Jeremy's Den: Faces Of Yesterday

Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature.

Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshiping.
(Hubert Reeves)

I think we’d be very foolish to expect that we can just import everything from somewhere else and imagine that that’s going to last forever and ever and ever.
(King Charles III)

It's been a long time since I haven't regaled you with Starmer's and Sunak's popularity ratings, and now looks like a good time to display them again. A year ago, Rishi Sunak promised professionalism, integrity and free meals at Wagamama's. But, a year on, that's not what the people see. Instead, they see an immensity of vacuousness and entitlement. And, on most issues, a total lack of a moral compass, and of the slightest connection with their hopes and fears, their prospects and concerns. Which is, of course, nothing new with the Conservative Party. Long gone are the days of One Nation conservatism, of compassionate conservatism. Others than Sunak are more to blame, but he's the one in the driver's seat now, so he has to bear the full brunt of the people's discontent. Half of the Great British Public, and more than that in many polls, have an unfavourable opinion of the Temp Prime Minister. That's surely not where you want to start from if you intend to win the next election. But Rishi doesn't care anymore, does he?

Actually, even on these shitty numbers, Rishi Sunak is still more popular than Liz Truss, which is admittedly the lowest of bars. And it does not mean that everything is milk and honey for Keir Starmer. The Great British Public may have certainties about Sunak, but they also have doubts about Starmer. Can't blame them for that. These are the times when people expect the next Prime Minister to show the sturdy solidity of the lighthouse on the lonely island battered by the waves, and they don't see that. Instead they see a Leader of the Opposition who has watered down his manifesto to the point of insipidity, and is so eager to please everyone and their dog that he seems ready to go into the campaign with nothing but blank pages that the people can fill with whatever they want. Promising to stop the badger cull in England is definitely a welcome decision, but I don't think that's the dividing line with the Conservatives that the public expect. Rachel Reeves going after non-doms and loopholes in tax laws is surely a good idea too, even if it gives all the tax evaders more than enough time to rehome their stash to a better place. And even a successful conference did not improve Starmer's popularity ratings, leaving the public quite neatly split between approval and disapproval.

I have actually been a wee smitch unfair to Keir, as there were indeed two pledges carved in the Keirstone during the conference. To recover the dosh spent on fraudulent VIP-lane contracts awarded during the pandemic, which can only resonate favourably with public opinion. To bulldoze the planning laws to build houses everywhere, which might attract mixed reviews. Starmer's main problem is the same as ever, that I have mentioned thousand of times already. Trying to seduce too many people at once, and ending up with contradictory positions from one day to the next. Very favorable polls don't help here, as they indicate that very different cross-sections of the electorate are ready to vote Labour, and Starmer draws the erroneous conclusion that he must please them all at all costs. But you can't. Working-class Glasgow and middle-class Surrey don't have the same concerns and the same hopes. If you're targeting both, you might end up catching neither. Which is not what the polls say right now, but there are hints now that Rishi Sunak won't push for a snap general at least until next year's Spring Statement. Plenty of time to see Labour's dominant position erode.

The Preferred Prime Minister polling, surveyed by most pollsters, remains quite ambiguous. Interestingly, their Conference jollies have sent Starmer's ratings back up, and Sunak's back down. And it stayed that way afterwards, past the Tories' cataclysmic debacle at two by-elections, which I will discuss later. There seems to be a real current of Toryphobia now all across the UK, and that's the kind of phobia I can live with. But it's not all good news for Starmer, as his ratings as Preferred Prime Minister still stay below Labour's voting intentions. There are different interpretations of post-Conferences polling, and I don't agree with these who argue that they had no effect. A negative effect on the Conservatives and no visible effect on Labour actually sum up as a positive effect on Labour. And I'm sure that those arguing that the Conferences had no effect will want to reframe this now after the by-elections. If these did not show a positive climate for Labour, then what will? Of course, this is not conclusive evidence that this will last for months and Labour still have to up their game, and stop sowing confusion about their real objectives. More than ever if they want a deserved election victory, and not a victory by default.

There are some politicians who are accused of being all sizzle, no steak. Blair was definitely steak. And Keir is just Quorn mush.

(Michael Gove)

The biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand. We listen to reply.

(Stephen R. Covey)

I've said it earlier, I am sometimes harsh and unfair to Labour, our future overlords. Their manifesto is actually not a 2D rendition of the interstellar void. BMG Research kept digging like a truffle hog after the rain, and found nine proposals, which they submitted to their panel for the October instalment of their monthly poll for The i. So Labour had their birds-and-bees moment in Liverpool after all, that begat the embryo of a manifesto. And the BMG poll shows that these proposals are massively popular. Except the pledge to build 1.5 homes over the next term, probably because of the "fuck planning laws" provision attached. This is the one and only case I can think of, where Keir Starmer should have maintained some ambiguity, and not gone ballistic on the Nimbys, whom he needs if Labour really want to score big in the South of England.

I am actually quite miffed that the meat tax and the compulsory seven bins, so vehemently opposed by Rishi Sunak, did not make it to Labour's laundry list. They should have added them to take the piss out of Rishi, offer him his "I told you so!" moment as he would never have realised they were taking the piss, and deflect his attention from the actual proposals. It would also have been fucking fun to see these tested in a poll, but never mind. Then, you might ask, how can Labour get such massive approval for their incoming manifesto, more than enough for a massive landslide, and at the same time inspire so little real enthusiasm? BMG certainly felt the contradiction and wanted to explore it further, so they followed up by asking their panel whether, in their opinion, Labour would do well or badly on a number of issues. And some of the results are definitely not stellar.

On average of all items surveyed, 43% of the panel think Labour would do well and 30% that they would do badly. Which sounds like a positive assessment at first glance, but very few of these issues show a majority of Brits thinking that Labour would do well. Even their strongest points (the NHS, housing, social care) elicit only weak majorities of 50-52%. Labour still have significant net positives on topics that are generally considered left-wing, mostly everything related to the welfare state or public spending, but far smaller net positives on traditionally right-wing topics like crime or defence. They even have net negatives on immigration, which will obviously be a big campaign issue, and Brexit, which probably won't unless the Conservatives are daft enough to bring it up and receive a massive fact-based bashing.

Of course, Labour HQ will consider that the overall picture is rather positive. But it's definitely not failsafe and foolproof. For example, they have a very weak net positive on taxation, which Rishi Sunak intends to make a major campaign issue, starting with the high probability of indiscriminate tax cuts in the Spring 2024 Statement. Labour have to reframe that narrative too, and shift it to the inevitable spending cuts that always follow tax cuts. Which should be easy when facing a government that is willing to enforce spending cuts even without tax cuts, because of the awful mismanagement of public finances. Jeremy Hunt even gave them an unexpected bonus soundbite when he let someone else leak that he would be standing down, so feart he is of losing his seat. The lame duck Chancellor turning into the dead in the water Chancellor, jettisoning what little credibility he has left.

This isn't a witch hunt for the deadwood. It's much more of a treasure hunt for the gold.

Shit sinks, but also cream floats.

(Jesse Campbell, Black Mirror: The Entire History Of You, 2011)

I don't know, maybe Rishi Sunak thinks standing next to Netanyahu is a bit like standing next to Zelenskyy. But it isn't.

(Ian Hislop, Have I Got News For You?, 20 October 2023)

There is a lot to say about a Prime Minister who is so out of touch with everything and everyone that he has lost control of his own party. YouGov definitely smelt a rat and some blood here, so the decided to devote a whole poll to Rishi Sunak. And what they found proves that it's quite the understatement to say that the Great British Public don't have a high opinion of him, unlike himself. If Rishi Sunak really thinks that all he has to do is batten the hatches and ride the storm, and just keep going, he is badly wrong. YouGov first asked their panel which level of trust they have in Sunak's ability to deal with the major issues of the day, and the results are both quite unequivocal and disastrous for him. The Great British Public don't even trust him with the Ukraine war, which seemed to be one of his fortes after he followed in Boris Johnson's footsteps. The only thing the public are confident in is Rishi's ability to make things not happen. It feels like each and every of his lies, approximations and obfuscations is now bound to turn round and hit him over the head with a truncheon.

It didn't get better when YouGov asked their panel to rate Sunak on an array of basic human qualities, which are also admittedly part of the definition of his political qualities. Even the very few positives look irrelevant to the overall verdict. What is the point of being considered hardworking when you are also considered incompetent? Of being considered kind when you are also considered weak? Of course, that is probably not usable by Labour, as we all agree that ad hominem attacks are off limits in political campaigns. But it also proves that Rishi Sunak is not entirely plugged into the same reality as the rest of us, if he thinks he is still the Wunderkind who will rebuild both the UK and the Conservative Party. There was even some background noise, after the disastrous by-elections, calling for his resignation and replacement by one of many Tory batshit crazies. Not that it will happen, but the Great British Public clearly don't fall for Rishi's stunts anymore. Which goes a long way to explain why a flawed Keir Starmer is gaining ground in every poll.

If all this was not damning enough already, YouGov also asked their panel to rate Rishi Sunak in comparison to his predecessors. Which also reminds us that, before his MPs anointed Sunak by default, the UK had four Prime Ministers over 31 years, then also four, but over just 13 years. And that does really make the current variant of the Conservative Party look fucking bad. But it also sheds some light on the oddities of the Great British Public. Of course they consider Rishi Sunak to be a better Prime Minister than Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, but who wouldn't? But a quarter thinking Sunak is a better Prime Minister than Blair? What the fuck? You don't even have to be a Blairite to see how ridiculous that is.

YouGov did not go really far back in the past, as all the names on their list were in charge within living memory. But there are still people alive today who were legally adults under Clement Attlee, so YouGov should definitely have added a few earlier names to the list. I, for one, would love to know how Rishi Sunak compares with Edward Heath in the eyes of the public, but I guess we will never know. But it's still enlightening to know that the Great British Public think that Rishi Sunak is worse than David Cameron, the actual fuckpig, to use Dominic Cummings's chiseled words, who unleashed Brexit on four unsuspecting nations, and roughly the same as Theresa May, the woman who drowned in her own incompetence at de-unleashing the Brexit calamity. As we are inexorably drifting nearer and nearer the general election, this is also an opportunity to consider the gross inadequacy of the British political personnel as a whole, not just on the Conservative side. The last truly inspirational figures, for all sorts of bad and good reasons, were Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. And all we have left now are competing mediocrities.

Rishi Sunak, he's been called Dr Death at the Covid inquiry, which is tough. No, Rishi's official nickname is Rishi Soon-Out.

(Ian Hislop, Have I Got News For You?, 27 October 2023)

Know what’s worth pissing on? The naive idea of a nation run by the people. The people don’t run crap.

A tiny privileged circle rule. From the corporate world, the media and a few politicians.

(Michael Laugesen, Borgen: Dyden I Midten, 2010)

Opinium recently conducted a poll about the evils of the British political system and proportional representation, on behalf of Make Votes Matter, an organisation that promotes... good guess... proportional representation. Which I can best describe as identifying the right symptoms that make the system a total fuckup, and then leading us to the wrong conclusion. First of all, you have to make sure the Great British Public are aware of some self-evident truths. Just ask them if they think Parliament is in touch with the common people, and the resounding answer is "Fucking NO". Not even Conservative voters think it is. Globally, that's obviously a fair assessment of what Parliament do and the way they work. But it's also quite unfair to the dozens of MPs who genuinely care and do their core job to the best of their abilities, that of constituency MP. Yes, they exist, more of them than populist anti-parliamentary rhetoric would make you believe. Besides, that kind of discourse would be more credible if it didn't come from people who would suck dick and swallow to get a seat in Westminster like, totally random example, Nigel Farage. But I nevertheless have to agree with the Great British Public, that the general impression is that Parliament is out of touch with the people's real concerns.

Once you've said that, you have to wonder what can be done to remedy this. Which the Opinium poll approached by asking their panel if they think our political system is in need of reform. Of course they do, though they differ on the extent of reform that would be appropriate, and only less than a third are open to total reconstruction. Which will suit the Conservatives, who are fully committed to doing jack shit. But also Keir Starmer, who is fully committed to doing even less than Tony Blair, after reneging on the bravest and stunningest proposal, the final abolition of the medieval House of Lords. The major roadblock on the road to parliamentary reform is, and will always be, that it quite obviously requires Parliament to reform itself. Good luck with that. Even cosmetic reforms that don't even require legislation, like reducing the amount of days spent in recess, are unlikely to succeed. And I won't even mention those who would require legislation, like banning second jobs for MPs. Then maybe, just maybe, directly elected Mayors and unitary local authorities will get some semblance of DevoMin under Starmer, but I doubt this will be enough to satisfy the Great British Public.

The final question was about choosing which reform would best cure the evils of the system, of course including PR alongside a few less happy shiny options. Nothing here to make me change my mind and reframe my opposition to PR. The first effect of PR is that it moves the power to select candidates from local constituency parties to national party HQs that will concoct huge national lists, or at best big regional lists. Not the way to ensure a better connection between the people and their MPs, when you have it with constituencies where the MP has to keep in touch with the local communities. Besides, PR only empowers fringe extremist groups by making them kingmakers and giving them extortionate power over decisions. Like the theocratic far-right in Israel or the Greens in Scotland, where we don't even have full PR. I much prefer a two-round majority system. Not instant runoff, but the real thing with rounds held one or two weeks apart, and only the top two candidates proceeding to the second round. That way you make sure that all MPs do get a majority in their constituency, and maintain ties with the local communities. Fortunately, the Great British Public are not that enamoured with PR, as less than a third chose it as their favourite option, even with all other options being designed to be less popular. Who would gamble the future of our political system anyway, on an option that is seriously considered only by the Liberal Democrats and the Greens?

But this poll actually totally misses the point. Because it does not address the one real issue, that is at the core of the Westminster System, carved in its very DNA. It's not FPTP or the House of fucking Lords, and nobody ever mentions it. It's that the executive power and the legislative power are in the hands of the same institution, Parliament, because our conventions say that the Government has to come from Parliament. Or more precisely, by common current convention, both powers are de facto vested in the House of Commons. Or, if you want to go to the heart of the matter, the 109 MPs who are legally allowed to be on the government payroll, make or have the illusion to make the executive decisions, and whip the parliamentary hoi polloi in the governing party to give them a legislative veneer. To make it worse, we also have this dogma of parliamentary sovereignty, another unique fixture of the Westminster System, which makes both the executive and the legislative branches immune to most forms of control from the judicial branch. If you want real constitutional reform, first you write a Constitution. Not a random batch of unrelated conventions put together in a file, but an actual document defining all the rules in one place. And, at the top, you put the separation of powers. Which would be a seismic revolution for the UK, but works perfectly in a lot of other countries. Those who never had the Westminster System, or never tried to reproduce it in a different language. But no party would ever get a mandate for that, because none would ever ask. They all love the system so much as it is, save a few cosmetic changes every now and then.

I may be accused of being a dinosaur, but I remind you that dinosaurs ruled the Earth for a very long time.

(Patrick Moore)

It does seem the Conservatives constantly leave a massive open goal and Keir Starmer's just kind of behind it, vaping and playing Wordle.

(Victoria Coren-Mitchell, Have I Got News For You?, 6 October 2023)

Sorry if it does sound repetitive, buy it's just because it's repeating itself. The trends of voting intentions polls remain extremely favourable for the Labour Party. Now we have an uninterrupted sequence of 730 polls over 705 days putting Labour in the lead. That's 14 times as long as Liz Truss's Premiership, and also 48% of the time elapsed since the last general election. The Conservative Party's agony lasted longer under John Major, as there were clear signs of their incoming debacle already around Christmas 1992, and it only got worse over the next four-and-a-half years. Interestingly, the memories of those who were there tend to exaggerate the damage done to the Conservatives by by-elections between 1992 and 1997. They lost "only" eight seats and, contrary to popular belief, John Major did not lose his majority because of by-elections. He lost it because of defections to other parties, one per year during his term. But there are lots of similarities between John Major's demise and Rishi Sunak's, the most dangerous of all being infighting and factionalism. Been there, done that. So let's do it again, because we never learn.

After the last two by-elections, and I swear I will deal with them in more detail in due course, there remains just one question. What could possibly derail Labour's journey to a historic landslide of the same magnitude as 1945 and 1997? And we all know there is but one answer. Labour themselves. But the Conservatives are Labour's life-line, so keen they seem to scuttle their own ship. When Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister, everybody's expectations were pretty low, yet we were still overestimating him. A year on, Rishi Sunak rebranding himself at Conference, as whatever he thought he was rebranding himself into, was not a qualified success. At least, that's what another YouGov poll found, surveying their panel about what is right and what is wrong with the present government.

There's no way anyone can spin this favourably for the Conservatives, not even Greg Hands. Just do the right cross-maths and you see that 62% of Brits think the Conservatives have the wrong leader and 68% think they have the wrong policies. Even worse, more than a third of their own voters think that they have both. And the feeling is consensual, as not even the older generation or the Leafy South deviate much from the general mood. There's even evidence, from the last two by-elections, that the people we all thought were the most likely to turn out in droves for the Tories have now become the most likely to not turn out. Don't menshun ze penshun triple lock. Anyone would have a hard time recovering from such an abyss of rejection, but the Conservatives seem to find some enjoyment in making it harder on themselves. Like kicking the ban on no-fault evictions into the long grass for no visible reason, except delaying it until after the election and letting Labour deal with the mess. There is a pattern emerging here, doing jack shit about fuck all, so everything will become Labour's problem and they will have to make the "tough choices" that will make them unpopular. Because that brand of short-sighted cynicism is all we can expect from the Conservatives now.

Outside the Palace of Westminster, protesters shouted at Charles, "Not my King!". To which he yelled back, "Not my speech!".

(Richard Aoyade, Have I Got News For You?, 10 November 2023)

The Conservatives have already started planning their election strategy, with tax cuts to appeal to Blue Wall voters, NHS spending to appeal to Red Wall voters, and tougher immigration policies to appeal to Millwall voters.

(Jack Dee, Have I Got News For You?, 27 October 2023)

The Conservatives have obviously run out of road, and the best evidence is Charles's first King's Speech. It is totally devoid of any proposal for actual legislation, and aims only at drawing dividing lines with Labour, by swinging one more notch to the right while Labour occupy the centre ground. Rishi can't even count on Nadine Dorries's diary to distract the Great British Public from the intergalactic vacuousness of the Not-My-King's Speech. Brits have definitely lost patience for fairy tales, whether they come from Nads's feverish imagination or Rishi's speech-writers. We see that in my current Mash Up Of Polls, based on the weighted average of the last five published voting intentions polls. These were fielded by Deltapoll, YouGov, Techne, Opinium and We Think between 3 and 10 November. We have a super-sample of 7,829, with a theoretical margin of error of 1.11%. It says Labour are now leading by exactly 21%, which is not their best performance since 2019, but still enough for a landslide of 1945ish or 1997ish magnitude.

It is quite intriguing that the Conservatives are performing really poorly in England and Wales, but not that badly Scotland, all things considered. Labour, and to a lesser extent the SNP, will have to address this, which may, or may not, be just a transient blip on the pollsters' radars. I also imagine that next week, and the polls that surface then, might be a game-changer if Keir Starmer really has to face a full blown frontbench rebellion about Gaza. It's not certain it will happen, but it could, and that's pretty much the only way things could go tits up for Labour now. After all, Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson were both taken down by Cabinet rebellions, but seeing a Leader of the Opposition go down in a similar manner would be a first for the Labour Party. But, if the tumult finally dies down quietly, like after Starmer eats his hat and some tofu pie to appease the rebels, Labour's campaigning should also focus on hitting where it hurts most, and take their cues from the public's hugely negative assessment of the current government's performance. YouGov have been polling this monthly for years, in their Political Trackers, and their November update is just as devastating for the Conservatives as previous ones have been since the days of Boris Johnson.

On average of all the topics included in YouGov's laundry list, Rishi Sunak now scores a stunning -40 net rating. That's his second worst since he became Prime Minister. And also worse than Boris Johnson on his last month in power, or Sunak himself just after he issued his now-long-gone Five Pledges. Back then, both bagged "only" a net -35 average rating. Sunak even gets a negative net rating on defence, which has admittedly been wrecked by massive financial waste and abysmally lousy project management, which is now the traditional English way. Ironically, the only net positive, in a sea of negatives, is about terrorism. Where, it has to be stressed, the UK achieves nothing all by itself, but because it is part of international anti-terrorist networks jointly led by many countries' secret services. The very domain where we need mutual protection intertwined with our allies, but were ready to wreck it in the name of Brexit. The global picture here is that the Great British Public don't trust the Conservatives on any of the key issues that should be at the heart of the incoming general election campaign. Which is why Sunak is attempting to refocus the narrative on totally different issues, but won't succeed, because the public know what really matters to them, even if Rishi doesn't.

What remains to be seen now is how much more the hearings of the Covid inquiry will hurt the Conservative brand generally, and Rishi Sunak specifically. Because his time has come, when the criminally stupid "Eat Out To Spread Out" scam, and his opposition to a second lockdown in the fall of 2020, came under closer scrutiny. So now we know that Rishi totally gaslighted everybody in the Covid Task Force for personal brownie points, and we can only hope he gets strongly chastised before the incoming snap general. But I'm not totally sure of that, as the inquiry is scheduled to last an unbelievable there years, three fucking years, twice as long as the events it is supposed to investigate. In the meanwhile, CCHQ will make sure that some prominent people are hung out to dry for their part in the disaster, and I can already tell you who. Boris Johnson, who doesn't give a flying fuck, and Matt Hancock, who will welcome the opportunity to rebrand himself as a fucking arrogant cocksucking weasel-faced cunt on multiple reality shows. But, when even former Conservative ministers fire massive broadsides at their own government, there is no way Rishi Sunak can make the whole thing go away, and it can only have devastating consequences for his electoral prospects.

Jaws Mode Wank is when you’ve wanked so much you’re gonna need a bigger boat.

(Zoe Lyons, Have I Got News For You?, 3 November 2023)

The main achievements of Rishi Sunak’s government are just cancelling incredibly stupid ideas by his predecessors. So cancel culture, in terms of Rishi, is terrific.

(Ian Hislop, Have I Got News For You?, 3 November 2023)

As you might expect from the polling numbers, my model now predicts an unprecedented Labour landslide, even if it's not as massive as the plausible one Liz Truss offered them on a silver platter 13 months ago. That's 236 Conservative seats from the 2019 intake, or 221 incumbent Conservative MPs as they have lost quite a few since to various kinds of accidents, who are predicted to be just like George Clooney in Gravity. Poof! Gone! But we also have four new ones from Scotland, of all places, as 31 SNP seats of the 2019 intake are predicted to change colour now. Or you can say it's 26 SNP incumbents, as they also managed to lose a handful already along the way. On the same polling numbers, the Electoral Calculus seat projector, which seems to always be the punditariat's favourite, even predicts 472 seats for Labour and just 110 for the Conservatives. Which might be something of an over-statement, as pure uniform swing says only 426 Labour seats and 152 Conservatives. My uses of regional crosstabs for England boosts the Conservatives in the North, but Labour in the Midlands and South, while Electoral Calculus's algorithms appear to boost Labour everywhere. Then even uniform swing delivers a better-than-Blair landslide, so what the fuck?

This is definitely a very bad situation for the Conservatives, and it might get worse as the last polls couldn't yet assess the fallout of a very unexpected consequence of the Israel-Hamas war. That it would also trigger massive disruption within the Conservative Party, after Sue-Ellen Braverman accused the Metropolitan Police of double standards over protests in London, which is indeed at least partly true, managed to alienate a lot of people in Northern Ireland, which is indeed at least partly stupid, and was brutally disowned by Rishi Sunak. If Sue-Ellen imagined this could jump-start a leadership bid, cuddling the party's far-right wing against a softy-touchy-feely Rishi Sunak, it's a massive flop. Though probably not the last we will ever hear of her. Labour probably wishes so, as it will distract from their own shenanigans and divisions, and increase their popular support. Right now, the sequence of my seat projections shows that Labour have reached their highest number of predicted seats since the Truss Interlude.

There are different factors at work here. The most obvious is a very favourable geography of the Labour vote in England. They are still doing incredibly well in the Leafy South, including in Forever Blue counties, and this walks hand in hand with the second factor. A lesser performance of the Liberal Democrats, as the merits of tactical voting become more obvious in just one direction. Not in favour of the ones who claim they are the best-placed to defeat the Conservatives locally, but in favour of those who are best-placed to defeat the Conservatives nationally. Oddly, this efficiency-driven approach is also prevailing in Scotland now, which won't genuinely help Labour to clear the majority hurdle, as they are predicted to bag enough seats for this in England alone. But, if the current trends hold, it will help Labour bag their best result ever in recorded history. Which would be the most ironic twist for the next general election.

We need redistribution of wealth in this country, because it’s all being stored by the people at the top, and it’s all being taken away from the people at the bottom.

(Mick Lynch)

What we have in front of us here is what I would term flatulence in a trance.

(Graeme McCormick, SNP Conference, 15 October 2023)

At long last, we now have had the latest instalment of Savanta's Scottish Political Tracker on behalf of The Scotsman. For once, The Scottish Pravda reported it factually and neutrally, without their usual extrapolation and hyperbole. Then we also had the new instalment of the SCOOP Monitor, conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Scottish Election Study think tank. Interestingly, The Scottish Pravda also devoted a column to this one, despite its rather catastrophic findings for the SNP and the Yes Camp. And finally an unexpectedly early update of Redfield & Wilton's monthly Full Scottish. The most striking part of these last three polls is that we now have five sources showing that the SNP surge, detected in an earlier YouGov poll, was only a very short blip on the radars, if it ever existed. It definitely validates and affirms that my earlier doubts about some of Redfield & Wilton's polls were not valid, as these were not outliers, just pointing to changes in the voting patterns earlier than the rest of the pollstertariat. Let's see first how the voting intentions at the far-from-incoming second Independence referendum have evolved.

For a fleeting moment, it looked like we had broken the spell of the IndyRef Markov Chain, and were slowly heading for a 49-51 split. Then the rubber band snapped back to its previous stable state, and we're back to the 48-52 Groundhog Split. But we now have other means to achieve Independence than a referendum, haven't we? Spawned by Alister Jack, the SNP and the Alba Party as alternative strategies, and duly surveyed by Savanta. They asked their panel to what extent they support or oppose four specific options as a means to achieve Independence, and I have left the exact wording intact, even if it's quite a batch of mouthfuls. Savanta crosstabbed this question with the people's vote at the 2021 Holyrood election, our last real-life measurement of the state of Scottish public opinion, and I singled out just SNP voters, as they are pretty much considered their captive audience by the thinking brains at SNP HQ.

Clearly, the Great Scottish Public are not enamoured by any option that would transfer the decision from a referendum to an election, and also not really convinced that we should use polls as the ersatz of a democratic vote. SNP voters are unsurprisingly more supportive of these options, as three of them are homebrew, or have been at various stages along the time-space continuum.It is quite reassuring that the general population are not falling for the "single pro-Independence candidate" stunt, aka "Scotland United", and that it's also the least popular scenario among SNP voters. It might be the Alba Party's brainchild, and probably Alex Salmond's himself, but it's also fucking stupid. You have to look at it in practical terms. First, it means that all pro-Independence parties would have to support the SNP candidates, no matter how abysmally bad they are, because the SNP will stand in all constituencies no matter what and don't give a flying fuck what the other parties do. Second, it means that you're buying the asinine concept of a general election as a de facto referendum, that the English government are still laughing at. Not to mention the Great Scottish Public, who don't believe in it, as the Savanta poll also highlighted.

Savanta asked their panel if the SNP winning a majority of Scottish seats would be a strong enough mandate to compel the UK government to start negotiations for a second Independence referendum. Of course a majority of Scots think it is not, which is a very sane and rational reaction. Even a sizeable minority of SNP and Yes voters reject it. It's typically one of those pseudo-policies that the SNP have made up on the hoof, because Margaret Thatcher said something like that 40 years ago and SNP HQ fancy it as such a compelling argument that today's Conservatives must abide by it. Well they don't, and for the same reason that "once in a generation" is a non-argument. Campaign soundbites never had any legal status, and they're not even binding for the ones who uttered them. But the SNP will dangle that carrot so long as it allows them to give gullible Scots a talking point on social media, and to whine about the Unionists being so disrespectful of the Scottish people's will, who have just given the SNP an 11th mandate to talk a lot and do nothing. That's not how democracy works. The rules are definitely biased against Scotland, but the sad truth is that the only democratic path goes through a Section 30 referendum. Or else you might want to try UDI, and even an Easter Rising. But you know and we know you won't, don't we?

The result, therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end.

(James Hutton, Theory Of The Earth, 1788)

If your personal beliefs deny what’s objectively true about the world, then they’re more accurately called personal delusions.

(Neil deGrasse Tyson)

You know that, for various unrelated reasons, I am not the Alba Party's Number One fan. I nevertheless fell that Ash Regan defecting from the SNP to Alba, and thusly becoming their first MSP, is good news. The Yellow-Green Axis definitely need a challenge from the left, from a social-democratic perspective. I just wish that would embolden more SNP MSPs to do the same, starting with those who rebelled against the Gender Recognition Reform bill, and those who feel that kowtowing to the Greenies' asinine student politics is taking Scotland in the wrongest of directions. One can hope, can't he? I wish I was as confident as Neale Hanvey in the game-changer potential of Ash Regan's decision, but I guess time will tell. In the meanwhile, the updated trends of Holyrood voting intentions confirm that the SNP's recent "YouGov Bump" was just transient, and possibly even non-existent. It's quite obvious when you see that Labour and the SNP are back on a collision course. The most recent polls also show a wee Conservative surge, that should worry both Labour and the SNP equally.

The voting intentions from the three new polls are quite a mixed bag, sending as they do quite contradictory messages. The only obvious shared trait is that the pro-Independence parties, insofar as you still consider the Greenies pro-Independence, are very far from a majority of the popular vote. Which only confirms the massive irony embedded in the current Scottish political landscape, that the still reasonably high Yes vote relies on pro-Independence Labour voters. Then the polls massively contradict each other in their predictions of the Conservative vote. To be honest, I can't see it as low as 14%, and I definitely think YouGov is again the odd one out here. But Redfield & Wilton are probably overestimating it, which makes me think that Savanta's findings are plausibly closest to the real situation.

The seat projections from the three new polls pretty much agree with the least SNP-friendly scenario. The general trend of polls may not show Labour breathing down the SNP's neck, but their translation into seats does. The Yellow-Green Axis would be vaporised again, getting only 56 or 57 seats according to my model. There is even the possibility that Labour would come back as the first party. Bagging more seats on fewer votes doesn't happen really often, but it already has. This has nothing to do with the evils of FPTP, but only with the geography of the votes, as shown by the polls' regional crosstabs. Labour's luck is that their vote is very unevenly spread, and mostly overperforming in the Central Belt, where most of the SNP's vulnerable seats are concentrated. As I think Anas Sarwar is smart enough to never consider a Unionist coalition including the Conservatives, that leaves the door open to only two alternatives. A Labour-SNP coalition, which is admittedly as likely as Lorna Slater not making an arse of herself for a whole week. Or my favourite, the Traffic Lights Coalition of Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens. Which would get 63 to 68 seats, or between a very workable minority government and a small but respectable majority. I find this fucking hilarious, as I first mentioned the Traffic Lights scenario as a joke, though not really totally a joke, and now the Scottish Fake Greens are proving me right at every opportunity. They are definitely ready to sell their votes to the highest bidder just to keep the ministerial cars. Not pro-Independence, not Green, just another variant of entitled metropolitan middle-class grifters.

In that context, it was at first mildly amusing to see The Scottish Pravda devoting an article making the case that a Labour victory at the incoming snap general could jeopardise their prospects at the next Scottish Parliament election. But, on second thoughts, it does have some merits. Labour would obviously campaign on the numerous advantages in having governments in London and Edinburgh on the same wavelength. But they would first have to prove they are actually of one mind on all significant policies, which is not the case this month. If Labour can't make that case, the SNP would have an obvious soundbite that the article does not mention. Summat like "Since you're gonna have two governments that don't agree anyway, better stick with the devil you know, us". Or they could go down a road the article hints at, turning the Holyrood election into a midterm verdict on the English Labour government. The Conservatives could also adopt that line from a different ideological perspective, forcing Labour to campaign on two fronts with plausibly contradictory arguments. Which would indeed challenge their credibility, and make that election quite interesting.

And he was told but these few words, which opened up his heart

"If you cannot bring good news, then don't bring any"

(Bob Dylan, The Wicked Messenger, 1967)

Either you clean up your own mess, or you get the fuck out of the way.

(Leonard Cromwell, The Morning Show, 2023)

The updated trends of Full Scottish polls for Commons voting intentions are even worse for the SNP than the Holyrood trends. Here they are not just on a collision course with Labour, they have already collided. This is the direct result of five consecutive polls showing Labour's voting intentions back to the low 30s, and one putting them in the high 30s and bagging more votes than the SNP. Quite intriguingly, these polls also show a wee surge for the Conservatives, who could plausibly now clear the 20% hurdle. But the most important part, just like with the Holyrood polls, is embedded in the regional crosstabs of the most recent polls, when they are made available. There has been a constant pattern for months, seeing Labour overperforming in areas of Scotland where they are already strong, and underperforming in areas where they were already weak in 2019. This makes the North East and most of the South exclusively SNP-Con battlegrounds, while significantly strengthening Labour's prospects in the Central Belt.

The small surge of the Conservative vote was already visible in earlier polls fielded in October. It means that they could actually gain seats from the SNP, while losing dozens in England and Wales, and losing the election. That would be quite embarrassing for the SNP, and the only reason for this is that Labour are not competitive in SNP-Con battlegrounds. Snatching votes from the SNP in such seats would thusly only favour the Conservatives, with no gain for Labour. On average of the last three Full Scottish polls, the Conservatives would hold their six current seats, and gain two (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock and Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) that are notionally SNP on the recarved boundaries on which the snap general will be fought. Based on the same scenario, Labour would snatch a whopping 28 seats from the SNP, 24 of them in the Central Belt, including a Red full slate in Central, and just one surviving SNP seat in both Glasgow and West. Relying on the average eliminates the most extreme scenarios where the SNP would be pretty much fatally wounded, but it can't hide a simple inconvenient truth. Labour are far more likely to again become Scotland's first party in Westminster than in Holyrood, because of the obvious urge to see the Conservatives out in SW1, by all means necessary.

The Great Scottish Public's perspective on the incoming general election is also illustrated by the outcome they wish, regardless of their actual vote. Savanta surveyed it in binary terms, and found that 58% of Scots want a Labour government and 22% a Conservative government. They also found that 66% of SNP voters from 2021 and 63% of Yes voters from 2014 want a Labour government. It just confirms that we shouldn't be surprised by the amount of SNP voters switching to Labour, about one in five of those who voted SNP in 2019, and stop being in denial about it. No matter how often SNP supporters say it, these voters will not stay at home this time, they will really vote Labour. YouGov tried a more subtle and spectral approach, asking their own Scottish panel what kind of majority they want after the snap general. Here we have just a quarter of Scots choosing a Labour majority, because a surprisingly high number are in favour of a Labour-led coalition instead.

It is quite hilarious to see that a majority of past SNP voters, whatever election you choose as the reference, want a Labour-SNP coalition. Just the one option that will never ever happen. It is indeed a massive delusion to imagine it could happen, as opposition to even the long-term prospect of an Independence referendum is deeply embedded in Keir Starmer's political DNA, and is even the only bit of his agenda he will never renege on. Imagining that any sort of cooperation is possible in that context is actually quite sad, coming from the voters of what was once the Party Of Independence. There are nevertheless some fun moments in Scottish politics, like The Scottish Pravda publishing the Scottish Greenies' latest rant. If a general election campaign is not the right opportunity to raise the issue of independence, then what is? If tactical voting and First-Past-The-Post are undemocratic, then why do the Fake Greens field vanity candidacies in all constituencies, at the risk of handing them to Labour on a silver platter? But, of course, we have long ago given up on any hope of adult and reasoned thinking from Paddy, Lorna and Maggie, haven't we?

It's the beautiful thing about bullshit. It can't be outsourced.

(Cory Ellison, The Morning Show, 2023)

Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford wants to drive the Tories out of Wales. But only at 20 mph.

(Alexander Armstrong, Have I Got News For You?, 13 October 2023)

The good people of Bridgend and Porthcawl will be devastated to lose their Conservative MP Jamie Wallis, who has chosen to migrate towards greener pastures. Or not. Then Jamie might be left without a stiletto to stand on, as the trend of Full Welsh polls for the next Westminster election remains hugely favourable to Labour, who are predicted to do much better than in 2019, and plausibly root out all Welsh Tory MPs. With a little help from the Liberal Democrats, who have a fair chance in the battleground seat of Brecon, Radnor and Cwmtawe, the one formerly known as Brecon and Radnorshire. Labour is now predicted to expect something reminiscent of 1997 and 2001, when no Conservative MPs were left in Wales, and the only non-Red spots on the map were Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats. The boundary changes do help here, as it has proven quite difficult to carve Tory-friendly seats out of the existing ones, in a context where Labour's lead could rise from 5% to 20%.

Oddly, the situation does not look as good for Labour in polls for the next Senedd election. The last Full Welsh poll by Redfield & Wilton has Labour down to 37% in the constituencies and 31% on the regional lists. While the Conservatives are up to 27% in the constituencies and 21% on the regional lists. Of course, this sort of polling is already obsolete, as we already know that the electoral law will be changed next year. But it's still the only measure we have, and it also allows comparisons with past polls, which don't look good for Labour. I have a hunch that part of the reason for this is the Welsh government's decision to allow male candidates to self-identify as women for the purpose of "gender balance" at the next Senedd election. Despite all the government's caveats and technicalities, this is widely seen as a way to introduce general gender self-identification through the back door. The only way out of this seems to be triggering a legal confrontation with the UK government, as has happened in Scotland after the passing of the Gender Recognition Reform bill. This would be another interesting fight to follow.

One of the oddities of Wales is that another important reason for a weaker Labour performance seems to be the new 20mph speed limit. Redfield & Wilton of course polled that in more detail, though they oddly did not find the gender self-identification controversy worth further questioning. Maybe next time, and anyway they found that a majority of Welsh voters oppose the 20mph limit, even Labour voters, in a quite massive change from just a month before. Then they dug deeper to identify the pros and cons of the 20mph speed limit and the previous 30mph speed limit. With some surprising results.

Most of the replies here are deeply counter-intuitive, and even counter-factual if you look at the experience of European countries who have already enforced a 20mph limit, or 30kph as it is down there, in city centres. But Wales of course voted for Brexit, so we shouldn't bring international comparisons into the equation here. And that sudden realisation that speed limits are your pet hate could also help explain why the Conservatives are enjoying a surge in Senedd polls, since Rishi Sunak has rebranded himself as the Motorists' Prime Minister, after his act as the People's Prime Minister so miserably failed. We will have to wait for the next Full Welsh now, to sort out the knee-jerk reaction from more reliable long-term trends. The most important being how much the Westminster vote will diverge from the Senedd vote, in a similar pattern to Scotland, and contribute to a large Labour majority in Commons.

We all assume life’s going to be shit, don’t we? That it’s all just darkness. But you know what? Sometimes, it’s not.

(Owen Harper, Torchwood: A Day In The Death, 2008)

Don't sulk. No one likes a wet wimple on a sunny day.

(Hattie Bainbridge, Midsomer Murders: The Witches Of Angel's Rise, 2023)

Last month's Big Thing in English politics was, of course, the two by-elections in Mid Bedfordshire and Tamworth, which offered The Hipstershire Gazette another opportunity to regale us with vacuous platitudes telling us what we already knew. That, even on the Sunday before, nobody had the fuckiest scoobie which way they would go. On Election Eve, they felt it was essential to remind us of how buoyant Labour felt in both constituencies. Because, ye ken, who doesn't love a rosy campaign story? The Mid Bedfordshire by-election had all the ingredients to become a fucking trainwreck, with Labour and the Liberal Democrats finding it smart to trade blows rather than attack the Conservatives. Mid Bedfordshire was polled twice during the campaign. Interestingly Survation offered their panel two options, one for the by-election proper, the other for their vote at the incoming general election. All concurred to announce a very close result, and first impressions on BBC One's By-Election Night confirmed it. Until Edinburgh West MP Christine Jardine, oddly standing in for the Liberal Democrats live on BBC One instead of one of their English MPs, confirmed that the LibDems had not made it. And that Labour had taken the seat, that had been in Conservative hands for 101 out of 105 years since the First World War, continuously since 1931, and never held by Labour.

In the meanwhile, Labour felt pretty confident in Tamworth, or at least Rachel Reeves did after spending a whole hour having a bacon baguette at the only hipster-approved venue in the constituency. Then, quite conveniently on Election Eve, we got the news that the local Conservative candidate is a fucking nitwit, which should have delivered the seat to Labour on a silver platter. There had been no polling in Tamworth, so all we had was the trend of recent Council elections, which for once looked like an accurate predictor. And also the precedent of the 1996 by-election in South East Staffordshire, Tamworth's near-identical predecessor seat. It was held in a troublingly similar context, with a Conservative government running on fumes, but this year's result was uncomfortably much closer. Only the massive 23.9% swing towards Labour, the biggest this season, sent dozens of Conservative MPs frantically looking up their own seat's result, and realise they would lose it on a similar swing. Which is unlikely to repeat itself all across England and Wales at a general election, but it's still fun to remind the Conservatives that they would lose 334 seats if it happened. More than is needed for a majority in Commons.

The aftermath of these calamitous by-elections was definitely something to watch, partly unexpected and partly not, and with CCHQ in laborious denial. Nobody was surprised that Keir Starmer urged his MPs and activists to not become complacent, as he's working on the assumption that the general election is still a year away. It's long enough to lose a lot of goodwill and political capital if you look too smug about the outcome. But surely nobody expected that Rishi Sunak's chosen strategy, to gain back voters who have deserted the Conservatives, would be to announce measures that favour voters who have not deserted them. These disastrous results have also increased the climate of panic within the Conservative Party, where rival factions as usual seek to shift the blame to each other. I, for one, was quite flabbergasted to hear Robert Buckland, during BBC One's By-Election Night, advocating a radical change of course, and pretty much a return to the ancient One Nation conservatism. Just a few days later, former MP and Minister Justine Greening went down pretty much the same road when she advocated a shift towards "Major conservatism". Which is probably irrelevant as Rishi Sunak is much more likely to listen to the sirens on his right flank, and cuddle the Braverman-Badenoch-Patel wing with proposals that even Nigel Farage and Richard Tice would approve.

A leaked Conservative memo blamed expected losses on MPs who are personally associated with negative news stories. Sorry, you got to be more specific, I think, really...

(Bill Bailey, Have I Got News For You?, 20 October 2023)

Not everyone can be John or Paul. Some people have to be Ringo.

(Stella Bak, The Morning Show, 2021)

Are there any lessons to be learned from these by-elections, that could apply to the rest of England? Probably not from Mid Bedfordshire, that will probably be remembered as the odd one out. But surely a lot from Tamworth, as it is quite the textbook example of two phenomenons I mentioned earlier. First, it is one of those Midlands seats that Labour held during the Blair years, then lost in 2010, and became bluer and bluer at every later election. Second, the Reform UK vote was higher than Labour's majority by 57 votes. Which might seem insignificant, but it happened on a very low turnout and there are lots of hints that this could happen in lots of constituencies, mostly in the Red Wall areas. Even The Hipstershire Gazette has discovered that now, bless their cotton brains. In the meanwhile, voting intentions calculated from my current snapshot of polls and their regional crosstabs confirm that Labour are a on a winning streak across all regions of England outwith London. Something that Conservative Grandees obviously deny with the utmost strength.

The worst thing that could happen now for the Conservatives would be facing another totally loseable by-election in the Midlands, and that's definitely a very real possibility. Peter Bone got a majority of 'only' 18,540 in 2019, far less than what Labour overturned thrice already this year. Ironically, the recarved successor seat, Wellingborough and Rushden, is even less safe, with a notional majority of "only" around 14,600. So Labour are now putting pressure on both Peter Bone personally and the Conservative Party collectively, and I have no doubt they will devote as much energy and as many boots on the ground to the recall petition in Wellingborough as to the earlier one in Rutherglen and Hamilton West. No shit. The projection of English seats by region is again massively and surprisingly good for Labour. The only odd one out is the South West, where the Conservatives still bag one more seat though losing the popular vote. But this kind of thing does happen when incumbents are so deeply entrenched in safe seats, that even a massive shift in the vote still can't dislodge them. Another factor might be the Liberal Democrats doing less well Doon Sooth than Ed Davey wants us to believe, and thusly attracting fewer "soft Tory" voters to help both themselves and Labour.

Of course, it would be foolish of Labour to take such a massive harvest of seats for granted, and relax under pressure. Just as their surge in Scotland should not distract them from campaigning in England. The Scottish electorate can be pretty volatile, so nothing is carved in stone here, especially not Keir Starmer's destiny. But we also should consider the flip side of the coin. No incumbent party has ever survived a sustained 20% lead for the opposition, because no incumbent party has ever had to face a sustained 20% lead for the opposition. Except once, in 1997, and then the polls were not really that accurate as Labour ended up winning by "only" 12.5% as their lead shrunk in the very last week. That's plausibly the worse that could happen to Labour now, as the Conservatives don't look able to climb out of the hole they have dug for themselves. And even if Labour lead by only 12.5% on Election Day, they would still bag a bigger majority than Boris Johnson in 2019, though obviously smaller than Tony Blair in 1997. But that would still be around 370 to 380 seats to the Conservatives' 195 to 215, depending on how the Liberal Democrats would fare. Not the worst prospect in the world, innit?

The Conservatives need to get in Matt Hancock. That man does some spicy TikToks.

(Helen Lewis, Have I Got News For You?, 20 October 2023)

I do think that what humanity, yes, humanity really does need at this moment is a nation that is willing to throw off its Clark Kent spectacles and dive into the nearest phone booth and emerge, yes, emerge with its cloak flowing as the supercharged champion.

(Boris Johnson, Partygate, 2023)

There will be many unforeseen consequences to the Israel-Hamas war, and the way British politicians are handling it. I think we will quite likely see some of these in London. Keir Starmer has obviously acknowledged the situation in Gaza is a live grenade, from day one. Which makes his early unequivocally pro-Israeli comments all the more surprising. You can't say that Israel must abide by international law, and in the same breath approve actions that violate international law, without expecting some backlash, which was quick to come from within Labour. Then the way Starmer handled the situation visibly made it worse. There is also some ambiguity, and some hypocrisy too, among those within Labour who challenge Starmer here. Some MPs are obviously motivated by the fear of losing votes at the next election, while others on the far-left have never had any problem with taking part in protests where anti-Semitic slogans were shouted, and flags of terrorist organisations waved. But what does it have to do with London? Other than support for terrorism being seen in the streets of London? What could possibly challenge Labour's domination in the Imperial Capital, as illustrated by the trends of Full London polls?

Discontent from Labour MPs has come predominantly from those with a large Muslim community in their constituencies, whom they could now lose. Which shows that these MPs have a rather stereotypical view of their voters, assuming their vote is pre-determined by a single issue. But never mind, the media relayed this assumption and identified a few cities where this might happen. Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Leicester and Luton. And also the London Boroughs of Brent, Redbridge and Tower Hamlets. There is just one flaw in that scenario. Why would Muslim voters, who disapprove of Starmer's ambiguously pro-Israel stance, switch to other parties who are unambiguously pro-Israel? Most "threatened" MPs have massive majorities that wouldn't be endangered even by increased abstention. They have mostly nothing to fear from the Conservatives, and nothing to fear at all so long as there is no organised political force ready to channel the discontent into actual votes at a general election. And there is none in sight, except in... you probably have already guessed where I'm leading you to... Tower Hamlets. Let's just see what the most recent elections have delivered there.

The London Borough of Tower Hamlets is covered entirely by two constituencies, Bethnal Green and Bow and Poplar and Limehouse, that are both also entirely within the Borough. Perfect overlap, that makes comparisons easier and more relevant. Here we have the only openly communitarian Muslim party in the UK, Aspire. I will spare you the historical details of their past, as what matters here are the election results. Aspire won a majority of seats at the 2022 Council election, overturning a massive Labour majority, and their leader Lutfur Rahman became Mayor of Tower Hamlets, a directly elected position. The results of the two 2022 elections show that both Labour seats, held by Rushanara Ali and Apsana Begum, could easily end up in jeopardy. There are clear signs of that if you compare the 2022 Mayoral election and the Council elections held on the same day. The Greens did not field a candidate for Mayor, and it is surely no coincidence that Rahman's vote was roughly the sum of the Aspire and Green votes at the Council elections. Replicate that at the incoming snap general and Labour are in deep shit in both constituencies. Or maybe all Hell will break loose before that, with Begum defecting from Labour to Aspire, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Some men change their party for the sake of their principles. Others their principles for the sake of their party.

(Winston Churchill)

People don’t know what they want until we puree it, spoon it up and make airplane sounds.

(Cory Ellison, The Morning Show, 2023)

One of the reasons Labour now find themselves in deep shit in communities like Tower Hamlets is obviously the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, and the way Labour HQ reacted to it. I will come back to he war itself in more general terms later, but let's first see in which way it might have harmed Labour. To be fair to Keir Starmer, anything he could have said would probably have been vilified for one reason or the other, as this has become a massively divisive issue, and astonishingly a defining one for many in the UK. Which of course does not excuse Starmer's initial reaction, unquestioningly supporting Israel's official narrative and actions that do qualify as war crimes in every piece of international law. Savanta felt something going awry here when some Labour elected officials voiced dissent, and for once beat YouGov to polling it, in a survey of 618 Labour Councillors all across the UK. Obviously, the one and only focus of the poll was the fallout of the Israel-Hamas war, but Savanta nevertheless started with a more generic question, on the Councillors' level of satisfaction on an array of unrelated issues.

There are many positives for Keir Starmer here, as his Councillors convincingly give the party a clean bill of health on most issues, most importantly their electoral performance and prospects. The verdict is, quite interestingly, lukewarm about Brexit and engagement with local government, which implies criticism of the extremely centralised way Starmer is ruling the party. And, as we already knew from various media report, there is massive dissent over Starmer's position on Israel and Hamas. The poll was conducted between 27 October and 2 November, so there might be some shifts among the Councillors now, following Labour HQ's shift towards a less Israel-compliant position over the last few days. But it is quite clear the harm was done with Starmer's initial statement, and little can be done now to heal the wound and the clear divorce with some parts of the party. And we have all the explanations we need in the crosstabs of the poll, that are much more extensive than usual, and relevant to the specific scope of the survey. Here I have extracted only the crosstabs from the question about the Israel-Palestine situation, and focused on those that seem intuitively the most relevant.

There are actually no real surprises in these crosstabs, as they confirm what we could already guess from media reports. What we see here is definitely predictable for anyone who has been paying attention to Labour's internal bar brawls recently. There are clear ethnic and religious divides on top of the political divide. Quite naturally, the "right" support Starmer, though not overwhelmingly, while the "left" dissent more massively. The way Lisa Nandy's supporters split also makes sense when you remember her own position, which is basically to cuddle both sides at the same time. I won't discuss the moral issues with anyone's position here, but just remind you of some facts. Those who hit at Starmer for supporting Israeli war crimes in Gaza are the same who support Russia against Ukraine not matter how many war crimes Russia is guilty of. Those who accuse Starmer of Islamophobia are the same who have no problem taking part in demonstrations where anti-Semitic slogans are chanted and Al-Qaeda flags are waved. Those who have no problem with calling Hamas "freedom fighters" are also the most conspicuously silent about the murder of true freedom fighters by the theocratic dictatorship in Iran. There also have been rumours of mass resignations from Labour, in protest against Starmer's pro-Israeli stance. But the Savanta poll proves the dissenters have more bark than bite.

Or they know which side of the scone is buttered, more realistically. And are definitely not to be taken seriously by Labour HQ. To put things into perspective, 6% of all Labour Councillors UK-wide resigning would mean the loss of 36 seats, the same number they have on Glasgow City Council. That wouldn't even be a scratch, especially as past experience shows that dissenters who stand against their former party at the next election always lose. Starmer should definitely call their bluff and let them face the consequences. The right-wing fishwrappers and Owen Jones both have a vested interest in spinning this endlessly as a major crisis within Labour, when it isn't. It is far less widespread and will be far less damaging than the never-ending civil war over anti-Semitism under Corbyn. When the anti-Corbyn dissenters thought they had the perfect electoral vehicle with Change UK, it failed miserably. Those who calculated it was smarter to join the Liberal Democrats all lost their seats. The current Hamas-enabling dissenters don't even have that sort of perspective. Bar a fringe party in one London Borough, or George Galloway's Workers Party of Britain, an opportunistic scam led by a perennial fake rebel. Keir Starmer definitely has no reason to lose sleep over the whole thing. Especially now that the founder of the pro-Corbyn Momentum faction has strongly distanced himself from the rest of the far-left on Palestine and Israel.

The world is not fair. Fairness is just a man-made concept.

(Alex Levy, The Morning Show, 2021)

Being right is overrated. It's about thinking that if there is some doubt you might be annihilated.

We confuse being right with being alive.

(Philippa Perry)

The people of New Zealand have spoken, at their general election held on the 14th of October, and conclusively defeated the incumbent Labour Party, who lost half their votes and half their seats after just six years in power. The results are not complete even now, even if all special votes have been counted, as a by-election has to be held in one constituency after a candidate died just days before the general election. But nobody expects the final headcount to be really much different, as we already know it will be a hung Parliament even if the conservative National Party win the last seat. Their coalition with the libertarian ACT has bagged 59 seats out of 122 so far, and the best they can aim for is 60 out of 123, two seats shy of a majority. The result was definitely not a surprise, though it was an upset, as the trends of voting intentions polls had predicted a Labour defeat for months, after their charismatic leader Jacinda Ardern resigned and was replaced by a bloke whose most endearing trait is loving sausage rolls. Probably not the most convincing argument for granting him a full term of his own.

New Zealand media also extrapolated seat projections from the voting intention polls, and they were never as clear-cut as massive changes in voting patterns could have led you to expect. This is because New Zealand has a Mixed-Member System, combining First Past The Post and proportional representation, but tweaked to deliver full proportionality between the parties who clear a 5% threshold of the popular vote. The seat projections thusly never predicted a landslide for the National-ACT coalition, and rarely predicted better than a one-seat or two-seat majority, especially after the far-right New Zealand First surged in polls and was poised to return to Parliament after three years outside. What the predictors could not predict is that the electoral law would deliver three overhang seats, which had never happened before. The total number of seats was thusly raised to 123 and the majority hurdle to 62. This puts New Zealand First in the privileged position of being able to help the National Party by agreeing to a coalition deal in a hung Parliament. Ironically, the last time New Zealand First had parliamentary representation, they supported a Labour government. But they have also coalised with the National Party earlier, so they're open to any offer, as their eight seats would give them lots of leverage as kingmakers.

There are many reasons for Labour's stunning defeat. The most obvious is the cost-of-living crisis, that hit as hard in New Zealand as in Western Europe. Another element was reneging on radical reforms like a wealth tax, which could raise an alarm within our own Labour Party. But the oddest part is Labour being accused of not being 'progressive' enough on 'inclusive' policies, which, in real English, means that the Tik Tok Generation felt unvalidated and unaffirmed by Labour not being woke enough. This also surely played a part in Te Pati Maori's unprecedented success in the Maori electorates, which is Newzealandish for constituencies, as Labour appeared insufficiently committed to defending the interests of the Maori community. Now the National Party promise tax cuts and cuts to public spending, pretty much Antipodean Trussonomics, and a recipe for disaster there just like here. New Zealanders will know soon enough if these promises last longer than a head of lettuce. But odds again are that they won't get what they thought they were voting for, and won't take it on the chin with a stiff upper lip, as Tory Englanders did for ages. Especially if New Zealand First finally decide they can't support policies that are likely to become quickly unpopular, and it results in a deadlock that can only be resolved by a snap election.

The great thing about reality is it’s still there whether you accept it or not.

It’s your right to deny it, of course, but you’ll look a bit mental.

(Ricky Gervais)

Happy the man, and happy he alone, he who can call today his own

He who, secure within, can say, tomorrow do thy worst, for I have lived today

(John Dryden, To Maecenas, 1693)

In the same timeframe, we got much better news from Poland, where the authoritarian right-wing government was defeated at their parliamentary election by a Big Tent coalition of christian-democrats, liberals and social-democrats. The voting intentions polls held throughout 2023 clearly predicted it, though they mostly underestimated the vote shares of the two main opposition coalitions Koalicja Obywatelska and Trzecia Droga, and overestimated the junior opposition bloc Lewica. At the end of the day, the meta-coalition of the three opposition coalitions bagged 54% of the popular vote for the Sejm, 18% ahead of the incumbent Zjednoczona Prawica, led by the Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (Law and Justice) party. This effectively killed any prospect of a government deal between Law and Justice and the far-right Konfederacja, who could have been the kingmakers in a hung Parliament.

The former opposition now have a majority in both chambers of the Polish Parliament, the Sejm and the Senat. Their strategy to game the electoral law totally worked, with only three coalition lists in the Sejm elections that are held on proportional representation in multi-member constituencies, and joint candidates under the Pakt Senacki 2023 banner for the Senat elections that are held on first past the post in single-member constituencies. Now the new government coalition have a 36-seat majority in the Sejm, and a 22-sear majority in the Senat. Which might sound week to our ears, accustomed to bigger majorities in Commons, but the Sejm has 460 seats and the Senat 100. That's fewer seats overall than Commons, so the double-digit majorities are actually quite big by Polish standards. Interestingly, the voters gave the biggest boost to the centrist Third Way coalition, led by the agrarian christian-democrats of the Polish People's Party. I guess this is a warning to the new majority, that they have a mandate to restore the rule of law and a proper constitutional order domestically, while repairing the relationship with the rest of the European Union and continuing to offer strong support to Ukraine, without straying too much to the left culturally. Because these votes don't change the fact that Poland is globally a traditional and conservative country on these matters, and clearly not woke.

Sadly, but not unexpectedly, Polish President Andrzej Duda is throwing all kinds of spanners in the cogs, blatantly abusing his constitutional prerogatives. Duda, who rebranded himself as an independent after being elected President in 2015, was previously an MP and MEP for the Law and Justice Party, the core of the United Right coalition, and has steadily aligned himself with the most tight-wing faction of the party. It thusly comes as no surprise that he is now denying the Polish people the fulfillment of their democratic choice, a Prime Minister coming from the ranks of the Civic Coalition. But time is not on Duda's side, and he has no choice but submitting to the people's will before the end of the year. And the new Prime Minister will unavoidably be Donald Tusk, who was already Prime Minister of Poland from 2007 to 2014, and then President of the European Council from 2014 to 2019. In that capacity, he became the Brexiteers' pet hate because of his steady refusal to negotiate a Brexit divorce settlement on their terms, something he can really be proud of even if it led to Theresa May's downfall and Boris Johnson's accession. This was obviously due to his famous statement that there was a "special place in Hell for those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely". Which was nothing but an exact depiction of Brexiteers, wasn't it?

You want to win, there’s no room for mercy. You got to be prepared to do anything.

(Ed McCarthy, The Man In The High Castle, 2015)

The world as we know it is over. We are officially in the Thunderdome. We need to build a time machine to take us to the future.

(Cory Ellison, The Morning Show, 2023)

Is there any reliable polling coming from Russia? I seriously doubt it, even from sources like the Levada Center or Russian Field, who claim they are independent but still have to operate within parameters set by the regime. Which does not mean we should dismiss their findings, but always treat them with the appropriate szczepotka soli. That's "pinch of salt" in Russian. Or you might say dribka soli, in Ukrainian, to show your solidarity. Russian Field have conducted several polls of the next presidential election, due to happen in March 2024, and the next parliamentary election for the State Duma, scheduled for 2026. The main caveat is that their polls show a huge proportion of people who won't vote or are undecided, many more than in British polls. They account for 25% to 35% of the original sample, which I have removed, and then recalculated the voting intentions accordingly, to get something similar to the usual way of reporting British polls. Which only adds to the uncertainty, and plausible unreliability of these polls, even if they don't look totally outlandish when compared to previous elections. I have selected only the most recent deliveries, as having earlier ones would not make the picture any clearer.

United Russia is Putin's party, so their share in the presidential polls is Putin's share. The Liberal Democratic Party are anything but liberal and democratic, they are actually the ultra-nationalist far-right. The Communist Party is also fiercely nationalist and socially conservative, and barely more than a token opposition. Just Russia is vaguely social-democratic, New People and Yabloko vaguely liberal, and none is willing to really shake the tree and risk their allowed slot within the regime. Russian Field have also asked their panel which vote share they think Putin will get, regardless of their own preference. They then shook and stirred the raw numbers, and concluded that Putin's average predicted vote share is higher than his voting intentions, on 64%. Which does not actually matter much, as we already know the election will be rigged to ensure at least 70% for Putin. Their polling for the State Duma is probably more reliable, as United Russia bagged 51% at the 2021 election, and some sort of "patriotic surge" is to be expected. The Levada Center also polled one of the most shocking events of the year, the untimely death of the Wagner Group's boss Evgeny Prigozhin, and what the Russian public think actually happened.

There is little support for the alternative official versions, an accident or a foreign terrorist attack. Even those who approve of Putin, or get their information from the state TV, don't really believe either. The much simpler explanation, that it was a political murder, also has little traction, except with those who disapprove of Putin, which are a minority anyway. It is quite likely that the Russian public don't really care and want to put that behind them now. Especially now that Wagner's operations on Russian soil and in Ukraine have been absorbed by the Ministry of Defence, erasing their media presence and their relevance to the war. But the changed circumstances may have influenced the public's desired outcome for the war, which has shifted towards negotiations.

Of course, there is a lot of ambiguity here, as "negotiations" don't mean the same thing for the Russian State and the rest of the world. To them, it means submission to the New Soviet Order and accepting to see your country dismembered in the same way Poland was at the end of the 18th century. Buy we can also see this in a more positive way, as a sign there is indeed "Ukraine Fatigue" in Russia too. This is what the Putin-enablers don't want you to realise, when they say our sanctions don't have any impact on Russia. They have, Putin admitted it himself, and they're hitting the common people disproportionately, while the military budget is increased to two thirds of public spending with no visible increase in capability, because billions of rubles are vaporised by corruption at the heart of the Russian Deep State. Putin is now using the Israel-Hamas war as a distraction, and fueling endemic anti-Semitism in Russia because there is no end in sight for the war against Ukraine, so long as the West does not budge and keeps supporting Ukraine against the criminal war of aggression.

A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself. But the simple pass on, and are punished.

(Proverbs 22:3)

If we must die, let it not be like hogs, hunted and penned in an inglorious spot,

While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs, making their mock at our accursed lot.

If we must die, O let us nobly die, so that our precious blood may not be shed in vain

Then even the monsters we defy shall be constrained to honor us though dead!

(Claude McKay, If We Must Die, 1919)

In September, the UK made another very significant contribution to Ukraine's war effort against the Russian invasion, three retired Luton Airport bendy buses. No shit. They will serve in their original livery, to disorient Russians who might see them and think they have been advancing in the wrong direction for months. I'm mentioning this only because we do need a good laugh every now and then amidst all the disastrous events we are currently witnessing across the world. The changed international context means we must not lower our guard about the war in Ukraine, which is just what Russia expects, and keep on doing our most to help Ukraine. YouGov have still not updated their Ukraine trackers, but BMG Research devoted some questions to it in their October poll for The i. They first asked if the UK should continue to support Ukraine, even if it prolongs the war. A majority of Brits agree, but not overwhelmingly, which might be due to the wording of the question.

Adding some some sort of caveat, with the mention that our help might prolong the war is definitely biased. It is disturbingly similar to the soundbites we here from the Putin-appeasers posing as pacifists, when we all know that shortening the war would only reward Russian imperialism, by allowing them to keep the bulk of the Ukrainian territories Russia has seized by brute force. The real question for us now is what the best ways to help Ukraine are. BMG Research restricted that to the delivery of planes, which is again a very biased approach to the situation. There is no enthusiasm for it, which in fact does not matter because the question is irrelevant. The UK could have made a difference by delivering Eurofighter Typhoons a year or so ago, before F-16s were accepted as the Golden Standard, which only made Ukraine more vulnerable to Joe Biden's protracted procrastination. Now that option is realistically off the table, and Ukraine has more urgent needs anyway. One of the intended consequences of Russia fueling conflict in Palestine is that American military supplies will be redirected from Ukraine to Israel.

The UK could partly make up for that by increasing the supply of our one-of-a-kind 120mm shells for Challenger tanks, more of the tanks themselves, and more Storm Shadow cruise missiles. I don't agree with the argument that it would deprive our first line of defence of essentials, because Ukraine is our first line of defence against Russian imperialism, and has been since the invasion. Last but not least, BMG Research asked their panel if they support aid to Ukraine even if it has a negative impact on the UK's economy. Which is again a very biased wording, as aid to Ukraine has fuck all impact on the economy per se. The negative impact on our cost-of-living crisis came solely from Russia weaponising energy supply to support their war aims. And even that did not impact the UK directly, as we did not rely significantly on Russian oil and gas, but as a ricochet effect of a world-wide energy market manipulation by Russia. The misconceptions about this certainly explain the lukewarm response to this question, though it is still reassuring to see Scotland more ready to support Ukraine, in all three questions.

The Israeli invasion of Gaza has added new uncertainty for Ukraine. Russia probably did not intervene to trigger the Hamas atrocities of 7 October, but their allies in Iran probably did. Russia has a hand in it anyway, as they trained and armed Hamas, using the neo-Nazi Wagner Group as a cover for plausible deniability. They unmasked themselves when they hosted a meeting between Hamas and Iran on Russian soil. Russia also obviously knew that Israel's hugely disproportionate response, using the same criminal tactics of mass destruction and war on civilians as themselves in Ukraine, was totally predictable and would spark division between and within the democratic countries in the West. The European Union are painfully aware of this, especially now that they have two unhinged allies of Russia in their own ranks, Hungary and Slovakia, but don't seem to know yet how to properly handle it. This international context only shows that it is not time for the UK to relent on their support for Ukraine, but to expand it through all means available. Especially now that the Kremlin-bribed Trumpian Republicans are using Ukraine as a political football in American domestic politicking. Ukrainian Commander-In-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi's desperate-sounding cry for help says that they need us now, more than ever.

O kinsmen! We must meet the common foe! Though far outnumbered let us show us brave,

And for their thousand blows deal one death blow! What though before us lies the open grave?

Like men we’ll face the murderous, cowardly pack, pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!

(Claude McKay, If We Must Die, 1919)

Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that.

(Martin Luther King, Jr.)

The devastating events in Israel and Gaza have again shown how polarised and toxic the debate about the situation in Palestine has become, and not just in the UK. Too many people see it in black and white. And won't accept that you can denounce Israeli colonialism and brutal repression against Palestinian civilians, while also denouncing Hamas as terrorists who have no right to call themselves a resistance movement or freedom fighters. Which is definitely not bothsidesism or whataboutery, which are equally irresponsible approaches to the debate. It is not anti-Semitic to say then Benjamin Netanyahu is a far-right war criminal, and that the theological Zionist concept of Eretz Yisrael is imperialist by construction. It is not islamophobic to remind people that Hamas are the direct ideological heirs of a man who promoted Nazism and shook hands with Hitler, want to establish a fundamentalist theocracy worse than the Taliban, and that "from the river to the sea" is a very thinly veiled call to genocide. One of the shocking aspects of what happened here is the BBC's cowardice, wrapped in sanitising casuistry, in refusing to call Hamas "terrorists", in the name of fairness and balance, when the whole world calls them that, bar Russia, Qatar and Iran. Fortunately, the Great British Public disagree, as another speed-poll from YouGov proved.

Of course there are disturbing findings in this poll. A third of Brits can't bring themselves to call Hamas what they are, even if only a tiny minority deny that they are. The Tik Tok Generation also appear totally clueless, probably because there hasn't been any glittery video out there telling them what to think. The results in London are also quite revealing of a communitarian divide there, while the Labour leadership clearly don't know how to handle situation, and end up sowing discontent in their own ranks. Of course, seen from Starmer's bedroom window, and with a general election in sight, it's still the usual Golders Green vs Tower Hamlets balancing act. With the in-built risk of contradictory and embarrassing statements, like when he gets confused about what international law actually allows. Which brings me to another issue speed-polled by YouGov. Whether or not British public opinion believe Israel's claims that they're doing their best to spare civilians. Quite clearly we don't, and there is lot of evidence to support that we should not. Israel has form not caring for civilians, as they embrace the poisonous concept of collective responsibility of all Palestinians and act accordingly. From the destruction of homes in retaliation for terrorist acts to the indiscriminate bombing of the Gaza Strip.

Sadly, this level of mistrust led us to be manipulated and react too hastily. I'm referring of course to the bombing of the al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza on the night of 17 October. There was massive and instant outrage over yet another Israeli war crime. We didn't stop to think even for one second, myself included, or else we would have noticed there was only one source. Hamas. More information, gathered over the next few days, showed that the situation was not exactly what it first seemed to be. Would anyone have relied on the IRA as their sole source of information during The Troubles? As they say, the first casualty of war is the truth, especially when we have been literally groomed to always unquestionably think the worse of Israel. Which of course does not excuse any of Israel's proven war crimes over many years, in attacks targeting civilians, the exact same way Russia wages war in Ukraine. But we must not be blind to the reality of who is on the frontline on the other side, a bloodthirsty and rabidly anti-Semitic terrorist organisation with links to terrorist networks in Europe. In this context, it is sadly quite predictable that terror attacks are predicted to happen, and in fact already have in France and Belgium. Which makes the UK government's approach a matter of debate too, which YouGov also surveyed.

As you might expect, the replies to this question also show some confusion. The biggest tribe here is those who don't know. Part of the confusion must be the result of the question's wording. From where I'm sat, "supportive" and "critical" refer to words being spoken, not actions being taken. Actions obviously matter more, and what we've seen from Rishi Sunak's multi-stage tour of the Middle East does not exactly induce confidence in his ability to be part of the solution. Probably because he did not meet the right people, and those he met are aware that the UK has become a second-tier power with no real influence. The liberation of two American-Israeli hostages, two weeks after the Hamas raid into Israel, showed that the real power is with the United States, who have the means to exert pressure on Israel, and Qatar, who have the means to exert pressure on Hamas. The current political turmoil in the UK surely plays a part too. Who will pledge anything to a government that won't be there a year from now, when finding solutions might take many many years?

The longer I live, the more convinced am I that this planet is used by other planets as a lunatic asylum.

(George Bernard Shaw)

You better decide which side you're on, this ship goes down before too long

You better decide which side you're on, the chips go down before too long

(Tom Robinson, Better Decide Which Side You're On, 1978)

Soon after the start of hostilities in and around Gaza, We Think and YouGov have both polled their panels about which side they're on generally, Israel or Palestine, as a matter of principle, though a direct link to the ongoing war obviously influenced the replies. The results of both initial polls were fairly similar, and definitely showed that the Great British Public are confused. The crosstabs by nation shed some light, though not in all cases. England is more likely to side with Israel, while Scots are more likely to side with Palestine, but the amount of people supporting both sides adds to the confusion. There is an obvious reason for this confusion, and I feel it in myself too. Whatever side we're on, we don't know who we are really supporting anymore. War criminals or innocent victims of terrorism? Terrorists or innocent victims of war crimes? It's hard to pick a side when your moral compass is pointing to two opposite directions at once. Similar polls conducted later found some movement. Increased support for Palestine and lower support for Israel, obviously the result of Israel's indiscriminate revenge onslaught on Gaza and its civilian population.

We Think added a follow-up question, asking their panel which side they think Labour and the Conservatives are on. The results are just as confusing as when the panel are asked about their own attitude. Labour have become so over-cautious in their approach that they have become inaudible and irrelevant. And they can only blame Starmer for this, because of his shifting and contradictory statements, which he probably thinks show fairness and balance, but only show too much attention paid to what position is more electorally expedient. That's a failure of leadership, Keir. Then the Great British Public might want to reframe their assessment of the Conservatives too, after Rishi Sunak's meetings with Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. There's no need for contextualisation here, as what Rishi has said and done is pretty clear without any filters. Telling both sides what he thinks they want to hear is not a moral compass issue for Rishi, because he doesn't have one. It's a matter of political expediency, not in the context of a devastating war in Gaza, but in the context of British domestic politics. That's also a failure of leadership, Rishi.

For more than four weeks now, we have also seen a very worrying surge of anti-Semitism across the UK, which is what happens when support for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people morphs into an endorsement of Hamas as "resistance fighters", and when the legitimate ideological choice to oppose Zionism turns into unhinged anti-Semitism. What we see here and now is a massive moral and ideological debacle of what French essayist Caroline Fourest calls the Ostrich Left, as they have the very same lot in the country of my birth. Those who have their heads so far up their arses that they can't see reality, as they have been enslaved by the absurdities of identity politics and intersectionalism. If you think I'm wrong or biased, I give you Judith Butler. Reality is that Labour dodging from addressing the issues of radical fundamentalism, because they are feart of being pilloried as islamophobic bigots by the Novara Media and Owen Jones Brigade, is as insulting and detrimental to Muslims as the far-right demanding that all Muslims be held accountable for terrorist atrocities. But we are sadly way past the point where adult and responsible debate is possible, and not only in the UK. Just like the first casualty of war is the truth, and we have seen a lot of that recently, the first casualties of extremist wokeism are critical thinking and free speech. Again and again.

I've gone from Zionist mouthpiece propagandist, BBC right-winger, to Corbynite Hamasite lefty bastard. And that's just this afternoon.

(Ian Hislop, Have I Got News For You?, 20 October 2023)

Jeremy's Den

13/11/2023

Faces Of Yesterday

No comments:

Post a Comment

Welcome To Their Nightmares