Some psephologifying and random assorted thoughts on what future elections might have in store.
House of Commons, Scottish Parliament, Scottish Independence.
Make your pick and enjoy. Comment is free.
Polls come and polls go. At the peak of the (smallish) Labour surge about a month ago Labour led by 3%. Then the momentum kind of died down for various reasons and now we're back to a tie. Current super-sample is based on six polls fielded between 20 July and 13 August with 8,982 respondents and 1% MOE.
Note that these polls were in the field before the wreath controversy and the Westminster attack so the impact of both will be seen only in the next batch. Right now I just wonder what the polls would say if MSM devoted as much space to Tory islamophobia and dark money as they do to alleged Labour antisemitism. Ironically Labour are just getting a taste of their own medicine after years of using similar methods against the SNP. One can only hope that someday political debate will veer away from the smear-lie-slander-repeat cycle. Juist sayin.
A House Divided
On current polling we find ourselves once more with a hung Parliament and both major parties far from a majority. 1910 all over again. Again. But it might very well end up being 1974 all over again.
If the actual result were to reflect this projection, the outcome would be a complete deadlock. Conservatives, though the first party, wouldn't pass their Queen's Speech as the SNP would vote against it. Bur Labour wouldn't pass theirs either as the SNP would not vote for it. But there's always the possibility that Labour would allow a Conservative minority government as interim caretakers for a few months until another snap election is called. Weirdest things have happened.
Changing of the guards
In this projection only 34 seats would change hands including a net gain of 12 seats for Labour. Far short of the 60+ needed for a majority. This is due in part to differential turnout on current boundaries giving Conservatives an in-built bonus of about 20 seats.
The complete list of seats changing hands is not much different from what we had the last time, give or take a few. Only noticeable new item is LibDems gaining back Sheffield Hallam from Labour. This is just a statistical result, but I guess Jared O'Mara's shenanigans make that a distinct possibility even if Labour were doing better overall.
For the record Electoral Calculus have 43 seats changing hands and a slightly different projection than mine. Main reason is that they apply the UK-wide swing also to Wales and London while I process both separately. Thus their results in both cases are better for Labour because recent polling in Wales and London is less than stellar for Labour who might even lose a seat each in both areas. They also use a different set of polls going further back in the past so the July Labour surge is still factored in in their sample.
Land of confusion
The alternate scenarios based on current polling are not really more satisfying than the median projection as neither would deliver an outright majority for either major party. Labour and Conservatives tied on the popular vote means that only part of the marginals switch to Labour in the median projection. A 1% swing would then displace about 20 seats but the geography of the marginals implies it would be more complex than just Con-Lab/Lab-Con switches and anyway not enough to deliver anything but a hung Parliament.
But both Conservatives and Labour could try some risky minority coalition based on the seat projections of my two extreme scenarios. On the 'Lab minimum' scenario the Conservatives could get away with a DUP deal again, which would probably cost another £1bn bribe. Being only four seats short of a majority all they would need to go through a full term would be a handful of Labstainers on key legislation, which they would certainly get. It would be trickier for Labour on the 'Lab maximum' scenario as the only option would be a Rainbow coalition which is unlikely to succeed unless they do a full U-turn on Brexit combined with a stronger commitment to tackle climate change. Both unlikely to happen.
Who knows what tomorrow may bring
The next batch of polls will show the fallout of the wreath controversy and this will likely be bad for Labour. A recent BMG poll shows that 60% of respondents feel Labour handled the situation badly or vey badly. Some on Twitter even believe and spread that Corbyn actually admitted to laying a wreath on the Münich terrorists' graves. Can't get worse than that. Or can it?
Of course Labour's problems go deeper than MSM's made-up controversies. They gave Theresa May a free pass on Brexit and there are no electoral dividends in this. They appear directionless and unconvincing even to life-long supporters like Patrick Stewart. It's unlikely they can recover in time for a snap election if there ever is one.
Earlier this week Iain Macwhirter published a piece in the Heraldwhich starts with some not-so-convincing ramblings about a second Independence referendum. In the final section a somewhat clumsily worded sentence sounds like he's appealing to the SNP to come out in support of People's Vote, though he doesn't exactly say it explicitely in so many words. Part of his demonstration is self-contradictory but never mind. Besides there seems to be some confusion in his mind between People's Vote (which would be a referendum on the final Brexit deal only) and the so-called 'BrexitRef2' or 'think twice referendum' (which would be a rematch of the 2016 EU referendum in the same spirit as IndyRef2). Let's assume for now it's the first option, as I think there are some good reasons why the SNP, as an organisation, should never touch People's Vote with a sixty-foot barge pole, even if some members including MPs seem inclined to support it.
First Mcwhirter advising you to do it is reason enough to not do it. More seriously an obvious reason is that BrexitRef2 will never happen. Conservative and Labour united frontbenches will make sure of that. No matter how many signatures People's Vote get on their petition the only outcome will be Parliament voting on the final deal under the somewhat fuzzy provisions of 'meaningful vote'. So the SNP throwing its full weight behind People's Vote would just waste energy, resources and political capital to achieve fuck all.
Second reason is that right now People's Vote looks like an haphazard combination of some Liberal Democrats, a few Conservative strays and a handful of Labour backbenchers whose motivation might just be to piss off Corbyn (aye that's ye Chuka and Ian). No political parties officially support them, not even the LibDems or the Greens so it looks somewhat like some scaled-down Better Together. Brexiteers probably think of them as only a minor nuisance or else the Tory-owned MSM would already have blown them out of the water.
The third and probably most important reason for the SNP to stay out of it is that standing up for BrexitRef2 in whatever incarnation would be an unnecessary distraction from the real goal: holding IndyRef2 within a year and winning it. Independence is the first and foremost priority, I will even say the only priority. All other issues can be discussed and sorted out afterwards.
Let's assume now that Macwhirter is actually talking about a full Monty rematch of the 2016 EU referendum. For once I think the SNP should be extremely cautious before taking a stand on that. Because this option would be extremely hazardous, even more than the first one. To support this just factor in the demographics of the IndyRef and EURef votes. I don't have any crosstabs based on the actual votes but pollsters do crosstab current Indy voting intentions with 2014 and 2016 votes. Simply because 'recall questions' are an easy way to check the reliability of the current sample. Here is what we get from this year's IndyRef2 polls:
The reconstructed results of IndyRef and EURef based on the 'recall questions' from these polls fit with the actual results, meaning both are within MOE. Of course the most important part is that 30% of Yes voters also voted Leave. Which means that the SNP throwing massive support behind BrexitRef2 would be a huge strategic blunder with IndyRef2 within months of happening. I think even Nicola Sturgeon's pro-EU spads (those reportedly urging her to come out in favour of BrexitRef2 at the October Conference) can understand it would be adventurous at best, suicidal at worst to alienate even part of the Yes-Leave voters when Independence could be at stake in the foreseeable future. At this point I would like to remind you of what I tweeted back then, some days before the EU referendum. Those who already followed me in 2016 might remember it. I don't remember the exact wording but the idea was 'vote Remain because it's the right thing to do NOW then get Indy and ask again'. Simply because Independence will open a lot of previously unexplored options. EU with or without Eurozone being just one choice and possibly not be the best one. Fun (or sadly sloppy) part in Mcwhirter's article is when he urges Nicola Sturgeon to support BrexitRef2 because it would be 'seizing the political initiative and giving her party something concrete to do'. Which, apart from the patronizing tone, is utter cooshite. Not least because McWhirter starts his piece arguing that Sturgeon would shatter party unity if she doesn't launch the IndyRef2 campaign at the October Conference and goes on advising her to do the exact opposite.
Obviously there is no better way to strengthen party unity, seize the initiative and give the party something concrete to do than starting the Move To IndyRef2 at the October Conference. I hope the prepared statement will not refer to 'lack of clarity on Brexit' as an excuse to procrastinate on Independence (again). The grassroots would hate it. But I trust we can rely on Keith Brown to inject some welcome boldness into the whole thing (and there is absolutely not the weest smitch of irony in this sentence). Besides Dominic Raab and Michel Barnier can be of some help here. In his latest press statement Barnier mentioned that 'we both (EU and UK) want to conclude in October with a deal'. We can just hope that means early October as Raab will probably want the deal sealed before Commons return. So there is a reasonable chance the gory details will be revealed in time for the SNP Conference which happens to be the very last of this year's season. Then all excuses to hide behind Brexit would vanish and SNP leadership could only blame themselves for 'lack of clarity on Independence', if any.
As a conclusion I will borrow some lines from the great Paul Kavanagh. He nails it and says it all better than I could (full brilliant piece here). "The SNP needs to harness the energy and enthusiasm that is growing in the grassroots Indy movement. They need to get the Indy vote out, and that means giving it a reason, giving it a vision, giving it hope".
Stay tuned for further broadcasts Nemo me impune lacessit
Only three more polls since my last projection and all have Labour and the Conservatives nose to nose on 38%. These results are quite disappointing for Labour after the surge we saw in the aftermath of the Tory Brexit debacle but I think there is a pattern here. As soon as Labour do better in opinion polls Tory cronies in the MSM come back with some 'new' stories about Labour's alleged antisemitism and infighting, plus some personal attacks aimed at Jeremy Corbyn.
In a ironic twist of fate Tories use the same tactics against Corbyn as Scottish Labour against the SNP: smear, lie, slander, repeat. Some may think there's a kind of immanent justice at work here but I don't. Actually I feel sorry for Jeremy Corbyn. The man has a lot of political faults from blind support of Unionism to ambiguity on Brexit. But I do believe he is a decent man deep down and certainly does not deserve the thrashing he gets from MSM and sometimes from within his own party.
Just between you and me if I was English (and blissfully clueless about Scottish matters as most of them are) I would most certainly have joined Labour and Momentum. And also been part of the recent #WeAreCorbyn twitterstorm. But now let's forget this (and I will deny having ever said it anyway 😁) and go back to the matter at hand: what do polls say? Super-sample size is 9,726 with 0.96% MOE.
Labour's projected lead is down to just over 1% from 3% ten days ago. But Conservatives still appear to lose votes on both sides to UKIP and LibDems. The SNP is still doing well as full Scottish polls already told us, as are the LibDems thanks to some Tory Remainers switching sides.
Faced with such numbers you have to try and find why Labour fails to get any momentum (wretched pun fully intended). So I dug out the voting intentions / social grade crosstabs from 20+ polls going back to June. Average voting intentions are of course different than the current super-sample as I covered a longer period. The results are enlightening.
Voting intentions broken down by social grade groupings are pretty close to the average. In fact the differences are statistically barely significant as the crosstabs produce smaller subsamples with higher MOEs. The conclusion is that 'class identity' is not a discriminating variable to predict which way people will vote. Which will come out as no surprise as you could argue that class identity in the classic sense no longer exists in the UK. After all both Tory and New Labour ideologies have been based on the denial or destruction of class identity for ages. And Labour's recent return to some brand of 'class politics' has not altered the big picture. Yet. Of course as a socialist I beg to differ. I do believe classes (not the neutered statistical concept of 'social grades') still exist and probably today more than ever over the last 30 years. If you don't believe classes exist just listen to Jacob Rees-Mogg for a reminder that they actually do. And there is definitely a class war going on. The working class may not always be totally aware of it but the ruling class are. Because they started it. And are winning it. So far.
The real thing, not Billy Bragg's 'revision'
And where does this take us?
The projected result would be one of most awkward and potentially unmanageable in UK electoral history. Both major parties some 40 seats short of a majority and no credible government coalition in sight either. Even with Labour slightly ahead on the popular vote the Conservatives would bag the most seats by a nose. Thanks in part to both differential turnout and the high number of Labour sinkholes which automatically generate a higher number of wasted votes.
Only the two 1910 elections show a similar pattern with both main parties on 40-41% of the seats, while 1929 and February 1974 come close with the first party winning only 46% of the seats. It's also worth remembering that in 1910 H.H. Asquith sought an received support from the Irish Parliamentary Party which in today's context would be quite similar to Labour seeking SNP support. Juist sayin.
On these numbers only 38 seats would change hands including 18 from Conservatives to Labour. While Labour need 60+ to be on the safe side.
The smaller number of changes also greatly reduces the number of potential Balls moments. And I also have a hunch that Labour might find it convenient to spare a couple of the names on that list because they would be more useful as rebel Tory backbenchers. As to which ones, your guess is as good as mine.
The alternate scenarios
As usual about 20 seats would move one way or the other as we go from one scenario to the next. But on current polling even the 'Labour maximum' scenario is not that good for them. Being 25 seats ahead of the second party and still 25 seats short of a majority is not what anyone would call a 'best case scenario'. Yet it is the best Labour can hope for under current polling.
The summary of all possible coalitions or combinations shows it. It would be fairly easy to keep the Tories out but far more difficult to get Labour in.
Even on their best projected result Labour would have to risk a minority coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Which would be hard to swallow for many on both sides and is probably not the likeliest outcome. But you never know. To make it safer some form of confidence and supply deal with the Greens and Plaid Cymru would be a bonus but is also quite unlikely to happen. And I won't even mention the SNP deal. All considered if current polling became reality that would be the recipe for yet another snap election within months if not weeks.
What would happen if there was no Scotland?
For some time many have wondered aloud what would happen to the House of Commons if Scotland was already an independent nation by the time of the next GE. To answer this we first need a 'point zero' which would be the 2017 election. Here is the breakdown of seats by nation with and without Scotland. Remember that without Scotland Commons have only 591 seats. So 293 seats is the de facto majority as long as Sinn Féin won't take their seats.
At face value this looks good for the Conservatives who would have achieved a 12-seat majority and could have done away with the DUP deal. But don't jump to the conclusion that Scotland not being there would always benefit the Tories.
Let's see now what we get on the projected results of the next GE. I picked up my 'Labour maximum' scenario as it is the one that best supports my point. Here is what we have on current polling. First with Scotland in and then with Scotland out.
The projection has Labour on 298 seats, far from a majority and bound to deliver at best a weak minority government. But with Scotland out Labour gets a two-seat majority. Just because right now Labour are doing very poorly in Scotland and so would lose only a few seats.
The final word is that the party who wins the election will benefit from Scotland being out only if they also do poorly in Scotland. Otherwise a Scotland-less Commons will help the opposition. See the sequence from 1997 to a projected 2022 to see how it works.
Labour win three elections while doing extremely well in Scotland, so losing the Scottish seats lowers their simulated share of seats. It works exactly the other way round with the Conservatives winning the other three elections while doing badly in Scotland. They get a higher share of seats but the impact is less visible in 2017 when they did better than usual in Scotland.
Of course Labour were the dominant party in Scotland for the best part of the last 60 years so it was easy to conclude that a Scotland-less Commons would always benefit the Tories. But this was just a confusion between the result and the way by which it is achieved. Now that Labour have become something of a fringe party in Scotland, Scottish independence is bound to benefit them in any future GE. Could even help them get a majority in a close election that would deliver only a plurality in the current Commons.
One more Scottish paradox.
And then what next?
There will probably be fewer polls in August except the usual weekly YouGov for The Times. Next batch of polls will show the impact of Boris Johnson's islamophobia scandal. Possibly Bojo has now lost the Conservative leadership contest before it even began. So public opinion will have to get used to the idea that Jacob Rees-Mogg will be the next PM once the 1922 Committee is done with Theresa May.
When and how it will happen is widely open to conjecture as this is part of an uncertain future. A no-confidence vote between the Summer Recess and the Conference Recess would not necessarily be the most convenient option for JRM, especially as Commons will sit for only eight days and whatever could be done would have to be rushed. A leadership contest during the recess is another option, with the Conference having the final say.
First an update of my Scottish Westminster projection
Why an update when there hasn't been any new Scottish poll out for three weeks? Just because of that actually.
Polls have one thing in common with living organisms: they age. And unlike quality French wines they don't age well. This is a complete non-issue for UK-wide polling as we have two or three polls a week and my six-point rolling average automatically refreshes the data accordingly. But unfortunately we have far fewer full Scottish polls so the super-sample needs some pruning every now and then to stay as close as possible to the state of mind of Scottish public opinion.
We have had eight full Scottish polls in 2018, showing a definite SNP surge from 36% (YouGov in January) to 42% (Survation in July). But six of these are more than six weeks old which is like an eternity in a volatile political context. So I have decided to factor in only the last two full Scottish polls until a new one is published. Updated super-sample is 2,020 (2.1% MOE) and delivers these voting intentions:
The SNP on 40% is not a massive change from previous projections but the distribution of votes between the other parties is an important factor too. What we have now is Conservatives and Labour both down 3% from 2017 while Liberal Democrats do just a wee smitch better. The seat projection on SLLM ratings shows the impact is much more catastrophic for Labour than for the Conservatives. Summary: SNP 46, Conservatives 8, Liberal Democrats 4, Ian Murray 1.
At face value current polling projects 11 seats switching back to the SNP: all six Labour gains from 2017 and five of the 12 Conservative gains. LibDems would hold their four seats as they look immune from the overall Unionist debacle. So far.
But of course the higher MOE results in a higher number of marginal seats. Right now we have ten where the swing needed to switch the seat is within MOE.
Below is the statistically possible range of seats when you move the swingometer from the lower to the upper edge of MOE. Good news for the SNP is that they would still bag a net gain of four seats even if they missed all of the seven SNP-Unionist marginals. But of course this does not mean the SNP should be complacent as voting intentions might change significantly once the snap GE of 2018 is called. So please forget the 'we don't take anything for granted…. except your votes' attitude that worked so well last time aboot. Juist sayin.
News from the Scottish Branch Office of the British Labour Party
Scottish Momentum held their first Summer Camp (oops sorry, Training Event) last Saturday in Glasgow. It didn't register on anyone's radar except the ever-friendly Guardian's with Libby Brooks devoting a full-size article to it. First thing to remember: there are 1,300 Momenters (Momentumers just doesn't have the right ring to it) in Scotland. You read it right: that's ONE of them for every NINETY SNP members. Vanguard of the Corbynista Reconquista really?
I found the whole article quite confusing. To sum it up Scottish Momentum seem to have a problem with facts and electoral statistics. Which is quite embarrassing when you're hosting a 'training event'. Sometimes they get it almost right, sometimes totally wrong and sometimes the phrasing is ambiguous enough to be misleading.
What looks like the Guardian's own view
First of all of course we have the old tired talking point that 'Scottish marginal seats will be the key to winning the next election'. Which must be Libby Brooks' own view of the situation as it is not presented as a quote from Momentum. And of course is just as highly misleading as it ever was. Remember that Labour currently hold 262 seats counting suspended MPs. That is 60 seats short of a majority as Sinn Féin sitting out means House of Commons de facto has only 643 seats.
So for a few competitive Scottish seats (more on this below) to be the key and make this talking point a truth, Labour would first need to hold all their Welsh seats, which right now is surprisingly not a done deal. And then they would need to gain about 55 seats in England, which amounts to a clean sweep of all Tory-Lab marginals Doon Sooth plus some 20 seats beyond that to be on the safe side.
But the ever-friendly Guardian would never allow facts to get in the way of the narrative. Or would they? Guess we will get the same obfuscation from Owen Jones when he visits Scotland some time during the campaign, though the Jones Talking Point Of The Day is that Blackpool North is the key to the election. You just can't make that sort of cooshite up, can you? For the record Electoral Calculus has Blackpool North (if gained) as the 288th likeliest Labour seat so not quite the key.
To sum it up once and for all:
at the 2017 GE Labour won 262 seats including 7 in Scotland; the best they could have done then was 16 Scottish seats for 271 overall and still far short of a majority
on current 2022 GE projections Labour's best case scenario is 304 seats including ONE in Scotland; the best they could hope is 2 more Scottish seats and they would still be stuck with seeking a coalition with the Liberal Democrats
pushing it to the limit a clean Labour majority would require 18 more seats than their current best case scenario or else it's back to some LibDem backroom deal; maybe Momentum could send us a list of which 18 Scottish seats they see switching, bearing in mind Scottish Labour fell far short from achieving this last year on a larger share of the vote
In any case 'Scotland is the key to Jeremy in Downing Street' is a deliberate lie compounded with delusion and should be treated and debunked as such.
Fun part later in the article is when Brooks describes 'Scottish Labour revival' as 'far more muted' than elsewhere in the UK. Then goes on to quote a YouGov poll that has Labour down 5% from 2017 in Scotland. Can't make that up either, can we? Sloppy journalism but pales in comparison to Momentum's sloppy analysis of electoral data.
Now back to Scottish Momentum
All 2017 GE data I will use are the official results as published by the Electoral Commission here. And to avoid any ambiguity when I use 'X-Y marginal' I mean X won the seat and Y finished second. Might sound obvious but precision never hurts.
The cornerstone of Momentum's demonstration is that 'a good 20' Scottish seats are marginals. Which is approximately true if you allow the concept. If we agree that a marginal seat is where the winner's margin is below 4% then 76 seats overall qualify (outside Northern Ireland). Including 20 in Scotland. Not 'a good 20' just exactly twenty.
Moving the threshold to 5% doesn't change the big picture. Then we get 91 marginals overall including 22 in Scotland. Which might pass for 'a good 20'. On a good day.
Here comes the really disingenuous part. Both Libby Brooks and Jessica Galloway (Scottish Momentum's organiser) carefully avoid to mention how many of these 20 seats are the actual SNP-Labour battleground. The casual reader may thus be misled to believe all or most of them are. Which is far from the truth.
Only eight qualify as SNP-Lab marginals. You can make that nine if you add Lanark and Hamilton East, a three way SNP-Con-Lab marginal. Remember this is based on the 2017 results and current polling has altered the picture dramatically. It is also quite misleading to include SNP-Con, SNP-LD and Con-SNP marginals in the count as Labour came third in all these seats, even those they had held before 2015, and don't stand the slightest chance to gain them back anytime soon. Ironically the only valid point Momentum have is to include the Lab-SNP marginals as battlegrounds since these are the truly endangered seats right now.
What's wrong with Momentum's approach?
The main fault is that their whole demonstration is based on a 'what if?' scenario. What if the next GE follows the same patterns and delivers the same results as the last one? Of course 'Groundhog Day elections' do happen. Think December 1910 vs February 1910 or 2001 vs 1997 or 2010 vs 2005 in Scotland. But they are the exception rather than the rule. To expect a repeat of 2017 at the next GE is wishful thinking at best, delusional at worst, with the quickly shifting political landscape we have this year.
Jessica Galloway never refers to changes that have occurred among Scottish public opinion in the last fourteen months. It's as if she deliberately disregards recent polling and what it implies, and is trying to convince her members (and herself) that the exact same seats that were the battleground last year would be the battleground at the next GE, snap or not. A close-up on the nine infamous '2017 battlegrounds' I identified earlier shows this if far from being the case. Here is how they voted last year and how they're projected to vote next time on current polling.
None of these seats would be marginals at next GE. All have switched to 'Lean SNP' and even to 'Likely SNP' in one case. Average swing here would be 3.5% from Labour to SNP while polls predict a 3.1% national swing from Labour to SNP. So the '2017 battlegrounds' would deliver even better results for the SNP than the national average.
Last but not least Jessica Galloway claims that 'the SNP are losing traction with younger and more active people in politics'. I don't know about 'more active' as pollsters don't crosstab this one. But I have a hunch about 'younger' as pollsters do crosstab that one. Here is what the latest Survation poll says:
Both the SNP and Labour do better than their national average among younger voters, but barely so for Labour among 25-34yrs olds. More interesting is that the SNP have a 18.5% lead over Labour nationally but 22% among 18-24s and 27% among 25-34s. So much for 'losing traction'. Young voters appear to be Momentum's core target but they misread them. Not a good start….
Another interesting result in the Survation poll (and one Scottish Momentum probably missed too) is that the SNP would hold 95% of their 2017 voters with 3% switching to Labour. While Labour would hold 88% with 5% each switching to the SNP and the Conservatives. Food for thought.
And now what next?
We have all witnessed how Labour's own bùrach has cost us what were probably the best opportunities to trigger a snap GE so far. But there will be others. Dinna fash.
Credible sources have said the 48 signatures (15% of sitting Conservative MPs) required for a vote of no-confidence in Theresa May have already been collected. All that is needed is for the 1922 Committee to give it a go, which can be done on the very first day Commons return. And then we have seven sitting days left before the Conference Recess, during which the non-confidence vote can happen and succeed.
As a confidence vote in another government will obviously not take place within the fourteen days required by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, we have our snap GE which would then probably happen sometime between the November Recess and the Christmas Recess. 22 or 29 November being my best educated guess. All this would certainly make for some interesting moments during the Conferences.
The parts have been cast, the stage has been set, the players are ready.
Now entertainconjecture of a time
When
creeping murmur and the poring dark
Fills the
wide vessel of the universe.
From camp to camp, through the foul womb of night,
The hum of
either army stilly sounds,
That the fixed sentinelsalmost receive
The secret
whispers of each other's watch.
Fire answers
fire, and through their paly flames
Each battle sees the other's umbered face.
Steed
threatens steed in high and boastful neighs
Piercing the
night's dull ear, and from the tents,
