though not totally surprising, recent development has seen the foaming-at-the-mouth Brexit maniacs throwing the toys out of the pram over an alleged 'Swiss Deal' being negotiated, or just contemplated, by the English Government. Which Rishi Sunak denied, saying it was the Chancellor's idea of a practical joke because, ye ken, he's such a Hunt. But right now is just as good a time as any to have a closer look at the state of public opinion about Brexit. Which YouGov have been tracking for quite a long time now, and other pollsters have surveyed it too from time to time. And the trends of these polls quite conclusively show massive buyers' remorse. Brexit may have looked like a good idea at the time but, with 20/20 hindsight, it doesn't look like that any more. People now feel it was the wrong choice, and by a considerable margin. I guess it can only increase now that all the aspects of the disaster are highlighted by experts, starting with its contribution to the cost-of-living crisis.

Now there's also this fairy tale, of the Grimm variety, alive in some circles of the pundito-commentariat, that Brexit was a genius idea, just badly handled. Which is definitely not what the common people think, with two thirds or more considering it badly handled, no matter which Prime Minister was in charge at a given time. But it has convinced Keir Starmer, never short of ideas about which fringe cult to cuddle next, to include a commitment to Make Brexit Work in the next Labour manifesto. The very concept of Making Brexit Work is just as credible as making your dog not pee on the wheels of the neighbour's car. Expert opinion here. But this is just another case of Sly Keir being in denial of the obvious reality, when even prominent Guardian columnists hammer home the fucking disaster that Brexit is, and was always bound to be. He should also pay more attention to official government figures, that prove that even Liz Truss's flagship world-beating trade deal with Japan has been a total failure. In the meanwhile, a series of polls have been conducted, testing what the people's choice would be, if there was a referendum about rejoining the European Union. The trends are quite merciless, clearly showing that the 'Brexit Good, EU Bad' narrative has totally lost credibility.

This option has been surveyed by pretty much all pollsters great and small, with various level of connections within the political establishment, or a complete lack thereof. So it's definitely not part of a Metropolitan Elite conspiracy controlled by genetically engineered Mossad agents from a secret base financed by Bill Gates at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, though Nigel Farage might believe so. But I think the pollsters are wrong in one respect: dangling just one carrot in front of us. There is an alternative option that should also be discussed and polled, joining EFTA. Which would actually be rejoining EFTA, as the UK was a founding member in the olden days of yore, when France wouldn't let the UK anywhere near membership of the EEC. If British media were not caught between a rock and a hard rock in the post-Brexit debates, they would try and explain what the European Economic Area is, and what the UK would gain by being part of it. Which is just the point Rishi Sunak could and should have made, if he hadn't allowed the Brexit maniacs to bully him into denial and submission about the 'Swiss Deal'. It takes baws to not miss opportunities to reframe the narrative. Rishi should know by now.

You can’t screw a man in the ass and then expect him to buy you flowers.

(Lyndon Johnson, The Crown: Margaretology, 2019)

It’s been rather worse than nothing. Economically, the drain on our currency reserves

has been so ruinous that we now face a run on sterling. The energy situation is just as bad.

(Louis Mountbatten, The Crown: A Company Of Men, 2017)

Another confusing issue is what Rishi Sunak's energy policy actually is.A growing sense that the tide is turning, both within the general population and the Conservative parliamentary party, certainly explains his unexpected U-turn over new onshore wind farms. But what the next step will be is far from clear. It might be something like National Grid announcing on a Monday afternoon that they would not activate their Winter Plan, that they had announced on the same Monday's morning they would activate on Tuesday. Which definitely made me much more confident that we won't get any power cuts, and that Rishi Sunak won't summon his Inner Heath and make a dramatic announcement about the Three-Day Week before calling a snap general election, while begging us to do the washing at 3am. In the meanwhile, Opinium updated a poll they had already conducted in September, as I mentioned in an earlier article, about the British public's opinion of a select list of energy sources. As usual, what matters most here is the net rating of all the options, per the usual [ { strongly support + somewhat support } - { strongly oppose + somewhat oppose } ], where undecideds don't count. And how that net rating evolved between September and November.

The people's verdict is clear, and even clearer now than two months ago. Support for wind farms has increased. The variations for nuclear power plants, gas power plants and coal power plants are not significant, considering the sample sizes and margins of error. Opposition to coal mining and fracking has increased. So we now have this quite interesting situation where Alok Sharma finds himself in sync with the general population, when he takes a strong stand against a new coal mine in Cumbria. Or where Boris Johnson and Theresa May anchor themselves on the right side of the debate, which for once might also be the right side of history, by leading a backbencher rebellion against the de facto ban on onshore wind farms. Of course neither meant Rishi Sunak any harm, they just threatened him with losing a key vote in Commons. Which would definitely help him reframe his Premiership, or summat. Like performing another U-turn that wasn't really a U-turn because, ye ken, Rishi always agreed with the rebels' position, even when he was actively fighting it. He was just misunderstood. Again.

Panic buying has been reported at petrol stations, and we expect fuel rationing to become

necessary as we move into winter. It is no exaggeration to say this has been the worst week

for the country since 1939.

(Louis Mountbatten, The Crown: A Company Of Men, 2017)

Some high bandwidth interface to the brain will be something that helps achieve a symbiosis between

human and machine intelligence and maybe solves the control problem and the usefulness problem.

(Elon Musk)

In the meantime, while Grant Shapps is debating how many wind turbines would fit on a pinhead, the trade unions are planning further strikes, or other types of action, into the next year, most of them in the rail sector, the NHS, education and the postal sector. Which is probably as far as the trade unions can go without openly calling for a general strike, which would probably be illegal anyway. Which prompted Nadhim Zahawi to hyperventilate and hyperbolate, accusing nurses of working for the FSB, or summat. Which turned out to be the perfect matte for YouGov to field a poll about the most visible incoming actions. The train drivers' strike that hit 11 operators a week ago, but was still in the future when YouGov did the Tories' polling. The rail support staff's strike scheduled over two four-day periods in December and January. The rail support staff's action to refuse overtime for two weeks from Hanukkah to New Year's Hangovers Day. The results are obviously not what union leaders could wish for, but are also not as clear-cut as some in the media would like you to think.

Headlines about the people opposing the strikes are just a wee smitch overstating their case, as it looks more like a statistical tie. We even have a majority supporting staff who reject forced overtime. It's more a case of Conservative voters massively opposing the strikes, which they would probably do anyway whatever the context and the motivations. But Labour voters support the strikes just as massively, and LibDem voters too, even if it's not as overwhelming. YouGov also tested another genius Conservative master plan, using the Army to plug holes wherever and whenever they burst open. And this one is surprisingly successful, across all politics, demographics and geographics. Even the most reluctant tribes, Labour voters and the TikTok Generation, show a solid majority supporting the plan. After all, it's not like it hasn't been done before, and even Labour-controlled local authorities have already explicitly asked for it recently. So I guess we have to suck it up and accept it as a permanent fixture now.

These polls are actually quite a mixed bag. First of all, you can easily make the cynical-but-practical point, that the rail sector is already such a total fucking mess that strike-induced cancellations won't really change much of the overall picture. Then the public's reaction also depends on which kind of information and messaging is dumped on them. Not so long ago, Mick Lynch was all over the place on breakfast and teatime TV, but he no longer is. Instead, the coverage of the industrial actions has shifted to the billionaire-owned fishwrappers, whose sole purpose in life is to relay the government's soundbites, no matter how stupid or irrelevant. Of course strikes are disruptive, but there would be no point to them if they weren't. So it's not a surprise when the Conservatives' talking points revolve around creating some sort of 'strike fatigue' in the general population by pitting 'privileged' strikers against the rest of the working class. Fortunately, this hostile environment has not deterred RMT, who are still standing their ground and refusing to submit under duress.

You can get any result you want from a poll, by massaging the questions. You can make people

say anything you want them to say. But you can’t make people do anything you want them to do.

You can never be absolutely sure of people, can you?

(Sarah Harding, To Play The King, 1993)

We’re not a united government, are we? There is no petrol in the pumps. There are no tins

on the shelves. Our allies are aligned against us. Our international reputation is in tatters.

(Harold Macmillan, The Crown: Lisbon, 2017)

Energy is not the only area of policy where the current Conservative government need to reframe their beliefs, reboot their sensors, open their eyes to reality, and their ears to what the public has to say. The cost-of-living debacle is another obvious example. To help Rishi Sunak get a grip on reality, YouGov have just surveyed their panels in the UK and six European countries, all members of the European Union, but from different subsamples of it, about their perception of the international cost-of-living crisis and its consequences. Just the kind of international comparisons the Conservatives hate, even if they could often learn from them. YouGov first asked their panels how they assess their own financial situation, from 'very comfortable' to 'fucking desperate', more or less. And the results are not really what you would expect.

The knee-jerk response to this is that the crisis is not that bad after all, when the largest groups across seven different countries are people saying they can cover the essentials, and just have to drop spending on luxuries. At least, that's how 55 Tufton Street would spin it to support neo-liberal absolutism. But the question is a wee smitch biased, as are all relying on any sort of self-identification. For example, the British sample is certainly influenced by the genetically inherited attitudes like taking one on the chin or keeping a stiff upper lip because, ye ken, we must live up to the Blitz Spirit. But responses are quite different when YouGov switches the focus to actual things that actually happened in the real world. Like whether or not people has to make cuts in their spending, and whether or not they expect to have to make further cuts in the future.

Now that's definitely a bleaker picture, and quite significantly so in the UK. You just can't reconcile only 25% of the people saying they are struggling with 60% saying they have already cut on their spending, and 73% expecting more cuts in the future. The last two figures are obviously those the English government should focus on, to get a realistic assessment of the seriousness of the situation. Especially when another question reveals that 42% of Brits have already struggled to pay energy bills, and 43% have struggled to pay for food, at least occasionally. Not really the snapshot of an ebulliently happy country heading for some variant of sunlit uplands. Neither is it a country ready to believe a government who tell them they have it all figured out, and it will get better soon.

In the course of my life, I have learned to recognise the face of a liar.

Something in the features is drawn differently. Something in the eyes.

(Harold Macmillan, The Crown: Mystery Man, 2017)

On its current path, the world will fill with anger and soon will be destroyed.

Away from the madness, we must build a new way, a new philosophy, a new ethos.

(Kurt Hahn, The Crown: Pater Familias, 2017)

But there is worse news in that poll for the English government, when the panels are asked to assess how their governments have handled the cost-of-living crisis so far. We already know that handling it with compassion and care has not been the English government's forte. A lot of this lot are still prisoners of the thatchero-libertarian dogma that Britain should free itself from the shackles of the Nanny State. The most vociferous supporter of this being of course our beloved Jacob Rees-Moog, the lad who relied on his own nanny to drive him and hand out leaflets for him, when he was campaigning in Fife at the tender age of 27. But that sort of approach definitely does not cut it with the common people.

Not only does the English government bag a well below average rating here, they also have the worst rating of all countries surveyed. To be fair, the assessment should not just cover their handling of the cost-of-living crisis, but of the economy in general. The Truss Interlude has crashed the pound and siphoned £65bn from the Bank of England's reserves to keep the pensions system afloat, and it was only the beginning. Now the UK is heading at flank speed towards the worst economic results of any OECD country in 2022. It says a lot that the closest competition is from post-sanctions Russia, riddled with double-digit recession and inflation. Which leads me to YouGov's last question, the in cauda venenum one, about how the panels see the situation of the UK's economy a year from now.

Quite ironically, and cruelly, YouGov did not ask the other countries' panelists how they see the economy of their own country, but very explicitly the UK's economy. And it's not a pretty sight, with an overwhelming majority predicting a recession, probably with some of the Plagues of Egypt on top for some more fun moments. We have already had water turning into shit, lice and flies, wild animals on the streets, pestilence of livestock, thunderstorms of hail. Darkness for three days is just a matter of time, when the National Grid collapses under its own weight and France can no longer send electrons our way. Then we will just have to wait for the locusts. Which would actually be good news, as you can eat them.

The storm is now raging against us. We’ve discarded the moral advantage

or any goodwill we once held. Not to mention the dire economic situation.

(Harold Macmillan, The Crown: Lisbon, 2017)

Live at Capitol Theater, Passaic, New Jersey, 17 October 1975

No shock lasts longer than 48 hours. There’s too much appetite for the next shock.

(Harold Wilson, The Crown: Cri De Coeur, 2019)

Now the whole Scottish political landscape has been turned upside down and inside out by the Supreme Court's surprise ruling. Naw, just kidding. Everybody with a brain expected exactly what happened. I won't even bore you with the multiple reasons why this was bound to happen, everybody with a brain knows what they are. Thanks Dog, Nicola Sturgeon, Ian Blackford and Pete Wishart spared us the virtue-signalling displays of rehearsed indignation that many expected, but still failed to deal with the only question worth asking: now what? Because the only alternative on the table, the so-called 'plebiscite election', is in itself problematic. But we will burn that bridge when we come to it. Let's see first what the most recent Full Scottish Poll, conducted by Redfield & Wilton on 26-27 November, has to say about the Soon-To-Not-Be-Happening second Independence Referendum. It's 49% Yes to 45% No, or a 52-48 Yes victory if you factor out undecideds. And it has definitely made the trends of IndyRef voting intentions look better..

But a better trend because of one good poll does not mean guaranteed success. Other recent polls, just weeks ago, were far less favourable. It's safe to assume that we are now pretty much facing a tie. This is much better than what we had in 2012, when the campaign for the first referendum started. But it is also a very awkward situation for both sides. The No Camp have probably already realised that Better Together 2.0 will not work, as so many of their soundbites have since be proven to be fucking bullshit. But the Yes Camp is handicapped by the SNP's ambiguity. Nicola made her Big Announcement and, five months on, nothing has happened. They have found all sorts of excuses to not campaign, whatever Angus Robertson says, amidst rising suspicions that Independence is actually not their priority. Having Ian Blackford in charge of some nondescript Special Ops after his resignation from the Big Dog slot is not even good news. We have seen too much of Ian already to believe that the Simple Humble Crofter is the right man in the right place to Get Indy Done. But, of course, I tend to be a reasoned pessimist on these matters, and would love nothing more than being proved wrong. Their move then, I guess.

All our territories have to be visited once in a while, so they don’t feel neglected

or forgotten, and don’t get any silly ideas like becoming independent.

(Elizabeth II, The Crown: Lisbon, 2017)

You can get fusions these days. In Scotland, you can get macaroni and cheese from the chippy.

(Iain Stirling)

The Redfield & Wilton poll was actually just a Scottish Almost Full, as it did not survey the next Scottish Parliament election, but only the Schrödinger Independence Referendum, and the infamous 'plebiscite election', with more bad news for SNP HQ. The main reason is that it is predicted to massively backfire. For once, I have dug deeper into the available pool of polls, and extracted the Scottish subsamples of all GB-wide polls conducted between Halloween and yesterday. Which amounts to 32 samples and a super-sample size of 4,140. This can be compared to the most recent Full Scottish polls of Westminster voting intentions. One conducted by Panelbase in October, and the last one from Redfield & Wilton, which I also used for the seat projections delivered by the various available models. And the results are definitely not what Scotland needs, or rather what the SNP need, to make the case for independence in the short term. The various projection models deliver different results, as usual, but even the most favourable one is quite bad.

The long-range snapshot from the subsamples is strikingly similar to the last two Full Scottish polls, and the warning signs are probably here to stay. Nothing new here then, and no reason to believe in the magic powers of a 'plebiscite election'. Told you already, and telling you again: thinking that Labour would only siphon the Unionist vote from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, and would never bite into the centre-left vote they compete for with the SNP, was a fucking delusion. There is a major risk too, that any future campaign will prove quite awkward for the SNP. The Branch Offices of the English parties managed to lure Nicola Sturgeon into discussing the merits of the Scottish Government during the 2017 Commons campaign. It wasn't the issue, but she walked into the trap at flank speed and lived to regret it. Don't lie to yourself, it worked then and it will work next time if they try it again. The Branch Offices have an obvious vested interest in making the next campaign about anything but Independence. Odds are the SNP will have no choice but to follow, for fear of being accused of avoiding the real issues, and will thusly lose their most potent talking point. Mark me, mates.

The better people are from Glasgow. We all know that, right? Edinburgh is posher.

(Jean Johansson)

One always has to accept one’s own part, I believe, in any mess.

(Elizabeth II, The Crown: Lisbon, 2017)

Now I'm going to indulge in something I don't usually do, exploring the make-up of the Scottish Parliament in an alternate universe spawned by a 'What If?' scenario. Won't be long but might be fun, so bear with me. First, the Holyrood constituency vote would be the same as what the latest Redfield & Wilton poll found for the Westminster vote. Then the Holyrood list vote would be deduced from that, by factoring in the same differences between constituency and list votes that we have in the most recent Holyrood polls. Which is mostly a mass exodus from the SNP to the Greens, with some minor movements elsewhere. The whole thing is just a hypothetical situation that SNP faithful will say can't happen. Then we are used to see lots of things that can't happen happen in today's Scotland, aren't we? Anyway, here's what this particular scenario would deliver. A severe blow for the SNP and a pro-Independence majority by just a rat's ass's hair, or two.

It is quite interesting to see that the current boundaries of the Holyrood constituencies actually favour the SNP. I'm not saying that they were knowingly gerrymandered, as no self-respecting Boundary Commission would do that, would they? But the numbers speak for themselves, the same lousy share of the popular vote would result in far less damage for the SNP than with the Westminster constituencies. And also far fewer gains for Labour. Which possibly does not matter that much, as the allocation of the list seats would deliver its usual leveling effect. You might very well think that this scenario is far-fetched, I couldn't possibly agree. The SNP losing 6% on the constituency vote is not that implausible, when you consider all recent polls. The Scottish public are also aware at last that list votes for the SNP are wasted votes, and the 'Both Votes SNP' mantra does not work anymore. Only a snap Holyrood election could test the robustness of such a Doomsday Scenario, and would also be the genuine 'plebiscite election'. Will Nicola Sturgeon take that gamble?

What a mess. I mean, honestly, can you remember a time when the country was in worse shape?

Or one had as little confidence in one’s leaders?

(Prince Philip, The Crown: Cri De Coeur, 2019)

Live at Capitol Theater, Passaic, New Jersey, 17 October 1975

These are dark times for Wales. Never before has the country faced tougher challenges.

And never before have the Welsh people been so powerless to make the changes we want

and need. The time has come for this country to have Home Rule.

(Tedi Millward, The Crown: Tywysog Cymru, 2017)

In Wales, I think we see the consequentials of the Drakeford Effect again. His rather soft stance on Welsh Independence was certainly a smart move, as the way he phrased it was both reassuring for the Labour Unionists, and not provocative for the Labour Independentists and Plaid Cymru. Drakeford has certainly understood he doesn't need a divisive brawl over Independence, like the one between Anas Sarwar and the SNP. And it works, as Welsh Labour have been stabilising their predicted vote share roughly at the same level as the Corbyn Surge of 2017, while reducing the Conservatives to a Blair-era level. This is probably the best Labour can expect there for the time being, as both Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats have also progressed since the last general election.

Even with slightly different voting intentions, the seat projection here is the same as five weeks ago for Labour and Plaid Cymru. But the increased LibDem vote share means they would snatch back Brecon and Radnorshire from the Conservatives. Which should not be taken as a final prediction as this seat has been bouncing back and forth quite regularly in the last few months. Ironically, the current polls create quite a dilemma for Labour if they want to bag further gains. The two closest seats are now Ynys Môn and Arfon, both predicted to go to Plaid Cymru. It's quite clearly in Labour's best interests, for a variety of reasons, to let Plaid have both. It would also be more rewarding, both symbolically and politically, to focus on the residual Conservative seats and regain total control of the Western Pillar of the Red Wall. So I wouldn't be surprised to see some variant of a Lab-Plaid non-aggression pact emerging before the next general election, in the continuity of what already exists in the Senedd.

We’re in a delicate stage for the Union too. The Security Service have been picking up

some murmurs. Well, more than murmurs, actually. Growls. Separatist stirrings,

nationalist stirrings. In a region that has long felt aggrieved, overlooked, undervalued.

(Harold Wilson, The Crown: Tywysog Cymru, 2017)

To waste time is a grievous sin. There is no problem so complex, nor crisis so grave,

that it cannot be satisfactorily resolved within twenty minutes. So, shall we make a start?

(Winston Churchill, The Crown: Windsor, 2016)

Labour's predicted vote shares in the regions of England outwith London have quite noticeably gone down since my last projection five weeks ago. Obviously, nobody expected Labour to stay at the implausibly dizzying heights Liz Truss had propelled them to. Especially not Labour themselves. But some will still argue that Keir Starmer should resign because any other leader would have a far bigger lead over the disgraced Conservatives. Only problem is that this variant of Starmer Critical pontificators had set the bar at 20%, and look where New New Labour is now. These are the same people who punditificated at length about the City of Chester by-election not being that good, even if it is the Conservatives' worst result in that historic seat since Jonathan was born. Because it was secured on 'only' a 14% swing from the Conservatives to Labour. Even if basic math, and the Electoral Calculus predictor that pundits love so much, says that a similar swing GB-wide would have delivered 375 Labour seats, which is a substantial majority. Just as a Scotch Egg is a substantial meal. Didn't see that one coming, did you? Memories, memories... Anyway, let's look at the numbers now, as numbers don't lie. Unless you make them.

The most interesting finding in today's vote projections is that Labour's vote share has fallen the most in the Midlands, compared to what we had at the peak of Labour's Truss Bounce five weeks ago. Then it has fallen the least in the South, with the North in between and pretty much on the average level of fall. The second striking result is how well Reform UK are predicted to in the North and Midlands. It is not only the result of the polls' assumption that all parties would stand in all constituencies, instead of Reform UK standing in Labour seats only as in 2019, in their original incarnation as the Brexit Party. There is certainly a feeling, in some parts of the electorate, that Brexit is still unfinished business. The ongoing panto about the Northern Ireland Protocol doesn't help, and some may have reached the point where the natural outlet of Brexit frustrations is a demand for more Brexit. At least, that's how Keir Starmer sees it, probably because he gambles that a Farage Surge will hurt the Conservatives more than Labour this time. And polls so far hint that the gamble is working.

This crisis of confidence isn’t about policy, it’s about leadership.

This used to be a country fit for heroes, explorers, soldiers, merchants, adventurers.

We want a leader who’s prepared to let his dogs off the leash.

(Francis Urquhart, House Of Cards, 1990)

We’re the clever ones. Most of that bunch, they’re like dinosaurs in suits.

They have absolutely no idea we are playing with their little brains.

(Geoffrey Booza-Pitt, The Final Cut, 1995)

My current seat projections for England quite predictably follow a similar pattern to the predicted vote shares. Labour are 58 seats down overall on the Peak Truss prediction of five weeks ago. 31 in the Midlands, 14 in the North, 13 in the South. Which means, quite ironically, that they would again bag more seats in the Once Leafy South than in the Once Sooty North, 142 to 138. The Conservatives are 66 seats up on the previous projection, and the Liberal Democrats are collateral damage with 8 fewer seats. There is a remarkable side story to these numbers, that Labour would bag 350 seats in these regions alone, already a 57-seat working majority without London, Wales and Scotland. Which totally nullifies Labour's oven-ready and oft-repeated soundbite, that they desperately need their Scottish seats back to get the Tories Oot. They don't, but they will probably get some anyway, just because the SNP keep on making a fucking joke of themselves.

The current projection says that the Conservatives would lose 238 seats in these regions, more than Labour currently has in the whole UK. 18 of these would go to the Liberal Democrats and 220 to Labour. Fatalities would number 53 in the North, wiping out the Red Wall Intake of 2019 and beyond, 48 in the Midlands and a whopping 137 in the South. Rishi Sunak would hold his seat, because he inherited a safe one, but Theresa May would lose hers. Other high-profile trophies would include Jacob Rees-Mogg, James Cleverly, the just-reinstated Conor Burns, Graham Brady, George Eustice, Chris Grayling, Dominic Raab, Suella Braverman, Oliver Dowden, Nadine Dorries if she hasn't been ermined before, Robert Jenrick, Liam Fox, Penny Mordaunt, Alok Sharma, Jake Berry, Jeremy Hunt, Kwasi Kwarteng, Therese Coffey, Grant Shapps, Matt Hancock if he hasn't been deselected, and Chief Nutters John Redwood and Steve Baker. Enough Portillo Moments to fill five Election Nights on BBC One. Dehenna Davison, William Wragg and Chloe Smith would avoid a crushing defeat only because they have decided not to stand again, but their seats would all switch to Labour.

There's a way of doing things here. An order developed over time, generations.

And individuality, any departure from that way of doing things, is not to be encouraged.

(Tommy Lascelles, The Crown: Scientia Potentia Est, 2016)

They say of lions in the wild, once they’ve had a taste of human flesh, they

keep eating humans. Well, our 2019 intake of MPs has had its taste of flesh.

Anyway, here’s your name badge and enjoy the conference.

(Anonymous delegate, Conservative Party Conference, 2022)

Part of the shifts seen in the English electorate are explained by Redfield & Wilton's now ritual polling of the mythical Red Wall. The voting intentions they have found in their latest area-specific poll are credible. But they have missed the surge of the Reform UK vote, that is seen in the regional breakdowns of my Poll'O'Polls. If you compare the two, you see it's actually a massive transfer from the Conservatives to Reform UK, which is indeed good news for Labour. If Reform UK bites big chunks off the Conservatives, marginal Labour seats become safer, and Brexit-friendly Labour MPs in all kind of seats can only rejoice. Of course, it sill does not validate Keir Starmer's bollocks talk about a Better Brexit, or his denial of the upsides of the single market. That's Keir being Keir, prioritising short term electoralism over a long term strategic vision. On their now usual range of key issues, Redfield & Wilton still find that Northerners massively trust Labour more than the Conservatives. The only exception is the handling of the Ukraine crisis. Which is quite unfair and should not even be included in the poll. Only the party in charge is accountable on this, and you certainly can't judge the opposition on hypothetical versions of what they would do.

The Conservatives are obviously doing themselves no favours with the way they are handling the 'leveling up' agenda. Many Northerners feel that it is actually leveling down, and getting worse by the day. The massive failures of train operators, and the widening North-South divide they reveal, are just the tip of the iceberg. But there is an intriguing result too in that poll. The Conservatives' and Reform UK's ratings on the issues are similar to their voting intentions, but Labour's are lower, in a statistically significant way. Labour getting lower ratings on foreign policy is not really surprising, as they haven't been in charge of it for the last 12 years and can be judged only on statements of principles. I find Labour's low rating, and the Greens' stratospheric one, on the environment more surprising. People have had opportunities to assess Labour's green credentials in the local authorities they rule, while the Greens aren't in charge of any, so have no record to show.

Jake Berry came up with ‘Getting Britain Moving’.

Because we’re repossessing your house. That’s the slogan, we can all get behind it.

(Ivo Graham, Have I Got News For You?, 7 October 2022)

“Man’s reach should exceed his grasp, else what’s a heaven’s for?”. Browning.

Or was it Keats? Ah, well, they’re all a bunch of hopheads anyway.

(David Morgenstern, ER: Ask Me No Questions, I’ll Tell You No Lies, 1996)

This month, Redfield & Wilton have twice coupled their survey of Red Wall seats with one of Blue Wall seats. Just like Red Wall, Blue Wall is punditariat's NewSpeak for a mythical creature that did not exist before the 2019 election. Mostly because nobody thought the Conservatives had to build a wall around some besieged Southern bastions, that had been theirs for a century or more. Then polls increasingly showed that a lot of these seats were indeed in the danger zone, including some held by prominent Tory Grandees. Redfield & Wilton's sample here includes 42 currently Conservative seats all across the South of England, including London, the list of which you can find on the title page of their data file at the bottom of the poll's page. Doon Sooth too, the voting intentions in this area-specific poll are consistent with what we find in generic voting intentions polling, give or take.

Nevertheless, this poll is probably over-estimating the LibDem votes, compared with the trends of generic polls in the region. This might also be due to the choice of constituencies, with possibly a higher representation of seats where the Liberal Democrats come second and Labour third. The reassuring part for Labour here is that their average rating on the issues is higher than their voting intentions, unlike the North. The most obvious point is that Southerners trust Labour, and distrust the Conservatives, as much as Northerners on the NHS and housing, which will obviously be key issues in the next election campaign. The Conservatives' reluctance to support large investment in new housing in the South might appeal to the Blue Nimbys, but they seem to have lost that battle right now. So we have a credible scenario here, where Labour maintain a lead in historic Conservative heartlands for the foreseeable future, even if they never bounce back to the implausibly high level they reached during the Truss Interlude.

Everything, every atom in our bodies, comes from exploding stars.

Joni Mitchell was right. We are stardust. Or, put another way, nuclear waste.

(Alex Moreau, The West Wing: The Warfare Of Genghis Khan, 2004)

Live at Warner Bros Studios, Burbank, California, 23 May 1997

Campaigning on wokeness may get you elected, but you will hate the country you have to govern.

(Frank Luntz, Conservative Party Conference, 2022)

Just like Wales, London steadily delivers excellent results for Labour. Almost as good as Corbyn and better than Blair, in terms of vote shares. And the other way round in terms of seats. There is even a non-zero probability that Labour could progress further than what the current polls predict and reach 60% of the popular vote. This is probably what Keir Starmer expects from his combination of business-friendly and hipster-cuddling proposals. And it is probably the only place in England where this risqué mix might work without a hiccup. Keir should probably just skip the part about a Better Brexit down there, as it might not receive much applause. Otherwise, there is no reason the Imperial Capital doesn't live up to what the polls predict. Unless... err... checks notes... Jeremy Corbyn and Sam Tarry standing as independents, Lutfur Rahman resuscitating Respect in Tower Hamlets... These could be real fucking pains in the arse for Labour HQ, and big spanners in the works.

A total eradication of the London Tories is highly unlikely, though probably not totally impossible. Right now they are already predicted to lose, among others, Iain Duncan Smith, Theresa Villiers and maverick Elliot Colburn, which would certainly be a relief for the Sunakista Wing of the party. And also, more and most importantly... you guessed it... Boris Johnson, taken down by Labour by a hare's breadth. Which would be a relief for many well outwith the confines of the 1922 Committee, and then Boris can always set course due East and stand for President of Ukraine. Then the next two names on the hit list are Chris Philip in Croydon South, and Mike Freer in Finchley and Golders Green. Both of which could go with the proper division of labour with the Liberal Democrats. Labour deals with Philip while the LibDems deal with Freer. Which is not what you get if you consider only the results of past elections, but what a sense of political efficiency would dictate. Just don't tell me Keir Starmer and Ed Davey have never ever discussed these and other similar cases. After all they did just that at recent by-elections, without telling in as many words that they were doing it. And it would definitely be a win-win at a general election.

Of all the different kinds of fool, the most dangerous kind is the clever fool.

(Nick Boles)

I like vodka because it says so much about Russian people.

Like, Russian people bit into a raw potato and really were like,

“This is amazing, but can we make it liquid and ruin our lives?”

(Olga Koch, QI: Rogue, 2021)

YouGov has recently polled the public's attitudes to the war in Ukraine from a different angle. That of the Info War between Vladimir Putin's Propagandastaffel and the free media in the West. The survey was conducted in 25 countries, including 10 in Europe. But we will cross that fridge when we come to it, and for the moment I will focus only on the replies from the British panel. YouGov singled out six prominent and controversial items from the narratives of the Info War. Three you can file under 'blatant Russian propaganda', and three that sound more like 'Western clichés about Putin'. Just bear in mind that propaganda becomes truth when it's repeated often enough, and that clichés are just truths that are more self-evident than average. The massive differences in replies between the two categories are quite stunning, and not totally unexpected. The three statements about Putin's motivations don't come out of the blue, but from the man himself. Everything was said already in July 2021 in his essay On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians. All the revisionist falsifications and justifications for neo-Soviet imperialism were there for everyone with a brain to see. It's like Hitler and Mein Kampf all over again. Nobody can say they didn't know, he told you so and you weren't listening.

It is also quite reassuring to see that the British public has not fallen for the most obvious of Putin's propaganda stunts. It is just sad that it does not deter the FSB-funded Putin appeasers from peddling their hate-filled bollocks at every opportunity. But they must know by now that they are on the losing end of the stick, and will soon be held to account for their support of multiple war crimes against the civilian population. The map below shows the extent of the previously occupied territories recovered by Ukraine at the beginning of the tenth month of the war, ten days ago. Ukraine is obviously on a winning streak, but we must not be complacent. What has been gained might be lost again, unless Ukraine still has our unwavering support for the months, and possibly years, to come. Our energy should not only be devoted to putting pressure on our governments to increase the volume of aid, military of otherwise. But also to supporting efforts to provide protection to Ukraine's civilian population, whose lives are threatened by criminal attacks on their towns and cities, and on their energy supply. Just don't listen to the naysayers with ulterior motives, our 'Ukraine fatigue' is Ukraine's worst enemy, and ultimately ours too if we don't stand up to the imperialist bullies in Moscow.

At their peak, Russia occupied 25% of Ukraine's territory, and it's now down to 15%. But the appearance of a Russian defeat could be misleading, or deliberately deceiving. There's a classic pattern visible here on the Russian side: retreat, regroup, refurbish, replenish. Which could be the prelude to the next stage of the war: retake. The exact reasons why Putin ordered the evacuation of Kherson are not entirely clear, especially after it was 'annexed' and pro-Russian collaborators set up an administration there. So we shouldn't rule out a Russian contingency plan to regain a foothold on the North Bank of the Dnieper in the future. Which is why we also should never relent in our support to Ukraine, even if our own public opinion shows signs of 'Ukraine fatigue'. There are signs of dissatisfaction and unrest within Russia, no matter how hard Putin tries to censor or suppress them. There is no harm in us fueling them by maintaining a high level of aid to Ukraine, and hoping it will ultimately lead to Vlad The Invader's downfall. After all, Russians working out the final solution to the Putin question all by themselves would spare the rest of world a lot of trouble, wouldn't it?

If you can look into the seeds of time and say which grain will grow and which will not,

speak then to me, who neither beg nor fear your favours, nor your hate.

(William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 3)

Live at Warner Bros Studios, Burbank, California, 23 May 1997

You can’t play chess with someone who’s willing to set the board on fire.

(Phara Keaen, Foundation: Barbarians At The Gate, 2021)

British public opinion is not the beta and the omicron of what the world thinks, so I have also selected some of the responses from other countries, to see how they compare with the UK's. First our close European neighbours. Then a couple of non-Europeans who are already part of the conflict and the politics around it. Finally more non-Europeans who are not directly involved, but could have influence on future events. Either because they are 'regional leaders' in their own corner of the globe, or because they can act as influencers within international organisations. On just two of YouGov's items, to cut a long story short. The Russian talking points that Ukraine is led by Nazis, and that the Western Satanists use Ukraine to bully and threaten Russia. Because these two have been seen to have quite an impact, even influencing a well-educated and usually sensible person like Roger Waters. And, before you ask, I haven't erased my Waters digital collection because of it, and don't intend to. This being said, it's quite worrying that the Russian propaganda about Nazi Ukraine has gained some traction in a couple of European countries, who should know better, including from their own past. And also in countries outside Europe, who have been relentlessly targeted by Russian state propaganda for years and fail to see the true nature of Putin's imperialist regime, even when they can see the damage done in neighbouring countries.

The issue of Nazism in Ukraine and Russia could be discussed for months, and there is more than one simplistic side to it. It was obviously a stain on Ukraine's reputation when then-President Viktor Yushchenko awarded Stepan Bandera the title of Hero of Ukraine in January 2010. What the Putin propagandists fail to tell you is that the award was declared illegal by a court ruling in April 2010 and officially annulled in January 2011. At the time, Volodymyr Zelenskyy was busy filming a crap romcom in Moscow, and a million light years away from political involvement. The Russian propaganda also made a big deal of far-right paramilitary groups like the Azov Battalion, the Sich Battalion or Pravyi Sektor, that actually included neo-Nazis in their ranks. This is part of Putin's DARVO manipulations, drawing attention away from his own private army, the Wagner Group mercenaries. Who are notorious for massive war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria and Mali, and were founded and led by a Russian ethnic nationalist neo-Nazi. Bear in mind too that the total membership of the Ukrainian militias was like 9,000 before most of them were erased from this plane of reality during the war, while Wagner numbers 40,000 and recruiting. Numbers don't lie: more Nazis on the Russian side. Then the other soundbite, that the invasion was necessary because NATO wanted to use Ukraine as an advanced base to threaten Russia, which has definitely gained more traction than the one about the Satanist Nazis.

This Russian soundbite, despite being part of their self-victimisation propaganda, does have some semblance of credibility. People might very well think that it's just what they would expect their own country to do, if they had the opportunity. Which explains why it is accepted as truth in some circles and countries, including some that are members of NATO themselves. The only strong objection to it is that nothing of the sort could have happened before the invasion, because Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and the US Congress would have blocked funding for any military deployment to a non-NATO country. And, even if there had been a conclusive and credible national security threat, American public opinion would have been very reluctant to accept it. The situation is totally different now, and it's all Putin's fault. He has literally pushed Sweden and Finland into NATO's welcoming arms, something absolutely unthinkable at any other point since 1945. Ukraine has officially applied and will be accepted after the war is over, which guarantees that NATO troops and equipment will be deployed there, at least for a period of transition. Putin's worst case scenario made true by Putin himself. Karma.

Do you think that any of the great politicians, or the great faiths of the world, would ever had got

anywhere if people had gone out and said, “Brothers, I believe in consensus”? No, they didn’t.

(Margaret Thatcher)

Success is 99% attitude. Failure is a state of mind. It’s working already.

(John Carter, ER: When The Bough Breaks, 1997)

When we have an election in the UK, we count ballot papers by hand and we have the full results by pink-gin-time the next day. When they have an election in the USA, they have all sorts of sophisticated systems, and they can't even get a complete result in less than a month. Then they have multiple recounts, court challenges and whatnot, and consider themselves lucky if they have the full list of Representatives and Senators in time for the first sitting of the new Congress. Even before full results were in, a whole new narrative emerged, that we did not see the Red Wave, that all pundits expected and predicted. Quite far from that, actually. A genuine Red Wave would have been like Bill Clinton's first midterms in 1994, when Democrats lost 10 Governors, 54 House seats and 8 Senate seats. Or Barack Obama's first midterms in 2010, when Democrats lost 6 Governors, 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats. But the punditariat and the commentariat are in the wrong when they blame the polls, and tell us pollsters did predict a Red Wave. Because they did not. And the trends of generic House of Representatives polling are here to prove it, as they were indeed within the margin of error of the actual result.

Pollsters did not predict a Red Wave, and the very last aggregate polling from Real Clear Politics is also here to prove it, that had Republicans leading by just 2.5%, not a massive lead in any alternative reality, and actually slightly below their actual lead on Election Day. There seems to have been a tacit agreement within the pundit caste, that they would all peddle the narrative of a Midterm Disaster for the Biden administration, as it set the scene for Trump's Big Return. Which would have made juicier headlines and soundbites than a relative success for the bland and tired Biden. Then Donald's Big Announcement was outshone by a missile of questioned origin crashing into Poland. Or by his daughter sitting out the new season of the panto. Karma. In the real timeline, the elections were actually a MAGA Disaster, as the most vociferous and ebullient Trump cultists failed to unseat Democrats, and even had to concede seats that seemed impossible to lose. See Governor of Arizona for a quite enlightening example. More evidence that the polls got it right is that the actual number of seats for each party is not miles away from my final prediction. Even more strikingly, the full final results are a near-perfect mirror image of 2020, which nobody claimed was a wave election for Democrats.

Then even Real Clear Politics, who are pretty much the American John Curtice with corporate offices, got it totally wrong and wildly overestimated the Republican gains. Which is odd because they had the exact same polls as everyone else, but did not use a valid sample as the basis for their projection. I find it actually quite amusing that my own, much less sophisticated, modus operandi got closer to the actual result than theirs. The other renowned forecaster, Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight, was much closer and, quite coincidentally as I never looked up his predictions during the run-up to the elections, predicted the same result as me on the very last day. He seems to have been the only one not totally intoxicated by the 'common wisdom' narrative. Even the effects of gerrymandering were overestimated, as Democrats prevailed in a majority of the newly-carved marginal districts. And now it's 1-0 for the people against the pundits.

They’ll be coming at us with both barrels blazing. They’re gonna be looking for a sacrificial lamb.

And I have to tell you, right now you are looking pretty woolly.

(Robert Romano, ER: Truth And Consequences, 1999)

"The show must go on". Yeah. Why is that exactly? Why can't the show just stop once in a while?

(Abby Lockhart, ER: The Show Must Go On, 2005)

The same comments about the reliability of polls also apply to the Senate elections. For these, my projections were based on state-by-state polling, which actually increases the risk of a miss as sample sizes are smaller. Nevertheless, my last projection was a stalemate. With Democrats gaining Pennsylvania from Republicans, which they did. And Democrats losing Nevada to Republicans, which they didn't. Even if only by 0.66%, and because their campaign to hold the Latino vote worked better than the punditriat predicted. So that was just one miss out of thirty-five seats up for election, which looks pretty good to me. Just like with the House elections, the punditariat had this oven-ready narrative that Democrats could only lose heavily, because that's what happened to Clinton and Obama. A narrative that had all the ingredients of a self-indulgent self-fulfilling prophecy. When the whole thing fell flat on its face, the pundits could never admit that they had been wrong all along. So went for the age-old trick again, blaming the pollsters. Only this time, polls were pretty accurate, and there is a massive cybertrail to prove it. So that's where we stand now, with Democrats having already bagged 48 seats, which allows them to hold control of the Senate, with the support of the two Independent Senators.

One seat is still undeclared, in Georgia, as it is proceeding to a runoff thanks to the state's uncommon electoral law, which I will describe in more detail later. This is the same seat that went to a runoff already at a by-election two years ago, and is now up for a full six-year term. It provided lots of suspense two years ago, about who would get control of the Senate, and the story is repeating itself now. With perhaps less suspense as Democrats have already secured 50 seats. But bagging a 51st remains a priority, to help partly protect the Biden administration against the whims of the two 'moderate' Senate Democrats. The good news for Democrats is that their vote share is slightly higher now that it was at the same point in 2020. Which means the terms and conditions for a victory are the same. The election will be lost or won in Fulton County, home to the state's capital Atlanta and 10% of the state's population. The key here is that it is also home to an affluent and politically influential African-American community, who delivered a highly successful GOTV drive in 2020. They thusly delivered Georgia's electoral votes to Joe Biden and two Senate seats to the Democratic Party in one fell swoop, something that hadn't happened in decades. And there is every reason to believe they won't be complacent this time, and Democrats will hold this Senate seat.

Georgia's electoral law is an oddity in the USA for two reasons. The first one is that different rules apply for regular elections and special elections. Regularly scheduled elections follow the standard American process involving partisan primaries several months ahead, and then one candidate per party standing in the general. Special elections have no partisan primaries, but what is officially called a 'non-partisan blanket primary', or a 'jungle primary' in common vernacular. That's where all wannabe candidates from all parties stand on the same ballot. The second oddity is that elections in Georgia do not work by the usual First Past The Post system, but a majority of the popular vote is required by law. So, if no candidate gets it in the general election, a runoff is held at a later date between the two top candidates. As you might expect, the jungle primary is highly unlikely to deliver a winner with this rule. In 2020, there were twenty candidates (eight Democrats, six Republicans, one Libertarian, one Green, four Independents). The top two candidates, Democrat Raphael Warnock and Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler, bagged 33% and 26% of the vote respectively and went on to the runoff, held two months later for greater suspense, which Warnock won in a much anticipated upset. Best educated guess this time is that Warnock will prevail again, giving Democrats control of the Senate without Kamala Harris's tie-breaking vote. And proving the Beltway punditariat wrong again.

Do we even pretend to be living in a democracy anymore? It’s just a medieval

powerplay between career Republicans and Democrats, and who hates who more.

If there was still guillotine and burning at the stake, I swear they’d be doing that too.

(Carol Hathaway, ER: Power, 1999)

My staff tell me there’s an asteroid coming to hit the Earth.

Maybe we should sit quietly for a few moments and ponder that.

(Josiah Bartlet, The West Wing: Impact Winter, 2004)

Finally, this year's Israeli election is again evidence of the evils of proportional representation (PR), even if there has been some serious damage control recently. Initially, the electoral law did not include any threshold to take part in the allocation of seats in the Knesset. Which meant that 1% of the vote got you one seat, so basically anybody who stood got a seat. Then a revised electoral law enforced a 1.5% threshold, which proved inefficient to avoid vanity candidacies. So it was raised to 2% in 2003 and then 3.25% in 2014. The upside of it is that Israeli parties became aware of the merits of joint lists, which have been used all across the political compass since. The downside is that joint lists do not actually reduce the number of parties represented in the Knesset, quite the opposite in fact. So the Knesset remains a highly fragmented parliament, where the line between ideology and special interests is often blurred. And now, the in-built instability of PR has struck, again and again. Coalitions have collapsed like Coldstream Guards in a 35°C heat and they got five elections in three-and-a-half years, none of which is likely to solve the systemic problems of Israeli politics.

The most obvious of these problems is the rise of fundamentalist religious parties over the last 30 years. They now weigh 26% of the electorate and 32 seats in this month's Knesset, as many as Likud, who are now favourites to form the next government. Quite unsurprisingly, these parties are also the most reactionary in the Israeli political landscape. Which goes a long way to explain their special relationship with American Republicans, many of whom also dream of establishing an inquisitorial moralistic theocracy on their own turf. Long gone are the days of Socialist Zionism, when David Ben Gurion, Golda Meir and survivors of the Holocaust built a nation on the utopia of the kibbutzim. Now the fate of every governing party is to be taken hostage by the religious far-right. Or by the secularist far-right, who are just a wee smitch less bad. Because nobody ever gets even close to the magic number: 61, the number of seats needed for a majority in the Knesset. And now the last election, and the last reshuffling of an unlikely coalition, has brought back Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister, barely 17 months after the previous election kicked him out.

The most striking thing is Netanyahu's resilience, as he has been in power for 15 of the last 26 years, the longest serving Prime Minister in Israel's history. He is now, aged 73 and still under trial, in charge of Israel's 37th government in 74 years, more evidence of PR's in-built inability to deliver stability. It was quite an easy task for Bibi, after he bagged the support of 64 MKs, two more than initially expected. You can expect him to confirm Israel's long-standing key policy, denying Palestinians the right to exist as an independent state. And also continue the criminal war of aggression in Gaza and the illegal colonisation of Palestinian territory on the West Bank. But there might be an unexpected twist soon, directly related to the war in Ukraine. Israel have entertained creative ambiguity so far, solely because of domestic politics concerns. Large numbers of Israelis are of either Russian or Ukrainian descent, and both communities have a significant electoral weight. With the election now in the past and a new majority government in charge, this has become irrelevant. What could sway Israeli public opinion and official policy is Iran's involvement on the Russian side, including military personnel on the ground to operate the drones that have been delivered to Russia. So, true to the aeon-old principle that the enemy of my enemy's friend is the friend of my friend's enemy, or whatever, the return of a nationalist extremist Israeli government could be good news for Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Just let the Iranians hang themselves by publicly admitting they provided the drones and the training to use them against civilian targets on the Ukrainian front, and Ukraine might get the sophisticated Israeli weapons they were denied before.

The dominant characteristic of zealots is their conviction that reality must adapt to their desires,

rather than the other way around. If this attitude to life is adopted by an individual, it can do great

damage to those close to them. In political leaders, the result may be a disaster for the country.

(Martin Wolf, The Financial Times, 1 October 2022)

Why not think about times to come, and not about the things that you've done?

If your life was bad to you, just think what tomorrow will do.

Christine Anne McVie, née Perfect

12 July 1943, Bouth, Lancashire - 30 November 2022, London

Jeremy's Den

05/12/2022

Leaders Are Hard To Find

No comments:

Post a Comment

We Must Be Dreaming