Jeremy's Den: Lying To Themselves

So long as I remain alive and well, I shall continue to feel strongly about prose style, to love the

surface of the Earth, and to take pleasure in solid objects and scraps of useless information.

(George Orwell)

Hopeless! That is the word exactly! You, boy! Everything you do seems to come to nothing.

Why? Can you tell me why you, with all your advantages, does it always end the same?

(Richard Bellamy, Upstairs, Downstairs: All The King's Horses, 1975)

Don't forget to click on the images for larger and easier to read pop-ups.

One year after Russia's aggression of Ukraine, you'd have thought that a Prime Minister standing firm on his Churchillian principles to defend democracy under threat would receive wide popular acclaim. Alas, poor Rishi, it's more like that old joke about who's that wee man who was standing next to Zelenskyy in Westminster Hall? Then comes the realisation that he's the one who won't stand up to his own MPs when they want to wreck their credibility even more than they already have. Sunak could make himself look good as the sidekick of a boisterous Prime Minister, but he has neither the baws, nor the guts, nor the wits for the position himself. Which is painfully visible when Keir Starmer at PMQs communes with him in a display of faultless national unity over Ukraine, and steals the show. Then it's no wonder his ratings are still so bad. People can neither really like him, nor really trust him, and his only asset is that the Conservatives have nobody else in store for top billing. Except Boris, and even that might not be as good an idea as it sounds.

There is certainly a very good reason why Rishi Sunak does his utmost to ruin his own Premiership. The hypershambolically inept handling of Nadhim Zahawi's 'near fraud experience' was just him hammering another nail in the Conservative Party's coffin. His later pledge to 'restore integrity' definitely wasn't the clever PR stunt he thought it was. Once again, Rishi Sunak proved himself less useful than Admiral Acronym, and less reactive than his own cardboard cutout. The man's main weakness is that he has no strengths, not even the moral one to stand up to loonies and crooks within his own party. Rishi Sunak is as fit to be Prime Minister now as Neville Chamberlain was, and all the Conservative Party need now is a new Leo Amery willing to deal the final blow. Their only problem, though, is that they don't have any Winston Churchill 2.0 in store and ready to serve, just Boris Johnson returning. Because Bozo is such a child. He thinks if you put a toy down, it will still be sitting there when you want to play with it again. But that's not how Premierships work, and Keir Starmer may very well be the one grabbing the prize toy and running away with it. While Rishi is digging himself hole after hole, Sly Keir is steadily becoming more popular. Or less unpopular.

Keir Starmer's ratings have improved. Insofar as having 'good', 'bad' and 'meh' tied is an improvement that will boost your self-esteem. But his problem is that this does probably owe very little to himself, but a lot to the Conservatives. I mean, who wouldn't look good in comparison? His 'five missions' now sound innocuous enough not to ruffle any feathers, but openly projecting himself into a second term might draw some flak from the usual suspects in the English media. There is a fine line between confidence and hubris, and Keir being as un-Keith as he possibly can may bring him perilously close to it. Because people like Starmer have a way of being too clever by half for their own good.

I have not found a single good man in government. I have found good only in the people.

(Louis-Antoine de Saint-Just)

Into The Arena © John Payne, Geoff Downes, Elliott Randall, Hotei Tomoyasu, 1996

Arena © John Payne, Geoff Downes, 1996

Most arts have produced miracles, while the art of government has produced nothing but monsters.

(Louis-Antoine de Saint-Just)

The trends of the Best In Show... oops... Preferred Prime Minister polling continue to be quite good for Keir Starmer. Insofar as no longer being tied with 'Neither of these fucking clowns' actually qualifies a 'good'. But his ratings have improved while Rishi Sunak's have become worse and worser, and that's probably all that matters for now. Being content with it avoids having to face the inconvenient truth, that Starmer's credibility as the future Prime Minister trails Labour's voting intentions by 10% and change, while Rishi Sunak still does slightly better than the Conservatives' voting intentions. The public are obviously not sure that Starmer can fix the damage done by 13 years of Conservative rule. Or, if you want to be more neutral, they may be not sure that anyone can.

Survation adopted a new approach in their February poll, as they surveyed their panel about the Infamous Five. Rishi Sunak's already forgotten five targets, and who the public think is more likely to achieve them. There is some horrifically abhorrent cultural appropriation here, as it presupposes that Starmer would hijack Sunak's targets and make them his. Which is, when you think of it, by no means totally implausible. There is even something of it in Starmer's Five Missions, that sent The Guardian drooling in awe. But never mind that wee detail, the results are quite interesting.

I always found the pledge to halve inflation quit funny, as experts say it will happen anyway, whatever the English Government do and even if they do jack shit, which will probably be their choice. The pledge to pass laws to repeal the small boats is another vacuous one, and it's quite surprising the public don't think it will be fulfilled. After all, Sunak only promised to pass laws, which he undoubtedly can. He never said that they would work, or even that he would make them workable. Like every other empty promise, this one is the easiest to keep, as long as you can explain the public that you were misunderstood. That you never promised to achieve anything, but just to indulge in some populist virtue-signalling posturing in Commons, for the benefit of Daily Mail readers. Which is probably all Sunak has left before the bell tolls.

The world can be a shocking place, but you are a man now and you must learn to take it on the chin.

(Charles Carson, Downton Abbey, 2012)

Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory,

the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.

(George Orwell)

Many believed that the Trussterfuck was the epitome of Tory incompetence and impotence, and now look in utter disgusted disbelief at Rishi beating her to it. The English Government has become a rudderless ship of fools steered by a headless chicken. With the whole kingdom whooshing down a rabbit hole of decay and despair like a runaway roundabout, it's no surprise that Labour have not lost momentum, even when Keir Starmer wants Labour to lose Momentum. Labour have now led in 438 successive polls over a period of 445 days. The last time the Conservatives were ahead in a poll was nine months before Boris Johnson's formal resignation and Liz Truss's accession. And the times they are not a-changin'.

The most amazing thing is that Rishi Sunak's 125 days at Number Ten have done nothing to change the trends. The first week did, when everyone felt massive relief over Truss's downfall, and the Conservatives recovered some of the ground lost during the Interregnum. Then polls stabilised on a 20-and-some Labour lead and stayed there. The only improvement for the Conservatives was moving from a situation where they would return 10 MPs to one where they could return 100. Which is certainly not what the core believers expected of Rishi. There is also a clear sense of panic on the Conservative benches, with some quitting and some trying to migrate to one of the supposedly safer new seats created by the Boundary Review in the backwaters of the Home Counties. They're clearly going through a save-our-skins moment that clearly has little to do with serving King and Country. Or their constituents who allowed them to enjoy free meals and bars for decades.

The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?

(George Orwell)

If only Henry VI could see the result of his labours. All those scruffy little boys in top hats.

(Robert Stockbridge, Upstairs, Downstairs: Noblesse Oblige, 1975)

Some pollsters are really creatures of habit. Now we have a regular Monday Delivery from Redfield & Wilton, and a Friday Triple Pack from PeoplePolling, Techne UK and Omnisis. All with the full details coming on the heels of the release of their headline results. Which is how all pollsters should work, and is quite convenient when your life's mission is to keep track of the polls and drawing some clever and witty conclusions from them. That or making a living in a more honest way than the average MP, and being a good Daddy for the dog. Sometimes I get confused. Anyway, my Poll'O'Polls this time includes this week's Friday Pack from PeoplePolling, Techne UK and Omnisis, plus an unexpected one from BMG Research that surfaced at the last minute. Super-sample size is 5,526 with a theoretical margin of error of 1.32%. And we have Labour leading by 22%, pretty much treading the same waters as my earlier articles since early December.

This is another chapter in the return to a New Normal, after Liz Truss propelled Labour to dizzying heights, with leads peaking around 35%. To put the current 22% lead into perspective, Stanley Baldwin won the 1935 election on a 14% lead, Clement Attlee won the 1945 election on an 8% lead, Margaret Thatcher won on a 7% lead in 1979 and then a 14.5% lead in 1983, Tony Blair won on a 12.5% lead in 1997, and finally Boris Johnson won on a 10.5% lead in 2019. Of course, there is no way to be certain that this massive lead will hold all through the 15 to 20 months before the next election. But it definitely looks like a safe bet that it will, when you keep track of the multiple signs of discontent and frustration among the British public. There is little Rishi Sunak can do to restore his credibility, that is already terminally shattered by his useless 125 days in charge. Especially when the threat of yet another Very Tory Coup appears quite credible. As usual, it's up to Keir Starmer to up his game and score.

The whole world we have known seems to be falling about our ears.

(Angus Hudson, Upstairs, Downstairs: Whither Shall I Wander?, 1975)

The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.

(George Orwell)

With its Leather Anniversary just past, Brexit is becoming less and less popular by the day, and it's highly unlikely to stop. Of course, we don't need John Curtice and some 'special study' to know that. The data are here for everyone to see, week after week, if you're willing to pay attention. Which neither the Conservatives nor Labour are willing to do, as both are mesmerised by the vociferous residual Leave mob. Who are slowly but surely becoming a tiny minority, as lots of 2016 Leavers are feeling a huge buyer's remorse, and the new generation entering the voting pool are strongly pro-European. One of the possible angles of attack, to debunk the whole Brexit Mythology, is to request an independent public inquiry into the impacts of Brexit. Omnisis have tested their panel about this scenario, and the results are quite clear-cut. A massive majority of the British public want such an inquiry. Even a noticeable plurality of Conservative and Leave voters want it. But it could not happen without parliamentary approval, and both Labour and the Conservatives would probably tie themselves into knots to avoid it. Exposing the massive failure of Brexit just doesn't fit either's narrative. Sadly.

The proportion of people who think there should be an inquiry fits with the proportion of those who think that the English Government has handled Brexit badly, which is surveyed regularly by several pollsters. It shows that the public, even those who might still be Brexit Believers, have their doubts and want more transparency before moving on to the next stages of Getting Brexit Done. But the English Government are definitely not listening, as their Master Plan is a Great Repeal Bill that would remove all traces of EU legislation in UK law. This is highly risky for many reasons, and threats of retaliation from the EU might even be the least of it. It also clashes with the British public's assessment of what could have a positive or negative impact if the UK rejoined the EU. BMG surveyed their panel about this, on several key items, and EU laws and regulations are definitely not the scary monster Brexiteers make them to be. 10% more people think they have a positive impact than view them negatively.

On average of the eleven items selected by BMG, 43% of their panel think that rejoining the EU would have a positive impact, 25% that it would have a negative impact, and 32% that it would change fuck all. Which are, surely not coincidentally, pretty much the same results you get when asking Brits how they would vote at a referendum to rejoin the EU. The most intriguing result is that a plurality think that rejoining the EU would make the immigration situation worse. When everyone who has given it a second thought, or more accurately more than a second's thought, knows that EU membership has jack shit to do with immigration. The situation has actually gone worse since Brexit, and for reasons totally unrelated to the EU or Schengen membership. Then I guess that conflating the two is just the result of too much media exposure to the likes of Nigel Farage and Priti Patel, and also Labour's unwillingness to articulate a fair and progressive immigration policy, as here too they are mesmerised by a vociferous xenophobic mob.

This brings calamity, disorder, chaos, tragedy and death. For all their glories, the gods will

be filled with despair. Not one calamity will befall you, but calamities too many to number.

(The Seer, Vikings: The Outsider, 2016)

Brexit is turning out to be a really really bad meal.

We ordered steak and chips and we've now got some raw chicken that smells bad.

(Gavin Esler)

Then there is the never ending story of Brexit Benefits. Which is a bit like a lecture on quantum physics, about these new kinds of particles that theoretical research says do exist, but have never been seen in the wild. But physics is about reality, mostly, while Brexit is more about belief. Omnisis polled their panel about these mythical Brexit benefits, mixed with other related topics that test the public's trust in the Brexiteer's narrative. Or narratives, as they have been forced to adapt it as time went by and reality kicked them in the arse. Quite fittingly, the panel's replies about benefits and negative impacts are mirror images of each other. The synthesis of the responses to that particular question carries quite a powerful message. It was a mistake, it is a failure, we were lied to and nothing has been delivered. What the rabid Brexiteers love to demean as Remoaner scare-mongering propaganda is in fact totally in sync with public opinion, who have finally awakened to the real fallout of an ill-advised decision based on massive deceit from the Leave camp.

The third anniversary is an endless source of easy revenue for pollsters, asking all sorts of questions on the same issues. PeoplePolling also jumped on the bandwagon, but with a twist in the way they interrogated their panel about the true nature of Brexit benefits. It's not enough just to say they exist, but you also have to name them. Which might sound like a pub quiz question, but reveals the level of delusion still suffered by the British public. Only 5% can name a Brexit benefit, while another 27% can't but still believe they exist and it's only a matter of patience before we see them. Of course there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow in the sunlit uplands over the horizon, but even Jacob Rees-Mogg does not have the GPS coordinates. Unless you count a shortage of cucumbers at Sainsbury's. The poll also shows there are different levels of delusion across the political spectrum, and also across the nations and regions. But even a sizeable minority of Conservative and Leave voters are now forced to admit they can't identify even one benefit from Brexit.

There is still some resistance, in Wales and the North of England, to admitting that Brexit was a fucking fraud and that they've been had. But there are limits to this. Even Sheffield, the city whose unexpected Leave vote crushed the Remainers' last hopes on Referendum Night, is now supportive of rejoining the European Union. Others will undoubtedly follow as they realise how fully the Brexit Saga validates what Edmund Burke never said, that all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to see it as a business opportunity. This has happened a lot and is slowly becoming public knowledge, as more Brexit-based schemes for tax evasion or the rehoming of companies come to light. Like Jacob Rees-Mogg's very own Somerset Capital Management relocating to the Republic of Ireland, and then ridiculously denying it had anything to do with Brexit, or the will to still benefit from business opportunities offered by operating within the EU. This lot never learn...

Brexit was a fantastic example of a nation shooting itself full in the face.

(Hugh Grant)

Largesse is given only to a few. We must keep things in perspective.

(Richard Bellamy, Upstairs, Downstairs: All The King's Horses, 1975)

The NHS will obviously be at the centre of the political debate leading up to the next election, and then at the core of the campaign. Or rather the absolutely dismal state of the NHS in England after a decade and change of Tory rule. Rishi Sunak waffling and piffling his way through a controversy about his own use of private healthcare, in some subpar impression of Boris Johnson, is definitely not a good start to that debate, from the Conservatives' point of view. It only swings the door wide open to speculations that their master plan is to implement some variant of the HMO-based American system, while many Americans dream of having Canadian-style healthcare, which is a publicly funded universal system with partial private involvement, more like France or Germany than the NHS. The Conservatives' suspected plans prompted Labour to wheel out Gordon Brown yet again, with quite a Doomsday scenario. Then Omnisis surveyed their panel in the same time-frame, about their assessment of the NHS and potential level of health hazards. The verdict is quite clear. The NHS is in a sorry state, it creates health risks, you really wouldn't want to need an ambulance, and the English Government is to blame. Full marks on that.

The state of the NHS is a major concern throughout England, and it clearly hurts the Conservatives. According to Redfield & Wilton's targeted polls, 25% of voters in Red Wall seats trust the Conservatives on the NHS while 55% don't. It's almost as bad in Blue Wall seats, where 27% trust the Conservatives while 48% don't. So it's no surprise that the Liberal Democrats intend to put the NHS at the core of their campaign for the next election in the South East of England. There is so much rejection of Conservative health policies that it's a win-win and a no-brainer. I am just intrigued by the inclusion of a question about minimum levels of service during strikes in the Omnisis poll. I definitely find this a tad biased, and even manipulative, as it clearly mirrors some talking points in Conservative ranks, that try and cast doubt about the NHS staff's dedication and sense of duty. Fortunately such populist claims were debunked by a YouGov poll, conducted almost simultaneously, that surveyed a representative sample of NHS staff about their feelings towards their job.

A massive majority of NHS staff are genuinely dedicated to their job, especially in the categories closest to the public in the delivery of healthcare. I also strongly think that NHS staff have stronger work ethics and dedication to duty than any of the journalists, influencers and politicians who criticise them, or try and undermine their status with the general public. Politicians, in particular, should devote more energy to filling the huge number of vacancies. This obviously requires better pay and more attractiveness through better career prospects, which the current lot seem unwilling to consider. And, while I'm on it, some relaxation of immigration rules to allow more foreign health professionals in, who are ready and willing to serve in the English NHS. I am just surprised that Labour haven't used international comparisons yet, the ones the Conservatives hate because they never fit their pre-digested narrative. The British public definitely should know that healthcare expenditure per capita in the USA is more than double that in the UK, and for worse results. Wouldn't that be the strongest argument against selling the NHS to private profit-driven interests?

At last I perceive that in revolutions, the supreme power rests with the most abandoned.

(Georges Danton)

Aren’t we encouraging a nation of hypochondriacs if they rush to a doctor at every twinge?

(Robert Crawley, Downton Abbey, 2013)

Omnisis also surveyed their panel about the situation of the NHS, after Sajid Javid had suggested that patients should pay for GP and A&E visits. The Saj probably came out with this because he is now immune to personal backlash, having already announced that he will not stand for re-election next time about. I'm quite sure that the unmitigated pleasure of embarrassing Rishi Sunak with such a wild proposal also plaid a part in this. Number Ten was of course cornered into denying that Rishi ever had any such 'radical' plan in mind, though you are welcome to not believe them. After all, Rishi already toyed with the idea of charging a fee for missed GP appointments, and this is sort of the first step on a slippery slope. If Rishi ever were to endorse Javid's proposal, he would surely come up with some examples of 'best international practice' to justify it. Which he would find in abundance as GPs are usually private practitioners in Continental Europe, and thusly do charge patients a fee that is often higher than the £20 suggested by the Saj. He just fails to mention that these fees are mostly covered by the countries' Social Security systems, and cost patients far less, if anything. Even without these caveats, the public are definitely not supportive of the concept.

The public definitely agree than fees for GPs and A&E are totally outlandish, and that imposing them would further impact their health negatively. Another item in the Omnisis poll show that they also fully endorse Aneurin Bevan's core concept, that the NHS is free at the point of delivery. Which is probably the only example in recorded history, that there are benefits to British exceptionalism. Because this pillar of the NHS has never been duplicated anywhere in the world. Except in Cuba under Fidel Castro. Which is probably not the reference Labour would pick now to defend Bevan's legacy. More seriously, it is true that a lot of countries do have universal health care systems. Even the United States have that with Medicare and Medicaid. But universal health coverage does not mean universally free health coverage, as such systems are means-tested. In some cases, people can be excluded from the scheme, which loses its 'universal' character. In most cases, means-testing means that nobody is excluded, but the system only provides ways for everyone to access health care, not free access to it for everyone. French Social Security is an example of this, that guarantees universal access to all health care resources, but generally covers only 60% to 80% of the cost except for some specific treatments and people on benefits, who have 100% coverage.

Omnisis crosstabbed this question with their panel's voting intentions at the next general election. They're more thorough here than other pollsters, who routinely crosstab their findings with the three main English parties only. The political breakdown here is important, as it shows a massive consensus about keeping the NHS free at the point of delivery. You rarely see such a massive omni-partisan support for anything, if ever. No matter how hard Rishi tries, he has no opening here to drive a wedge between Conservative voters and the rest of the electorate. But it should also be a warning for Labour to reframe their health policies before enshrining them in a proper manifesto. Wes Streeting's plan to rely more on private practice is certainly not the Harry Potter wand he thinks it is. The most obvious reason is that there is only a finite talent pool of health professionals in England, so you could end up facing the same GP in both NHS and private practice appointments. The second, and more plainly political, reason is that Streeting has still not credibly answered concerns that it would be privatisation of NHS England sneaking in through the back door. Something no political tribe wants.

I will take all the steps necessary to give the NHS at least another £100m per week by 2020.

(Michael Gove, Conservative Party leadership campaign, 2016)

Softness to traitors will destroy us all.

(Maximilien Robespierre)

The English Government have not given up on their Minimum Service Levels bill which, for all intents and porpoises, is the most regressive anti-strikes and anti-unions legislation since the Master And Servant Act of 1867. Omnisis have polled the level of support and opposition to it, and found a clear lack of enthusiasm, though we still have not reached the stage of massive full frontal opposition. Unluckily for Grant Shapps, who would be tasked with enforcing the bill, there is not much of a generational divide about it, and what there is isn't very helpful for the government. There is more support than opposition from all working-age generations. Even the TikTok Generation in not sitting on the fence here, and has a majority opposing it. Which is significant because they're the ones seeking or already having their first paid job, and they don't want to have their rights restricted so early in their careers. There is also some irony in the level of support among the over-65 Old Farts, who have probably mostly already retired, so won't have to face any consequences if the bill is ever enacted.

A YouGov poll in early January, when the impact of last year's massive strikes was still fresh in peoples' minds, found 59% supporting it and 29% opposing it. Even Labour voters were split almost equally, with 42% supporting and 46% opposing. Omnisis have polled it twice already since, and the level of support has sharply gone down both times. This is not yet a complete reversal of the first poll, but that is bound to happen in the future. There is strong opposition from almost all political tribes, as even Labour voters have come back to their senses and stand firmly against it now. There is every sign that the English Government should think twice when they barely have a majority of their own voters supporting them. They should know better than legislating to appease the Home Counties' Victorian Parliamentary Party and a handful of pig-headed Red Wall nutjobs. We'll have to see now what happens when the bill returns to Commons, after the Lords quite probably eviscerate, dismember and emasculate it.

The English Government's prepared talking points on this have heavily relied on alleged 'best international practice', which is in fact lacking. They used the French law of 2007 about minimum service levels as an example. But they failed to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, which is that French law has a much narrower scope. It applies only to mass public transportation at peak hours on working days, and has even failed at that. I have lived in France long enough, precisely in Paris's Inner Commuter Belt, to testify first hand that it does not work and never has. Strike days are always Massive Mess days, and this has been proven again in media coverage of the current social unrest in France over Emmanuel Macron's proposed reform of state pensions. On this side of the White Cliffs Of The Rover, the public, when informed of the fallout, are definitely not huge fans of the English Government passing the most reactionary array of legislation since the Cavalier Parliament, and dwindling support for this one is proof of it.

Terror without virtue is murderous. Virtue without terror is powerless.

Terror is nothing else than swift, severe, indomitable justice. It flows, then, from virtue.

(Maximilien Robespierre)

The most striking characters are sometimes the product of an infinity of little accidents.

(Georges Danton)

There are many signs that the next election will be a Number Ten on the Rishter Scale, and neatly see Rishi out of Number Ten. The Brexit Of Discontent is just one factor here, but you can also see it as the origin of everything that is hurting the Tories now. It's quite obvious that even the war in Ukraine contributed less to the UK's problems. All you have to do, if you want evidence of that, is to look out the window at the closest European countries and how they fare. The only thing we have and they don't is Brexit, and they're all doing better than the UK. So it's no surprise that all projection models now predict that the next general election will be a fucking colossal disaster for the Conservatives. My own model is no exception, and it even validates the bold assumption that it could deliver such a massive Labour majority than it will be unassailable for at least another election, if not several. The thought of 'Labour in for a generation' is not as preposterous as it looks, when you consider that both Thatcher and Blair started with a smaller majority and a stronger Official Opposition.

My seat projection now says that a future Starmer Government would start with a 263-seat working majority. On the same voting intentions, Electoral Calculus predicts an even bigger one on the current boundaries, and something similar on the new boundaries that will probably be used for the next election. Before I discuss the new boundaries in more detail, remember that the current Periodic Review of Westminster Constituencies has progressed rather smoothly, unlike the two previous attempts that ended dead in a ditch. The very last and final version is expected on the 1st of July. The vote in Commons to approve it will be just a formality, and Rishi Sunak could fast-track it some time before the next Conference Holiday without much trouble. Give local authorities the time they need to appoint their returning officers in the proper locations and adjust their processes, and the scene will be ready for an election early next year. Which does not mean it will happen immediately. Rishi Sunak has no reason to wait until the last moment, which would by law be the 25th of January 2025. But he has no reason either to prolong his MPs' suffering unduly, if polls continue to predict a full-scale massacre. So my reasonable guess is May 2024, which would have been the deadline under the defunct Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. But it might be October. Dog only knows...

Sadly, the correlation between confident intuition and measurable accuracy is

extraordinarily low. You can miss the real story the data is telling you. The truth.

(Gabriel Folukoya, Silent Witness: The Penitent, 2023)

Football, beer, and above all gambling filled up the horizon of their minds.

To keep them in control was not difficult.

(George Orwell)

The next general election will be fought on new boundaries, determined by the 2023 Periodic Review. The initial proposals were published between June and October 2021, and showed quite a significant gerrymandering favouring the Conservatives, most conspicuously in the South of England. Revised proposals were then published in October and November 2022. There have been two thorough assessments of these latest proposals, one from Focaldata and one from Electoral Calculus. Focaldata relied on an assessment by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher, consultants for the BBC. So their data will be the ones used by the BBC in their counts of notional seats, and also gains and losses. Martin Baxter at Electoral Calculus did his own assessment independently. There are some minor differences between the two, so I chose to use Focaldata's data for England, and Electoral Calculus's for Scotland and Wales, as they looked more accurate in comparison to both the 2019 results and projections from the initial proposals. Focaldata did not publish any data for Northern Ireland, so I also used Electoral Calculus there. So here's what we got, of course based on the 2019 general election only, as subsequent by-elections are not factored in.

These proposals are just a teeny weeny smitch less skewed than the initial batch, which would have resulted in 13 notional gains for the Conservatives, with Labour losing 8, the Liberal Democrats 3, Plaid Cymru 2, and the SNP none. I have a hunch that, despite the Boundary Commissions being theoretically impartial and apolitical, there must have been some covert political involvement in this. Probably like hints to not hurt the SNP as they were the ones likely to squeal the loudest if they lost seats. And be just reasonably harsh with Labour, who would lose seats anyway as quite a number have migrated from the North of England to the South, due to the electorate-based apportionment of seats by region. Bear in mind that the boundaries had been untouched since the 2010 election, as two previous reviews in 2013 and 2018 were scrapped. So there was bound to be quite significant changes, following demographic patterns. The next legitimate question is whether or not this small amount of gerrymandering would alter the competitiveness of the next election. I categorised the 632 seats in England, Scotland and Wales as marginal, competitive, and safe for the current three main parties. Aye, the Liberal Democrats didn't make it. And the results are quite interesting.

To be totally honest, this is not the result I expected. The new boundaries don't alter the competitiveness of the seats significantly, I will even risk the pun that they alter it only marginally. But I fully expected them to switch like a dozen-and-some seats to 'safe Conservative' and just as many to 'marginal Labour'. It's quite reassuring that it didn't happen, even if half the seats still qualify as 'safe', based on the 2019 results. But the present trends of polls mean that we have to reframe our concept of 'competitive', because the massively changed voting patterns make much more than half the seats competitive. On this week's polling numbers, any Conservative MP with a majority of fewer than 20k is a goner. All those with a majority between 20k and 30k are in the danger zone. Unless the opposition vote is split down the middle, which in most cases would be between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. I guess these two will draw the same conclusions and possibly reach some sort of mutually beneficial agreement. This has been done already at by-elections, though not totally openly. Keir Starmer and Ed Davey have every reason to consider a more formal deal before the next election, especially if they do the math and realise that such a deal would have defeated the Conservatives in 30 to 40 seats in 2019, and made Boris Johnson far less flamboyant.

In order to conquer, what we need is to dare, again to dare, and always to dare.

(Georges Danton)

I think the Highland people are quite charming. They're simple, romantic and honest.

(Georgina Worsley, Upstairs, Downstairs: Will Ye No Come Back Again, 1975)

There have now been seven Full Scottish polls of Westminster voting intentions this year. This frenzy started already before Nicola Sturgeon's surprise resignation, which might not have been a surprise for everyone. And we now have three polls that were fielded after it. So they totally reflect the major events of the period, the passing of the GRR Bill, the Section 35 Order, the Scottish Prison Service fiasco, and whatnot. Obviously all these events have influenced Scottish public opinion, and this might shed some light on their exact fallout. The whole sequence is definitely bad news for the SNP. It once again highlights a revival of Labour in Scotland, and its unavoidable consequences. That the SNP's predicted gains from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats no longer make up for their losses to Labour. The last three polls, fielded after Nicola's resignation, are quite brutal in that respect. The last YouGov poll even makes it worse, with a tiny Conservative surge that obliterates some of the SNP's potential gains. We need more in the next few weeks, and then again after the new SNP leader has been elected, to see if this trend lasts. Who the new leader and First Minister is will surely have a decisive impact on the party's prospects.

Then we had a big elephant in the cupboard for a while, the 'de facto referendum', 'plebisicte election' or whatthefuckever. The very concept of the 'de facto referendum' created tensions within the SNP, as the contradictions between Pete Wishart and Stewart McDonald showed, while John Swinney did what John Swinney does best. Keep shtum until he knows which way the prevailing wind blows. In the meanwhile, three recent polls have tried to identify the impact of this strategy on Westminster voting intentions. Savanta and Survation first polled generic voting intentions, and then tweaked the question by adding the 'plebiscite election' thing to it. Find Out Now polled only the scenario where the SNP campaign on the 'de facto referendum' talking point. And, not totally unexpectedly, it's inconclusive. It might have been a big setback, or a minor setback, or a big success, and no pollster can tell you which. Now the SNP has a golden opportunity to reframe the narrative. Since the 'Special Conference' scheduled for the 19th of March has been postponed sine die, and will probably never happen, just never mention the 'de facto referendum' ever again. Even Stephen Flynn agrees now that it was an idiotic idea, and it's best left behind.

The only constant prediction in all these polls is that Labour would be the biggest beneficiary of changes in Scottish voting patterns. This is not 2017 all over again, though. There is now a real prospect that Labour will win the next general election in a landslide, which was never there in 2017. Even when even the most basic math proves that Labour would not need any Scottish seats to boost their predicted majority, wanting to be 'part of it' is definitely an incentive for some Scottish voters to switch to Labour. Keir Starmer has noticed it and is openly asking SNP voters to give Labour a chance. The regional breakdowns of recent Full Scottish polls hint that a lot are ready to do just that. Especially in a narrow but seat-rich band right in the middle of the Auld Strathclyde region, from Wemyss Bay to Airdrie through Glasgow. But, as usual, Labour are their own worst enemy. Exhibit 257: the shortlisting of Frank McAveety for a gainable seat in Glasgow. Well, at least it's not Patrick Grady's seat, which would have made a clash between these two quite an interesting watch.

They're always going on about the English, the bloody people. They're gloomy, dour and rude.

(James Bellamy, Upstairs, Downstairs: Will Ye No Come Back Again, 1975)

In some areas, Scotland is almost an occupied country. You have an English or Anglicised

upper class, and a Scottish working class which speaks with a markedly different accent,

or even, part of the time, in a different language.

(George Orwell)

Let's have a look now at what the new version of the 2023 Boundary Review will deliver in Scotland. I will first remind you that howling at the moon over Scotland being allocated 57 seats instead of the 59 current ones, as Ian Blackford did, is definitely pissing down the wrong tree. Or, in plain English, fucking bollocks. It's not a vile Anglocentric conspiracy to diminish Scotland's status in the Union, it's just basic math, as the seats for each nation and regions within England, are allocated proportionally to the electorate. Which actually favours Scotland, as our rate of voter registration is higher than average. If the allocation of seats was based on population instead, as is the case in the USA and France, we would have 53. So suck it up, mates. The redrawing of Scottish boundaries was the same kind of painfully convoluted process as in England and Wales. But with one constant. Due to existing over-representation, one seat had to go in Glasgow and one in the Highlands. Also, due to specific legislation, the island constituencies (Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Orkney and Shetland) had to be left untouched. So here's what we have now, and will have at the next election, including successor seats of the existing seats and the notional MP who would have been elected in 2019 on the new boundaries.

There are some clues that the process in Scotland was not totally independent, but slightly tweaked for political reasons. Based on the 2019 results you would expect that the two 'lost' seats would be either two SNP seats, or one SNP and one Conservative. But they're in fact two LibDem seats, half their 2019 result. While the SNP, the Conservatives and Labour all keep the same number of notional seats as in 2019. Probably because nobody wanted the SNP to squeal more loudly than they were already expected to. Notwithstanding, Ian Blackford losing his seat was inevitable, and probably doesn't matter any more now after Stephen Flynn's coup. Unless Blackford chooses to pick a fight for selection with Drew Hendry, who now has the Isle of Skye in his new Inverness-shire and Wester Ross constituency. The Boundary Commission also appears to have played some mind games with the Glasgow SNP. The city always had to go down from seven seats to six, and there was a lot of creative recarving at work. In the failed 2018 Review, Patrick Grady lost his seat. In the initial draft of this one, it was Anne McLaughlin. In the current draft, it's Alison Thewliss, as her Glasgow Central constituency has been astutely pizza-sliced between five of the city's remaining six seats. But of course odds are Alison will stay no matter what. I think we can all wage a tenner on the SNP taking the opportunity to dump Patrick Grady, and Alison Thewliss moving to the redrawn Glasgow North, which includes about a quarter of her current Glasgow Central seat.

What you should never do is ask Scottish people how far they’re willing to walk and what for.

(Jon Richardson, 8 Out Of 10 Cats, 2014)

The Highlands take a wee time to get used to. And the Highlanders themselves.

You need to be a Scot to know a Scot.

(Angus Hudson, Upstairs, Downstairs: Will Ye No Come Back Again, 1975)

We have also had seven new Scottish Parliament polls this year, and I will focus on only the last three, from Savanta, Survation and YouGov, which were all fielded after Sturgeon's resignation. It's quite an understatement to say that the voting intentions are far from stellar for the Yes Camp. Bear in mind that the whole spectrum of pro-Independence parties bagged 47.2% of the constituency vote and 49.5% of the list vote in 2016. Then 49% of the constituency vote and 50.1% of the list vote in 2021. This last batch of polls predicts 43-45% of the constituency vote, and 45-46% of the list vote for these same parties or their successors. So we're not just lower than the 2021 election, but also and more shockingly lower than the 2016 election. This says quite a lot, even when you don't factor in that a lot of this might be the result of the public's assessment of the SNP's performance in government. We'll come to that some scrolls down.

My seat projections are also quite disheartening for the Yes camp, and more pessimistic than you would find with uniform national swing. You might even find them counter-intuitive in some cases, when compared to the voting intentions. The reason is my use of the regional breakdowns of voting intentions, which differ from one poll to the next. But all show that Labour's surge is far from evenly distributed. They are even predicted to lose votes in the Highlands and the North East. But they over-perform where it matters, in a wide central arc from Inverclyde to Musselburgh, where a Labour surge is the obvious major threat for SNP incumbents, and also in Dumfries and Galloway. There could be many upsets all over the place, as the list of plausible fatalities includes prominent Scottish Government figures like Neil Gray, George Adam, Tom Arthur, Clare Haughey and Furries Ally Christina McKelvie. Which is not what you have heard or read elsewhere, but I stand my ground. Then you have to wonder how the Scottish Pravda and Ross Greer could be gullible enough to believe that a poll predicting that pro-Independence votes would be cut by 10%, could also predict an increased majority in seats.

There are two ways to assess these results. You could compare them to the results of the 2021 election. Through that prism, they're pretty much a warning sign of a plausible disaster, as the Yellow-Green Axis is weakened and may just hold a razor-thin majority of seats after the next election. But you could also compare them to previous polls by the same pollsters, conducted before the whole GRR fiasco was set in motion. This variant is far worse as it shows the SNP down on both votes by as much as 11% from their peak, and quite a mixed bag for the Greens, who appear to still benefit from some significant transfers of Labour voters on the list vote. One explanation, for this lacklustre performance, certainly lies in the Scottish public's assessment of the Scottish Government's performance, surveyed on five selected items by Ipsos at the end of January.

Scots are not happy bunnies with the Scottish Government's performance, by almost 2-to-1 on the average of the five selected items. When only one quarter of the electorate think you have done a good job in government, and half think you have done a bad job, you have every reason to not raise your hopes too high for the next election. The SNP can't blame Westminster here, as the issues covered by the poll are either fully or partly devolved. Even if there are reasons to believe that the public's judgement is harsh on some issues, like the situation of the NHS, the questions are all about improving things. Which is quite legitimately expected from every government with a progressive agenda. Letting things stay as they were, or degrading at a slower pace than in England, just doesn't cut it. Especially when the public are aware of missed opportunities like reneging on the promise to create a state-owned energy company, that would have protected them from massive energy price hikes more efficiently. Or of questionable decisions like the creation of the 'green freeports', which come with a lot of baggage as low-tax low-rights high-corruption corporate enclaves. And don't even mention the ferries and the A9. You did it, now you have to own it.

Peat fires, Bonnie Prince Charlie, it's all make believe and make believe is for children.

(Georgina Worsley, Upstairs, Downstairs: Will Ye No Come Back Again, 1975)

If that unfortunate young man had given away every lock of his hair,

that's kept in his memory in Scotland, he'd be completely bald.

(Richard Bellamy, Upstairs, Downstairs: Will Ye No Come Back Again, 1975)

There was a lot of celebration about a poll from Find Out Now at the end of January, that found Yes leading by 8%. Some even said it was the biggest Yes lead ever, which is patently full-blown bullshit. There had been numerous polls in the past showing a double-digit lead for Yes, the last one in early December from Ipsos. This poll was also not a shift in trends. Or, rather, it was if you compared it to surveys conducted by other pollsters a week or two before, which is Chernobyl-grade intellectual dishonesty. The only legitimate comparison was with the previous poll conducted by the same pollster, just 40 days earlier. Back then they found Yes leading by 8%. What the fuck? No fucking change? Aye, mates, no change. Actually there was change. Yes and No had both gained 1% and undecideds gone down accordingly. Which meant that there was no fucking change if you factored out the undecideds. It was again a 54-46 Yes win. Basic math, which you would have known if you had studied math until 18, as Rishi Sunak had so wisely told you. The updated overall trend, however, reflects that there have been eight polls since that predict a No win. But the Scottish Pravda did not mention them, did they?

These trends of IndyRef2 voting intentions give you the Hamlet-length kinematics at work here, but it's also useful to look at the current snapshot. This time, we have the three polls already fielded since Nicola Sturgeon's resignation. All predicting a quite significant No win. So, no surprise here, the weighted average says it could be just slightly worse than 2014, when you factor in a margin of error of about 3% with the sample sizes commonly used in these polls. Or maybe a tie. Now there will be no SNP Conference on the Ides of March to find the magic wand that would get us out of this mess. I don't expect anything bold and ambitious enough to come out of the leadership election. The only sure thing is that the concept of the 'de facto referendum' is dead and buried, under piles of bullshit from people who supported it when it was Nicola's Genius Plan. The SNP should also drop the Oliver Twist routine of asking for more mandates, as it has never led anywhere. They should think outside the box, coming up with a really unexpected and revolutionary way out, but I doubt any of them can. So we just have to follow Stewart McDonald's advice. Keep calm and wait until 2050.

This is just the time when you wish the Scottish Government would pick their fights with the English Government with more common sense. Aye, I'm talking about the incoming legal battle about Section 35, but we'll take care of that one just a few scrolls down. The problem now is that the controversies over Section 35 and the GRR Bill have polluted pretty much all of the Scottish political debate, in a way that helps neither the Scottish Government nor the cause of Independence. And sadly Nicola Sturgeon was the one most to blame for the omnishambles. In principle, and abstractly, I am not against the concept that we should focus on Independence as the one and only priority. But implying that we all should 'wheesht for Indy' and sort out the mess later is just one bridge too far. Mostly because more and more Scots, including SNP voters, don't buy it any more. There are legitimate concerns about what could happen after Independence, who would be in charge of the Scottish Government, and on which manifesto. It's quite an understatement to say that recent events have eroded the public's confidence in the SNP and any First Minister we will have on April Fools' Day. The latest favourability ratings and voting intentions show it quite clearly, and it will probably take more than one series of SNP hustings to reverse the trend.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

(George Orwell)

In every revolution, a dictator is needed to save the state by force, or censors to save it by virtue.

(Louis-Antoine de Saint-Just)

There has been a lot of huffing and puffing from the SNP since the English Government unleashed Section 35 of the Scotland Act to block the Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill. I definitely don't believe in conspiracy theories, but this whole clownshow looks suspiciously like the SNP did it deliberately, as if they wanted a showdown to boost the cause of Independence. Whatever the ulterior motives, there is something quintessentially perverse in attempting to rally the people around the flag over a bill that two thirds of them oppose. The SNP have really tied themselves into a Gordian knot over this thing, even taking it to the Council of Europe, which is totally irrelevant, but clearly part of the virtue-signalling histrionics you might expect at this stage of the proceedings. YouGov have tested their GB-wide panel over this, in a rather convoluted way that smashes two questions into one. They might have thought it was clever, while it might have been just confusing. Anyway here is what they found on their four select options, suppose to cover the whole possible spectrum of opinions.

If you redo the sums the right way, YouGov found 51% opposing the GRR Bill and 23% supporting it. 50% support the English Government using Section 35 and 24% oppose it. It is interesting to see that we have 19% of Scots thinking that the GRR Bill is shite, but that Section 35 is shite too. These were obviously Nicola Sturgeon's initial target audience when she started ranting about Section 35 being a horrifically abhorrent unprecedented vile attack on the core of Scottish Democracy. But she surely lost them again when she ranted on about concerns over women inmates' safety being homophobic right-wing transphobia. Can't win them all all the time, can we? Around the same time, PeoplePolling also asked their panel about Section 35, without mentioning the GRR Bill. Though the respondents obviously had the specific case in mind, and the political divides certainly prove it. The response from their Scottish subsample probably comes more from a general principle, that the English state should not interfere with decisions made in Scotland, than from proper consideration of the exact scope of Section 35. Will all these caveats, we still have more people supporting Section 35 than opposing it, though in a less conclusive way than the YouGov poll.

Picking a fight over Section 35 really came at the most inconvenient time for Nicola Sturgeon, just when she was forced by public outrage into a humiliating screeching and smoking handbrake reverse ferret over the Adam Graham case. But still managed to double down on her previous stance, by ruling out any blanket rule about where biologically male criminals should be incarcerated. And Justice Secretary Keith Brown did nothing to unmuddy the waters, quite the opposite in fact, with his convoluted approach to the Scottish Prison Service's policies. All this only proves that the English Government were right, just this once, to trigger Section 35. Then they should take the next logical step, a full review of the Gender Reform Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, and the exact wordings they use in matters of 'legal sex'. Some recent rulings have made it clear there are discrepancies and inconsistencies, and these should be resolved. Always in the way that best upholds women's sex-based rights, and a sufficient level of safeguarding enshrined in reserved legislation.

If all others accepted the lie, which the party imposed. If all records told the same tale.

Then the lie passed into history, and became truth.

(George Orwell)

The really important fact about the English intelligentsia is their severance

from the common culture of the country.

(George Orwell)

The SNP have never so popular in England than since the English Government read them the Riot Act... oops... Section 35 of the Scotland Act. If you reduce England to the superficial layer of vacuousness consisting of the usual suspects in the media, the 'arts' and politics. In a word: Owen Jones, Sam Smith and Nadia Whittome. Oops, that's six words. But the average Englander doesn't give a fucking shit. Until a pollster asks them, and then they sing to a different tune. Of course, the real issue is not all the predictable role-playing over Section 35. But what the people think of the GRR bill itself, on its own merits or lack thereof. YouGov have tested precisely that, a month after it was passed, just like Panelbase did a week before the final vote. The YouGov poll was conducted GB-wide, while the Panelbase poll was fielded only in Scotland. But their results show the same patterns, with even slightly stronger opposition GB-wide than in Scotland. Just like Panelbase, YouGov split the poll into three questions covering the three main controversial provisions of the bill. Here is what they found about the provision that would remove the requirement of a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

That's the provision at the heart of the GRR Bill, as it allows self-identification. With undecideds factored out, 78% of Brits oppose it, and the proportion is the same in Scotland. This is something that Labour should consider carefully, if they have this crazy idea of someday tabling a self-identification bill in Commons. Their own voters oppose it about 2-to-1 with undecideds removed. Even the TikTok Generation, the usual target of 'kind and inclusive' talking points, are split, with 46% opposing it. The second provision of the bill, that would reduce the waiting period, of living in the 'acquired gender', from two years to six months, is almost as unpopular, with 76% of Brits and 74% of Scots opposing it.

This one was obviously always a weak point in the proposed reform, as nobody can truly define what 'living as a woman' means. Unless you resort to some gender-based heteronormative clichés from the middle of the previous century, which is what a lot of gender ideology activists do when asked. Like they do when stereotyping the opposite ends of the alleged 'gender spectrum' as Barbie and GI Joe. Despite all the progress achieved over the last 100 years, there are still many differences between living 'as a man' and 'as a woman'. Most go well beyond the obvious biological differences, and are rooted in political and economic approaches deeply rooted in the ever present patriarchy. Summing up womanhood by haircut, make-up and clothing is a most regressive approach that only highlights how deep down the rabbit hole of toxic masculinity we are being dragged by gender ideology.

These are dark times. People think dark thoughts. When times change, we have to change with them.

(Blanche Mottershead, Upstairs, Downstairs: Somewhere Over The Rainbow, 2012)

Only men could oppress women for thousands of years, then turn around, put on a dress,

and complain that they are the most marginalised group in society.

(Kara Dansky)

Last but not least came what has proved to be the most controversial provision of the bill, the one lowering the age to apply for a GRC from 18 to 16. Which, according to Green MSP Maggie Chapman, was only a start as the Scottish Greens wanted to lower it to 8. I won't even explore the depths of the thinking behind that, or the ulterior motives. Everybody has all the information they need to have an educated guess at what they are. The YouGov poll confirmed massive opposition to allowing minors to apply for a GRC. With undecideds removed, 82% overall oppose it, including 75% of Scots, the same level of opposition Panelbase found in December. Again it cuts pretty much across all demographics and politics. Even 45% of the TikTok Generation oppose it GB-wide, higher than the 40% opposed that Panelbase had found in Scotland.

Such massive rejection should catch the politicians' attention everywhere, not just in Scotland. Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Caroline Nokes too should acknowledge that submitting to the demands of an extremist fringe does not make you the 'vanguard of progressivism'. They should also remember that, historically, only Leninists believed than an activist vanguard should lead the masses towards revolutionary change. Not the best unique selling point in 2023 Britain. Now the question is, what next? Humza Yousaf is ready and willing to headbutt the English Government over Section 35. Kate Forbes and Ash Regan are not. There is no doubt in my mind that challenging the Section 35 Order in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom would be a mistake. It would cost millions, drag on for years, and all for nothing. Besides, the Scottish public are not really supportive of that strategy, which was polled in YouGov's last Full Scottish poll. Only 15% support going all the way to a fight, fewer than support the core provisions of the bill itself.

This is surely an acknowledgment that fighting for the bill 'as is' is a lost cause. The Supreme Court is more likely than not to adopt a literal and fundamentalist reading of the various variants of the Scotland Act, and the terms and conditions of devolution. If there is even a 10% chance that the bill could overstep the frontier of reserved matters by just a rat's ass's hair, they will strike it down, And histrionics about 'vile attacks on Scottish democracy' will only make that outcome likelier. So, there must be a fallback option. Legally, the bill does not even exist since the Section 35 Order blocked it from receiving Royal Assent. Reopening the debate in Holyrood should definitely be on the table, with a commitment to listen at last to all sides of the debate, and open the door to accepting some of the amendments that were rejected in December. More Scots approve this than fighting it to the bitter end. The bad news is that it could pollute Scottish politics again for a long time, instead of refocusing parliamentary work on genuine everyday life issues, like the cost-of-living crisis, the NHS or longer-term ones like land reform. But we must always see the bright side of life. If the GRR Bill is delayed or altered by even just one word, the Greens will resign from their useless vanity positions in the Scottish Government. No problem, mates, just do it and fair winds.

Always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler.

(George Orwell)

I don't need you to tell me that the world is falling about our ears.

(Violet Crawley, Downton Abbey, 2011)

Quite unfortunately for the Scottish Government and the SNP, and at the worst possible moment for the then-First Minister, the cases of Adam Graham and Andrew Burns revived a heated debate about transgender inmates and which prisons they should serve their sentences in. The most flabbergasting part is that the SNP were caught on the back foot by this new controversy, when it was highly predictable and anticipable after the ruckus over the GRR Bill and the Section 35 Order, and then managed to make a fucking pig's breakfast of dogs' ears out of it. Even Justice Secretary Keith Brown's decision to pause the transfer of violent transgender individuals to women's prisons sounded half-baked, probably because it actually was, and Brown delivered it wrapped in waffle-piffle and the usual gobbledygook meant to appease gender ideology activists. By the way, I hope you don't mind me using the term 'individuals', but I guess it has been validated and affirmed by the brave and stunning SNP MSP Jenny Gilruth, when she could not bring herself to decide whether Adam and Andrew are men or women. As you might expect, YouGov, always the first to poll every nascent hot potato in the galaxy, have dutifully polled this one. Or at least part of it. Their questioning was about where transgender inmates should be rehomed, depending of the nature of their crime and there status vis-à-vis, ye ken, clipping their original equipment. Here's a select view of what they found in the case of 'non violent, non sexual' crimes.

My chosen colours for that chart are probably heteronormatively gender-stereotypical, but so is the 'trans flag', innit? YouGov did not define what 'non violent' crime might be, other than being 'non sexual'. So it may be anything from tax fraud to embezzlement of charity funds, or pretty much anything you might expect a Conservative MP to do on his own time. Then the nondescript non-violent nature of the crime grants the perpetrator a certain amount of leniency if he has had his wiener chopped off. Which is an unlikely and mostly hypothetical occurrence as these things take more time than a case going to trial, and there is little incentive to go to such extremes anyway when claiming carelessness can get you off the hook for a wee while. Then there is a healthy massive opposition to sending uncut petty criminals in a dress to women's prisons, and even more so in Scotland. Another example of the SNP totally misreading the room and digging their hole even deeper. Only the TikTok generation support it, and then just barely. As you might expect, there is stronger opposition all across the board when the question shifts to sexual assault and rape.

The most disturbing finding here is that 15% of Brits, and 11% of Scots, would send a rapist with fully functioning equipment to a women's prison, just because he has a wig and lipstick on. And don't even get me started about 25% of the spoilt brats generation approving it. But we should probably always see the bright side of life, like this poll showing just as strong opposition to that as to the legalisation of unsupervised gender self-identification. This poll again proved that Nicola Sturgeon did herself no favours with her stubbornness in defending the indefensible, just like a random Tory MP would do about Dominic Raab's bullying. Especially when she was facing massive opposition from Scots of all shades, and even SNP voters. The Scottish Prison Service performing a screeching handbrake U-turn over their 'inclusive' policies obviously added to Sturgeon's misery. But she’s never more righteous than when she’s in the wrong, and this was probably the beginning of her downfall. Rumours abounded already weeks before about her early retirement, and now we're here. And I have a hunch that Stephen Flynn openly contradicting Alyn Smith, and going all cuddly with the GRR Rebels, was in some way part of the whole Kriegspiel.

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

(George Orwell)

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.

(Abraham Lincoln)

When Nicola Sturgeon resigned, the question briefly was whether or not Scotland could afford a power void, potentially months of lame-duck First Minister and caretaker government, during the SNP's leadership contest, as the Tories had after they kicked out Boris Johnson. Probably not, and the SNP were smart enough to adapt their rules and have the whole thing wrapped up in a much more reasonable six weeks. So we're bound to have a new leader of the SNP and First Minister of Scotland by April Fool's Day. The opening salvo came from the pages of the Scottish Pravda, who painted themselves into a corner of ridicule, with a readers' poll that was hilariously hijacked by the supporters of a person who never intended to be a candidate, and would never have stood a chance if she had. Then the real pollsters got into gear, though they initially failed to correctly identify all candidates. First one was a tentative straw poll conducted by Savanta on 15-17 February, which found 50% of respondents and 34% of their subsample of SNP voters undecided. And definitely went massively wrong in their choice of potential contenders.

The fun part of this poll was the teeny weeny support for Shirley-Anne Somerville. The political breakdown of the replies showed that she had fuck all support from SNP voters, and that her 1% came mostly from LibDem voters. Then the early days of the campaign elicited some quite bizarre statements from some SNP grandees, from Jeane Freeman urging SNP MSPs to grow up, which will be a real challenge for some of them, to John Swinney asking the contenders to anchor the SNP to the mainstream of Scottish politics, as if they weren't already after nearly 16 years in power. Survation also tried their hand at something akin to a straw poll, between four select candidates that seemed reasonable options at the time. They asked their panel to rate the candidates on how they felt they would do as First Minister, from 'fucking awful' to 'stellar'. Angus Robertson and Kate Forbes again got the top spots, from both the general population and SNP voters. Quite revealingly, Humza Yousaf was again defeated by John Swinney for third place. Which says a lot when you remember how awful John was during his short tenure as SNP leader in the days of yore.

Then hats started being thrown in the ring, one by one. Or not, in what was truly the biggest shocker in the whole race. Now the dust has somewhat settled, and we know there are only three candidates. The second biggest shocker is, of course, that Kate Forbes seems to have sunk her own bid before the real campaign even started. Or maybe she hasn't, who really knows? I am still surprised anyway that an intelligent and competent woman like Kate totally ignored one basic principle of politics. When you say something that triggers a massive backlash, even from your initial supporters, you just never double down on it and dig your hole deeper. Second tip, you never ever apologise, it's a sign of weakness. And, for once, I can't find the bright side of life here, as Humza Yousaf is advertised as the top contender in the race, and can even brag about having not too subtle support from the English metropolitan 'progressive' punditariat. There is a strong possibility that Yousaf will be to Sturgeon what Liz Truss was to Boris Johnson. The Chosen One who gets into total meltdown and proves to be an abject failure in a matter of weeks. There were warning signs about Truss, there are also a lot about Yousaf, who seems to be as 'economical with the truth' as Truss. Mark my words. Someday we will regret that Angus Robertson didn't stand.

Watching these events, even the gods weep. Perhaps the mad will inherit the Earth.

(The Seer, Vikings: Moments Of Vision, 2018)

You need exposure to the issues of the day. After all, you spent your early years in Wales.

(Maud Holland, Upstairs, Downstairs: The Ladybird, 2010)

Updates on the political situation in Wales have a tendency to become quite boring, as the lines are barely moving. Every snapshot now predicts a Labour landslide of epic proportions, quite comparable to 1997. Plaid Cymru are also doing quite well in today's snapshot, though the differential with Labour is still clearly in Labour's favour. Plaid Cymru are predicted to miss their fifth seat, Ynys Môn, to Labour by less than 1%. The Conservatives would hold Brecon and Radnorshire also by about 1% over the Liberal Democrats, who look quite unlucky in this round. But also Carmarthen West, Montgomeryshire and Preseli Pembrokeshire by more convincing margins. All of which leaves Labour with nine projected gains, making Mark Drakeford a happy man, in what will be his last general election as leader of Welsh Labour.

But I think Mark Drakeford is doing himself and Welsh Labour no favour by endorsing a Scottish-style self-identification reform, that is no more popular in Wales than it is in Scotland. Fortunately, the legislative competence to do so is not devolved in Wales, and the English Government has no intention of giving it to them. There is the weeest hint of that is YouGov's latest Full Welsh poll, fielded after the Scottish gender fiasco, and planetary reactions to it, made headlines all through the Alpha Quadrant. It show a 2% swing from Labour to the Conservatives in Westminster voting intentions, since YouGov's previous Full Welsh in late November. But hardly anything significant in Senedd voting intentions, so the jury is still out for now. Obviously Labour remain the dominant party West of Offa's Dyke, and by double-digit margins on all votes. Then there is competition between the Conservatives and Plaid Cymru for second place. The Conservatives get it in Westminster, though only in votes and not in seats, but Plaid Cymru get it quite easily in Senedd, as the seat projection from the YouGov poll shows.

The Conservatives are heading towards major losses in the Senedd, as their vote share is predicted to go down 8% in the constituencies and 9% on the regional lists, compared to their 2021 result. This again guarantees that Labour would bag an outright majority on the constituencies only, something we already saw with YouGov's previous Full Welsh in late November. This would make this election Labour's best result ever, and the Conservatives' worst, since the first election for the National Assembly for Wales, as it was then known, in 1999. Past elections also show quite a correlation between the Conservatives' ups and downs in Wales and their success or failure UK-wide. Welsh Labour have also benefited from a Drakeford Effect in recent years, above and beyond Keir Starmer's appeal to the Welsh electorate. The next Senedd election thusly appears more uncertain that current polling predicts, as it will be held on different electoral system after a switch to full proportional representation, without Mark Drakeford at the helm, and most likely with a Labour government in London already two years into its term and facing some unpopularity as all governments do at such a stage. Three factors that would play against Labour and reshuffle the deck.

There is little difference between obstacle and opportunity.

The wise are able to turn both to their advantage.

(Machiavelli)

Do you know what they give donkeys for lunch in Blackpool? Twenty minutes.

(Jon Richardson, 8 Out Of 10 Cats Does Countdown, 2017)

There was a by-election in West Lancashire on the 9th of February, where Labour held a seat they have held continuously since 1992. You shouldn't read too much into this one, as it is definitely not a sign of anything. The 10.5% swing from the Conservatives to Labour was pretty similar to what we had in December in Stretford and Urmston, just 30ish miles away to the South East. And both fit with the trends of current polling in the North West of England. But there is more to polls than meets they eye, as you will discover if you dig down into the regional crosstabs of polls. They may not be entirely accurate as the subsample sizes are obviously smaller, but they sometimes allow you to detect a trend, if the same pattern repeats itself in several polls in succession. Which is just what we have here in the North of England, where Reform UK are now predicted 15% of the popular vote. And it becomes even more of a shocker when you realise that Reform UK is now outvoting the Conservatives in the North East and Yorkshire.

If this was confirmed at an actual general election, it would the biggest shocker on Election Night. There are also clear hints of anticipated tactical voting across all there regions, as the LibDem vote is significantly lower than you might expect from the national average in England. Which of course boosts Labour, who are now predicted to bag more seats in the North than in 1997, which was their peak so far. Graham Brady would be one of 59 Conservative incumbents losing their seats. But Esther McVey and Ben Wallace would hold their seats. Ironically, William Wragg would also hold his seat on current polling numbers, if he had not chosen to stand down.

The most spectacular effect of these new voting patterns is that the Conservatives would hold only one seat in Yorkshire, Brigg and Goole. Which is not even properly in Yorkshire, but mostly in Lincolnshire, and appears here as it was once part of the defunct Humberside county, that is now included in the larger Yorkshire and the Humber region. This means that Rishi Sunak is predicted to lose his Richmond seat in rural Yorkshire, which he inherited from William Hague and long line of Conservative MPs going back to 1910. The only caveat is that the seat would switch to Labour only by an otter's toenail and under really very favourable circumstances. More anecdotally, the neighbouring seat of Skipton and Ripon would also switch to Labour, and by a more conclusive margin. That's the one you may remember as being where Downton Abbey is located, as just Ripon on the boundaries of yore, and where a fiercely fought by-election takes place in May 1914 in the series' timeline.

Vegetarian black pudding is the sort of thing that gives you self-righteousness and wind.

(Lucy Beaumont, Meet The Richardsons, 2021)

Talk about making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. I wish we had a sow’s ear!

(Beryl Patmore, Downton Abbey, 2011)

The predicted outcome in the Midlands is quite similar to what we just saw in the North. Slightly better for Labour than a month ago and convincingly better than the Blairslide of 1997. There are a few minor differences though. Reform UK are doing better in the Midlands than in 2019, but not outvoting the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats are down, but by a lesser proportion than their England-wide vote. So it's pretty much Labour doing all the heavy lifting by and for themselves, and reaping the fruits of it. The Conservatives losing more than half of their 2019 votes definitely looks quite disastrous in regions that still looked quite competitive for a long time after the last election.

There is no real surprise then in the seat projections, which predict a massive Labour landslide in both regions. It is quite amazing to see Labour doing better than just reversing the 2019 result, which would already have been quite a feat, and one that seemed impossible in 2021 and even some months into 2022. Even the seats that went to the Conservatives in 2005 or 2010, and where they looked solidly entrenched after more than a dozen years, have now turned red again. Some others are even predicted to turn red for the first time since the days of Clement Attlee. Which is something that was already seen in the Blairslide of 1997, but is taking more epic proportions now.

It's interesting to see that the four residual Conservative seats in the East Midlands are all in Lincolnshire, which ends up with the dubious distinction of returning a majority of Conservative MPs in the middle of the biggest Labour tsunami in living memory. It's quite different in the West Midlands, where the six remaining Conservative seats are scattered one each in every county that's part of the region. Labour could also hope to gain five of the ten remaining Conservative seats in the Midlands if they had some sort of quid-pro-quo deal with the Liberal Democrats. Like a helping hand in some marginals in the South East and London, these where the LibDems are best placed to unseat incumbent Tories, in return for non-existent campaigning in marginals in the Midlands where Labour need just a wee push for more gains. Just like the unwritten and unmentioned deal of Tiverton and Honiton vs Wakefield at recent by-elections, or the earlier one in North Shropshire.

In the misfortunes of our best friends we always find something not altogether displeasing to us.

(François de La Rochefoucauld)

Welcome to the Garden Of England, holder of the record for the world's longest traffic jam.

(DI Sarah Torres, Silent Witness: Familiar Faces, 2023)

We're living in interesting times indeed, when Lee Anderson, a former coal miner and Labour Councillor from Ashfield turned Vice-Chair of the Conservative Party and poster boy of the Loony Right, has become the Liberal Democrats' unique selling point in select posh constituencies in the Leafy South East. Admittedly, the seats the LibDems have selected for their ad Blitzkrieg are ready to fall no mater what, but better safe than sorry. It's indeed one of the biggest and constantest surprises of recent months, that the Conservatives have proved so inept at everything that they can't surge back even in their historic heartlands South of the Severn-Wash Line. Even Doon Sooth, majorities below 20,000 are no longer enough to make a seat safe, so both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are heading for quite a pheasant shoot of both big and small fish in a barrel.

The current breakdown of voting intentions is again quite amazing, as it shows that the Conservatives are still unable to counter the Labour surge, even in the South. Labour's lead down there may be just about half their average lead across England, it's still enough to unseat a large number of Conservative incumbents. There is also a hint of tactical voting there, that would benefit Labour in the South East and East Anglia, and the Liberal Democrats in the South West. The Reform UK vote is also quite weak there, as a lot of Leave voters in these regions now seem to be especially disillusioned and critical of Brexit.

Another important factor Doon Sooth is that rural voters are very unhappy with the current English Government. Everything that could possibly go wrong has, from Brexit to planning laws, and the Conservatives have very little to say for themselves. It says a lot that even seasoned MPs, like George Eustice in Cornwall, are calling it quits because they are convinced anyone with a blue rosette is already a goner even in historically safe seats. Others will have another go at it and go. Jacob Rees-Mogg, Liam Fox, Robert Buckland, Geoffrey Cox, Dominic Raab, Jeremy Hunt and two dozen assorted lesser past and present government figures, who abound in the South. Even deep blue Dorset, that remained totally blue even in 1997, would return only four Conservatives out of eight seats next time. Devon would return only four Conservative MPs out of ten elected in 2019. Cornwall only two out of six, and so on. Even Legendary Blue Surrey would return only four Conservatives out of eleven seats. The worst being Suffolk, switching from six Conservatives to six Labour, a feat never seen in living memory. Even in the Deepest Leafy South, blue turns to red and orange. Though there would be some misses, like Mark Francois, Liz Truss and Michael Gove holding their seats. Can't get them all, can we?

No pleasure is worth giving up for the sake of two more years in a geriatric home at Weston-super-Mare.

(Kingsley Amis)

This is the most corrupt country on Earth. You don’t make nothing here. You don’t build anything.

You just make money from money. And most of that money is crime.

(Stephen Ross, Silent Witness: The Penitent, 2023)

Has Keir Starmer deliberately chosen to ignite yet another Labour Civil War in Islington North, literally just down the road from his own constituency in London? No matter what you think of Jeremy Corbyn, he definitely has a point when he argues that Keir Starmer unilaterally and personally barring him from standing as a Labour candidate is a denial of democracy. This has become quite a common attitude for Sly Keir, like when he tried, and failed, to impose Edward John Izzard in Sheffield Central, or parachuted gender ideology zealot Danny Beales in Uxbridge and South Ruislip over the heads of the local Constituency Labour Party (CLP). Of course Corbyn did the same when he parachuted Jared O'Mara in Sheffield Hallam, and then Claudia Webbe in Leicester East over the heads of both CLPs, and both proved to be fucking disasters. But this only gives more weight to the argument that Starmer should give the CLPs a free hand at selecting their candidates. Besides, an open rebellion in an iconic London seat is the last thing Starmer should want, when a challenge from the communitarian radical left is probably looming on the horizon in the two constituencies covering Tower Hamlets, and Labour is still riding high in the Imperial Capital's voting intentions and seat projections.

Labour are doing so well right now that, even if they lost Islington North to an independent Corbyn and the two Tower Hamlets seats to Aspire, they would still do better than in 2017 and 2019. Quite amusingly, The Guardian has published columns by Sonia Sodha and Owen Jones, who quite predictably defend opposite viewpoints on the demotion of Jeremy Corbyn. I guess there are keys to this in their also opposing viewpoints on other issues like Ukraine, gender ideology and women's rights, so you can easily guess who supports whom. On the Blue Side Of The Force, it looks like Boris Johnson has got the message loud and clear, that his current seat in Uxbridge and South Ruislip in now convincingly in the danger zone. But Labour could get Their Boy Beales elected without actually defeating Bozo, if the rumours are true, that he is contemplating competing again in the Henley Regatta. Or summat. Like Three Men in a Boat (To Say Nothing of the Twat). Or is it just that Bozo's understanding of 'safe seat' is one a few dozen miles upstream from Russian missiles? He has even bought a wee cottage there for Dilyn already, with a real family mansion to follow.

It has to be better. We can’t do the same old shit over and over again.

(Morris Weissman, Gosford Park, 2001)

What made America a great country is its political system. Now it's just an oligarchy with unlimited

political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for President or elect the President.

(Jimmy Carter)

In the United Kingdom, we're not in the habit of starting a campaign two years ahead of the scheduled date for the next general election. Usually. That is, unless the government make themselves lame duck midway through the parliamentary term, through endless factional war and proofs of crass incompetence. Or when we feel the next election might be two months away, and not two years. Different rules apply across the Atlantic, and pretty much always have. In the United States of America, campaigning starts again pretty much the day after a new Congress is sworn in. That's the really fun part of having elections every two years like clockwork, and made even better when the next one is a Full Election Year including a presidential election. The campaign for the 2024 presidential campaign has already started, even if we don't know yet who will stand. Voting intentions polls should therefore be taken with a pinch of salt, especially as they are ceaselessly fluctuating for no obvious reason. Other than knee-jerk reactions to what was most prominently displayed in the latest news cycle.

The trends of voting intentions polls don't paint the whole picture here. There are still four possible main candidates. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for the Democrats. Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis for the Republicans. So it's more appropriate to track what polls say about the four possible combinations, and what it could deliver on Election Day. I have estimated the votes for independent or third-party candidates as the average of the last four elections. But their exact vote share will probably not make much of a difference. What we have now shows that the best case scenario for the Democrats is a Biden-Trump rematch. The result is just a wee smitch closer than the 2020 election, and most likely sufficient to get Biden a majority in the Electoral College. The Biden-DeSantis scenario is much tougher, as it would be closer than the Clinton-Trump confrontation in 2016, and reminiscent of the 2000 election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. On top of all states that went to Clinton in 2016, any Democrat would need three of the five states that went to Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020 (Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania), just for a razor-thin majority in the Electoral College. The very close projection of popular vote hints that Biden would probably fail that, and lose the election to DeSantis.

The two scenarios involving Kamala Harris spell doom and gloom for the Democrats right now. With a lead anywhere between 4% and 6%, there would be a Republican landslide in the Electoral College. It's no news, and no surprise, that Harris is massively unpopular in strongly Republican states, which would not hurt her chances in a presidential election. But also with many voters in swing states, and this plays heavily against her. Because it is easy for the Republicans to paint her as the latest incarnation of the uppity aloof liberal West Coast establishment, who are the second most hated tribe in Red Middle America, after criminal defence lawyers. Sadly, there is a lot of truth to it, and a basic 'culture war' campaign would surely benefit any Republican candidate. This is probably why Harris is trying to enhance her profile internationally, like when she tries to outmacron Emmanuel Macron with a strongly anti-Russian speech at the Munich Security Conference. But even this may well backfire, if there are signs of 'Ukraine fatigue' this year, as the Republicans are more than ready to exploit it with the most populist rhetoric. So we have this weird situation where the Democrats' best chance is a rematch between the two oldest white men ever to seek the Presidency. Fucking hell!

So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors,

who want and expect and sometimes get favours for themselves after the election’s over.

(Jimmy Carter)

I know you’re a great country with a great history. And you all think I am not democratic

like you. I won’t argue with you. I’m an ex-KGB man, I’m wicked and scary with claws and

teeth and you’re all so well-bred and so well-educated.

(Vladimir Putin, to David Cameron, 16 June 2013)

One year on, and the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine is a failure. Volydymyr Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine won't budge. Vladimir Putin won't budge, but we don't really know about the Russian people. Tens of thousands have died on the frontline and the rest of world wonders if it will ever end, and how it will end. Zelenskyy has been crystal clear, the outcome depends on he level of support the Western world is willing to offer Ukraine. Putin obviously agrees, as the level of Kremlin-funded propaganda is more massive than ever, trying to cast doubts among public opinion and playing on feelings of 'Ukraine fatigue'. Western governments are fully aware that this is a major risk, the UK government no less than any other. So it is important to survey the British public's attitude, and how it may have evolved, or not, over time. YouGov have done just that, a few days before the fateful anniversary. They have used again the same array of items they surveyed in the early months of the war, but had not updated since September. The results are obviously not what the Putin-enablers want to hear.

There is a striking continuity in the British public's response to these first four items. The most interesting is the level of support for sanctions against Russia. It remains as high ever, despite all the Kremlin-funded propaganda that wants us to believe that the sanctions don't work, or that they hurt us more than they hurt Russia. British public opinion certainly understands that the sort of sanctions that were enforced take time to reach their full impact. And also that their alleged inefficiency had nothing to do with the nature of the sanctions, but with the reluctance of some countries to go all the way, which resulted in a lot of procrastination in the early stages of the war. Now that the European Union has taken serious measures to free itself of its dependency on Russian oil and gas, the most obvious obstacles have disappeared. The impact on the Russian economy is becoming more obvious too, as they have to rely now on selling gas at bargain prices to China and India. They also have to rely on China and North Korea for low-technology weaponry and electronics, as supply from the Western countries has been cut. The other four items of the YouGov survey show the same patterns as the first four.

The British public are still massively supportive of supplying weapons and equipment to Ukraine. They are also less keen on more aggressive options that could poke the Russian bear the wrong way, and always have been. Over a year of war, we have had plenty of time to identify what works and what doesn't. And also what is pointless and what would be dangerously provocative. The important result is that the British public's resolve has not weakened on the two major issues, sanctions against Russia and military aid to Ukraine. It is also reassuring that there is a really cross-partisan support for both in the UK, unlike other countries that may be influenced more by Russian propaganda and their own populist impulses. This has been confirmed beyond doubt by Keir Starmer during his recent visit to Kyiv, and also by the Scottish Government in support of refugees and an Ukrainian victory in the war, which Neil Gray correctly identified as a condition for peace and stability in Europe. This proves that the Putinist propaganda does not work in the UK, not in London, not in Edinburgh. And it's definitely comforting to see that they can't and won't drive a wedge between us.

No matter who tries to stand in our way, they should know that we will respond immediately.

And the consequences will be such as you have never faced in your entire history.

(Vladimir Putin)

History repeats itself. At first, the world does not notice or underestimates the threat.

Then it unites and opposes the threat. And then the world wins. The end is always the same.

(Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Speech to the World Economic Forum, 18 January 2023)

But in this brave new world, no country is an island. Not even Britain, despite Brexit. There is still a high level of interaction with foreign countries. The English Government might still be more attentive to what decisions are taken in the United States, but they can't ignore what is happening in Europe, especially in which direction the European Union is moving, or not. The EU have a major problem with Kremlin-funded propaganda, which is more successful there than in the UK. And also with some of their members who favour a 'special relationship' with Russia over European unity. This has an obvious impact on their public opinions, as YouGov show in their poll fielded on the eve of the war's anniversary. They surveyed six EU member countries, in addition to the UK, but surprisingly did not include Poland this time. Then each country's attitude on support to Ukraine is quite revealing, and obviously Poland's would have been the most one-sided in favour of Ukraine.

These results confirm what we already knew. The UK is the most supportive of Ukraine in Western Europe, and close proximity to Russia boosts the level of support. The replies are also linked to domestic politics, as usual. The populist rhetoric about 'money better spent at home' works in France and Italy because political parties with links to Russia have more influence there, both from the radical left and the far right. Germany is a more complex situation. A lot of Germans are still being guided by a mix of their post-1945 guilt and mid-1970s fear of the Soviet Union, in a disastrous misreading of the lessons of recent history, and what Germany's part in a new order of European collective security should be. The links between the ruling Social Democratic Party and the Russian establishment only add to the confusion. We have seen a prime example of that in Olaf Scholz's procrastination about the delivery of Leopard tanks to Ukraine, until he finally relented under pressure. YouGov then tested their panels about another issue, what you might call the 'War And Peace' question. Or what should be their governments' strategy to resolve the conflict.

This is obviously the trick question, you could even say it's booby-trapped. Of course, Ukraine will not negotiate while Russia is still illegally occupying a fifth of their territory. As John F. Kennedy once said, you cannot negotiate with people who say what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable. Yet some in Europe seriously think this is an option we should impose on Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This works better in countries where the Kremlin's influencers are the most active, and also where people have forgotten that pacifism enabled appeasement, that emboldened dictators. In Germany, it was quite alarming to see Olaf Scholz still succumbing to the same delusion of 'peace without victory' as Woodrow Wilson in early 1917, and failing to see that his own country's destiny is closely linked to the outcome of the war in Ukraine. Another example is the Chinese 'peace plan', which is neither a peace plan, nor a genuine political solution. It's just another game of smoke and mirrors from China, who are feeling nervous about the harm done by the war to their own interests. The very fact that what would amount to a surrender of Ukraine is still considered valid in some countries is alarming, also because it also pollutes the debate about military support. For example, we already have a reboot of the tank melodrama into a plane melodrama, and it will end the same way. Lots of vacillating and gesticulating, and we will deliver them to Ukraine.

Once a red line is crossed and there is no sanction, many other red lines can be crossed.

(François Hollande, President of France, 2012-2017)

I tried to make the case that it’s actually weakness that provokes Russia. And I believe that Russia

invaded Ukraine in 2014 because Putin said, “I can get away with it. The Americans won’t do anything”.

(H.R. McMaster, Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser, 2017-2018)

The anniversary of the savage Russian aggression has sparked a flurry of activity in Ukraine. And around Ukraine. And around the world about Ukraine, amidst wild speculation about how the war could end. There was even something of a wee smitch of comic relief ahead of that, which is not what you usually expect in the middle of a war. I'm of course thinking of Boris Johnson's surprise appearance in Kyiv, between stops of his lucrative after-dinner-speeches Tour Of The Universe. You never know if Boris does that out of the goodness of his heart, because he genuinely believes in The Cause, for once. Or because Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the last person this side of the Bajoran Wormhole who genuinely likes and respects him. Or because he enjoys playing mind games with Rishi Sunak, which is probably the explanation most of us would pick if we were polled about it. Anyway, he went there, got his photo-op and whooshed away to the next dinner party. Someone was bound to poll the British public's assessment of that new stunt, and Omnisis dutifully did, with quite an ironic twist to it. The question-setter here must be one of those who don't approve of Bozo's shenanigans.

Quite understandably, the British public are not happy bunnies about Bozo going out on a taxpayer-funded jolly in a war zone. The quarter who see no problem in that probably need reminding that, since he was kicked out of Number Ten by his own MPs, Bozo has made the equivalent of 50 years of his MPs salary off his off-the-muff post-dinner rants. The public also correctly identify the trip to Kyiv as a distraction. It surely was one for the Ukrainian security services, who probably don't need that at this moment. Omnisis then shifted to more relevant issues, directly linked to the ongoing war. First of all, tt is quite reassuring to see such strong public support for the delivery of tanks to Ukraine, soon confirmed by another poll conducted a few days later. Clearly there is no massive 'Ukraine fatigue', and majorities across the political spectrum support the delivery of the Challenger 2s. Interestingly the level of support is higher than average among SNP voters, which was not a given when you consider the number of 'pacifist' voices in the Pro-Indy camp.

The most interesting part is the last question. Of course, the war in Ukraine is a major threat to global security. But nobody should ever try and play both-sidesism here. The obvious truth is that Russia is the major threat to global security. The born-again Soviet imperialism is the major threat to global security. This is why all the calls for immediate peace, negotiations and whatnot must be firmly rejected for now. First of all, this is Ukraine's decision, not ours. Secondly, negotiating with Putin now, when Russia is still illegally occupying one-fifth of Ukraine, would be like negotiating with Hitler in 1943, and allowing him to keep Austria and Poland to avoid hurting his feelings. Appeasement is cowardice, and it never works because it emboldens the aggressor. Negotiations can't happen until Russia has been severely weakened or defeated on the ground. Ukraine won't agree to them in any other context, unless the USA blackmail them into it. What we need is a military humiliation for Russia that would lead to Putin's downfall, and kill all dreams of resuscitating the defunct Soviet Empire. Only thusly can peace be guaranteed, and a just security order in Europe be restored.

Putin believed Ukraine was illegitimate. It had ripped out of the Soviet Union, out of Russia.

And he made it clear that he considered the breakup of the Soviet Union the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.

(John Bolton, Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser, 2018-2019)

This is a President who is now really evoking an ethnic nationalism we haven’t seen in

Europe, really, since the war. But also a man who was thinking like a politician about legacy.

This is not about NATO and all the red herrings that he was throwing out.

(Ben Wallace)

I have a hunch that British politicians of all shades are keeping an eye on all polls about Ukraine, just to be sure they won't do anything that could offend their electorate. Quite usefully, YouGov have polled their panel this month about three issues that are at the core of this debate. One of the politicians' fears is obviously a strong 'Ukraine fatigue', consistent with the people's concerns about the cost-of-living crisis and their lack of faith in a brighter future. Polls conducted in 2022 actually supported the view that the public became less committed to helping Ukraine over time, until Ukraine started scoring gains again in the autumn, and public support went back up, despite the impact on our standards of living like skyrocketing energy prices. There is also an insidious narrative surfacing now, that Zelenskyy is 'ungrateful' because, ye ken, 'the more we give, the more he keeps asking for more'. Which is exactly what Churchill did to Roosevelt from 1942 to 1944, and nobody would have chastised him for that. Clearly the British public don't buy that new angle of attack from the Putin-enablers, and are still ready for a substantial sustained effort to support Ukraine.

But strong support for doing at least as much as the UK is doing now also requires to be clear about the public's commitment to two major issues that have become the core of possible military support to Ukraine. The supply of heavy tanks, which is now likely to occur as early as next month. And the supply of fighter jets, which is clearly an option for some time in the future, possibly meaning about two years from now. If ever, as Ben Wallace has already found a not too subtle excuse to backpedal on this. As usual, there were voices among the metropolitan progressive punditariat advising against it because, ye ken, escalation and all that. But all their scaremongering so far has proved to be a dud, as the only escalation was from the Russian side, with their war of terror against Ukraine's civilian population. YouGov's polling shows that the public don't buy it, as there is massive support for the delivery of both tanks and fighter jets and, quite amazingly, in pretty much the same proportions.

It was fairly predictable that Volodymyr Zelenskyy would ask for the delivery of military planes to Ukraine, during his visits to the UK and the EU. Or that Boris Johnson would do the same, even before Zelenskyy had spoken, just for the fun of embarrassing Rishi Sunak. Then I guess the only option available, despite Ben Wallace purposely making it less attractive, is sending some of the RAF's Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft to Ukraine. According to the Ministry of Defence themselves, as many of 38 are currently mothballed, so I guess they could be transferred after some refurbishment. Though probably not soon enough to help Ukraine repeal the anticipated Russian Spring offensive. Sadly, that's the price to pay for procrastination and imposing 'red lines' on ourselves, that existed only in the minds of our governments' advisers. As a footnote, a conclusion and a teaser, I invite you to watch BBC's three-part documentary Putin vs The West, if you haven't already. Which I guess you have, after the tumult caused by one of Boris Johnson's lines in it, which was totally not taken out of context. It will remind you of some events, between 2011 and 2022, that you might have forgotten, and the Kremlin-bribed Putin-enablers wouldn't want you to remember. Because they make it abundantly clear that Putin has always been a barefaced liar and a perverse manipulator. And that he's the one who always wanted a war. To satisfy his imperialist delusions of grandeur and manipulate his own people into coerced support for brutal ethnic-supremacist nationalism.

War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere,

or sinking into the depths of the sea, materials that might otherwise be used

to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.

(George Orwell)

Jeremy's Den

26/02/2023

Lying To Themselves

No comments:

Post a Comment

Welcome To Their Nightmares